GDS-2000A series New economic oscilloscope by GW Instek comes to market

[Hydrawerk]

Hello, what do you think about the new GDS-2000A series? GW Instek web here. You can download manual or specification there. It seems to be a serious competitor for Rigol DS2000 series. The price for GDS-2000A is quite the same. 100 MHz, 2-channels  GDS-2102A is sold for $1,143 at Testequity.
Please do not confuse the GDS-2000 with GDS-2000A, they are totally different. See attached pictures. Yes, I do not know, why they chose the GDS-2000A name...
And features, as specified by the manufacturer.
*300MHz/200MHz/100MHz/70MHz Bandwidth ,2 or 4 Input Channel
*2GSa/s Real-time Sampling Rate and 100GSa/s Equivalent Time Sampling Rate
*2MegaPoints Record Length (When using one channel, probably...)
*1mV /div to 10V/div of Vertical Range
*1ns/div to 100s/div of Time Base Range
*80,000 wfm/s of Waveform Update Rate (I wish it was true...)
*8 inch 800*600 High Resolution TFT LCD Display (Very good!)
*Built-in Segmented Memory and Waveform Search Functions to Optimize the Efficiency of Record Length
*Zoom Window and Play/Pause can Rapidly Navigate the Waveforms
*36 Automatic Measurement Functions Offers Various Measurement Selections
*Optional 8 or 16 digital channel with Logic analyzer(MSO)
*Optional Function Generator (but probably only to 3 MHz)
*Flexible Remote Control Connectivity(Standard:USB ;Option:LAN/GPIB)

Finally, it has a better XY mode than Rigols... It has cursors in XY mode.
Update:
Photos and screenshots here. Please note that I was not an experienced user of this scope, when I took the pictures.  https://plus.google.com/photos/106264218831814439783/albums/5857196858625060337

Dave's video

Teardown made by Dave

[EEVblog]

It has 4 channels and mixed signal capability. The Rigol DS2000 is no match for that.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

I just noticed mention of the function gen  (the two unlabled connectors presumably, dual channel?)
But they have no specs on that... 

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Clearly aimed at the Agilent 2000X series.
Even has the multi channel demo signal connectors.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Ah, dual channel 3MHz DDS function gen. It's in the datasheet.
LAN/SVGA is optional, just like on the Agilent.

Dave.

[Hydrawerk]

Even has the multi channel demo signal connectors.

According to the user manual, the "Trig Out" signal can be set to these connectors. So it should be quite easy to measure if it really has the 80,000 wfm/s of Waveform Update Rate. You would only need a frequency counter.
I wonder if this GW Instek is better made and if it has less bugs than Rigol DS2000... Who knows?
GW Instek is a company founded in 1975 with quite good raputation... http://www.gwinstek.com/en/Brandorigin_0.aspx
Rigol was founded in 1998... http://www.rigol.com/html/about/history.shtml

[mAJORD]

Yeah, the func gen and logic analyser appear to be plug in upgrade modules.

$245 for the func gen
$570 for 8c Logic

from tequipment.net

[mAJORD]

Can't seem to edit in tapatalk, and work has blocked eevblog (lol) so sorry about these posts..

Was going to say, the upgrades also appear cheaper than Agilents equivilent "soft" upgrades.

Only downside is no bw upgrades

[Hypernova]

Looks like serious competition to the 3000X, with the wavegen and MSO options it is feature wise very close yet way cheaper.

For a 4+16 MSO with wavegen at 100MHz:
$1,694+$830+$245=$2,769

[edit]

Just saw that it has color mode on the digital phosphor too, that's pretty nice. Not having colour mode was one of my disappointments with my 3000X especially after seeing it in action on the Lecroy's at work.

[Bored@Work]

I wonder if this GW Instek is better made and if it has less bugs than Rigol DS2000... Who knows?
GW Instek is a company founded in 1975 with quite good raputation... http://www.gwinstek.com/en/Brandorigin_0.aspx

Instek makes nice oscilloscopes, and everything is fine as long as they work. They let us badly down when we needed to get one repaired. They pointed to the distributor we bought from (authorized and all that), who wasn't at all equipped to service the oscilloscope and shipped the oscilloscope to yet another distributor who also failed to service it. From there it went to a third distributor, still not a real repair workshop. The couldn't even come up with a cost estimate. Month later it was returned unrepaired to the first distributor who returned it unrepaired to us. And in the end we were blamed for dareing we asked to get it repaired, and the first distributor had the galls to bill the shipping costs for that desaster to us.

During all this Instek "support" in Taiwan couldn't care less. The showed the typical Asian attitude, going into stelth mode the moment there was a problem.

We scraped the oscilloscope and blacklisted Instek.

[Nermash]

I am glad to see that they fixed IMHO the bigest failing point of their GDS 3000 line, which was abysmally small capture memory depth of 25 kpoints...

[andersm]

Instek makes nice oscilloscopes, and everything is fine as long as they work. They let us badly down when we needed to get one repaired.

Here in Finland we've gotten our Instek scope repaired a couple of times without problems.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, the GDS-2000A is probably so new, that nobody has bought it yet...

[Hydrawerk]

During all this Instek "support" in Taiwan couldn't care less. The showed the typical Asian attitude, going into stelth mode the moment there was a problem.

Well, do you think that Rigol, Owon or Tekway are better? Anyway, if I needed a oscilloscope for my company, where the instrument runs 12 hours a day, I would buy an Agilent, or so. But for hobby use the GW Instek could be OK...

[Chalky]

Has anyone seen these working?  Claiming 800x600 screen resolution, but all the screen images I can find look really crappy - not just shonky in-house fonts, it looks more like they're doing pixel doubling.

[marmad]

The problem with the GW-Instek DSOs seems to be getting your hands on one to try. On paper, both this and the GDS-3000 series seem very nice - but I couldn't even get GW-Instek to respond to a couple of emails when trying to locate a 3000 series to evaluate. Perhaps I wasn't a big enough customer? I never did figure out what the problem was.

In any case, even though their DSOs appear well-designed and feature-laden, if they really want to succeed in the lower end of the market, they really need to do some work on their distribution and customer-interface mechanisms - even before tackling after-sales support.

[digsys]

Agreed. I've tried SEVERAL times over the last 2 yrs to get responses from them on a few of their products.
Even applied for QTY pricing - as LONG AS they answered some questions ... NADA or bugger all reply.
I also don't like that the FEW resellers they have, ALL have pretty much EXACTLY the same price ! Sus.
I'll definitely be waiting until we get a few reports from brave? pioneers :-)

[mAJORD]

Has anyone seen these working?  Claiming 800x600 screen resolution, but all the screen images I can find look really crappy - not just shonky in-house fonts, it looks more like they're doing pixel doubling.

Found this on their site.. Some doofus saved it in JPG though instead of PNG   

http://www.gwinstek.com/webmanage/IMG/uploadfiles/DS0020.jpg

Well, do you think that Rigol, Owon or Tekway are better? Anyway, if I needed a oscilloscope for my company, where the instrument runs 12 hours a day, I would buy an Agilent, or so. But for hobby use the GW Instek could be OK...

I'd say the opposite vs those brands..   Instek are positioned more towards budget commercial than 'hobbiest' . Like a poor mans HP / Agilent. 

I wouldn't lump Rigol in with OWON either..

[marmad]

Combing through the data sheet and owner's manual, it mentions that the DSO can capture up to 2048 successive waveform segments with a time-tag resolution of 8ns.

Hmm... do they mean the same thing by those terms as I understand them to mean? If so, that implies a waveform update rate of 125M wfrm/s - the reciprocal of 8ns. For example, the Rigol DS2072 can capture up to 65000 successive waveform segments at a minimum time-tag resolution of 20us - the reciprocal of 50k wfrm/s.

[Chalky]

I call bullshit on GW-Instek (and Hantek & Owon).

I am very sus of these budget scope makers who have rushed out larger screen 'resolutions'.  I have had a good zoomed-in look at the images for both their 800x600 screens, the Owon is certainly using vertical pixel doubling for the waveform display.  The Instek seems to be doubling (or worse) as well, but some doubt must be given due to no decent images available yet.

Have a look at the attached images - every single waveform pixel is actually 2 dots tall, by 1 wide (compare to 1x1 graticule dots for reference) .  Now I realise that screen resolution does not equal measurement resolution, but if the scope is joining the dots, as per the default display mode, then I expect an expensive 800x600 scope to actual use that resolution for drawing the bl**dy lines!  This is not just 'oh we've used a 2-pixel thick line' - the displayed line only steps up or down 2 pixels at a time.  Seems to me the usual story - buy Rigol or better!

[mAJORD]

I'm not 100% sure how they normally go about it, but on such a square waveform (i.e the Instek screenshot) , I think you'll find the Rigol , and others for that matter would still show two pixel jumps on an 8 bit DAC. I can't see how you could interpolate those pixels below 2..  Maybe at a pinch on the second high transision there where it's a bit rounded off.

The fact the little noise blips on the top are 3 pixels high suggests it's not pixel doubling?? 

I think you'd need a Sinewave screenshot before even suspecting that to be honest 

[Chalky]

I'm not 100% sure how they normally go about it, but on such a square waveform (i.e the Instek screenshot) , I think you'll find the Rigol , and others for that matter would still show two pixel jumps on an 8 bit DAC. I can't see how you could interpolate those pixels below 2..  Maybe at a pinch on the second high transision there where it's a bit rounded off.

The fact the little noise blips on the top are 3 pixels high suggests it's not pixel doubling?? 

I think you'd need a Sinewave screenshot before even suspecting that to be honest 

Hi mAJORD, yeah I agree re the Instek 2000A & square wave, there might be something else going on there.  Have attached a sine wave showing more clearly.  If it's pixel doubling, it's the wrong approach, since the 8-bit ADC would then need 256x2=512 pixels to display, most of these scopes have less than that in visible waveform area on screen - so then it becomes not a 'nice' display issue, they are actually not able to represent all available information.  I think their displays are just terrible.  Contrast that with Rigol and Agilent who seem to be doing their line(between 2 samples)-to-bitmap rendering correctly.

[andersm]

Is it a real issue beyond looking ugly? For accurate readings you have to use the cursors anyway, trying to count pixels doesn't really work. The display issues could be solved by using anti-aliasing, but the used chipsets may not be up for that.

[tinhead]

I call bullshit on GW-Instek (and Hantek & Owon).

I am very sus of these budget scope makers who have rushed out larger screen 'resolutions'.  I have had a good zoomed-in look at the images for both their 800x600 screens, the Owon is certainly using vertical pixel doubling for the waveform display.  The Instek seems to be doubling (or worse) as well, but some doubt must be given due to no decent images available yet.

Have a look at the attached images - every single waveform pixel is actually 2 dots tall, by 1 wide (compare to 1x1 graticule dots for reference) .  Now I realise that screen resolution does not equal measurement resolution, but if the scope is joining the dots, as per the default display mode, then I expect an expensive 800x600 scope to actual use that resolution for drawing the bl**dy lines!  This is not just 'oh we've used a 2-pixel thick line' - the displayed line only steps up or down 2 pixels at a time.  Seems to me the usual story - buy Rigol or better!

i have to quote this.

First of all you can't simply take a unknown pictures from unknown setups and compare them.

Attached pictures from Tekway/Hantek, screen_1.png shows a typical screenshot, here with avg. wave. We can perfectly see
the 2x2 pixels when we zoom (screen_1_zoomed).png <- i've made a small scale so you can count pixels, one DIV is 50pix high.
But simply let snap that what the DSO is capable to do -> screen_1.png which is a noisy waveform. Can you see the diff
in the zoomed picture ? So yes, Tekway/Hantek can do 1x1 pixels on the screen.

[Hydrawerk]

The problem with the GW-Instek DSOs seems to be getting your hands on one to try.

There will be a trade fair in my city... http://www.amper.cz/ The Micronix company will probably display GW Instek products there. http://eshop.micronix.cz/merici-technika/elektricke-veliciny/osciloskopy/digitalni/stolni/gds-2102a.html
Well, do you think that Rigol is better than GW Instek?

[Chalky]

Is it a real issue beyond looking ugly? For accurate readings you have to use the cursors anyway, trying to count pixels doesn't really work. The display issues could be solved by using anti-aliasing, but the used chipsets may not be up for that.

Yep, agree 100% - it is exactly a display issue.  Enough to put me off buying though - I'm upgrading from typical 320x240.  Agree, you wouldn't pixel count!  Cheers.

[marmad]

Yep, agree 100% - it is exactly a display issue.  Enough to put me off buying though - I'm upgrading from typical 320x240.  Agree, you wouldn't pixel count!  Cheers.

But displays on oscilloscopes (both digital AND analog) are always imperfect devices. There is always 'interpolation' between the real sampled signal and the output. On the Rigol Ultravision series, the actual screen area used for waveform display is 700x400 pixels - so you can imagine what happens with 8-bit data translated for full-screen output. Honestly, I would never rely on the displayed data for the best precision - if you want the most accurate data your DSO can produce, you need to stop it running and save/read the actual voltage levels in the sample memory for processing.

[Chalky]

First of all you can't simply take a unknown pictures from unknown setups and compare them.

Attached pictures from Tekway/Hantek, screen_1.png shows a typical screenshot, here with avg. wave. We can perfectly see
the 2x2 pixels when we zoom (screen_1_zoomed).png <- i've made a small scale so you can count pixels, one DIV is 50pix high.
But simply let snap that what the DSO is capable to do -> screen_1.png which is a noisy waveform. Can you see the diff
in the zoomed picture ? So yes, Tekway/Hantek can do 1x1 pixels on the screen.

Thanks Tinhead, that's really good to see - shame they didn't choose to draw all the waveforms in 1x1 or 2x2, would have looked a lot cleaner!  Good stuff, thank you.

[marmad]

Well, do you think that Rigol is better than GW Instek?

Hard to say. The Instek 'looks' very nice (on paper) but I'd want to get my hands on one to test it. The Rigol DS2000, while it does have bugs in the firmware which need to be fixed, is a powerful, feature-laden DSO which I've actualy used.

[marmad]

There will be a trade fair in my city... http://www.amper.cz/ The Micronix company will probably display GW Instek products there.

You should definitely go check it out if you can. IF you do go, check the following: with the 3000 series, it appears (in some photos and videos) as if there is plastic installed in front of the LCD which causes bad reflections at certain angles or lighting conditions - check if the 2000A has the same thing.

One other point: as bad as Rigol seems to be sometimes in terms of customer support, etc. it appears as if GW-Instek is even more inept. So whichever DSO you end up buying, make sure you get it through a dealer who you trust to handle any problems. If you do decide to go with Rigol, I recommend www.silcon.cz . Maybe he can offer you a special rate as EEVBlog member 

[Hydrawerk]

Well, the GDS-3000 series has a protective plastic installed in front of the LCD, I saw it personally on an expo a few years ago. It is not bad... But this scope is too expensive for me, it has what the hell only 25kpts per channel and unspecified waveform update rate...

Then, there is a scope shop 30 minutes from my house... And it has been there for a long time. http://www.elexbrno.cz/detail.php?proId=710&secId=182 Not sure if I would buy from silcon.cz...

[marmad]

Well, the GDS-3000 series has a protective plastic installed in front of the LCD, I saw it personally on an expo a few years ago. It is not bad... But this scope is too expensive for me, it has what the hell only 25kpts per channel and unspecified waveform update rate...

My point was, based on the images I've seen,  the 2000A looks like the same case design - probably has the same plastic. If so, I don't like it.

Then, there is a scope shop 30 minutes from my house... And it has been there for a long time. Not sure if I would buy from silcon.cz...

Your decision, of course. I bought from silcon - not because of the distance from my house (I live in NL) - but because I believe the owner is the foremost expert on all things Rigol on this forum - and considering the breadth and depth of the knowledge on this board - that's saying a lot. Plus I got a good deal from him

[marmad]

In case it wasn't clear what a faster waveform update rate means, it's simple: the concept is similar to the movie player   

[Hydrawerk]

According to the manual, this GW scope doesn't have the Hi-res mode, it is always 8-bit. The Rigol DS2000 series is 12-bit when timebase > 5us/div.

[Hydrawerk]

It seems that GDS-2000A has no fine vertical resolution setting, no "Vernier".

[EEVblog]

It seems that GDS-2000A has no fine vertical resolution setting, no "Vernier".

Seriously? 

Dave.

[Hydrawerk]

Yes, Vernier is probably not there. I have read the manual.

[Hydrawerk]

Instek makes nice oscilloscopes, and everything is fine as long as they work. They let us badly down when we needed to get one repaired. (...)

We scraped the oscilloscope and blacklisted Instek.

Well, please, what was the exact type of the Instek oscilloscope? And who was your reseller? Do you live in USA, or Europe?

[cybergibbons]

I wonder if this GW Instek is better made and if it has less bugs than Rigol DS2000... Who knows?
GW Instek is a company founded in 1975 with quite good raputation... http://www.gwinstek.com/en/Brandorigin_0.aspx

Instek makes nice oscilloscopes, and everything is fine as long as they work. They let us badly down when we needed to get one repaired. They pointed to the distributor we bought from (authorized and all that), who wasn't at all equipped to service the oscilloscope and shipped the oscilloscope to yet another distributor who also failed to service it. From there it went to a third distributor, still not a real repair workshop. The couldn't even come up with a cost estimate. Month later it was returned unrepaired to the first distributor who returned it unrepaired to us. And in the end we were blamed for dareing we asked to get it repaired, and the first distributor had the galls to bill the shipping costs for that desaster to us.

During all this Instek "support" in Taiwan couldn't care less. The showed the typical Asian attitude, going into stelth mode the moment there was a problem.

We scraped the oscilloscope and blacklisted Instek.

Who was your distributor? I used Aspen Electronics and they have been fine.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, if GW Instek sent Dave a GDS-2000A scope for teardown & review, they would sell more new units... Just like Rigol does. Does anybody here work at GW Instek?

[Hydrawerk]

I found a comparison picture.

[Hydrawerk]

There are some GDS-2000 videos, probably made by the manufacturer... https://www.youtube.com/user/gwinstek1975
But I miss an complete overview of all functions. They should learn from Dave. 

[offrds2]

When can we expect Dave to to a review or tear down the GDS-2000A scope. I'd like to know whats inside and the built quality. I have seen scopes look good on paper, but look and feel like toy (hantek/owon....).
It does not have to be a 40 minute review, maybe Dave can make a list or speadsheet of product reviews. It would also be interesting for Dave to teardown his own ucurrent. I am looking at getting a GDS-2204A if the quality/reviews are thumbs up.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, GW Instek should sent Dave one scope, that's for sure. 

[shadowcomputer]

Does anybody know if all models have the 80,000 waveform update rate? I read through the manual and didn't see where it says. I did notice however that the logic analyzer comes with I2C, SPI, and UART decoding only. Nothing else.

[Hydrawerk]

80,000 waveforms/s update rate seems too high, who knows what is reality. 

[offrds2]

I Guess this model is just to new for anyone to review or make comments on. What about the gds-3000 series should be the same build quality as the 2000 series. The quality of the boards, display, accuracy, switches, plastic housing. There got to be someone out there that has them right?

[Hydrawerk]

Well, the GDS-3000 series was released in 2011. It probably was not popular among hobbyists. The GDS-3000 was very expensive and had only 25kpoints per channel! It had unspecified waveform update rate. There are a few videos on youtube. Many of them might have been made by GW Instek employees or sellers. No owner video probably. youtube

And there is already a thread, but no review yet. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/looking-for-a-instek-gds-3000-series-scope-review/15/

[Hydrawerk]

I went to a trade fair to see the GDS-2000A in action. Now just briefly. The scope looks really good, the LCD is bright and has wide viewing angle. Photos and screenshots here: https://plus.google.com/photos/106264218831814439783/albums/5857196858625060337
It has many useful features. It can perform 8 automatic measurements and cursors at the same time. The scope is easy to use.

Two minor bugs, maybe??
The set/clear button often does not work. The scope displays "Not supported under this mode."
It was not possible to measure the waveform update rate. There might have been an internal problem in the GDS-2000A.
The guys at the stall could not solve these two problems. They said that a new firmware might fix these problems.
Anyway, I think that GDS-2000A is a well made product. It is normal to have a few bugs, when the instrument is brand new. I hope that it will be fixed soon.
(It is possible that I did something wrong, but I don't think so.)

[Hydrawerk]

Next pictures

[marmad]

(It is possible that I did something wrong, but I don't think so.)

Well, I'm not sure if I see the frequency correctly displayed on the Hameg - is that 271Hz it's showing? But in any case, if you were trying to see if the GW-Instek would do 80k waveforms per second, you have it set to the wrong horizontal timebase. No DSO does it's maximum wfrm/s at every timebase setting - it varies dramatically. According to the GW-Instek documentation, you have be at the 500ns setting to get the 80k rate - and it seems you have it set to 10ns. So there's no way to know - without running tests - what the average wfrm/s update rate is at that setting - unless it's ~270.

[grego]

Does anybody know if all models have the 80,000 waveform update rate? I read through the manual and didn't see where it says. I did notice however that the logic analyzer comes with I2C, SPI, and UART decoding only. Nothing else.

Yeah that was disappointing to see.  I got a little excited about this scope until I saw that - I kind of need/want CAN too so if I'm going to go with a MSO I want to it be able to handle that as well.  Too bad there are no reviews anywhere on this thing so far.

[marmad]

Does anybody know if all models have the 80,000 waveform update rate? I read through the manual and didn't see where it says. I did notice however that the logic analyzer comes with I2C, SPI, and UART decoding only. Nothing else.

GW-Instek have published documents stating that the scope can reach 80k wfrm/s - and I would suppose that it's true (the company seems to be careful about publishing specs they can hit). And why wouldn't it be? It's not unbelievable given the current new generation of DSOs (i.e. Agilent InfiniiVision X series [50k - 1M], Rigol UltaVision series [50k - 110k], etc). Besides, as mentioned many times before - that would be the FASTEST the DSO could capture - at just ONE particular timebase setting. As shown in this chart I created for the Rigol DS2000, waveform update rates change constantly based on timebase settings, channels turned on, etc.

[grego]

GW-Instek have published documents stating that the scope can reach 80k wfrm/s - and I would suppose that it's true (the company seems to be careful about publishing specs they can hit). And why wouldn't it be? It's not unbelievable given the current new generation of DSOs (i.e. Agilent InfiniiVision X series [50k - 1M], Rigol UltaVision series [50k - 100k], etc). Besides, as mentioned many times before - that would be the FASTEST the DSO could capture - at just ONE particular timebase setting. As shown in this chart I created for the Rigol DS2000, waveform update rates change constantly based on timebase settings, channels turned on, etc.

Marmad - I wasn't commetning about the wfm/s - I'm assuming you just hit "quote" on my post rather than reply.

I'm tempted to suck it up and order one of these to be the guinea pig for everyone - but I'd hate to get screwed in some aspect of it.  I've been looking for a good bench scope to complement/replace my Picoscope 3206A as I don't like having to lug my laptop to my bench all the time and, on paper at least, the price/performance/features on this are looking good.  I'm slightly cautious based on the interface, I'm not sure I'm loving it (compared to the Rigol/Agilent interfaces) from what little I've seen.

[marmad]

Marmad - I wasn't commetning about the wfm/s - I'm assuming you just hit "quote" on my post rather than reply.

Ha ha - yeah, sorry, I just noticed the mistake I made with the quote - and went back and edited it to the correct one. 

I'm tempted to suck it up and order one of these to be the guinea pig for everyone - but I'd hate to get screwed in some aspect of it.  I've been looking for a good bench scope to complement/replace my Picoscope 3206A as I don't like having to lug my laptop to my bench all the time and, on paper at least, the price/performance/features on this are looking good.  I'm slightly cautious based on the interface, I'm not sure I'm loving it (compared to the Rigol/Agilent interfaces) from what little I've seen.

Well, of course, I would be happy if you would be a guinea pig and review one of these  - but I understand your reticence. I agree with you in all your points; I actually think between the three fairly similar options (this scope, a Rigol UltraVision, and an Agilent X), perhaps the GW-Instek is the best bang-for-the-buck (although the current version of firmware on Rigol DS2000s allows you to keep the 'options' indefinitely - so that adds a lot of value), Rigol has the best interface, and Agilent wins hands down in the support department (not only service but external software, etc).

[grego]

A couple of other concerns I have without more information.

A) 8x10 divisions kind of bothers me - scopes in this price range should be at least 12 horizontal
B) Sample rate is listed as "Max 2Gs/s" -- but it doesn't say if that's per channel, interleaved, what?  If you have a 4 channel scope does that mean if you're using all 4 channels you're now at 500Ms/s, or are the separated? 

[Hydrawerk]

According to the specs, the GDS-2000A series has 1GSa/s per channel, but if you use half channels, it will be 2GSa/s. So I think that If you use all four channels, each one will have 1GS/s.
The Trig out signal was very unstable and yes, it was about 270 Hz... What was wrong?? As you wrote, the Rigol's update rate varies a lot, but it is still a few thousands waveforms/sec. Worse than Agilent, but still not bad at all.

Here are the results of a quick test I did measuring the Rigol DS2072 waveform update rates at all timebase settings and memory depths (also attached in Excel format). If you compare these to the Agilent 2000X series published rates, it's obvious the Agilent is the clear winner - although it doesn't have anything close to the possible memory depths.

Single channel - 1MHz square wave to Channel 1 - Trigger Out to frequency counter. I took best-case rate when it was fluctuating:

	14kPts	140kPts	1.4MPts	14MPts	56MPts
5ns	15,000	13,150	1,412	142	36
10ns	9,400	9,400	1,412	142	36
20ns	50,012	13,515	1,416	142	36
50ns	25,003	13,515	1,416	142	36
100ns	17,859	13,159	1,412	142	36
200ns	11,365	11,360	1,408	142	36
500ns	5,434	5,435	1,336	142	36
1us	5,263	2,890	1,126	139	35
2us	5,054	1,506	846	133	35
5us	4,425	1,176	733	130	35
10us	3,789	1,157	720	130	35
20us	2,945	992	442	117	34
50us	1,326	639	414	114	34
100us	683	421	306	94	32
200us	347	245	200	69	28
500us	140	109	97	39	21
1ms	70	56	52	29	15
2ms	35	29	27	19	10
5ms	~14	~13	~11	~9	~6
10ms	~7	~6	~6	~5	~3
20ms	~4	~4	~3	~3	~2
50ms	~2	~1	~1	~1	~1
100ms	~1	~1	~1	~1	~1

The DSOX-2000 update rate does not go lower when you set a faster timebase...

[Hydrawerk]

Well, the waveform update rate of your former Owon SDS7102 was slow, but the Trig out signal was stable. Why not at GDS-2000A??? What else to say? The plug-in modules with 3MHz waveform generator and probably even the logic analyzer cannot be bought today, because they are still under development. They were not shown at the trade fair. Unfortunately there was no complex signal source (e. g. video signal) to check the digital phosphor (or visual persistance) capabilities. The autoset process is rather slow. There is no protective glass in front of the display, that you marmad, do not like. 

[grego]

Well, the waveform update rate of your former Owon SDS7102 was slow, but the Trig out signal was stable. Why not at GDS-2000A??? What else to say? The plug-in modules with 3MHz waveform generator and probably even the logic analyzer cannot be bought today, because they are still under development. They were not shown at the trade fair. Unfortunately there was no complex signal source (e. g. video signal) to check the digital phosphor (or visual persistance) capabilities. The autoset process is rather slow. There is no protective glass in front of the display, that you marmad, do not like. 

The 8 channel LA module is available for sale from tequipment.net -- the 16 is a "contact us" thing.  The DDS is also listed for sale from tequipment ($245 USD).

[marmad]

The DSOX-2000 update rate does not go lower when you set a faster timebase...

Although, to be objective, these are Agilent's own published stats. Probably (more or less) accurate, but I wouldn't mind seeing a third-party with no financial incentive run those tests on a DSOX-2000.

Well, the waveform update rate of your former Owon SDS7102 was slow, but the Trig out signal was stable. Why not at GDS-2000A???

Well, to be fair, you were at a trade show. Are you sure the cable wasn't faulty - or some other minor thing? Hard to know for sure under those conditions.

There is no protective glass in front of the display, that you marmad, do not like. 

That's good - I'm glad they ditched that. The display does look nice.

The 8 channel LA module is available for sale from tequipment.net -- the 16 is a "contact us" thing.  The DDS is also listed for sale from tequipment ($245 USD).

BTW, Rigol is currently developing LA and DDS modules for the UltraVision line as well. I doubt they will be backward compatible with older models (like mine) but I don't really care since I prefer a separate AWG and LA. But I thought it might be interesting for people thinking about purchases.

[Hydrawerk]

The 8 channel LA module is available for sale from tequipment.net -- the 16 is a "contact us" thing.  The DDS is also listed for sale from tequipment ($245 USD).

I don't know... Maybe it is an preorder only.

[Hydrawerk]

marmad I think that the cables were OK. The other Demo signals were good. It looks like there was an error in the GDS-2000A.
The Agilent DSOX-2000 should have a good update rate, because they use a special custom designed ASIC, that does all the stuff. Rigol and probably GW Instek have nothing like that.

[marmad]

A) 8x10 divisions kind of bothers me - scopes in this price range should be at least 12 horizontal

This brings up one of the things that bothers me about DSO manufacturers - a way they can 'juke' the stats. They mention the screen size in pixels - but they don't bother to mention what portion of screen real-estate the waveform is actually mapped to. The Agilent X2000 series is 10x8 (non-square) divisions mapped to only 640x400 pixels of screen space. I'm happy that the Rigol UltraVision series at least increased that to 700x400 (with 14x8 square divisions).

BTW, the number of horizontal divisions is also a factor in blind time calculations. So if you calculate their fastest waveform update rate by divisions, you get the following:
Agilent DSOX2000: 54k * 10 = 540k
Rigol DS2000: 50k x 14 = 700k

So, at least at the 20ns timebase setting, the Rigol DS2000 series has a 23% less average time to capture a glitch than the Agilent DSOX2000 series.

Edit: Although to be fair, the Rigol is not displaying a chunk of the vertical scale (and gaining some corresponding speed because of that) - I couldn't say what the Agilent does in this regard, but it's another way in which manufacturers can bend statistics in a desirable way.

[Hydrawerk]

New videos made by ITTSBEurope.

[marmad]

One other point I want to mention connected to my post above (since this is a thread about the new GW-Instek): since the number of divisions affects the blind time calculations, you might notice that the Rigol DS2000 and the GW-Instek 2000 series are closer in this respect than you might first think:

Rigol DS2000: 700k divisions per second maximum.
GW-Instek GDS-2000: 800k divisions per second maximum.

[Hydrawerk]

The method of measuring the waveform update rate according to GW Instek presentation. Well, nothing special at all.

[grego]

New videos made by ITTSBEurope.

Thanks Hydra - that was more than we've really seen anywhere else.

I will admit I'm really turned off by that interface.  I don't know what it is but for some reason it just looks (to me anyway) extremely ugly. 

Marmad the Rigol 4104 is the one I'm comparing this against (and one I'm looking at as well, either that or a used Agilent MSOX2024A).  Rigol just seems, for the most part, have their act together.  It's anecdotal for me, and it's not like I need anything crazy so usability is a huge factor (mainly model railroad electronics work with square-wave AC stuff and CAN bus).

I'm with you though - knowing how the manufacturers actually use the screen real-estate is something sorely lacking in all the specs.

[marmad]

I will admit I'm really turned off by that interface.  I don't know what it is but for some reason it just looks (to me anyway) extremely ugly.

Yes, I'm not thrilled by their design aesthetic either - although I do give them kudos for using 750x480 of the 800x600 screen for waveform mapping. But unfortunately, like the Agilent, they go with a non-square graticule, with 75x60 pixel divisions. What is up with equipment manufacturers doing that?

Instead, they should have increased the horizontal divisions to 12 - and used 720x480 with square divisions. This would have decreased their publishable waveform update rate but it would have, imo, increased the usability of the scope.

[grego]

Bottom line until someone buys one and shares their experiences with it we're going to keep guessing.

Part of me wants to go "sure, I'll do it" but for my first bench scope replacing my USB scope I'm a bit nervous about jumping in.  Honestly if the interface didn't look like it was made 10+ years ago I'd probably be more willing to be the guinea pig but I'm waffling back and forth right now.

Come on Instek - send Dave a demo unit so we can find out about this thing!

[marmad]

Bottom line until someone buys one and shares their experiences with it we're going to keep guessing.

Part of me wants to go "sure, I'll do it" but for my first bench scope replacing my USB scope I'm a bit nervous about jumping in.  Honestly if the interface didn't look like it was made 10+ years ago I'd probably be more willing to be the guinea pig but I'm waffling back and forth right now.

Come on Instek - send Dave a demo unit so we can find out about this thing!

Honestly, I would be more worried about GW-Instek's seemingly complete lack of ability to promote, market, followup, and (according to some) service their scopes then I would be about the interface. I wrote them two detailed emails (cc'ed to various GW-Instek facilities around the globe) expressing interest in the 3000 series without the tiniest response from them - and I've heard many similar reports from others. Just look at the 3000 series - it was out for a couple of years and the only 'reviews' of it on the web were videos created by GW-Instek employees. I would be seriously worried about ever getting firmware updates from them to fix bugs.

[grego]

Honestly, I would be more worried about GW-Instek's seemingly complete lack of ability to promote, market, followup, and (according to some) service their scopes then I would be about the interface. I wrote them two detailed emails (cc'ed to various GW-Instek facilities around the globe) expressing interest in the 3000 series without the tiniest response from them - and I've heard many similar reports from others. Just look at the 3000 series - it was out for a couple of years and the only 'reviews' of it on the web were videos created by GW-Instek employees. I would be seriously worried about ever getting firmware updates from them to fix bugs.

A completely valid point.  And a good one too.  It's one thing to get no support on a $400 piece of kit, but if I'm spending $2000+ on something I'd like to know it'll be supported.  Makes you wonder how they stay in business.  I may stick with my plan of a Rigol 4014 or the used Agilent MSOX2024A.

[Hydrawerk]

Honestly if the interface didn't look like it was made 10+ years ago I'd probably be more willing (...)

What exactly don't you like?? I think that this scope is easy to use, I tried it... But yes, it has no pushable knobs and it even has no fine vertical scale setting. But on the other hand, Tektronix also has almost no pushable knobs. Maybe Tek guys think that pushing knobs are unreliable...

[marmad]

A completely valid point.  And a good one too.  It's one thing to get no support on a $400 piece of kit, but if I'm spending $2000+ on something I'd like to know it'll be supported.  Makes you wonder how they stay in business.  I may stick with my plan of a Rigol 4014 or the used Agilent MSOX2024A.

I'd go with the Rigol DS4014 (if I could have afforded the 4 channels I would have bought one of those instead of the DS2072) - I couldn't live with the miserly 100k of memory on the X2024. Have you seen the review and teardown of the DS4014 that was posted in the last week?

[grego]

What exactly don't you like?? I think that this scope is easy to use, I tried it... But yes, it has no pushable knobs and it even has no fine vertical scale setting. But on the other hand, Tektronix also has almost no pushable knobs. Maybe Tek guys think that pushing knobs are unreliable...

This one is simply personal preference but I don't like the Tek interface either.  Too much blue, the fonts look dated, etc.  Again, highly subjective.  Sometimes you like what you like.  I personally prefer the "cleaner" (again, opinion here) look of the Agilent and Rigol (black backgrounds, etc).  That's simply esthetics, and I get it, but it's something individuals have to keep in mind.  The pushable knobs I don't really care about overall - that's pretty minor (and can be annoying if selections change as you're pressing).

I look at a 'scope like a car - everyone has things they want, everyone has things they like.  No one will ever agree about everything.   I am, however, glad to hear that you found it pretty easy to use at the show.  At least someone here on the forums has touched the beastie! Out of curiousty how would you compare the output (screen display) in person compare to, say, a Rigol or Agilent?  The pictures posted are all a mess - considering that the screen is 800x400, the pictures are larger than that so you can't use them to identify pixel doubling and whatnot.  I ask because it's sometimes hard to get an idea from the straight video.

Marmad: yeah I hear you - someone on this forum said something that I try to live by: buy once, cry once.  I'd rather wait an extra month or so and buy something that has more headroom for me to "grow into" since it's hopefully a piece of kit I'll have around for years and years.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, the Agilent interface is also nice... The Tektronix is dated in general... 
The display of GDS-2000A looks good. It has better viewing angle than Rigol DS6000. The Rigol DS2000 was not presented at the trade fair. I don't know why. The GDS-2000A has even the color gradation, is it useful? It surely is a not common feature among middle class scopes...

[marmad]

The GDS-2000A has even the color gradation, is it useful? It surely is a not common feature among middle class scopes...

I hate to keep pestering your posts with mine yet again, Hydrawerk     but I just thought I'd point out (once again  ) that you can do color-gradations on the Rigol UltraVision scopes using my add-on software. You can't do it real-time - like with the GDS-2000A - but you can do it with any group of captured waveforms - and you can use any color-lookup-table or gradient that you want - and do it in 2D or 3D.

O.k. - that's it! I promise I won't needle you again 

[Hydrawerk]

OK.  It looks nice.

[Hydrawerk]

I expect that ITTSB will publish more videos. https://www.youtube.com/user/ITTSBEurope
Here is forum topic: http://www.ittsb.eu/forum/index.php?topic=449.0

[mzzj]

This brings up one of the things that bothers me about DSO manufacturers - a way they can 'juke' the stats. They mention the screen size in pixels - but they don't bother to mention what portion of screen real-estate the waveform is actually mapped to. The Agilent X2000 series is 10x8 (non-square) divisions mapped to only 640x400 pixels of screen space. I'm happy that the Rigol UltraVision series at least increased that to 700x400 (with 14x8 square divisions).

Screen fonts are another thing, I prefer  the OWON 7102 display over DS2202  Rigol as Owon has better resolution and 14x10 divisions.
(I have both scopes)

[marmad]

Screen fonts are another thing, I prefer  the OWON 7102 display over DS2202  Rigol as Owon has better resolution and 14x10 divisions.

Owon is actually 15x10 (7.5/7.5) divisions mapped to 750x500, using 50 pixel squares. I like that they used a square graticule and so much of the screen area - both I prefer the overall look (fonts, menus, screen colors, etc) of the Rigol - which I think has a distinctive modern look to their interface. Plus I think Rigol put a lot of thought into their ergonomics - and got much of the physical design and layout exactly right on the UltraVision series - better than the Agilent Xs in many regards (although the Agilent's can kick their asses in some areas of functionality).

[Hydrawerk]

Agilent DSOX2000 is better for hunting random glitches, but how many people need it? On Rigol I don't like the fact that the cool multifunction knob is used probably only for records and for maybe nothing else. Am I right? And I am looking forward to the new firmware... 

[marmad]

Agilent DSOX2000 is better for hunting random glitches, but how many people need it? On Rigol I don't like the fact that the cool multifunction knob is used probably only for records and for maybe nothing else. Am I right? And I am looking forward to the new firmware... 

No, Hydrawerk, you're not aware of one of the many nice ergonomic features of the Rigol - you use the navigation knob a lot. Watch the video starting from 15:15 and you'll see what I mean. 

[Hydrawerk]

OK, I see. http://youtu.be/gAY1GQEjrfc?t=15m15s Thanks.

[grego]

I exchanged some email with Instek USA about the unit and they are apparently working on the CAN/LIN decode as well as a firmware update (yay) for their LA module.  They also already support RS485 in their RS232 decode which is also nice.  Additionally they provided a comparison between the Agilent 2000X and the GDS.  Yes, it's not apples-apples and the memory and decode option change things on the 2000 side but it's still interesting (attached).

-G

[marmad]

Additionally they provided a comparison between the Agilent 2000X and the GDS.  Yes, it's not apples-apples and the memory and decode option change things on the 2000 side but it's still interesting (attached).

It's interesting they're not comparing it to the Rigol UltraVision series, which seems closer in price and features than the Agilent. But maybe that's because the Agilent's are the marker leaders - or maybe because the Rigol's match or surpass it in a couple of the comparison categories.

[grego]

Additionally they provided a comparison between the Agilent 2000X and the GDS.  Yes, it's not apples-apples and the memory and decode option change things on the 2000 side but it's still interesting (attached).

It's interesting they're not comparing it to the Rigol UltraVision series, which seems closer in price and features than the Agilent. But maybe that's because the Agilent's are the marker leaders - or maybe because the Rigol's match or surpass it in a couple of the comparison categories.

It's more because I said I was also looking at the Agilent 2000X than anything else.  Don't read too much into it.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS-2000A has (?) 80 000 waveforms per second... But for what setting?? In is not specified anywhere in the manual. And I was unable to prove it when measuring the Trig Out signal. Even Rigol says clearly, when the scope reaches 50 000 waveforms/sec. The GDS-2000A has quite poor signal generator, only 3MHz, but there is no closer info.
Until someone proves it, I don't believe the 80 000 waveforms per second. 

[marmad]

GDS-2000A has (?) 80 000 waveforms per second... But for what setting?? In is not specified anywhere in the manual. And I was unable to prove it when measuring the Trig Out signal. Even Rigol says clearly, when the scope reaches 50 000 waveforms/sec. The GDS-2000A has quite poor signal generator, only 3MHz, but there is no closer info.
Until someone proves it, I don't believe the 80 000 waveforms per second. 

It says it right in the instructions you posted here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/msg205355/#msg205355

500ns/div, single channel, short record length = 80k wfrm/s

[Hydrawerk]

ANd GDS-2000A has no fine vertical scale setting. Why?? And even no pushable rotating encoders. But it's still an interesting scope. As seen in the datasheet: It has a three year warranty - but excluding the lcd panel. Oh why?

[Hydrawerk]

OK, marmad, but it is not an official datasheet... And then the 80000 wfrms/s is a peak value, nobody knows, what it is like at 20ns or so...

[grego]

ANd GDS-2000A has no fine vertical scale setting. Why?? And even no pushable rotating encoders. But it's still an interesting scope. As seen in the datasheet: It has a three year warranty - but excluding the lcd panel. Oh why?

The pushable encoders isn't really a big deal.  Pretty minor actually.  The warranty is slightly more annoying on the LCD - and I have a question out to their US sales team asking why this scope isn't limited lifetime like their other gear.

The lack of fine scale vertical is more annoying however.  Still, you can get a 2204A for about $1765 here in the US which is a fair amount of scope for the price.  The 16 port LA seems to cost about ~$800 and I believe it comes with all the decode options as part of it.  So base it's about $500 less than the Rigol 4014.  Not apples-apples again (Rigol has way more memory, faster sample rate, faster wfm/s published, etc) but the Instek has the built in LA function.  One other thing though that caught my eye is no 50 ohm option on the Instek, it's 1M only.

As usual it all kind of depends on what your application is to determine which scope.  If the Rigol 4000 had a published upgrade to add the LA option to the existing family of scopes it'd be almost a no-brainer but they don't, so it isn't.

I will say that the Instek response has been decent - sales response took a day or two but I did get a response as I noted.  Admittedly this is in the US so YMMV based on your location.

[marmad]

And then the 80000 wfrms/s is a peak value, nobody knows, what it is like at 20ns or so...

Publishing the peak value is what DSO manufacturers do - it's always 'up to XX wfrm/s' because all DSOs have much slower wfrm/s rates due to timebase and memory barriers. The rates always follow a curve.

For example, when you set the Rigol DS2000 series to 56MPt sample length, it does approximately 35 wfrm/s at every timebase setting <= 50us. Why? Because at 2 GSa/s (the fastest sample rate of the Rigol) it takes 28ms to fill 56MB of memory. 28ms * 35 wfrm/s = .98 seconds (2% blind time).

[grego]

It seems that GDS-2000A has no fine vertical resolution setting, no "Vernier".

I'm not 100% sure this is true.  The manual says the vertical is 1mV ~ 10V, but mentions 1 - 2 - 5 increments.  Could it be momentum based?  No clue.  But there is definitely no direct mention of fine vertical setting.

[Hydrawerk]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

[grego]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

Right but the mention of the increment may mean the encoder has acceleration. In other words as you turn it faster the increments grow larger.  Kind of like how an iPod scrolls with the wheel.

[grenert]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

Right but the mention of the increment may mean the encoder has acceleration. In other words as you turn it faster the increments grow larger.  Kind of like how an iPod scrolls with the wheel.

No, the 1-2-5 refers to the standard pattern of oscilloscope vertical amplification settings that have been around forever.
For example: 1V, 2V, 5V, 10V, etc. with each click of the dial.

[grego]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

Right but the mention of the increment may mean the encoder has acceleration. In other words as you turn it faster the increments grow larger.  Kind of like how an iPod scrolls with the wheel.

No, the 1-2-5 refers to the standard pattern of oscilloscope vertical amplification settings that have been around forever.
For example: 1V, 2V, 5V, 10V, etc. with each click of the dial.

Ah. I'm used to USB scopes so have no point of reference.  Thanks for the clarification.

[icon]

I've been trying to think of an instance on a DSO where a lack of uncalibrated vertical control would be a show-stopper. On an analogue scope you might use it for making rise-time measurements, but this DSO will just tell you.

What am I missing? I'm trying to think of reasons to remove this scope from my shopping list!

Cheers
John

[grenert]

Vertical vernier is nice to maximize the size of the trace on the screen.  You might have a waveform that is just a little over half the height of the screen, but when you go to the next higher amplification to get a better look, it becomes too big and clips off at the extremes.  The vernier allows you to shrink it back down to fit in the screen.

[marmad]

Vertical vernier is nice to maximize the size of the trace on the screen.  You might have a waveform that is just a little over half the height of the screen, but when you go to the next higher amplification to get a better look, it becomes too big and clips off at the extremes.  The vernier allows you to shrink it back down to fit in the screen.

It's interesting to note that of the two lower-cost scopes with large screens that use the most vertical screen real-estate for waveform display - this one, with 480 vertical pixels (8x60 pixels), and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels (10x50 pixels) - neither has vertical vernier controls. It makes me wonder if it's somehow connected to the extrapolation of the ADC values to the larger number of display pixels.

[icon]

this one, with 480 vertical pixels, and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels -

Or is it 600 pixels? http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349 Not trying to be an arse, just trying to establish whether we're talking about the same thing.

[marmad]

this one, with 480 vertical pixels, and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels -

Or is it 600 pixels? http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349 Not trying to be an arse, just trying to establish whether we're talking about the same thing.

Nope, it's 480 - I'm talking about the waveform display area, not the LCD size. Why would text info/icon/menu sizes or placement have an affect on ADC extrapolation/vertical vernier? The GW-Instek has 8 vertical divisions of 60 pixels = 480 pixels.

[icon]

this one, with 480 vertical pixels, and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels -

Or is it 600 pixels? http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349 Not trying to be an arse, just trying to establish whether we're talking about the same thing.

Nope, it's 480 - I'm talking about the waveform display area, not the LCD size. Why would text info/icon/menu sizes or placement have an affect on ADC extrapolation/vertical vernier? The GW-Instek has 8 vertical divisions of 60 pixels = 480 pixels.

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

[marmad]

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

No problem  - I'll go back and edit the original post for clarification.

[grego]

I think I will be getting this scope.  I am waiting for a response to another email to their sales team here in the US and based on that I will make a final decision.  As a complement to my picoscope and for my needs this one looks good and it will finally allow for some active time with this scope so I can provide some detail on its usage.  Could I spend a bit more for a "better" scope?  Sure with the Rigol 4014 but there are trade offs there and the price difference can be used for other needed equipment.  Instek has a solid reputation here in the USA so I don't think I'm going to get burned.

The key is their responses to my email.  It seems to be about a 2 day lag on the response so I should hopefully hear back by Mon/Tue.

[marmad]

I think I will be getting this scope.  I am waiting for a response to another email to their sales team here in the US and based on that I will make a final decision.  As a complement to my picoscope and for my needs this one looks good and it will finally allow for some active time with this scope so I can provide some detail on its usage.  Could I spend a bit more for a "better" scope?  Sure with the Rigol 4014 but there are trade offs there and the price difference can be used for other needed equipment.  Instek has a solid reputation here in the USA so I don't think I'm going to get burned.

So presumably this means you're thinking of getting the 4-channel version? Which BW - 200MHz?

[grego]

I think I will be getting this scope.  I am waiting for a response to another email to their sales team here in the US and based on that I will make a final decision.  As a complement to my picoscope and for my needs this one looks good and it will finally allow for some active time with this scope so I can provide some detail on its usage.  Could I spend a bit more for a "better" scope?  Sure with the Rigol 4014 but there are trade offs there and the price difference can be used for other needed equipment.  Instek has a solid reputation here in the USA so I don't think I'm going to get burned.

So presumably this means you're thinking of getting the 4-channel version? Which BW - 200MHz?

Correct. The 2204A is what I am thinking.

[marmad]

Correct. The 2204A is what I am thinking.

Yes, at this point in time, the GW-Instek GDS2204A is quite a bit cheaper than the Rigol DS4024 - although I suspect Rigol may drop their prices in the not-too-distant future (just as Agilent has quickly introduced new 'options' for the X2000 series in response to Instek).

The main difference between the Instek and the Rigol (aside from VGA output and other non-essential things) appears to be the memory size - and the desirability of that in the work that you do. I do a lot of data-stream logging and analysis, so a large amount of memory for segmenting is fantastic and I couldn't bear to live without the 56MB in my Rigol - I've gotten so used to it  - but for most DSO users it's irrelevant.

BTW, one other thing you might consider: in the current firmware of the DS2000 series, it's very easy to 'keep' all of the expensive 'trial' options (triggering, decoding, etc) indefinitely. I don't know if that's true for the DS4000 series, but if I was considering getting a 4-channel scope, I'd try to find out from a current owner. That's quite a lot of money later down the line.

[marmad]

@Hydrawerk: I just looked at your video again and spotted why you were getting an erratic image and measurements in your attempt to count the wfrm/s of the Instek: you had the timebase on the Hameg set to 1ms! That means, for example, if you wanted to see one trigger pulse per screen division on the Hameg - the waveform capture rate coming from the Instek would have had to be 83Hz. Whoops!    That's way too slow for counting the Instek's rate at the 10ns/div setting - which I imagine is >10kHz.

[grego]

Correct. The 2204A is what I am thinking.

Yes, at this point in time, the GW-Instek GDS2204A is quite a bit cheaper than the Rigol DS4024 - although I suspect Rigol may drop their prices in the not-too-distant future (just as Agilent has quickly introduced new 'options' for the X2000 series in response to Instek).

The main difference between the Instek and the Rigol (aside from VGA output and other non-essential things) appears to be the memory size - and the desirability of that in the work that you do. I do a lot of data-stream logging and analysis, so a large amount of memory for segmenting is fantastic and I couldn't bear to live without the 56MB in my Rigol - I've gotten so used to it  - but for most DSO users it's irrelevant.

BTW, one other thing you might consider: in the current firmware of the DS2000 series, it's very easy to 'keep' all of the expensive 'trial' options (triggering, decoding, etc) indefinitely. I don't know if that's true for the DS4000 series, but if I was considering getting a 4-channel scope, I'd try to find out from a current owner. That's quite a lot of money later down the line.

For my applications the MSO decode and triggering with the digital channels has value.  I work with RS485 and CAN so being able to handle that on top of signal acquisition is useful.  Which is why I've been so interested in this scope.  The Agilent 2000X as well but this seems to be more bang for the buck with a decent reputation (no its not near Agilent).

If Rigol puts out something about a 4000 series with MSO capabilities I might change my mind but it'll have to be soon.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, even the guys who presented the GDS-2000A could not make it better. I still think that there was an internal problem in the GW Instek scope. I have written an email to http://www.trinstruments.cz/stolni-osciloskopy They answered that they still don't know what was wrong with the scope. They probably didn't manage to find the problem yet.

[marmad]

Well, even the guys who presented the GDS-2000A could not make it better. I still think that there was an internal problem in the GW Instek scope. I have written an email to http://www.trinstruments.cz/stolni-osciloskopy They answered that they still don't know what was wrong with the scope. They probably didn't manage to find the problem yet.

Well, I don't know what else was tried since I wasn't there, but all I can tell you is that the settings of the Hameg in your video are not good for the measurement you were trying to perform. Look at the attached image from my Rigol, using the same settings of the Hameg - and an input square wave of 50kHz with a 5% duty cycle. This is with a sample rate of 1MSa/s - I can't get the Rigol to go down to the 500kSa/s rate of the Hameg:

[Christopher]

We have a couple of these at work. Not really touched em as they look very cheap and crappy compared to Tek scopes.

Still the software seems good for a chinky scope. One design engineer at work swears by them.

[grego]

We have a couple of these at work. Not really touched em as they look very cheap and crappy compared to Tek scopes.

Still the software seems good for a chinky scope. One design engineer at work swears by them.

You sure it's a 2000A and not the older 2000?  The 2000a series just came out in the last couple of months.

[grego]

Looks like Instek is taking the question of wfm/s seriously.  They posted a video about it:

[marmad]

Looks like Instek is taking the question of wfm/s seriously.  They posted a video about it:

Ha, ha... these GW-Instek videos crack me up. Brand X! I haven't heard that terminology used since TV commercials of my childhood 

But, Greg, have you been doubting that the DSO could actually do 80k wfrm/s? GW-Instek is a reputable company producing quality goods - I never thought they would advertise a spec they couldn't meet. But you noticed how he specifically mentioned setting the timebase to 500ns - and specifically mentioned setting the record length to short? Single channel, smallest sample size, 500ns timebase = fastest update rate. But the question is, what is it at other settings? So far, only the Agilent (with it's MegaZoom ASIC) has managed to reach a high rate and maintain it over several timebase settings.

[dr.diesel]

I sure wish Dave had one to teardown, for the price these will be hard to beat if they'll last.

[grego]

Ha, ha... these GW-Instek videos crack me up. Brand X! I haven't heard that terminology used since TV commercials of my childhood 

But, Greg, have you been doubting that the DSO could actually do 80k wfrm/s? GW-Instek is a reputable company producing quality goods - I never thought they would advertise a spec they couldn't meet. But you noticed how he specifically mentioned setting the timebase to 500ns - and specifically mentioned setting the record length to short? Single channel, smallest sample size, 500ns timebase = fastest update rate. But the question is, what is it at other settings? So far, only the Agilent (with it's MegaZoom ASIC) has managed to reach a high rate and maintain it over several timebase settings.

I agree - I saw that and it kind of cracked me up too.  Really - "Brand X"?  With a little piece of paper over the manufacturer name?  Hah!

No, I wasn't really doubting it at all - I'm sure it hits the numbers they specify but as you said it's really performance under less than ideal conditions that will be more interesting.  For my needs I think this is the way I will be going as I said, just waiting for the response from their US sales guy to my follow-up questions before I pull the trigger on it.  I could get a 2024 Agilent for about $400 more, and I'm still thinking about that, but then have to add a few $$ for the additional memory, segmented memory, LAN and any decodes I want - so realistically it's more like $3100 in the end.  Meh.  I hate decisions like this.

[marmad]

I sure wish Dave had one to teardown, for the price these will be hard to beat if they'll last.

You might have to be the first who tears one down, Doctor    But honestly, Instek has been producing quality products longer than Rigol. The prices on these new 2000As is very aggressive - they've priced the 2-channel versions precisely the same as Rigol's DS2000 line - so it really comes down to features and firmware - but the 4-channel versions are well under the Rigol DS4000s - so if I was in the market for a 4-channel scope, I might be willing to be the first to take the plunge 

Meh.  I hate decisions like this.

Will possible downtime of your DSO lose your money? If so, choose the Agilent. Will you be extensively using third-party analysis software (MatLAB, LabView, etc) or needing full remote control capability of the DSO? If so, choose the Agilent. Other than that, save yourself some money - and get an Instek or Rigol - which will do most other jobs just as well - or better.

[grego]

Meh.  I hate decisions like this.

Will possible downtime of your DSO lose your money? If so, choose the Agilent. Will you be extensively using third-party analysis software (MatLAB, LabView, etc) or needing full remote control capability of the DSO? If so, choose the Agilent. Other than that, save yourself some money - and get an Instek or Rigol - which will do most other jobs just as well - or better.

I will.  I'm exceptionally good at hand-wringing.   And no, downtime won't affect me other than piss me off.  This is a hobby, not a job.

[dr.diesel]

You might have to be the first who tears one down, Doctor 

Perhaps, I've emailed them to see what OS the scope runs on.  I do happen to be in the market for an item in this range.

And of course, if I end up with it, it will come apart that day!

[Hydrawerk]

It maybe seems that this scope GDS-2000A is the same case as Tektronix DPO2000 series. The update rate is quite good (6200 waveforms/s) up to 100ns/div, and then at 20ns/div it drops dramatically down to only 160 waveforms/s.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS-2000A might still be a good cheaper scope for those who don't care about waveform update rate and rather need color gradation, long 2MB memory with marks and search and need eight automatic measurements while still using cursors. Agilent DSOX2000 doesn't give you that... But it has the lovely WAVEGEN 20MHz generator. 

[grego]

It seems that this scope GDS-2000A is the same case as Tektronix DPO2000 series. The update rate is quite good (6200 waveforms/s) up to 100ns/div, and then at 20ns/div it drops dramatically down to only 160 waveforms/s.

How are you drawing that conclusion?  We don't have any numbers other than their "ideal" at this point.

[Hydrawerk]

Why is the Tektronix label hidden with a piece of paper?? Everyone knows the TDS2000... And it's a crazy idea to use about 12 years old scope for comparison... Other companies compare their products withoud hidding the other's scope name... http://youtu.be/7j9-0jKP_O0 http://youtu.be/fTI8fp-z4y0
Then checking a 200MHz scope GDS-2000A with 1MHz signal? Why? It would be very interesting to use a 40MHz test signal, or so.

Anyway, this is how a scope should be tested. Testing a 100MHz scope with variable 70...100MHz test signal. This will tell you about the scope's real capabilities.

[Hydrawerk]

It seems that this scope GDS-2000A is the same case as Tektronix DPO2000 series. The update rate is quite good (6200 waveforms/s) up to 100ns/div, and then at 20ns/div it drops dramatically down to only 160 waveforms/s.

How are you drawing that conclusion?  We don't have any numbers other than their "ideal" at this point.

According to the setting that I had in this video... But it is not a conclusion, it's only a hypothesis.

[icon]

It seems that this scope GDS-2000A is the same case as Tektronix DPO2000 series. The update rate is quite good (6200 waveforms/s) up to 100ns/div, and then at 20ns/div it drops dramatically down to only 160 waveforms/s.

Just to clarify, you're not saying that the GDS-2000A actually has comparable update rates to the Tek DPO2000, but that, like the Tek, there's a 'headline rate' (80k wfm/s, in the GDS-2000A's case) which rapidly (more rapidly than the Agilent) drops off as you move away from the optimum? Also, am I imagining things or does the Rigol DS2000 do a similar thing? I'm sure I saw a table somewhere, but I can't find it now.

Isn't it fun playing oscilloscope Top Trumps?

Cheers
John

[marmad]

Just to clarify, you're not saying that the GDS-2000A actually has comparable update rates to the Tek DPO2000, but that, like the Tek, there's a 'headline rate' (80k wfm/s, in the GDS-2000A's case) which rapidly (more rapidly than the Agilent) drops off as you move away from the optimum? Also, am I imagining things or does the Rigol DS2000 do a similar thing? I'm sure I saw a table somewhere, but I can't find it now.

Hi John,

Sure, all scopes have a wfrm/s rate that changes - always dropping towards the slower timebases because of the limiting factor of time: e.g. at 1ms/div, assuming the display is 10 divs, each sweep is 10ms - meaning the absolute maximum rate possible (with an impossible 0% dead time) is 100 waveforms per second. At the upper timebases, it appears that most DSOs (aside from the Agilent X series with their new ASICs) have a peak setting - and then begin to drop again to the smallest timebase setting. As far as the GDS-2000A series goes, we have no hard evidence of what it does in any range - except Instek's own demonstrations which appear to make it clear that it's peak setting is at 500ns/div.

[Hydrawerk]

Just to clarify, you're not saying that the GDS-2000A actually has comparable update rates to the Tek DPO2000, but that, like the Tek, there's a 'headline rate' (80k wfm/s, in the GDS-2000A's case) which rapidly (more rapidly than the Agilent) drops off as you move away from the optimum?

Yes, the top waveform update rate of GDS-2000A is better than Tek DPO2000.
Here is the waveform update rate as measured by marmad. It also drops down at shorter timebase settings, but it is although quite good.

Here are the results of a quick test I did measuring the Rigol DS2072 waveform update rates at all timebase settings and memory depths (also attached in Excel format). If you compare these to the Agilent 2000X series published rates, it's obvious the Agilent is the clear winner - although it doesn't have anything close to the possible memory depths.

Single channel - 1MHz square wave to Channel 1 - Trigger Out to frequency counter. I took best-case rate when it was fluctuating:

	14kPts	140kPts	1.4MPts	14MPts	56MPts
5ns	15,000	13,150	1,412	142	36
10ns	9,400	9,400	1,412	142	36
20ns	50,012	13,515	1,416	142	36
50ns	25,003	13,515	1,416	142	36
100ns	17,859	13,159	1,412	142	36
200ns	11,365	11,360	1,408	142	36
500ns	5,434	5,435	1,336	142	36
1us	5,263	2,890	1,126	139	35
2us	5,054	1,506	846	133	35
5us	4,425	1,176	733	130	35
10us	3,789	1,157	720	130	35
20us	2,945	992	442	117	34
50us	1,326	639	414	114	34
100us	683	421	306	94	32
200us	347	245	200	69	28
500us	140	109	97	39	21
1ms	70	56	52	29	15
2ms	35	29	27	19	10
5ms	~14	~13	~11	~9	~6
10ms	~7	~6	~6	~5	~3
20ms	~4	~4	~3	~3	~2
50ms	~2	~1	~1	~1	~1
100ms	~1	~1	~1	~1	~1

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/first-impressions-and-review-of-the-rigol-ds2072-ds2000-series-dso/30/

[grego]

I've made a command decision and I will be getting the 2204A. My reasoning is price/performance.

I actually just got off the phone with the regional sales manager here in the US (a nice gent named Frank Paz) in Chino, CA.  I had a couple of questions for him which he answered satisfactorily to me.

1. Where is it serviced if there is a problem?

It's actually serviced here in the States.  They have a repair facility in Chino, CA to handle service.

2. If it needs recal where does it have to go?

Again, their US service facility will handle the recal. Negative for them is the recommended annual recal vs Agilents 2 or 3 year cycle but whatever. It's done here in the US and has a 2 week turnaround.

3.  CAN decode.

As I mentioned earlier its in their next firmware update I believe. Either way its coming and it's not an addon. I actually use this so it's kind of important if I have a LA that it can do CAN.

4.  Fine vertical (or lack thereof)

This is on their firmware roadmap with no scheduled release date.  Frank mentioned he had just heard back from the factory from my earlier query about this. Instek has a decent rep here in the US so I don't think he's blowing smoke up my ass. Then again there's no release date scheduled so it could be tomorrow or 2 years from now.  Not a deal breaker though.

From tequipment.net I can get this for $1765 and add in the LA a little later after I mess with the scope.  That's $100 less than the best price listed for then 2000x used on eBay, and when you add in all the upgrades for the Agilent to bring it to par with the Instek it's a significant amount (memory upgrade, segmented memory, decodes, etc).

Stay tuned.

Greg

[marmad]

I've made a command decision and I will be getting the 2204A. My reasoning is price/performance.

Good for you, Greg - early adopters rule!    I'm looking forward to hearing about it, and I hope you'll consider doing some kind of review here.

[tequipment]

If you want EEVblog price for this GDS unit drop me an email, salesteam@tequipment.net  Ref the EEVblog and me, Evan Cirelli.
I will authorize a discount.

One again everything thanks for the business.

Evan Cirelli

Vice President of TEquipment.NET

[dr.diesel]

If you want EEVblog price for this GDS unit drop me an email, salesteam@tequipment.net  Ref the EEVblog and me, Evan Cirelli.
I will authorize a discount.

One again everything thanks for the business.

Evan Cirelli

Vice President of TEquipment.NET

Does this apply to other manufactures as well?

[tequipment]

Yeah for the most part.  I think I am going to set up a EEBlog coupon or discount.  In the future we can give EEBlog pricing as a login but for now email us for a quote. 

I want to be as honest and open with you guys as possible with pricing.  We want your business.

Thanks
Evan

[dr.diesel]

Yeah for the most part.  I think I am going to set up a EEBlog coupon or discount.  In the future we can give EEBlog pricing as a login but for now email us for a quote. 

I want to be as honest and open with you guys as possible with pricing.  We want your business.

Thanks
Evan

You are my new best friend!   

[marmad]

While looking through the manual carefully, I noticed something which is buried in there (page 110):

The 2MPts of sample memory are only usable in single channel - single trigger mode (or as segments). When using normal/auto triggered modes, it's 1MPt for a single channel - or 500k when using 2 channels.

Granted, 1M/500k is adequate for most tasks so it's not necessarily a problem. It's just that GW-Instek perhaps should make this a little more clear in documents/adverts for the DSO - otherwise it seems slightly disingenuous.

[Hydrawerk]

Someone should measure the waveform update rate for more timebase settings. I am afraid it will be worse than Rigol DS2000. 

[grego]

Someone should measure the waveform update rate for more timebase settings. I am afraid it will be worse than Rigol DS2000. 

It's not.

http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html

Just use table 3 as your data as we're discussing the validity of the other 2 tables.

[Hydrawerk]

Thanks for the link. http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html The Trig Out is quite weird, but it might not be a problem... Unless you want to use it synchronise another instrument... It should be like 0...5V signal.

c) The Trigger-Out has an voltage range not higher than 200 mV AC, which varies significantly depending the time base of the scope and usually ranges from 120 mV to 5 mV and even less than that.
The only multimeter which had the proper sensitivity as frequency counter due their low mV range, plus the Min/Max/Average function, is the U1270A Series.
(...) 3) Avoid using a multimeter if possible, very few are capable for this task, if you have a sensitive and fast dedicated frequency counter capable for 4-5 measurements at the 100 KHz range … Use it.

What? Marmad used his multimeter to measure waveform update rate of his Rigol DS2000 and it was OK. http://youtu.be/gAY1GQEjrfc?t=2m51s

[marmad]

What? Marmad used his multimeter to measure waveform update rate of his Rigol DS2000 and it was OK.

Well, I can't find any specifications from either Rigol or GW-Instek about what the levels are for their Trigger Output terminals on those DSOs. I wonder if they might be optically-coupled, requiring a pull-up resistor to get a decent higher level voltage. But in any case, my Fluke 87 III doesn't seem to have much trouble reading the Rigol's output.

[Hydrawerk]

Rigol doesn't specify the Trigger output level, but it will be maybe 0 to 5V?
At Agilent it is like this:

[Hydrawerk]

At a normal /non GW Instek/ scope it is no problem to measure the Trig Out with a low-end counter or multimeter... You've probably seen this my video.

[marmad]

c) The Trigger-Out has an voltage range not higher than 200 mV AC, which varies significantly depending the time base of the scope and usually ranges from 120 mV to 5 mV and even less than that.

Just measured the Rigol and it appears to have a Trigger Out voltage level of ~3.5V DC into 1M; ~1.5V into 50 Ohm.

[grego]

Well it's moot for me now.  I just finished ordering mine from tequipment.net -- great pricing.

I should have it in my grubby little hands by the middle of next week.

[marmad]

I should have it in my grubby little hands by the middle of next week.

Well, if you dare take it apart, I'm sure there are loads of members who'd love to see what's inside 

[Hydrawerk]

Just measured the Rigol and it appears to have a Trigger Out voltage level of ~3.5V DC into 1M; ~1.5V into 50 Ohm.

That's how it should be. I suspect that there is a hardware bug in early batch of GDS-2000A. The manufacturer knows it. The Taiwanese businessman at the trade fair told me not to use a multimeter to measure the Trig Out.
I will not buy any GW Instek product, because the company has no subsidiary in Europe.  Are you from USA, grego? Then it's OK. The scope is nice and feature rich. Suitable for those who need the mask pass/fail test.

[marmad]

Well, I like the feature set of the Instek - especially some things sorely missing from the DS2000. But I don't care about the expandability because I would never buy any of that stuff (I like a separate LA and AWG). I definitely prefer the design and interface of the Rigol by a large margin - even the type and method of displaying screen information, IMO, is better on the Rigol (the GW-Instek doesn't even show you the sample rate on the screen). And I love the low-noise 500uV front end and large memory of the Rigol.  So I think if I was choosing 2-channels today, I would probably still go with the Rigol.

But as far as 4-channels goes, the GW-Instek is significantly cheaper than the DS4000 for a similar DSO - so it's much more attractive.

[grego]

Just measured the Rigol and it appears to have a Trigger Out voltage level of ~3.5V DC into 1M; ~1.5V into 50 Ohm.

That's how it should be. I suspect that there is a hardware bug in early batch of GDS-2000A. The manufacturer knows it. The Taiwanese businessman at the trade fair told me not to use a multimeter to measure the Trig Out.
I will not buy any GW Instek product, because the company has no subsidiary in Europe.  Are you from USA, grego? Then it's OK. The scope is nice and feature rich. Suitable for those who need the mask pass/fail test.

Yep.  I'm outside Chicago here in the US of A.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS-2000A has no High resolution mode, only 8 bit all the time.

[grego]

GDS-2000A has no High resolution mode, only 8 bit all the time.

Correct - that was a known for me.  Not a huge deal for me considering the other options that are of use to me.

[grego]

Well the 2204A is in transit now.  I should have it on Friday.  More to follow once it's up and running.

[marmad]

Well the 2204A is in transit now.  I should have it on Friday.  More to follow once it's up and running.

Nice to hear - you'll be having some fun soon    Any chance you 'll do a small written or video review here?

[grego]

Well the 2204A is in transit now.  I should have it on Friday.  More to follow once it's up and running.

Nice to hear - you'll be having some fun soon    Any chance you 'll do a small written or video review here?

Absolutely - I'm not really set up for video but I will see what I can do.

[grego]

It has arrived... and yes, that green tape is our friends at Homeland Security and Border Protection having opened my box when it hit the shores in Long Beach.  Go-go government bureaucracy!



(more coming later once I get home and play with it over the weekend)

[Hydrawerk]

Well, it's a decent scope with great screen. It looked good at the trade fair in Czech Republic. But I bought the DSOX2002A instead, it is a sweet scope especially if you need a 20MHz function generator. Moreover, it is very easy to download and install the firmware.

Please check if the set/clear button works on your GDS-2000A . It should place marks. But there seems to be a software bug.
Then there might be a problem with the Trig Out signal, it is too low. It might be impossible to use it for synchronising with other test equipment...

[grego]

Set clear works.  I just grabbed the square wave demo signal in single shot, turned on search and started setting/clearing marks.  You get "not supported in this mode" if you don't have search turned on.

I'll check the trig out on mine when I get it home.  Interestingly the FW version is already up to 1.08.

[grego]

Ok - played with it for about 30 mins or so now - I'm at my office so can't generate any signals other than the demo signals on the scope so that'll have to wait until I get home.

As mentioned I had no problem with set/clear with search turned on.

It seems pretty responsive when changing settings, etc.  Demo signal is a simple 1kHz square wave (see pic).  I will admit I prefer the "look" of the screen on the Rigol but I will also say this screen is huge - at least it feels like it.  There is no pixel doubling as far as I can tell.  What's interesting is the saved picture doesn't look as good as the image on the screen.  Go figure.  The screen is bright, clear and crisp.

A couple of things I wasn't thrilled with, and I knew these going in but it is a little annoying - since the knobs are not pushable I you have to default a fair amount if you get all sorts of stuff on your screen (marks, cursors, settings, measurements, etc).  I'd love to be able to "push to center" like on the Agilent. 

The fan is noticeable but pretty quiet.  Not too bad.  There don't appear to be any "warranty void" stickers so I'll open mine up this weekend and take some pictures.

Unfortunately I only have a 1Mhz func gen at home right now (damn you Rigol for not getting me my 4062!) but I'll run some tests with various signals with that.  Including marmads infamous "wfm/s" test -- after I check the trig out voltage to make sure my fluke can read it.

I should add that the default is sin x/x, but you can turn it off if you want under display options.

[Hydrawerk]

So probably there is no bug with the set/clear button. It can be used only in search mode. Couldn't those business guys at the trade fair tell me that??? https://plus.google.com/photos/106264218831814439783/albums/5857196858625060337
Anyway, this scope might be not so easy to use as my DSOX-2002A, but this GW Instek is much more feature rich. Ir has longer memory, segmented memory function and even pass/fail. On the other hand, the function generator is not free and it is only up to 3MHz.

[grego]

Yeah but to be honest I always planned on getting an external func gen anyway (Rigol 4062) to supplant my crappy 1Mhz generator.

I'm going to start digging into this thing this evening.  Gotta start making my bug/feature request list for the Instek folks.

[Hydrawerk]

The 20MHz generator in my scope is not arbitrary... But new firmware brings new functions! They recently added FM, AM and PSK modulation.  The arbitrary function may appear in two years or so. Who knows??

[grego]

Well someone followed Dave's advice *ahem* and "took it apart".  Aforementioned someone has some pictures, one below.  Wasn't a full tear-down but the skirt was lifted and some photos taken.

More coming as it gets put together.  There didn't appear to be any dodgy solder jobs, no flux I could see on the board, everything looked pretty tight actually.  At least that's what "someone" told me.

[JimmyMz]

Well someone followed Dave's advice *ahem* and "took it apart". 

I'm trying to research the ICs, and even with a photo magnification program, I'm having major issues viewing the model numbers. Would it be possible for "someone" to take some quality close-up photos, aiming for clarity? I'd really appreciate it. By the way, I grew up in LaGrange, also right outside Chicago. 

[EEVblog]

Interesting, AD Blackfin DSP just like in the Rigol.
I'd bet U1400 (the big one) is a Xilinx FPGA. Perhaps the other two heatsunk devices PLD's or smaller FPGA's.

[Hypernova]

The wavgen signals are coming from the removed cards on the PIC-E slots? Got any pics for the generator cards?

[Hydrawerk]

I am not sure if grego actually bought the signal generator plug-in module...

[grego]

The wavgen signals are coming from the removed cards on the PIC-E slots? Got any pics for the generator cards?

No - those slots are for expansion (LAN or the logic analyzer).  I think the generator is a software key upgrade.  I didn't really look into it since it's only a 3Mhz generator.

I'm trying to research the ICs, and even with a photo magnification program, I'm having major issues viewing the model numbers. Do you think you can't take some closer photos, aiming for clarity? I'd really appreciate it. FYI, I grew up in LaGrange, also right outside Chicago.

"Someone" has some more photos so I'll see about getting them up.  Shoddy camera work I know.

[grego]

There are a couple of bugs I have found.  Well one I'm not sure is a "bug" but might be a poor design decision.

BUG (and this is pretty damn minor):

- The graticule dots are on top of the image - e.g. they overlap the waveform.  Really the graticule should be the lowest layer and the waveform should overlay it.

BUG/POOR DESIGN?:

The trig out, as had been mentioned elsewhere, is pretty damn low voltage - ~180-220mVAC as far as my Fluke 289 can tell me.

[marmad]

There are a couple of bugs I have found.  Well one I'm not sure is a "bug" but might be a poor design decision.

BUG (and this is pretty damn minor):

- The graticule dots are on top of the image - e.g. they overlap the waveform.  Really the graticule should be the lowest layer and the waveform should overlay it.

BUG/POOR DESIGN?:

The trig out, as had been mentioned elsewhere, is pretty damn low voltage - ~180-220mVAC as far as my Fluke 289 can tell me.

Thanks for the continual updates, Greg. Hopefully those 'bugs' you found will be the extent of it 

[Hydrawerk]

The DDS 3MHz generator is a plug-in module according to the datasheet. But it is difficult to find any closer information. The Trig Out signal is damn low. The Taiwanese businessman at the trade fair told me not to use a multimeter! Use another scope instead. It is crazy.

[grego]

Some more pictures.

Just the back case off - power input module visible and heavy shielding.


Channel input stages:


Broad shot:


Closeup of the main DSP:

[Hydrawerk]

The scope looks nice. But the power supply seems to be somehow cheap. It has quite small heatsinks. On the other hand there is a real 230V power switch and easy replaceable glass fuse. And it seems that the whole scope is like 50% full of air...  The fan is quite small.

[grego]

In complete silence you notice the fan - it's not loud but it's a small fan so you do notice it.  With the normal noise I have around me (computer, music, etc) you don't notice it at all.  That's my general rule with fans - if I don't notice it when I have the stuff I normally have on it's all good.

The power supply seemed pretty solid to me - good components, no weird solder joints, silastic where it's needed, etc.  No clue what the MTBF is on it though.  I've checked the scope a couple of times while running and it runs quite cool - the fan is constantly on mind you but I've never noticed any hot spots but you're right - there's a lot of "space" inside the case -- which is a good thing!

[grego]

Ok - finally got my scope stuff straightened out.  I hooked the trig out to my picoscope and pulled a trace - 80k wfm/s as specified @ 500ns - and the output is actually fine voltage wise as you can see with the attached.  I think it's just too fast for my Fluke to be happy with it.

I'll run it through various time-bases and collect the data.

[grego]

Metrics of wfm/s.  Please note that this was done via my Picoscope and I'm not 100% happy with how it was reading some of the lower timebases so take it with a SLIGHT grain of salt.

All measurements taken with a 500kHz sine wave.  All results are in 1000s of wfm/s.  Scope set to short memory depth.                  
                  
Timebase     Min     Max     Avg     Notes      
10us         6.85    8.4     7.88         
5us          7.81    15.79   14.19         
2us          19.23   34.25   22.81         
1us          38.46   53.81   40.7         
500ns        35.71   83.33   77.23         
200ns        28.17   83.34   57.16         
100ns        23.15   83.34   47.08         
50ns         28.02   83.34   58.79         
20ns         18.72   48.9    27.48   Picoscope started having problems calculating here      
10ns         13.97   53.66   25.39   Picoscope started having problems calculating here      

[marmad]

Metrics of wfm/s.  Please note that this was done via my Picoscope and I'm not 100% happy with how it was reading some of the lower timebases so take it with a SLIGHT grain of salt.

Thanks, Greg, for finally (after the whole Kiriakos thing) doing this correctly    Respectable numbers across all ranges. I'm curious why 500ns is the sweet spot for the Instek - I wish I knew more about modern DSO design to comprehend what that reveals about the nitty-gritty of the circuit/firmware choices.

[grego]

Metrics of wfm/s.  Please note that this was done via my Picoscope and I'm not 100% happy with how it was reading some of the lower timebases so take it with a SLIGHT grain of salt.

Thanks, Greg, for finally (after the whole Kiriakos thing) doing this correctly    Respectable numbers across all ranges. I'm curious why 500ns is the sweet spot for the Instek - I wish I knew more about modern DSO design to comprehend what that reveals about the nitty-gritty of the circuit/firmware choices.

I'm going to redo this when I have time to sit down.  I kind of winged it and need to better optimize the pico and such but these numbers, at least down to about 50ns, I feel pretty good about.  I'll do the entire range when I re-run it.  I also will run some additional testing once my func gen decides to get here (its apparently on a slow-boat from Taiwan) and get some better pictures/video of the persistance, signal acquisition, etc.  I'm really not set up for video so trying to figure out how to stealth buy an entry level HD camera without my wife going bezerk on me.

The change from a USB scope to a bench scope is huge.  I never realized how much easier it actually is with knobs than menus.

Overall I'm very impressed so far with the Instek.  I hope that all this data helps others in the same situation I was in trying to decide which way they want to go.  The build quality and response on the Instek seems to be top-notch and the price is competitive -- it basically fits in between the Rigol 2000 and 4000 (minus the memory depth, but adds in the MSO option) in features and price which is a good place to be if you ask me.

[marmad]

I'm really not set up for video so trying to figure out how to stealth buy an entry level HD camera without my wife going bezerk on me.

  "It will be perfect for vacation!"

[Hydrawerk]

Metrics of wfm/s.  Please note that this was done via my Picoscope and I'm not 100% happy with how it was reading some of the lower timebases so take it with a SLIGHT grain of salt.

All measurements taken with a 500kHz sine wave.  All results are in 1000s of wfm/s.  Scope set to short memory depth.                  
                  
Timebase     Min     Max     Avg     Notes      
10us         6.85    8.4     7.88         
5us          7.81    15.79   14.19         
2us          19.23   34.25   22.81         
1us          38.46   53.81   40.7         
500ns        35.71   83.33   77.23         
200ns        28.17   83.34   57.16         
100ns        23.15   83.34   47.08         
50ns         28.02   83.34   58.79         
20ns         18.72   48.9    27.48   Picoscope started having problems calculating here      
10ns         13.97   53.66   25.39   Picoscope started having problems calculating here      

So you say that the Trig out frequency is unstable and changes a lot? This is strange. Trig Out should be stable. Check Marmad's  video. http://youtu.be/gAY1GQEjrfc?t=2m49s

[grego]

So you say that the Trig out frequency is unstable and changes a lot? This is strange. Trig Out should be stable. Check Marmad's  video. http://youtu.be/gAY1GQEjrfc?t=2m49s

No, trig out is perfectly stable.  See the screenshot from my picoscope a couple of posts back.  The problem was me futzing with my picoscope so it was starting to have trouble at the lower timebases.

The previous information about trig out being unstable is completely wrong - at least as far as I can see with my picoscope.  It's solid, consistent and about 1.2V.

[JimmyMz]

Those pictures  . Are you sure the lens is clean? I think maybe you might not want certain information visible, quite possibly? I don't know, but I really wanted to see which GSI chips it has hooked up to the FGPA. I read great write-ups regarding their quickness, but they have about 8 or so different classes (I don't mean MHz). I appreciate your effort, so please don't feel that I don't  . I'm considering this scope also, as I found the Rigol DS1102E to be less than I wanted. Greg have you ever had/used a Rigol oscilloscope? If not, have you ever owned/used a oscilloscope, other than the Picoscope, like in college maybe?
Why am I asking? I want to know if you have a reference for build quality, with an oscilloscope that I'm also familiar, so you could tell me just how solid the scope truly is. I thought the Rigol was pretty nice in the build department, minus the toy looking 'front-end/display panel' (not the screen, but that was an issue too). I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel. Good Will is retarded for that one! Plus that name, aghhh; I can see it now
"I bought a GoodWill scope."
Really, someone threw one out?
No, it cost me $830 dollars.
What?
Yeah, I bought it online from ....fill in the blank.
Oh! I thought you got it from the GoodWill store.
  Aghh!
Unlikely around people who know electrical measurement equipment brands, but with all others, this conversation could very likely happen. I can't say that I'd like to have it, and I know I still couldn't stop myself from talking about the new scope I just bought with other people. LOL
Anyways, what do you think about the build quality, such as: plastic density of the paneling, knob quality (would you trust me to step on it, knowing it wouldn't break?), screen quality (is the real estate squandered?), operating system usability (is it friendly?). I know it's hard to knock something you just bought, for numerous reasons, but could you be objective? Thanks grego! 

[marmad]

I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel.

IMO, from all I can tell from the specs, if you are only going for 2 channels, the Rigol DS2000 series still offers the best bang for the buck (better than the Instek GDS-2000A 2 channel or Agilent DSOX-2000). Since they all have very similar waveform update rates (you won't be able to tell the difference between 30k - 80k wfrm/s in daily use), you have to look at the other features to decide. OTOH, if you are going for 4-channels, the GDS-2000A definitely seems to be the new leader in best value for money.

[grego]

Those pictures  . Are you sure the lens is clean? I think maybe you might not want certain information visible, quite possibly? I don't know, but I really wanted to see which GSI chips it has hooked up to the FGPA. I read great write-ups regarding their quickness, but they have about 8 or so different classes (I don't mean MHz). I appreciate your effort, so please don't feel that I don't  . I'm considering this scope also, as I found the Rigol DS1102E to be less than I wanted. Greg have you ever had/used a Rigol oscilloscope? If not, have you ever owned/used a oscilloscope, other than the Picoscope, like in college maybe?
Why am I asking? I want to know if you have a reference for build quality, with an oscilloscope that I'm also familiar, so you could tell me just how solid the scope truly is. I thought the Rigol was pretty nice in the build department, minus the toy looking 'front-end/display panel' (not the screen, but that was an issue too). I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel. Good Will is retarded for that one! Plus that name, aghhh; I can see it now
"I bought a GoodWill scope."
Really, someone threw one out?
No, it cost me $830 dollars.
What?
Yeah, I bought it online from ....fill in the blank.
Oh! I thought you got it from the GoodWill store.
  Aghh!
Unlikely around people who know electrical measurement equipment brands, but with all others, this conversation could very likely happen. I can't say that I'd like to have it, and I know I still couldn't stop myself from talking about the new scope I just bought with other people. LOL
Anyways, what do you think about the build quality, such as: plastic density of the paneling, knob quality (would you trust me to step on it, knowing it wouldn't break?), screen quality (is the real estate squandered?), operating system usability (is it friendly?). I know it's hard to knock something you just bought, for numerous reasons, but could you be objective? Thanks grego!

For the GSI chips the first pic I posted has them nice and clear (and yes, my Nikon is older and needs a good cleaning I admit!).
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/msg217179/#msg217179

[grego]

I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel.

IMO, from all I can tell from the specs, if you are only going for 2 channels, the Rigol DS2000 series still offers the best bang for the buck (better than the Instek GDS-2000A 2 channel or Agilent DSOX-2000). Since they all have very similar waveform update rates (you won't be able to tell the difference between 30k - 80k wfrm/s in daily use), you have to look at the other features to decide. OTOH, if you are going for 4-channels, the GDS-2000A definitely seems to be the new leader in best value for money.

I would tend to agree with Marmad on this -- if you're only going to splurge for a 2-channel the Rigol series probably provides the best bang/buck unless you need the MSO functionality.  4 Channel I'd say unless you need the crazy memory depth and/or 4GS/s of a Rigol 4000 that the Instek is a clear winner (so far) in that category.  And if you need MSO then it's even easier.

Build quality is solid.  None of the buttons are the "gel" type - they are all firm and respond well to touches.  Knobs are the same way - a good solid feel to them.  Some have detents (vertical for example) some don't (horizontal offset) but the "feel" of the knob is the same regardless.  It's solid, feels good in the fingers and turns easily.  To be honest while I wish I had "push to center" I enjoy the fact that I don't have "push to select" since I always end up changing the option.

One thing which may just be cultural is that, to me, the variable knob (the one that selects menu options) rotates "backwards".  You go clockwise to go up, counter-clockwise to go down.  I sort of get it because the left side of the knob which is closest to the menu is going up or down but I'm used to CW means "down" and CCW means "up".  I'm going to mention it to Instek as I write everything up.  It's pretty minor, like the display bug but its one of those "Hmmmm..." things.

As for standing on it - I never thought about it.  I wouldn't be worried about the main board - that freaking shielding is thick.  The plastic frame is your normal injection-molded stuff - it could probably take a normal person's weight standing on it but it's not something I'm going to go try.

I've only used USB scopes until now so this is a whole new experience for me.  Gotta say though I'm relieved now that I've used this thing -- I was nervous being "first" as far as I could see of people on this forum and shelling out >$1700 is a decent chunk of change but so far my fears have been alleviated.  There are things I know they are adding in firmware (CAN decode), and things they are adding to their firmware roadmap (vertical vernier) and then things that I HOPE they add (hi-res mode) but overall I don't think you can argue with the bang for buck on this thing.

[marmad]

I would tend to agree with Marmad on this -- if you're only going to splurge for a 2-channel the Rigol series probably provides the best bang/buck unless you need the MSO functionality.  4 Channel I'd say unless you need the crazy memory depth and/or 4GS/s of a Rigol 4000 that the Instek is a clear winner (so far) in that category.  And if you need MSO then it's even easier.

I would add one more comment: if you're going to go with GW-Instek and spend >$1600, the choice between getting the GDS-2202A (200MHz / 2-channels / $1626) and the GDS-2104A (100MHz / 4-channels / $1694) seems a no-brainer. All of the models in each of these modern DSO series (Agilent X / Rigol UltraVision / GDS-2000A) are identical inside - so all of them can do every bandwidth in the range with simple firmware trickery. So there's always a chance that either a hack will be discovered - or, more likely, that as competition in the price range heats up, bandwidth upgrades will be sold. But adding 2 more channels is never going to be a option.

[grego]

I would add one more comment: if you're going to go with GW-Instek and spend >$1600, the choice between getting the GDS-2202A (200MHz / 2-channels / $1626) and the GDS-2104A (100MHz / 4-channels / $1694) seems a no-brainer. All of the models in each of these modern DSO series (Agilent X / Rigol UltraVision / GDS-2000A) are identical inside - so all of them can do every bandwidth in the range with simple firmware trickery. So there's always a chance that either a hack will be discovered - or, more likely, that as competition in the price range heats up, bandwidth upgrades will be sold. But adding 2 more channels is never going to be a option.

True - and with the pricing coming out of tequipment.net (I saved about 13% off list) the Instek has the edge there as well.

[Hydrawerk]

I like the big variable knob. On some scopes like Agilent or Rigol it is small. OK, but the Rigol has another large multi knob.

  There are things I know they are adding in firmware (CAN decode), and things they are adding to their firmware roadmap (vertical vernier) and then things that I HOPE they add (hi-res mode) but overall I don't think you can argue with the bang for buck on this thing.

Are you sure that you will be able to downoload a new firmware for GW Instek? It's not on their website! At Agilent it is very easy to download firmware from their website and there are even Release Notes (= changelog).

The GDS-2000A scope is nice, but I decided not to buy it because there is no GW Instek subsidiary in Europe... If you grego live in USA, you have a subsidiary there.

[grego]

According to the regional sales manager here in the US yes I will be able to download it once its available.  And I totally agree about having support. I wouldn't have bought this if there wasn't a US based sales and support team. I verified that all support for scopes here in the US is done by their local repair team in Chino, CA so it doesn't have to go out of the country.

[marmad]

I like the big variable knob. On some scopes like Agilent or Rigol it is small.

You're wrong. As I mentioned before (and in my review), the Rigol has 2x variable knobs. The giant spring-loaded navigation knob doubles as a variable-changing knob whenever you're changing any variable that has a wide range. In fact, IMO, in terms of screen and front-panel design and ergonomics, the Rigol UltraVision scopes beat either the Agilent X or GDS-2000A hands down.

[Hydrawerk]

If you look at the GDS-3000, it has no vernier (=fine vertical control). But it has hi-res mode. There seems to be no way to download firmware... http://www.gwinstek.com/en/download/downloadfilelist.aspx?id=1290
The GDS-3000 is quite expensive scope. It has never been popular among hobbyists due to high price and short memory only 25kpoints per channel.
I don't think they are going to implement vernier in GDS-2000A. But never mind, it is a good bang per buck anyway.    I don't know why there is no three-year warranty for the LCD display. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/?action=dlattach;attach=42473;image

[Hydrawerk]

Marmad Well, the GDS-2000A front panel looks somewhat oldschool and uninteresting. Like it was saying honestly: "OK, folks, I am a cheap scope and it's no secret."
On the other hand, Tektronix also uses almost no pushable knobs, do they think that pushable knobs are not reliable or what? Well, they are not very innovative at all. Although I like their Wave Inspector feature.

[grego]

If you look at the GDS-3000, it has no vernier (=fine vertical control). But it has hi-res mode. There seems to be no way to download firmware... http://www.gwinstek.com/en/download/downloadfilelist.aspx?id=1290
The GDS-3000 is quite expensive scope. It has never been popular among hobbyists due to high price and short memory only 25kpoints per channel.
I don't think they are going to implement vernier in GDS-2000A. But never mind, it is a good bang per buck anyway.    I don't know why there is no three-year warranty for the LCD display. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/?action=dlattach;attach=42473;image

Vernier has been added to the firmware roadmap - e.g. it could come in a couple months or it could take a year - but at least it's on the map.

As for downloading - you have to register your scope (which I've done) by serial number so you get notifications and links to the new firmware.  Or so I've been told.  I registered so we'll see what happens.

No scope is going to be perfect - the other threads discussing the Agilent and Rigol highlight that.  They are all idiosyncratic in one way or another - you just have to make a determination on what will fit your needs at the time you go to buy one.  Service & support are huge and you can't go wrong with Agilent in that regard.  As I mentioned I wouldn't have bought the Instek if they didn't have a US-based service and support center which gave me peace-of-mind.  Couple that with the built-in MSO, the price, the 1mV vertical resolution (real resolution), etc, etc, etc and it all worked out.  That and Instek has been around quite some time with a good reputation here in the US.

My hope in all this is to provide anyone else looking for a scope all the information they need to be able to effectively evaluate the various options out there.  In my case I could have gone with the Agilent as easily as this one but it would have cost me $100 more out the gate, then about another $1200 for the decode options I want plus memory expansion, segmented memory and the LAN.  With the Instek I will end up paying about another $750 for the MSO option but that includes all the decodes so it's ~$2500 vs ~$3000+ which was kind of a no-brainer for me.  That $500 saved is going towards some additional gear that I need.

[grego]

Marmad Well, the GDS-2000A front panel looks somewhat oldschool and uninteresting. Like it was saying honestly: "OK, folks, I am a cheap scope and it's no secret."
On the other hand, Tektronix also uses almost no pushable knobs, do they think that pushable knobs are not reliable or what? Well, they are not very innovative at all. Although I like their Wave Inspector feature.

I thought that as well initially until I realized the reason why is the Agilent only has one set of soft keys (bottom) -- which means they HAD to put more buttons on the thing to make up for it so they could get all the functions in.

[Hydrawerk]

I hope you will be happy with your GDS-2000A, I was quite impressed at the trade fair, that I almost bought it. Anyway, a good 4-channel scope should have eight automatic measurements and not just four as on Agilent DSOX-2002A. 

[grego]

Firmware update released - my scope arrived with 1.08 and I received 1.13 -- waiting for release notes from Instek now.

[Hydrawerk]

How does the Measurement summary look like? Does it update constantly? At my DSOX-2002A it doesn't.  And it is even non-transparent.

[grego]

Yes it updates constantly.  See attached (still image, I know, but trust me the numbers are updating constantly).

My func gen is in sweep mode in this example.

-Greg

[Hydrawerk]

It looks very good. 

[grego]

Revision notes for the new firmware:

V1.13
- Enhanced maximum frequency module output to 5MHz
- Enhanced free run limit for Segment
- Fixed duty cycle setting error
V1.12
- Added remote command for option
- Added GPIB & FG
- Added GDB03 Demo Mode App
- Added DVM App
- Added FG Function
- Fixed self-calibration language error
- Fixed ATL Trigger level letting error
- Fixed vertical self-calibration progress missing line
- Fixed Segment State reading error
- Fixed cursor error under Segment
- Fixed roll mode error

[grego]

Well I shot a whole little video this morning on this beastie.  Then loaded it in my computer and realized I didn't zoom in close enough to the screen so while I'm demo'ing thigns all you can really clearly see if the waveform.  D'oh!  I'll reshoot shortly.

[marmad]

Then loaded it in my computer and realized I didn't zoom in close enough to the screen so while I'm demo'ing thigns all you can really clearly see if the waveform.  D'oh!  I'll reshoot shortly.

Still to come: light problems requiring reshoots; sound problems requiring reshoots or overdubbing; etc; etc. 

[grego]

Gonna have to try it with my old Sony MiniDV camera.  My wifes compact video camera is blurry as all hell for the close up shots.

[marmad]

@Greg:

I theorized in another thread that perhaps the reason most of the new DSOs with fast update rates (Rigol UltraVision, Agilent InfiniiVision X, R&S RTO, etc) don't seem to be implementing ALT trigger mode is either to maintain their wfrm/s speeds - or perhaps as an implementation difficulty that arises from using digital triggers. Since the GDS-2000A series seems to be one of the few (or maybe the only one?) that still includes this feature, I wondered if perhaps for your video (or even just as a written post here) you could do a single test?

Set the scope to any timebase you want (maybe 500ns is good since it's the fastest) and check the waveform update rate first with 2 channels and any normal single trigger (Edge, Pulse, etc) - and then with 2 channels using the ALT trigger mode.

I'd be very curious to see if the results shed any light on this issue.

[bonanz]

i would really love to see your video.

I was this close to finally pulling the trigger on a DS2102 and then saw this thread and the Instek GDS-2104A now looks very interesting to me... i like the 4 channels...

i really like the funcgen module, but it seems to not be able to load arbs...but then i saw the news of the 2000-s which marmad was thinking it appears it may be able to load arbs...

also, i think at some point i'd want to add a logic analyzer and the instek has that capability, and then i see the rigol 2000s with unused button holes and conspiracy theories and dreams of hacking up a scope run wild in my mind...

i love the work marmad has done with his remote software...that alone is almost a selling point for the rigol... uggh... now i'm all messed up...

back on topic.  VIDEO PLEASE grego  even blurry without hollywood lighting and makeup would be fantastic as long as your voice sounds like morgan freeman as you give your impressions of the instek

[Hydrawerk]

Well, have you seen these videos? https://www.youtube.com/user/gwinstek1975/videos?view=0&flow=grid

https://www.youtube.com/user/ITTSBEurope?feature=watch
bonanz Consider buying the GW Instek if there is a subsidiary near to your home. There is no GW Instek subsidiary in Europe, for example. http://www.gwinstek.com/en/globalsite.aspx

[bonanz]

thanks for those links, i had seen some, but not all of them. I take every demo stuff by the producing company with a slight grain of salt.  I'm curious about some of the signal processing stuf like FFT amongst other user impressions

[grego]

I'm trying!  I got some video shot with my old Sony DCR-PC100 (mini-DV tapes FTW!) but it's pretty crappy.  I'm still trying to assemble something while I scamper around looking for something that can do more high definition.

@marmad I'll give that a try Sunday or Monday - I'm going to be out all day tomorrow so won't be able to poke at it.

On the flip side guys - if you are in the US the support has been FANTASTIC from Instek.  Couldn't ask for me.  I found a crash bug, notified their regional folks and they got it through to the engineers already to verify and (hopefully) patch soon.

Also, they seem to like what I'm doing -- I mentioned on my blog I was waiting for a DG4062 and they offerred to send me an AFG-3081 to check out instead!  Mind you it's not a fair comparison - the 3081 is a $2700 list AFG and the DG, even at the "high" end is $1300.  I'm not really set up to review equipment here but I might have to anyway.  I was just doing the 'scope as a community contribution more than anything.

@bonanz if you only need a 2 channel scope I can't argue with the Rigol - it's a fantastic piece of kit.  If you want 4 channels though and like the idea of the MSO option the Instek is pretty damn good.  Don't go for the func-gen though as it sucks currently.  I don't even know why they have it.  5Mhz, and only does square, sine and triangle.  It's a waste of an expansion port if you ask me.  I have the LA16 on order right now and should get it next week so I'll be able to poke around with that as well.

[marmad]

@marmad I'll give that a try Sunday or Monday - I'm going to be out all day tomorrow so won't be able to poke at it.

Thanks, Greg. Looking forward to any/all info you report about the DSO. BTW, as long as you're in communication with GW-Instek, perhaps you can push them to actually start actively distributing their products in the EU (and I'd be more than happy to review anything they might lend me). 

Mark

[Hydrawerk]

Well, it's easy to buy a GW instek product in Europe or Czech Republic... But what would the support be like? You can buy at http://www.trinstruments.cz/stolni-osciloskopy or http://eshop.micronix.cz/merici-technika/elektricke-veliciny/osciloskopy/digitalni/stolni?page=8

[Hydrawerk]

GW Instek published an user manual for the plug-in function generator module. It's quite poor. Really basic. Even the WAVEGEN in my DSOX-2002A is much more advanced. Check the attached PDF.
There is in the manual:

Note:
Even though it is possible to install two function
generator modules, only one function generator
option can be used at any one time.

There is no way to have a two-channel function generator. The two BNCs at the front panel are only for fun. You will not get signal from both of them at the same time. 

[marmad]

Well, it's easy to buy a GW instek product in Europe or Czech Republic... But what would the support be like? You can buy at http://www.trinstruments.cz/stolni-osciloskopy or http://eshop.micronix.cz/merici-technika/elektricke-veliciny/osciloskopy/digitalni/stolni?page=8

This is meaningless - of course I know you can buy Instek in Europe; you can buy almost anything anywhere in the world. For a company to actively pursue sales somewhere is something totally different.

GW Instek published an user manual for the plug-in function generator module. It's quite poor. Really basic.

Dude, seriously? You are re-posting basically the same information that an actual owner of the DSO posted 2 messages before! These threads are long enough without repeating stuff that was just posted.

Don't go for the func-gen though as it sucks currently.  I don't even know why they have it.  5Mhz, and only does square, sine and triangle.  It's a waste of an expansion port if you ask me.  I have the LA16 on order right now and should get it next week so I'll be able to poke around with that as well.

[Hydrawerk]

OK, we all know that the function generator is probably basic, but till 11th April 2013 there was no specification published. There was no closer information. Grego didn't say a word about the PDF published.

[grego]

@Greg:

I theorized in another thread that perhaps the reason most of the new DSOs with fast update rates (Rigol UltraVision, Agilent InfiniiVision X, R&S RTO, etc) don't seem to be implementing ALT trigger mode is either to maintain their wfrm/s speeds - or perhaps as an implementation difficulty that arises from using digital triggers. Since the GDS-2000A series seems to be one of the few (or maybe the only one?) that still includes this feature, I wondered if perhaps for your video (or even just as a written post here) you could do a single test?

Set the scope to any timebase you want (maybe 500ns is good since it's the fastest) and check the waveform update rate first with 2 channels and any normal single trigger (Edge, Pulse, etc) - and then with 2 channels using the ALT trigger mode.

I'd be very curious to see if the results shed any light on this issue.

So I went and tried it this evening.  With multiple channels up, single trigger, no matter what kind of trigger I was using (edge, pulse, timeout, etc) and no matter what channel I selected it was consistently at 80k wfm/s @ 500ns.  Turn on alt triggering and things started getting a little wonky.  To be honest my picoscope couldn't figure it out frequency-wise so I don't have any "numbers" to display.

So to sum up - single trigger, no matter what kind and no matter how many channels, I was getting 80k wfm/s.  ALT triggering and I don't have a good answer, but I can say that it didn't appear to be nearly as quick just based on visual reference.

[marmad]

So to sum up - single trigger, no matter what kind and no matter how many channels, I was getting 80k wfm/s.  ALT triggering and I don't have a good answer, but I can say that it didn't appear to be nearly as quick just based on visual reference.

Thanks, Greg! So, it appears that using the ALT mode probably significantly reduces the wfrm/s;  which is no problem - as long as you're aware of the tradeoff - but might deter some manufacturers of fast update rate DSOs from including it, which is a pity.

[tequipment]

2000A is new but someone off EEVblog did buy one from me if not more than 1 person.
Thanks
Evan Cirelli

TEquipment.NET

[grego]

2000A is new but someone off EEVblog did buy one from me if not more than 1 person.
Thanks
Evan Cirelli

TEquipment.NET

Yep that was me.  If you're in the US folks tequipment was great for it - got it out to me quick.  No complaints about service or pricing.  And no, I'm not a shill - it really was painless and positive.

[grego]

I got news today from InstekUSA and from the engineers back in Taiwan.  They've already fixed the crash bug I found (which is nice) and have added high-res mode to the firmware roadmap as well.  Which is cool.  Makes me happy.

[grego]

Hopefully I'll have some better video over this weekend - just ordered a new Canon HF M500 camera so it should make my life a lot easier.  Stay tuned.

[Hydrawerk]

Could you post some pictures with FFT or mask test?

[EEVblog]

Hopefully I'll have some better video over this weekend - just ordered a new Canon HF M500 camera so it should make my life a lot easier.  Stay tuned.

That's got the HD CMOS Pro image sensor, it'll give you some great shots. I have the HF M400 as my 2nd camera and it works a treat. The internal mics are good too.

[grego]

Could you post some pictures with FFT or mask test?

See attached.  Found another bug in the process.  When you exit mask limit testing the min/max boundaries stay on the screen.  You have to clear it with the default button.

[grego]

Hopefully I'll have some better video over this weekend - just ordered a new Canon HF M500 camera so it should make my life a lot easier.  Stay tuned.

That's got the HD CMOS Pro image sensor, it'll give you some great shots. I have the HF M400 as my 2nd camera and it works a treat. The internal mics are good too.

Awesome!  Looking forward to it.  It should be arriving on Friday.

[Hydrawerk]

See attached.  Found another bug in the process. 

Thanks for pictures. The bug is really small.

[grego]

Yeah but its one of those "that's annoying" things that should be easy to clean up.

[grego]

Just received the DS2-16LA module so I'll be poking at that over the next few days.  Hopefully sometime next week I'll have a video review of the unit as a whole to show.

[grego]

Ok - first video complete.  Be gently, it's my first time.

http://youtu.be/kbNKVD-ZoIY

I'll try to be a bit more organized and go point by point through some of the more interesting features the next time.

[marmad]

Ok - first video complete.  Be gently, it's my first time.

http://youtu.be/kbNKVD-ZoIY

I'll try to be a bit more organized and go point by point through some of the more interesting features the next time.

Thanks for posting, Greg - I'm sitting down with a snack to watch right now 

[marmad]

(Still watching...) One quick comment/question about the screen: do you think Instek is doing anti-aliasing during display (I mean pixels - not waveforms) but not for screen caps (i.e. better looking while running)?

[grego]

Definite possibility.  I will ask InstekUSA if they can get an engineer to confirm.

[marmad]

Ahhh... the sweet, sweet "where was that?" of early device ownership 

Nice, Greg - thanks for making and posting that. It was great to see it in action outside of the ridiculous robotic Instek engineers' videos (they really need to get these out to others for review instead of leaving it to their engineers)  I will definitely have requests for the next video (I think you already know one from my PM to you).

One question: it wasn't completely clear from the video - can you turn off interpolation completely (i.e. just sample dots)?

[grego]

Yes you can do dots or vectors.

[marmad]

Yes you can do dots or vectors.

Ahh... good to hear!

Another suggestion for the next video: (I'm really not trying to harp on this    but I really think Instek needs to be a little more clear in their promotional literature - it's kind of hidden*), is to explain in detail exactly how the Instek uses it's memory. Because with the 4-channel version, you can have 1M record lengths in AUTO/NORMAL modes by using channels from alternate banks - but it's impossible to do that with the 2-channel version, so prospective buyers should know that the 2-channel versions are basically a 1M / 500k DSO (except in single-shot mode).

Edit: * In the Features list of the User Manual it's written:
...
- All models feature a real-time sampling rate of 2GSa/s and an equivalent time sampling rate of 100GSa/s.
- Deep memory: 2M points record length.
- Waveform capture rate of 80,000 waveforms per second.
...
...which I think is a little misleading for 2-channel buyers.

[grego]

Ahhh... the sweet, sweet "where was that?" of early device ownership 

Nice, Greg - thanks for making and posting that. It was great to see it in action outside of the ridiculous robotic Instek engineers' videos (they really need to get these out to others for review instead of leaving it to their engineers)  I will definitely have requests for the next video (I think you already know one from my PM to you).

One question: it wasn't completely clear from the video - can you turn off interpolation completely (i.e. just sample dots)?

You can see the menu option on the left at 10:45 for example.

[marmad]

You can see the menu option on the left at 10:45 for example.

Doh!     Yeah, seems obvious now - I was looking elsewhere during that part and only thought of it when you mentioned sin(x)/x.

[Hydrawerk]

Thanks for the video. It has good quality.
Well, does the scope really crash when you press Measure and Display all soft button? It's strange.

[grego]

Thanks for the video. It has good quality.
Well, does the scope really crash when you press Measure and Display all soft button? It's strange.

Yep - it does - well, you hit display all and it crashes when you select your source.  Instek confirmed the bug and it's apparently already fixed in the next revision which should be available shortly.

[Hydrawerk]

When you set the Record Length to short, how long is it? Is it 8kpoints, 100kpoints per channel or what?
Anyway, the statistics feature looks great although I am not sure if i would need it as a hobbyist...

[grego]

When you set the Record Length to short, how long is it? Is it 8kpoints, 100kpoints per channel or what?
Anyway, the statistics feature looks great although I am not sure if i would need it as a hobbyist...

I mentioned it in the video - but it sets it to 1M.

[marmad]

I mentioned it in the video - but it sets it to 1M.

I would think it would be 500k or 1M, depending on the mode you're in and other channels being on, no?

[grego]

I mentioned it in the video - but it sets it to 1M.

I would think it would be 500k or 1M, depending on the mode you're in and other channels being on, no?

Yes - but the reference to 1M was the memory depth in short mode - not depth per channel/ADC.  Two separate things.

[marmad]

Hi Greg,

I'm very curious about the Instek's LA module. An in-depth demonstration of it's decode/analysis abilities would be greatly appreciated, if you have a circuit around to demo on.

[grego]

Hi Greg,

I'm very curious about the Instek's LA module. An in-depth demonstration of it's decode/analysis abilities would be greatly appreciated, if you have a circuit around to demo on.

That's in the works.  I need to get one of my eval boards set up to demo it properly.  Plus have some free time.   But I'll have that in the next week or so.

[Hydrawerk]

Grego, it seems that your Trig Out signal is 1.2 Volts peak-peak. That's low but still acceptable. What do you think about scope that was bought by Kiriakos A. Triantafillou? http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html
He wrote:

c) The Trigger-Out has an voltage range not higher than 200 mV AC, which varies significantly depending the time base of the scope and usually ranges from 120 mV to 5 mV and even less than that.

I think that some of the GDS-2000A scopes have a hardware problem. But your instrument is OK, it seems. As seen here:

[grego]

Grego, it seems that your Trig Out signal is 1.2 Volts peak-peak. That's low but still acceptable. What do you think about scope that was bought by Kiriakos A. Triantafillou? http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html
He wrote:

c) The Trigger-Out has an voltage range not higher than 200 mV AC, which varies significantly depending the time base of the scope and usually ranges from 120 mV to 5 mV and even less than that.

I think that some of the GDS-2000A scopes have a hardware problem. But your instrument is OK, it seems. As seen here:

Mine is actually higher than that as you can see in:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/msg217468/#msg217468

More like 1.5-1.6V which is fine.

I don't think it's a hardware problem - I can't say without being there but I haven't seen anything to indicate any issues.

I'm not going to generalize with "some of the GDS-2000A scopes have a hardware problem".  Especially since I appreciate what Kiriakos has done but I don't think he's measuring things 100% correctly -- I wish he had a second scope at his place to verify his data with.

[marmad]

Hey Greg - Another thing I'd love to see you measure - since Rigol / Agilent X / GW-Instek don't provide this info in their specs (as used to be common with analog scopes) - is the Trigger Out delay. This is easily accomplished by feeding the Trigger Out into one of your other channels. Here is an image I just made of the Rigol's delay (which appears to be ~220ns).

[Hydrawerk]

I'm not going to generalize with "some of the GDS-2000A scopes have a hardware problem".  Especially since I appreciate what Kiriakos has done but I don't think he's measuring things 100% correctly -- I wish he had a second scope at his place to verify his data with.

Well, it seems that Kiriakos measured the 80 kHz spikes with his multimeter. Multimeter never shows you Vpp, it shows Vrms.
But he also wrote that most multimeters cannot measure the output frequency. That's bad. My DSOX-2002A has Trig Out 5Vpp, so it can be measured by any multimeter...

[jahonen]

For me it looked like that the waveform capture is not continuous, picoscope screenshots showed long periods with no trigger out pulse at all. I think I saw this in Instek marketing video too. Perhaps this could be further checked?

Regards,
Janne

[grego]

For me it looked like that the waveform capture is not continuous, picoscope screenshots showed long periods with no trigger out pulse at all. I think I saw this in Instek marketing video too. Perhaps this could be further checked?

Regards,
Janne

Sure - but remember the 80k wfm/s is the average peak so you would expect things to be faster/slower depending on what the scope is doing.

I'll check it again but I don't want us all to get wrapped up in it.  Personally I think it's a display issue with the pico because at a lower timebase you don't see any delays.

[marmad]

Playing around, I just found out that I can make the Rigol count it's own wfrm/s rate fairly accurately by just feeding it's Trigger Out into one of it's own channels (the other channel is turned off), turning on the frequency counter for that channel, and then sending a 1MHz square wave to the External Trigger In. The displayed frequency is very close to the numbers I recorded using my Fluke for counting. Maybe this works for the Instek as well?

[marmad]

While looking at this Agilent doc about waveform update rates, I noticed that the Tek DPO3000 series listed in their tables (and also the Tek DPO2000/4000 to a lesser degree) has a very similar wfrm/s output graph to the GDS-2000A series. And by output graph, I don't mean the absolute rates (the Instek is clearly faster at many timebase settings) - I mean that both of their wfrm/s rates ramp up - and then stay high - to the 50ns/div setting (or thereabouts), and then drop way down for the final few settings. It makes me wonder if there is some design similarities in the strategies both Tek / Instek used for intensity-grading, etc, that makes the graph the way it is (as opposed to the Agilent or Rigol). I'd love to know more about particular design choices being made in this area - although I guess they're all guarding their secrets closely 

[Hydrawerk]

The GDS-2000A screen design is quite similar to Tektronix DP04000. Even both scopes have no pushable knobs...

I noticed that the Tek DPO3000 series listed in their tables (and also the Tek DPO2000/4000 to a lesser degree) has a very similar wfrm/s output graph to the GDS-2000A series. And by output graph, I don't mean the absolute rates (the Instek is clearly faster at many timebase settings) - I mean that both of their wfrm/s rates ramp up - and then stay high - to the 50ns/div setting (or thereabouts), and then drop way down for the final few settings.

Well, really? Then it means that measurements by Kiriakos are wrong. http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html
EDIT: Once he measured 154870 waveforms per second. That's strange. 

[marmad]

Well, really? Then it means that measurements by Kiriakos are wrong. http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html

Of course, it was obvious when he posted them that his equipment wasn't reading the low-level signal correctly - and that his figures for < 50ns were wrong. I tried to explain that to him but he didn't seem to understand; he seems to think he discovered something that the GW-Instek engineers overlooked   

[Hydrawerk]

It has arrived... and yes, that green tape is our friends at Homeland Security and Border Protection having opened my box when it hit the shores in Long Beach.  Go-go government bureaucracy!



(more coming later once I get home and play with it over the weekend)

Hey, my brand new DSOX-2002A was not packed in a plastic bag. Oh, why? 

[Hydrawerk]

And it seems to me that Rigol DS2000 and Agilent DSOX2000 have better shielding. Their power supplies are completely hidden in a metal box. Not at GDS-2000A.

[bonanz]

greg thanks for the video good work.

i dunno why you were so worried and apologetic about quality etc. I thought it was all fine. looking forward to follow ups.

[grego]

It's called "terror of the unknown".

I'm trying to find some time to do some follow-up work - marmad had a couple of questions he PM'd me and I know there's interest in the LA module so that'll likely be my next effort.  I just have to get one of my dev kits set up to provide some RS-232 and I2C and such so I can demonstrate it.

If I ever get off my butt I may do a teardown as well.

Ah, if only I didn't have a job and a family and had unlimited funds this would be so much easier!

Thanks for the thumbs up.

[Hydrawerk]

According to the manual the GDS-2000A has no fine vertical or horizontal setting. Just like Owon SDS series... But Rigol, Agilent and others have fine vertical and horizontal settings.
This might be not a big disadvantage.

[grego]

According to the manual the GDS-2000A has no fine vertical or horizontal setting. Just like Owon SDS series... But Rigol, Agilent and others have fine vertical and horizontal settings.
This might be not a big disadvantage.

I called this out a couple times already.  And in the video.  And I talked to Instek about it -- they have added it to their firmware roadmap.

[marmad]

@Greg:

Perhaps you can do a quick test (no need to add it to your video) if you're able to generate a 10MHz sine wave (1MHz or 5MHz would likely work fine as well)? Following in the lines of this post from another thread, you would just send the test signal to one channel, and then slow down the time base until you're at a sample rate of 100 or 200MSa/s. Then either stop the DSO and zoom into the ~50ns/div range - or enter zoom mode (as in the images) and zoom to the smaller range. Then do a screen grab and post it here. I'm guessing that the Instek will reproduce the waveforms symmetrically just as the Rigol and LeCroy do - but that the Agilent X-Series appears unable to do.

[grego]

I can give that a whirl.  Only up to a 1MHz right now but I will post the results.

[marmad]

I can give that a whirl.  Only up to a 1MHz right now but I will post the results.

Great! Also, if you noticed us measuring the Trigger Out delay over in the Rigol thread, I'd be curious to know what it is on the Instek.

BTW, in a possibly (un)related note, I noticed in the 2000A manual that the No-Go Output was optically-isolated, requiring a pull-up for proper output voltage. I wonder if the Demo 1 output used for the Trigger Out could be similarly configured, explaining the low voltage level.

[Hydrawerk]

Demo signal optically isolated? Why? It's unlikely.

[grego]

Demo signal optically isolated? Why? It's unlikely.

He was talking about the fact that Trigger Out is on the Demo 1 pin, not that it's a demo output.

[marmad]

Hey Greg,

You've had the DSO about 3 weeks now - I'm curious where things stand for you: likes, dislikes, general feelings about the UI, etc.  I don't really need more video if time is tight for you - just some scribblings and a screen cap or two would suffice 

[grego]

I haven't had as much time as I would like to fart around with it of late but overall my thoughts:

1. The scope "feels" good.  I like they layout of the controls.  One thing I kind of wish they did was provide a rubberized ring on the outside to improve the feel of the rotary knobs a little bit.

2. I wish the traces were a little bit finer - it doesn't look like there's pixel-doubling going on but for lack of a better term the "thickness" of the traces.  Not major.

3. Scope is very responsive to control changes which is great.  No delays.

4. Feature-rich for the price - I mean really, I got it for ~$1700 USD for a 200Mhz 4 channel scope with good manufacture, quality components and a company that has a solid reputation here in the US.

5. As I mentioned before the responses from Instek have been top-notch.  I just got a reply back from engineering on my latest complaint of not being able to remove the Go-NoGo min/max lines.  They outlined the 'procedure' to remove it and added they are sending it back into engineering to make it easier (because, to be honest, what they outlined was stupid).

6. I wish I could speak more about the LA but I just have NOT had time to sit down with it yet so I can't speak to it.  However, I know you can decode off the digital lines at least.

Overall, I'm really happy with the expenditure, with the caveat that I need to spend time with the LA to justify that $800 purchase.  I mean for what I need it's a scope that I will be able to use for years.  I completely understand that I 'overbought' on equipment - I didn't NEED 200Mhz, I didn't NEED the MSO function but it's all helpful and to be hones the price delta wasn't large enough for me to really worry about it.  So for a first bench scope to replace my Pico 3206-A I'm completely satisfied.

There will be more coming once I have some breathing space to sit down and cover some more features.  Between work, my kids soccer schedule and school for me I've been pretty busy.  And heck, Iron Man 3 opens this weekend too. ;-)

[marmad]

I haven't had as much time as I would like to fart around with it of late but overall my thoughts:

1. The scope "feels" good.  I like they layout of the controls.  One thing I kind of wish they did was provide a rubberized ring on the outside to improve the feel of the rotary knobs a little bit.

2. I wish the traces were a little bit finer - it doesn't look like there's pixel-doubling going on but for lack of a better term the "thickness" of the traces.  Not major.

3. Scope is very responsive to control changes which is great.  No delays.

4. Feature-rich for the price - I mean really, I got it for ~$1700 USD for a 200Mhz 4 channel scope with good manufacture, quality components and a company that has a solid reputation here in the US.

5. As I mentioned before the responses from Instek have been top-notch.  I just got a reply back from engineering on my latest complaint of not being able to remove the Go-NoGo min/max lines.  They outlined the 'procedure' to remove it and added they are sending it back into engineering to make it easier (because, to be honest, what they outlined was stupid).

6. I wish I could speak more about the LA but I just have NOT had time to sit down with it yet so I can't speak to it.  However, I know you can decode off the digital lines at least.

Overall, I'm really happy with the expenditure, with the caveat that I need to spend time with the LA to justify that $800 purchase.  I mean for what I need it's a scope that I will be able to use for years.  I completely understand that I 'overbought' on equipment - I didn't NEED 200Mhz, I didn't NEED the MSO function but it's all helpful and to be hones the price delta wasn't large enough for me to really worry about it.  So for a first bench scope to replace my Pico 3206-A I'm completely satisfied.

Thanks! That fills in some of the missing blanks - and the review of the LA I can easily wait for.    My only other ongoing desire-to-know is: with all of the posting about interpolation / type of interpolation / affect on sampling, etc. that a number of us have been doing these last weeks, I'd like to know what a waveform looks like on the Instek when undersampled. The Rigol switches to linear interpolation - which, although a little boxy, is symmetrical - and the Agilent just makes a total mess of it (I don't even know what it's doing - but it's screwing up the samples somehow). Is the Instek still using sin(x)/x at slower sampling speeds? If so, how does it look? The test I mentioned before (with a reasonably fast sine wave) would satisfy my curiosity - whatdayasay? Huh? Puh-leeeeze? (I'm banking on your reveal of fatherhood) 

There will be more coming once I have some breathing space to sit down and cover some more features.  Between work, my kids soccer schedule and school for me I've been pretty busy.  And heck, Iron Man 3 opens this weekend too. ;-)

He's kind of like a walking, talking MSO 

[Hydrawerk]

Try how is the waveform update rate affected by turning on more channels, eight auto measurements, FFT or cursors. On my DSOX2002A it is not affected at all by anything. On the other hand, you have only 4 auto measurements + DVM, it's not much for a four channel scope.  Well, my scope is 2 channel, but it could be 4 channel.

[marmad]

Try how is the waveform update rate affected by turning on more channels, eight auto measurements, FFT or cursors. On my DSOX2002A it is not affected at all by anything. On the other hand, you have only 4 auto measurements + DVM, it's not much for a four channel scope.  Well, my scope is 2 channel, but it could be 4 channel.

You seem to think waveform update rate is the most important thing, but it's not - it's not even in the top three most important. As long as I have a reasonably fast update rate with a certain sample length at a couple of time base settings, that's enough - because if I want to specifically look for jitter, anomalies, etc. I will use those settings.  But it appears that the Agilent X-Series is trading waveform fidelity at slower sampling speeds (which, IMO, is much more important) for more uniform waveform update rates  - and that is much worse than just having slower rates caused by using more functions.

[Hydrawerk]

Oh, not really, if you work mainly with digital signals, you may rather need long 56Mpoints memory and you don't care about waveform update rate because you use Single shot most often.

[grego]

Thanks! That fills in some of the missing blanks - and the review of the LA I can easily wait for.    My only other ongoing desire-to-know is: with all of the posting about interpolation / type of interpolation / affect on sampling, etc. that a number of us have been doing these last weeks, I'd like to know what a waveform looks like on the Instek when undersampled. The Rigol switches to linear interpolation - which, although a little boxy, is symmetrical - and the Agilent just makes a total mess of it (I don't even know what it's doing - but it's screwing up the samples somehow). Is the Instek still using sin(x)/x at slower sampling speeds? If so, how does it look? The test I mentioned before (with a reasonably fast sine wave) would satisfy my curiosity - whatdayasay? Huh? Puh-leeeeze? (I'm banking on your reveal of fatherhood) 

Here you go - 1Mhz sine, dropped down to 10ms which gave me a 10MSPS rate, single-shot, zoomed in to 200ns.  Looks like it's keeping sin(x)/x to me.

[marmad]

Here you go - 1Mhz sine, dropped down to 10ms which gave me a 10MSPS rate, single-shot, zoomed in to 200ns.  Looks like it's keeping sin(x)/x to me.

Great, thanks very much for that! Yes, it's definitely sin(x)/x - and it looks good too.    I'm only wondering how you know your sample rate; I don't see it on the Instek's display.

[grego]

Here you go - 1Mhz sine, dropped down to 10ms which gave me a 10MSPS rate, single-shot, zoomed in to 200ns.  Looks like it's keeping sin(x)/x to me.

Great, thanks very much for that! Yes, it's definitely sin(x)/x - and it looks good too.    I'm only wondering how you know your sample rate; I don't see it on the Instek's display.

It's under the Acquire menu (which I didn't leave up in this since it was single shot).  Basically, bring up the Acquire menu and one of the buttons shows the sample rate.  I upped the timebase until it read 10MSPS and then single shot it.

[marmad]

It's under the Acquire menu (which I didn't leave up in this since it was single shot).  Basically, bring up the Acquire menu and one of the buttons shows the sample rate.  I upped the timebase until it read 10MSPS and then single shot it.

Nice... any chance you can do the exact same thing one more time in 'dots' mode (no interpolation)? I know, I know, I'm keeping you from your kid's soccer - or Iron Man 3 - but it won't take too much more time 

[marmad]

Oh, not really, if you work mainly with digital signals, you may rather need long 56Mpoints memory and you don't care about waveform update rate because you use Single shot most often.

Huh? Why would you necessarily need single shot mode more for digital signals? And I don't think there's a serious EE in this forum who thinks the waveform update rate is the most important specification of a DSO.

[Hypernova]

I 'overbought' on equipment

Heh, what does that make me, a guy that spent 4 months salary on my MSOX3014? I'm quite possibly the only private person in the whole of Taiwan to do such a thing. Good thing my parents live in New Zealand so all they could do when I told them was yell at me over Skype.

A few thing that you can check if you got the time:
Can you try the responsiveness of the scope when you have every feature turned on? The Tek scope I used before at work grind to a halt if you turn on max memory, FFT, measurements and digital all at once. We are talking screen update time in the order of seconds. It's one of the reason I bought Agilent, I just don't want to stroke a turtle for work any longer.

Does the digital channels also work in Roll display mode, Tek scopes don't which is retarded. And if they do how far does the bus decode display lag behind the channel signals, on my Agilent the decoded signals be it I2C or parallel bus the display falls behind like they are runners on a track but will "catch up" smoothly if I press stop.

FFT resolution, the Lecroy's at work here only get down to 200Hz even if you dial the sample time up, with Agilent I can get down to to sub Hz. if I sample long enough.

[Hydrawerk]

  You can never go wrong with Agilent.

[Wuerstchenhund]

You can never go wrong with Agilent.

Oh, believe me, you can. BTST.

[grego]

It's under the Acquire menu (which I didn't leave up in this since it was single shot).  Basically, bring up the Acquire menu and one of the buttons shows the sample rate.  I upped the timebase until it read 10MSPS and then single shot it.

Nice... any chance you can do the exact same thing one more time in 'dots' mode (no interpolation)? I know, I know, I'm keeping you from your kid's soccer - or Iron Man 3 - but it won't take too much more time 

Attached.  Interestingly at the lower timebase it looks like its connecting the dots -- I included two so you can clearly see it's in dots rather than vectors.

[Hydrawerk]

Wuerstchenhund
Oh, I know. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/agilent-u1272a-crappy-soldering/
Or do you have another bad experience?

[marmad]

Attached.  Interestingly at the lower timebase it looks like its connecting the dots -- I included two so you can clearly see it's in dots rather than vectors.

Thanks for taking the time, Greg. Though I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding whats happening: are you saying it's displaying the dots until you go below a certain time base setting - and then all of a sudden the interpolation comes back on again? If so, that sounds like it might be a bug - there would be no logical reason for having the firmware override your settings.

[grego]

Attached.  Interestingly at the lower timebase it looks like its connecting the dots -- I included two so you can clearly see it's in dots rather than vectors.

Thanks for taking the time, Greg. Though I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding whats happening: are you saying it's displaying the dots until you go below a certain time base setting - and then all of a sudden the interpolation comes back on again? If so, that sounds like it might be a bug - there would be no logical reason for having the firmware override your settings.

That's what I'm saying - those two pictures above were the exact same capture, the only difference is the time base setting I zoomed in to.  I can't think of anything else that's happening there since it's a continuous line in the 200ns image.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Or do you have another bad experience?

Yes, unfortunately with gear that's a bit more expensive. As mentioned in another thread, we had quite a lot of problems with our Agilent Infiniium scopes (54800A Series, the first gen running Win95/98, and also with some 86100As which suddenly stopped recognizing plugin modules). 'My' not that old DSO9404A at work has already had two repairs, luckily enough covered by warranty but still not great.

Of course these could have been all just Monday morning lemons but it's still not great. At the end of the day, just because product made by a manufacturer are great doesn't mean another product from the same manufacturer is, too. Generally Agilent makes really good and reliable kit, but like other manufacturers they have their fair share of problems, too.

Therefore I think saying you can't go wrong with Agilent is a bit naïve.

[marmad]

That's what I'm saying - those two pictures above were the exact same capture, the only difference is the time base setting I zoomed in to.  I can't think of anything else that's happening there since it's a continuous line in the 200ns image.

Strange - I'd pass that along to the GW-Instek folks you've been in contact with. As I said, it seems like a bug since the main point of turning off interpolation is usually to zoom in and examine the actual sample points.

Of course, you could test the parameters easy enough (you don't even need a signal - zero volts input works just the same) by just stopping and zooming into various time/div settings. Maybe there is a particular factor that invokes it.

[grego]

I passed the dot/vector thing along to Instek yesterday.  In the meantime (this morning) I was notified of a new firmware release (fast and furious from these guys):

The V1.14 update history includes
 
-          Enhance EXT Channel Trigger Stability
-          Fixed „Measure display all" issue
-          Fixed Horizontal Line display error
-          Fixed Search issue
-          Fixed bus decode issue
-          Fixed FG setting issue on default

[Electro Fan]

It's called "terror of the unknown".

I'm trying to find some time to do some follow-up work - marmad had a couple of questions he PM'd me and I know there's interest in the LA module so that'll likely be my next effort.  I just have to get one of my dev kits set up to provide some RS-232 and I2C and such so I can demonstrate it.

If I ever get off my butt I may do a teardown as well.

Ah, if only I didn't have a job and a family and had unlimited funds this would be so much easier!

Thanks for the thumbs up.

Hi grego,

Just a nudge to say whenever you get a chance to do a review of the LA functionality (especially for I2C and maybe SPI?) it would be great to get your impressions!  Thanks!

[grego]

Yeah I know - I've been planning on getting to it for a week or so now just haven't had time.  Darn kids and their soccer tournaments.  And Mother's Day!  Like they need a day for themselves.  Sheesh!

[EEVblog]

FYI
Goodwill are sending me a GDS-2000A direct for teardown.

[grego]

FYI
Goodwill are sending me a GDS-2000A direct for teardown.

Hooray!  I knew if I kept pestering them they'd get around to it sooner or later!

[Hydrawerk]

FYI
Goodwill are sending me a GDS-2000A direct for teardown.

That's great... I am looking forward to a comparison with DSOX2000 or Rigol DS2000.

[Yaksaredabomb]

Marmad pointed me to your video [grego] and I have to echo everyone else in saying nice work for a first video!  It was a very helpful first introduction to the scope for me, and I'll be eagerly waiting with the others to learn more in your future videos (when life allows)!

[edit - somehow forgot to mention who I was writing to!]

[Hydrawerk]

Dave or grego, could you please make a comparison table of GDS-2000A like this?
Kiriakos already made a table, but the results look strange. http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html

Regarding the Table No 2 and those 140,000 wfms/s in those low Time base settings, my measurements are all correct, and totally repeatable.

Those readings it can possibly cause some confusion when it comes to direct comparisons, mostly because this increase of wfms/s is totally undocumented in the specifications of the GDS-2102A. 

? ? ? ?

[Hydrawerk]

Thanks for the video, grego.

Well, I like the permanent clock on the screen. It has even seconds.

[Hydrawerk]

Another video made by GW Instek guys.

[Teneyes]

Another video made by GW Instek guys.

   I think the Instek Demo Guy is incorrect in commenting at the end of the demo about the Overshoot and Under-Shoot, which I think are just Sin(x)/x interpolation effect like the one shown below.

[marmad]

   I think the Instek Demo Guy is incorrect in commenting at the end about the overshoot and Under-Shoot, which I think are just Sin(x)/x interpolation effect like the one shown below.

But he does highlight a problem with the Brand X-2000: on the DS2000, you can go all the way down to 2ms/div without the sample rate dropping below 2GSa/a - and I think on the Instek you can go down to 50us/div.

[mike1305]

FYI
Goodwill are sending me a GDS-2000A direct for teardown.

Any news on this front, Dave?

[Hydrawerk]

I finally watched the video.  Well, that's no new information that GDS-2000A has longer memory. But you can buy a memory upgrade for DSOX2002A (or someone should hack it). GDS-2000A doesn't have longest memory in its class, it's rather Rigol DS2000 (unless you need 4-channel scope.) GW Instek guys should buy a better camera IMHO. I wonder what's the waveform update rate of GDS-2000A at timebase 10ns... Probably about 500 waveforms per second or so??
Why does the GW Instek guy talk about brand X oscilloscope? The video looks amateurish anyway...

[EEVblog]

Any news on this front, Dave?

It is sitting right next to me.
Might do a rough  unboxing and "first impressions" video today.

[Hydrawerk]

I am looking forward to it!

[marmad]

I finally watched the video. 

You posted it here but didn't watch it?

Well, that's no new information that GDS-2000A has longer memory.

New for who? I doubt the video was made for EEVBlog members. 

But you can buy a memory upgrade for DSOX2002A.

But obviously he is making a comparison of base models - not options you need to spend extra money on.

[Electro Fan]

Hi Greg,

Just a couple more requests for when you get to testing/reviewing/reporting on the Instek LA capabilities

1. Here is a question/comment from an earlier poster:
"Does the digital channels also work in Roll display mode, Tek scopes don't. And if they do how far does the bus decode display lag behind the channel signals, on my Agilent the decoded signals be it I2C or parallel bus the display falls behind like they are runners on a track but will "catch up" smoothly if I press stop."
- Please let us know how the Instek fares along these lines.  Thx

2. Here is a link to a youtube video. 


It happens to show an Arduino clone but more interesting toward the middle end of the video it shows an admittedly very expensive Tek MDO (mixed domain) scope in operation that has some pretty nice LA / analog (RF) signal integration including decoders.  I realize the Instek doesn't do RF signals (although those could be a proxy for other wired analog signals) but any chance you might take a peek at this and share and thoughts regarding how the Instek's capabilities might compare and contrast?

Mostly interested in how well the analog and digital signals on the Instek stay synchronized and if the decodeers work as nice as the RS232 decoder showed in the video.

Thanks!
 

[EEVblog]

I shot a video playing with the GDS2000A series for the first time. I must say I was rather disappointed and underwhelmed.

[marmad]

I shot a video playing with the GDS2000A series for the first time. I must say I was rather disappointed and underwhelmed.

Have you posted the video, Dave?

[EEVblog]

Have you posted the video, Dave?

Rendering now. It's 1:10 long!
Will take all day to upload and process.

[EEVblog]

For these ridiculously long videos I'm very temped to trancode to 1280x720 instead of full 1920x1080, just to get the upload time down to a reasonable figure.

[Hydrawerk]

I must say I was rather disappointed and underwhelmed.

Did you miss the pushable knobs? I don't know why GW Instek doesn't use them. Are they expensive or what?
Anyway, I think that the GDS-2000A is quite feature rich scope but not so easy to use. I like the color gradation feature but what is it good for?

[marmad]

Rendering now. It's 1:10 long!
Will take all day to upload and process.

Thanks. Looking forward to your thoughts.

For these ridiculously long videos I'm very temped to trancode to 1280x720 instead of full 1920x1080, just to get the upload time down to a reasonable figure.

Would you lose too much detail?

[marmad]

I like the color gradation feature but what is it good for?

It's just an alternative way (as opposed to a single color gradient) to display the frequency of occurrence of signals at particular X-Y locations; I do the same thing in the Rigol software I wrote for segments.

It's a shame more manufacturers don't add it as a feature; it's super easy to do in code and wouldn't add much overhead (you just use a color lookup table between the gradient values and the display), because it's sometimes a more informative way to observe frequency.

[digsys]

I shot a video playing with the GDS2000A series for the first time. I must say I was rather disappointed and underwhelmed.

OH NO. That doesn't sound like a good start - thanks for the pre-notification. I'm quite interested in the DSO, x-ing fingers.

[EEVblog]

Did you miss the pushable knobs? I don't know why GW Instek doesn't use them. Are they expensive or what?

Yes, I ranted excessively about that.

Anyway, I think that the GDS-2000A is quite feature rich scope but not so easy to use. I like the color gradation feature but what is it good for?

I thought it was a complete gimmick. Probably not completely useless, but far from the nice analog-like intensity graded display I was expecting of this "VPO" technology.
When you turn off the colour grading, it reverts back to just one intensity old-school cheapo DSO mode (a.la Rigol 1052E)
I compared it to the Rigol DS2000 and there is simply no contest.
It also lacked a dedicated intensity knob.
So those things added up kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

[Yaksaredabomb]

I shot a video playing with the GDS2000A series for the first time. I must say I was rather disappointed and underwhelmed.

Thanks Dave!  Been looking forward to it and am very excited to watch it!

[EEVblog]

I shot a video playing with the GDS2000A series for the first time. I must say I was rather disappointed and underwhelmed.

OH NO. That doesn't sound like a good start - thanks for the pre-notification. I'm quite interested in the DSO, x-ing fingers.

Well, to be fair, I was probably ab it overly harsh on it, and really I made quite a few mistakes and wrong assumptions at first.
It's probably a better scope than my ranting will make out.
But bottom line is it doesn't seem to have the same spit'n'polish like the Rigol and Agilent does.
I need more time to learn to drive it properly.

Also, the function gen is very basic. just sine/square/triangle to 5MHz and no modulation or AWG
Also the dual channel is a bit of a con. You need to buy two separate modules to get both channels. Thus using up all your slots. So no room left for the logic analyser or LAN modules. BUt grant, you can just swap them as needed.

[EEVblog]

Also, it's quite big, the fan is a bit loud, and they need a better industrial product designer. IMO it looks a bit cheap and toy like.
The problem is that I had fairly high expectations for this, and on first use it didn't shape up.

[Electro Fan]

I shot a video playing with the GDS2000A series for the first time. I must say I was rather disappointed and underwhelmed.

OH NO. That doesn't sound like a good start - thanks for the pre-notification. I'm quite interested in the DSO, x-ing fingers.

Well, to be fair, I was probably ab it overly harsh on it, and really I made quite a few mistakes and wrong assumptions at first.
It's probably a better scope than my ranting will make out.
But bottom line is it doesn't seem to have the same spit'n'polish like the Rigol and Agilent does.
I need more time to learn to drive it properly.

Also, the function gen is very basic. just sine/square/triangle to 5MHz and no modulation or AWG
Also the dual channel is a bit of a con. You need to buy two separate modules to get both channels. Thus using up all your slots. So no room left for the logic analyser or LAN modules. BUt grant, you can just swap them as needed.

Dave, we're just glad you make the videos - between the product info, the EE insights, and the entertainment they are excellent!

It's hard for us potential users to judge new products from a distance but based on the initial attention the Insteks have been getting alongside the Rigols and Agilents it's not to surprising to hear that the spit n polish aren't quite as strong on the Insteks as the Agilents.  Agilent sets the bar very high in a lot of areas and definitely in spit n shine, and Rigol is doing an increasingly fine job themselves.  My guess is the Instek is a bit more utilitarian, but a very good utilitarian.

As for the function generator, while everyone would like one and should have one, it just doesn't seem like the built in units are all that strong relative to what can be purchased on a standalone basis - and this seems to go doubly so for the Instek.  It just doesn't look like their best accessory.  For not a whole lot more Rigol (and maybe others) provide some great standalone units.  And then you can free up the slots for something truly useful - like the Logic Analyzer (and/or the LAN/SVGA).

When you look at the big picture of the Instek 2000A series (bandwidth and analog channels, GSa/s and waveforms per second, the LA (assuming it's a good one - hope it's in your review ), the measurements/navigation/search, etc. and especially the price it's hard to see who has a better value in terms of price/performance and features if you want a MSO (combined analog and LA).

Thanks in advance for what will be a fine and fun video no doubt!

[digsys]

One possible "negative" outcome - IF* the Instek doesn't end up with a favourable review AND IF Rigol places any weight on
Daves' opinion would be that Rigol wouldn't bother discounting to match the new "beter value / featured" contender.
Especially in the 4ch / 200MHz plus arena. Fingers still X-ed

[EEVblog]

Thanks in advance for what will be a fine and fun video no doubt!

Sorry, but it's not a "fine" video, nor a review. It's me playing randomly with the thing for an hour after opening the box.
I'll wait for inevitable complaints...

[Electro Fan]

they need a better industrial product designer.

I think you nailed it - they should hire someone who does the knobs and buttons and maybe the rest of the cosmetic packaging for Lexus, or Agilent  - but I'm still betting that if the LA is good that the 2000A product series will succeed despite the less than Apple quality packaging.

[EEVblog]

I think you nailed it - they should hire someone who does the knobs and buttons and maybe the rest of the cosmetic packaging for Lexus, or Agilent  - but I'm still betting that if the LA is good that the 2000A product series will succeed despite the less than Apple quality packaging.

The LA at least has full threshold voltage settings on every channel, so in that respect it's a "real" logic analyser. I have not tried it any further with actual data yet.

[Electro Fan]

Thanks in advance for what will be a fine and fun video no doubt!

Sorry, but it's not a "fine" video, nor a review. It's me playing randomly with the thing for an hour after opening the box.
I'll wait for inevitable complaints...

- It's you doing what you do - it will have valuable and timely info and it will be fun to watch.  Being a strong Electrical Engineer and an Entrepreneur and Steven Spielberg isn't something everyone can do.  Come to think of it, it's been a while since we've seen Steven Spielberg make a film, with himself as the only actor, presenting, operating, explaining, and critiquing fairly complex analog and digital test equipment - while entertaining people with his charm and candor.  Keep up the Good Work!!

[Yaksaredabomb]

Sorry, but it's not a "fine" video, nor a review. It's me playing randomly with the thing for an hour after opening the box.
I'll wait for inevitable complaints...

No problem, Dave.  I am excited to see a review on it, of course - not to mention a tear down! - and I'm sure lots of other people are anxious to see one too.  Even just seeing you get some hands on time will be great though, and a big help for everyone curious about this new scope!  Some may complain without cause, but you're doing us quite a service and we should all be grateful for it - so hope you can shrug them off and not be bothered.
 
I fall victim to the decision paralysis it seems a few people around here get, and have been going back and forth on a scope.  I'm getting frustrated with my indecision though so I think I may just spring for a cheap 2-channel scope soon.  Then I'll be able to wait a while till whenever you get time to do a proper review of the Instek - whether next week or next month.  Although by that time maybe someone else will release a new model and throw everything off again lol.

[marmad]

Well, to be fair, I was probably ab it overly harsh on it, and really I made quite a few mistakes and wrong assumptions at first.
It's probably a better scope than my ranting will make out.
But bottom line is it doesn't seem to have the same spit'n'polish like the Rigol and Agilent does.
I need more time to learn to drive it properly.

Hey - that's the off-the-cuff Dave Jone's style we've come to expect - and I wouldn't want anything different. Wrong assumptions might be in there, but so are honest initial reactions - which are harder to capture. You can always make a follow-up comparison video or something if your opinions change.

[marmad]

Also, it's quite big, the fan is a bit loud, and they need a better industrial product designer. IMO it looks a bit cheap and toy like.
The problem is that I had fairly high expectations for this, and on first use it didn't shape up.

Yes, one of my hesitations - if I was in the market - would be the industrial and GUI design; both the Rigol and Agilent series 'look' modern and sexy - it does not.

[Hydrawerk]

Also, the function gen is very basic. just sine/square/triangle to 5MHz and no modulation or AWG
Also the dual channel is a bit of a con. You need to buy two separate modules to get both channels. Thus using up all your slots. So no room left for the logic analyser or LAN modules. BUt grant, you can just swap them as needed.

I think that you will never get a real two channel signal generator.

Thank you for the video!

[grego]

Dave, what firmware version is that scope on?

[marmad]

Dave, what firmware version is that scope on?

He mentions it in the video - I think he said 1.14

[mikeselectricstuff]

I think you nailed it - they should hire someone who does the knobs and buttons and maybe the rest of the cosmetic packaging for Lexus, or Agilent  - but I'm still betting that if the LA is good that the 2000A product series will succeed despite the less than Apple quality packaging.

The LA at least has full threshold voltage settings on every channel, so in that respect it's a "real" logic analyser. I have not tried it any further with actual data yet.

I don't think individual thresholds per channel is very useful, and if there is no way to set them all globally, it would be a total PITA to have to set them individually.

[Spike101]

I think that you will never get a real two channel signal generator.

I don't understand it. Why does it have two function gen outputs to begin with, if you can only enable one at a time?

[mikeselectricstuff]

RS232 rather than LAN is just ridiculous these days. 
Trigger in on front panel is useful on a 2-channel scope, less so with 4 channels.
The module thing is also rather dumb as it limits how many options can be used together - especially silly for those that already have dedicated connectors.
Would be very interested to see what's in those boxes.

   

[Hydrawerk]

Remember that GW instek is focused on Asia market - maybe they still use RS-232 there.

[SeanB]

I would guess a PCI interface chip and a basic DDS chip attached to a PGA stage, along with a switch set to select either the digital sine wave, the digital triangle or a simple square wave output. Quite a bit of overshoot on the square wave output there. Basic function gen, nice to have it integrated with a decent display and better UI though.

LA would be the FIFO, the 2 port RAM and the digital interfacing, the logic conversion being done on the pod, and the decoding being done by the main processor.

[roli_bark]

I think that you will never get a real two channel signal generator.

I don't understand it. Why does it have two function gen outputs to begin with, if you can only enable one at a time?

I'm not sure that is the case with Dave's review.
What can seen is basically 2 extension slots that can populate either: 2 Gens,or 1 Gen + 1 LAN, or 1Gen + LA, or 1 LA + 1 LAN, ...etc

2 Gens, because otherwise it would have had only 1 BNC for 1 Gen .

[Spike101]

I'm not sure that is the case with Dave's review.
What can seen is basically 2 extension slots that can populate either: 2 Gens,or 1 Gen + 1 LAN, or 1Gen + LA, or 1 LA + 1 LAN, ...etc

2 Gens, because otherwise it would have had only 1 BNC for 1 Gen .

Yeah, but look at the manual, that Hydrawerk posted. It says:

Note:
Even though it is possible to install two function
generator modules, only one function generator
option can be used at any one time.

??

[Hydrawerk]

Yes, one of my hesitations - if I was in the market - would be the industrial and GUI design; both the Rigol and Agilent series 'look' modern and sexy - it does not.

GDS-2000A's screen looks like Tektronix...  I am not familiar with those expensive Teks. The intensity gradation is really crap.
Dave, could you please test the Trigger output and maybe make a comparison table?

[Skimask]

Thanks in advance for what will be a fine and fun video no doubt!

Sorry, but it's not a "fine" video, nor a review. It's me playing randomly with the thing for an hour after opening the box.
I'll wait for inevitable complaints...

I'm reminded of that scene in Star Trek IV...where Spock has to make a guess, McCoy makes a comment, and Kirk has to explain to Spock that "he feels better about your guesses than most people's facts".
E.g.  I'd rather watch Dave twiddle knobs for an hour and get practically nothing accomplished vs. watching some marketing clown explain an item's operation.

[Hydrawerk]

And Dave, what do you think about the fact that this scope has no fine horizontal or vertical control? It's strange. Most scopes do have fine settings (at Rigol and Agilent you only must push the knob). Well, only Owon doesn't have fine settings, as far as i know.

[Yaksaredabomb]

Thanks for the first impressions Dave!  Noticed this just now in the Youtube comments and looking forward to it!

Matt Cysiewski 11 hours ago
going to do a? teardown?

EEVblog 3 hours ago
Of course. Likely tomorrow.?

[grego]

And Dave, what do you think about the fact that this scope has no fine horizontal or vertical control? It's strange. Most scopes do have fine settings (at Rigol and Agilent you only must push the knob). Well, only Owon doesn't have fine settings, as far as i know.

Again in Insteks defense this feature is on the firmware roadmap.  It's goofy for now but it will be added.  And thankfully Instek seems to be rather aggressive with their firmware update schedule.

Remember thus scope has only been on the market a couple of months.  That's not an excuse but we do need to take care about comparing it to more mature products.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, I am not sure. The expensive GDS-3000 from 2011 has no fine controls till today.
EDIT: http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1290

[tinhead]

Well, I am not sure. The expensive GDS-3000 from 2011 has no fine controls till today.

that was 2yrs ago, the market was complettly different at that time.

[Hydrawerk]

Are you familiar with the GDS-3000 scope? Was there a better implemented digital phospor technology (aka intensity grading)?

[tinhead]

Was there a better implemented digital phospor technology (aka intensity grading)?

what do you mean with better? There is nothing wrong on GDS-2000A, use color grading and you a winner.

[marmad]

what do you mean with better? There is nothing wrong on GDS-2000A, use color grading and you a winner.

Sorry, tinhead, but even though I personally like color grading and would appreciate having it for certain kinds of signals - it's neither as intuitive as intensity grading (which is closer to the way we perceive things) nor as similar to analog oscilloscopes (which many people are used to).

But even more importantly, Dave's video raises the issue of how well GW-Instek is implementing their VPO technology - given their claimed wfrm/s rates. And poor implementation of VPO would affect both intensity AND color grading.

[grego]

Lets not read too much into it yet. Let Dave do his tear down and full review.

[tinhead]

i don't see any problem with color grading implementation, all you need is to set base color (and maybe have way to invert them,
e.g. from blue to red spectrum). This seems to work on GDS-2000A good. The benefit of color grading  you need only these
256 colors and not waveform intensity crap (yes, on analog scope there is no color, but hey, wh cares? my TV is color since
40yrs already ...)

Where is maybe (Dave or grego need to test it) something worng is how fast the intensity is
changing when turning the knob, all i saw was Dave turning wild knob to right, to left and back and beeing complained
about the waveform colors 

However, for a fraction of second you can see good picture (like in the middle picture of the link below), even with single color.

Check here http://www.gwinstek.com/vpo/
on the bottom the intensity pictures, on Daves video i saw only max or min^^

So when this is an error, then only in way how fast the intensity is changing (and i can clearly see that on Rigol you need to
turn the knob for an hour ^^ to get from min to max).

Lets not read too much into it yet. Let Dave do his tear down and full review.

right, it was first touch only.

[marmad]

Lets not read too much into it yet. Let Dave do his tear down and full review.

A) I'm not saying it's impossible that Dave's settings were off - and better results might be gotten - but honestly, Greg, the intensity grading in the video you posted doesn't look very good to me (and that was at a time base that the Instek supposedly does ~13,000 wfrm/s).  You could help sort this out by posting an image from the Instek which is similar to this one I just captured from my Rigol:



B) I doubt whether Dave will ever do a full review - he never went back and did one of the Rigol DS2000 (which is a DSO he likes quite a lot). He did a 1'12" impressions video - so I would suspect we will see a teardown and little else (although I could be wrong).

[marmad]

i don't see any problem with color grading implementation,

Color grading uses a lookup table from the intensity values - if the intensity values are coarse, the color grading will be as well..

...and i can clearly see that on Rigol you need to turn the knob for an hour ^^ to get from min to max).

Again, you're spouting nonsense about the Rigol which is untrue. There is rarely a time when you have to turn a knob very long on the Rigol - it uses TWO knobs (slow/fast) for any variable that has a wide range - plus it has software acceleration implemented on it's encoders - which the Instek seems to be lacking.

[Hydrawerk]

There is some DPO... But yes, these were quite slow-changing signals
But the AM modulation in Dave's video looks definitely crap.
EDIT: See the Agilent screenshots. This is how AM should look like.
Not like this: http://youtu.be/cRe9b7iV6Kc?t=42m53s

[tinhead]

i don't see any problem with color grading implementation,

Color grading uses a lookup table from the intensity values - if the intensity values are coarse, the color grading will be as well..

ehm you don't know how it is implemented on GDS in detail, me either. All i can see is that it works as it should when
set to color grading.

...and i can clearly see that on Rigol you need to turn the knob for an hour ^^ to get from min to max).

Again, you're spouting nonsense about the Rigol which is untrue. There is rarely a time when you have to turn a knob very long on the Rigol - it uses TWO knobs (slow/fast) for any variable that has a wide range - plus it has software acceleration implemented on it's encoders - which the Instek seems to be lacking.

well, i can clearly see on video, Dave turning for seconds knob from min to 3/4 (video 43:02 to 43:35) and then
from min to max on GDS in shorter time (at 48:50). I don't give a shit if there is acceleration or 20 knobs and 6 buttons
for super fine intensity on Rigol - all i need to see is there on video - meaning how long it takes and what he is doing.

For sure the grading looks better (no, i don't like it, not on Rigol nor Agilent, but it looks better as on GDS with single color,
it is somehow analog-blur kind of. However, i prefer anyway the color grading, so what.

[Hydrawerk]

B) I doubt whether Dave will ever do a full review - he never went back and did one of the Rigol DS2000

Maybe because you did before him? Why not.

[marmad]

ehm you don't know how it is implemented on GDS in detail, me either. All i can see is that it works as it should when
set to color grading.

I know how any sane programmer would code it - but no, I don't know if they did it a different way than that - but possibly they did, given some of the stupid things they've done in the firmware. And if by, 'it works as it should' you mean it displays colors - yes, you're right, it does  - but in the video it looks coarsely done to me - as does the intensity grading. Again, it might just be that Dave has things set incorrectly - I don't know - but it would be nice to see it demonstrated more.

I don't give a shit if there is acceleration or 20 knobs and 6 buttons for super fine intensity on Rigol - all i need to see is there on video - meaning how long it takes and what he is doing.

I guess you don't have to give a shit because you're full of it. Dave is clearly PLAYING with the intensity setting on the Rigol during those 33 seconds of video - turning it up and down, taking his hand from the knob, then turning it up and down again, etc. - to demonstrate the grading for the camera. Then you post this ridiculous shit about those 33 seconds:

...and i can clearly see that on Rigol you need to turn the knob for an hour ^^ to get from min to max).

...when in reality, it takes exactly 3.5 rotations of the knob to get from minimum to maximum (you can do it in ~2 seconds).

[jahonen]

To me it looks like GDS-2000A is unable to do shading in "density"-fashion (something that velocity modulation of electron beam produces in analog oscilloscopes). That prevents it working for AM modulated signal. For example, I get the attached image with my Agilent MSO6034A when singleshotting an AM modulated signal. From advertisements, it looks like the shading/color-grading works only on subsequent sweeps.

Regards,
Janne

[tinhead]

I guess you don't have to give a shit because you're full of it.

no, i'm not from US, so no chance, not full of brainshit. Jealous? or simply menstruation?
You should know me better Mark. Cool down a bit.

Then you post this ridiculous shit about those 33 seconds:

not the frakking 33 seconds exact. What i'm talking about is how he did the compare, 0% to 75% on rigol
and 0% to 100% on Instek is not fair , especially when you check the time how long it took to turn the knob on
Rigol (these 75% was slower reached) and on Instek (these 100% was faster reached).

I'm sure it was not his intention, he did it simply to get something on display while playing with knobs and talking to cam
It wasn't review nor real compare to other product. I think he simply don't like color grading (is it like that Dave?) and
was simply not satisfied with single color grading vs. big VPO announcement, that's all.

To me it looks like GDS-2000A is unable to do shading in "density"-fashion (something that velocity modulation of electron beam produces in analog oscilloscopes).

exact, this is what i meant as i said "analog-blur kind of"

[grego]

i don't see any problem with color grading implementation,

Color grading uses a lookup table from the intensity values - if the intensity values are coarse, the color grading will be as well..

...and i can clearly see that on Rigol you need to turn the knob for an hour ^^ to get from min to max).

Again, you're spouting nonsense about the Rigol which is untrue. There is rarely a time when you have to turn a knob very long on the Rigol - it uses TWO knobs (slow/fast) for any variable that has a wide range - plus it has software acceleration implemented on it's encoders - which the Instek seems to be lacking.

The instek does have acceleration on its encoders which I mentioned in my own video.

On an airplane now or I'd write more.

[tinhead]

plus it has software acceleration implemented on it's encoders - which the Instek seems to be lacking.

The instek does have acceleration on its encoders which I mentioned in my own video.
[/quote]

here we go, thank you for clarification.

[marmad]

You should know me better Mark. Cool down a bit.

I'm sorry, Thomas, but you need to take your own advice - you were the one who started interjecting 'shit' into the conversation - in writing and metaphorically. 

To me it looks like GDS-2000A is unable to do shading in "density"-fashion (something that velocity modulation of electron beam produces in analog oscilloscopes).

I believe I've figured out what the problem really is - but I'm going to post it over in the thread about Dave's video.

[Yaksaredabomb]

I guess you don't have to give a shit because you're full of it.

no, i'm not from US, so no chance, not full of brainshit. Jealous? or simply menstruation?
You should know me better Mark. Cool down a bit.

Fyi, I used the "report to moderator" link below Tinhead's post above.  "This post escalated personal attacks beyond reason.  Wasn't the first post in the series but this or the post it quotes went over the top."

I'm usually pretty impressed with the respect everyone shows each other (even with there's no basis for said respect haha) and the good taste in the language used.  Some disagree about "sh*t", and Dave uses it himself occasionally, but it's over my line for use in public.  Further, a general statement about a whole country and a dig on women has no place here - at least not on this part of the forum.

Sorry to be "up tight" but hopefully all posts involved are removed or edited and this is put in the past without further issue.


Edit: clarification

[marmad]

I guess you don't have to give a shit because you're full of it.

no, i'm not from US, so no chance, not full of brainshit. Jealous? or simply menstruation?
You should know me better Mark. Cool down a bit.

Fyi, I used the "report to moderator" link below Tinhead's post above.  "This post escalated personal attacks beyond reason.  Wasn't the first post in the series but this or the post it quotes went over the top."

I'm usually pretty impressed with the respect everyone shows each other (even with there's no basis for said respect haha) and the good taste in the language used.  Some disagree about "sh*t", and Dave uses it himself occasionally, but it's over my line for use in public.  Further, a general statement about a whole country and a dig on women has no place here - at least not on this part of the forum.

Sorry to be "up tight" but hopefully all posts involved are removed or edited and this is put in the past without further issue.


Edit: clarification

Well, it's your prerogative to report this, but you should know that Thomas and I have a personal relationship - having exchanged many private messages and emails - so speaking for myself (and I hope Thomas felt the same), I never felt the attacks were personal, but were merely 'roughhousing' (that, admittedly, we perhaps pushed too far).

[tinhead]

Further, a general statement about a whole country

in Europe we can (still) luckily speak free, about womans, Al Quida, US, what so ever ... we don't have any problems with whatsoever
skin color, abortion, jesus, asgards, islam, 09/11 magic planes or G.W.B.

I know most younger US citizens can't believe that, but really, there is different world outside US 

And btw, a general statement that chinese manufacturer producing only crap/copycat is ok? Wakeup, G.W.B. is not anymore.

and I hope Thomas felt the same

yes i do 

[Yaksaredabomb]

Well, it's your prerogative to report this, but you should know that Thomas and I have a personal relationship - having exchanged many private messages and emails - so speaking for myself (and I hope Thomas felt the same), I never felt the attacks were personal, but were merely 'roughhousing' (that, admittedly, we perhaps pushed too far).

Ah, I wasn't aware.  That's a little better I suppose.  I'm so used to the "Internet" being a place for anonymous people to attack each other in stupid, offensive ways that I assumed that's what was happening.  I expect that on the Huffington Post and Fox News webpages but was pretty taken aback to see that here on EEVblog!

in Europe we can (still) luckily speak free, about womans, Al Quida, US, what so ever ... we don't have any problems with whatsoever
skin color, abortion, jesus, asgards, islam, 09/11 magic planes or G.W.B.
....
And btw, a general statement that chinese manufacturer producing only crap/copycat is ok? Wakeup, G.W.B. is not anymore.
....

The right to speak free is fine and good - as an American I believe it in too - but sometimes one chooses to be polite and chooses not to exercise their right to be rude.  I can tolerate quite a bit of insult about the USA (and acknowledge some is deserved) but there are few enough women in electronics the way it is.  We may as well try to make them feel welcome, eh?

It's really the combo of all four - the personal attack, the language, the country, and the women that pushed me to not ignore it.  And again, on another website I might've still ignored it haha.

Anyhow, I see now you and Marmad are friends so that's good - I know how that goes haha.  Just maybe realize if you're goading each other in a public space you may raise eyebrows among those who don't know better.

[ddavidebor]

What do the dvm module?

[marmad]

Anyhow, I see now you and Marmad are friends so that's good - I know how that goes haha.  Just maybe realize if you're goading each other in a public space you may raise eyebrows among those who don't know better.

Well, Tinhead is a little nervous these days because the Rigol thread is closing on him - so he wants to smack it down 

[grego]

I haven't had a chance to watch Dave's unboxing in-toto yet but I can start to see a bit of Agilent-style bias.  Looking at it Rigol copied the Agilent path and Instek copied the Tek path.  I'm not here to say one or the other is better but there does seem to be a bit of bias since the Instek doesn't function like Dave expects it to - e.g. like the Agilent.

There are definite issues with the Instek - which I also have pointed out - and I'm going to make sure the Instek guys check out Dave's unboxing video if they haven't already and get some answers from them on various items - but one that I think is unfair is complaining about some things because they are different (e.g. the test key being a "waste of a key" for example).  I value Dave's opinion but we all need to remember it's just that - opinion.

One thing I will be grilling the US based Instek guys about though is the persistence levels since that kind of irks me a little bit and I would like a straight answer.

-G

[tinhead]

... but there are few enough women in electronics the way it is.  We may as well try to make them feel welcome, eh?

stop here ... to make it simple "menstruation is not illness or disorder and womans are not animals", so yes we can speak
about even if we never ever would know what we talking about. And every woman know how it feels in the first 2-3 days,
and many of them knows how "easy explosive" they are. So when i speak "do you have menstruation" don't see this as
"ahh a woman, haha" but simply "shit, what's wrong with you? is there something bugging you?".

Side note: actually my mother spoked like that to my sisters, heh, and to me (when i was running crazy) "go out, run a round and take a piss".
As i was young i never got why she was like that, now having (as well adult) children i know what she meant.

[Hydrawerk]

What do the dvm module?

I could not find any info anywhere. (GW Instek web, user manuals...)

[Hydrawerk]

Looking at it Rigol copied the Agilent path and Instek copied the Tek path.  (...) the Instek doesn't function like Dave expects it to - e.g. like the Agilent.

One thing I will be grilling the US based Instek guys about though is the persistence levels since that kind of irks me a little bit and I would like a straight answer.
-G

Well, Rigol is quite different from Agilent. They have their very own style. DS2000 and DSOX2000 are not similar especially with the screen layout.
And when copying Tek they should implement the DPO. Even the old and still sold expensive TDS3000 has a decent intensity gradation.

[marmad]

One thing I will be grilling the US based Instek guys about though is the persistence levels since that kind of irks me a little bit and I would like a straight answer.

Greg, I don't know if you saw this post of mine, but you could probably figure out fairly easily (using intensity or colors) how many levels of gradation the Instek is actually doing. Perhaps it varies based on some other setting (persistence?), but I can only find evidence of 16 in screenshots.

[tinhead]

What do the dvm module?

I could not find any info anywhere. (GW Instek web, user manuals...)

probably nothing else than displaying some values, however to me it looked like when enabled the DSO is going slower.

[Hydrawerk]

Ok, we know that the DPO is not a strong point of GDS-2000A. Now let's discuss it's other features. IMHO the XY mode is well implemeted and sophisticated (see manual) but I don't know what is it useful for. 
My DSOX2002A almost never goes slower.  Because it can show only 4 auto measurements and has rather small memory 50kpoints per channel. And no statistics feature. 

[tinhead]

Ok, we know that the DPO is not a strong point of GDS-2000A.

hmm, i would say it does have nice VPO colors, it peaks at 80k wfms/s, so it's ok.
Everything else need to be really compared/tested.

My DSOX2002A almost never goes slower.

buy a Tektronix and you will see how slow the UI can be when something enable. It is very hard to explain WHY is
Tektronix still worth money when this or that is not working that smooth as it should be.
Simply check the MDO video, crazy. Somehow funny to see that asia manufacturer who produce
TEK look&feel DSOs/DPOs are doing exact the same, imeplementig lag here and there ... a real bad habit.

[EEVblog]

I'm usually pretty impressed with the respect everyone shows each other (even with there's no basis for said respect haha) and the good taste in the language used.  Some disagree about "sh*t", and Dave uses it himself occasionally, but it's over my line for use in public.  Further, a general statement about a whole country and a dig on women has no place here - at least not on this part of the forum.

Guys, cool it down.
There is one very simple rule on this forum - no personal attacks.
You can use the word shit all you like. A product is shit, that soldering is shit, etc, but just don't use it in relation to a person, that then becomes a personal attack. Repeat offenders will get banned.

[EEVblog]

And Dave, what do you think about the fact that this scope has no fine horizontal or vertical control? It's strange. Most scopes do have fine settings (at Rigol and Agilent you only must push the knob). Well, only Owon doesn't have fine settings, as far as i know.

I didn't notice that. If that's the case then that's stupid, they need to fix that.

[grego]

And Dave, what do you think about the fact that this scope has no fine horizontal or vertical control? It's strange. Most scopes do have fine settings (at Rigol and Agilent you only must push the knob). Well, only Owon doesn't have fine settings, as far as i know.

I didn't notice that. If that's the case then that's stupid, they need to fix that.

Yeah - that was called out previously - even mentioned it in my video too.  Instek has confirmed it's on the firmware roadmap though - just not clear on "when" but it's there.

[marmad]

Having gone back and watched all of Instek's videos from both the GDS-2000A series - and the previous 3000 series which it's heavily based on - it's clear to me now that their VPO technology is only doing 16 levels of intensity gradation; it's strikingly obvious once you look for it.

[Hydrawerk]

they need to fix that.

Well, they should, but this expensive GDS-3000 also has no fine vertical or horizontal controls. http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1290
Note that GDS-3000 is definitely not an entry level scope. It's the best scope ever manufactured by GW Instek. It was introduced in 2011. It has 5GS/s and 500MHz bandwidth. On the other hand, it has only WTF 25kpoints memory per channel. I am afraid that GW Instek scopes have always been a bit weird.

[Hypernova]

Ok, we know that the DPO is not a strong point of GDS-2000A. Now let's discuss it's other features. IMHO the XY mode is well implemeted and sophisticated (see manual) but I don't know what is it useful for. 
My DSOX2002A almost never goes slower.  Because it can show only 4 auto measurements and has rather small memory 50kpoints per channel. And no statistics feature. 

XY mode is handy when viewing phase information or any 2 waveform with xy relationship. One application is in AB encoders where you get sin cosine outputs, If your xy plot is an oval you know the read head is not positioned right.

And what do you mean no stats? isn't that in the same place as the measurement menu?

[Hydrawerk]

This statistic feature is only on DSOX3000, not on DSOX2000.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS2000A has advanced XY cursors, but I don't understand it.

[snoopy]

Hello, what do you think about the new GDS-2000A series? GW Instek web here. You can download manual or specification there. It seems to be a serious competitor for Rigol DS2000 series. The price for GDS-2000A is quite the same. 100 MHz, 2-channels  GDS-2102A is sold for $1,143 at Testequity.
Please do not confuse the GDS-2000 with GDS-2000A, they are totally different. See attached pictures. Yes, I do not know, why they chose the GDS-2000A name...
And features, as specified by the manufacturer.
*300MHz/200MHz/100MHz/70MHz Bandwidth ,2 or 4 Input Channel
*2GSa/s Real-time Sampling Rate and 100GSa/s Equivalent Time Sampling Rate
*2MegaPoints Record Length (When using one channel, probably...)
*1mV /div to 10V/div of Vertical Range
*1ns/div to 100s/div of Time Base Range
*80,000 wfm/s of Waveform Update Rate (I wish it was true...)
*8 inch 800*600 High Resolution TFT LCD Display (Very good!)
*Built-in Segmented Memory and Waveform Search Functions to Optimize the Efficiency of Record Length
*Zoom Window and Play/Pause can Rapidly Navigate the Waveforms
*36 Automatic Measurement Functions Offers Various Measurement Selections
*Optional 8 or 16 digital channel with Logic analyzer(MSO)
*Optional Function Generator (but probably only to 3 MHz)
*Flexible Remote Control Connectivity(Standard:USB ;Option:LAN/GPIB)

Finally, it has a better XY mode than Rigols... It has cursors in XY mode.
Update:
Photos and screenshots here. Please note that I was not an experienced user of this scope, when I took the pictures.  https://plus.google.com/photos/106264218831814439783/albums/5857196858625060337

Dave's video

I just saw daves video  What an anticlimax !!

However lets give the crew at GW a chance to address and hopefully fix the issues before everyone bags the crap out of it 

As it stands the Rigol 2000 series runs rings around it IMO !!

regards

[roli_bark]

XY mode is handy when viewing phase information or any 2 waveform with xy relationship. One application is in AB encoders where you get sin cosine outputs, If your xy plot is an oval you know the read head is not positioned right.

Agree, and more over:
If you want a MEASURED frequency/phase shift info in XY mode between 2 sinusoids, it would be nice to have the exact ellipse [deviation from an ideal circle), or ellipse-rotation rate.

[egonotto]

Hi Hydrawerk,

"GDS2000A has advanced XY cursors, but I don't understand it"

The cursors shows the coordinates in cartesian and polar form and the product and the quotient.
As example you can use it to calculate phase or modulation factor.
 
Best Regards
egonotto

[Hydrawerk]

Thanks for teardown, Dave.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, there are those weird things on the function generator PCB. Someone apparently forgot to draw a route on the PCB. Well, i didn't see this inside Rigol or Agilent scopes. 
EDIT: OK, the "?" marked thing on GDS-2000A FGN01.png is just a glue.

[EEVblog]

Well, there are those weird things on the function generator PCB. Someone apparently forgot to draw a route on the PCB. Well, i didn't see this inside Rigol or Agilent scopes. 

That's just some left over hot snot.

[Hydrawerk]

No shielding over the switched power supply? Oh, Rigol and Agilent have shielding. Folks, this GDS-2000A looks overall designed to be as cheap as possible... (Even no pushable knobs...)

[grego]

No shielding over the switched power supply? Oh, Rigol and Agilent have shielding. Folks, this GDS-2000A looks overall designed to be as cheap as possible... (Even no pushable knobs...)

Seriously?  Man, you have had a hard-on for being negative on this thing since you bought a 2002.  Did you listen to Dave's commentary during the teardown?  From a build quality standpoint it's all top-notch components throughout with top-notch build quality?  Set aside any software issues for a moment and the quality of the build is fantastic.  I'm sure there were some design/cost decisions (I'm curious about the lack of a FPGA to drive the display and such as well) but you can not complain about their choice of circuitry from the passives through the ICs.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, no problem. Although the hardware is maybe not as modern as it could be, I expect that this scope will last long. It looked quite good at the trade fair where I took pictures. It's quite feature rich.
At my student's lab at university we have two 60MHz GDS-806C from year 2004 or so. They are not much modern, they have only 100MSa/s ADCs. But they are still going strong, no problems with buttons, knobs or PSU.
And note that the logic analyzer of your GDS-2000A is probably good and Rigol has nothing like it yet.
Tek DPO2000 has probably also unshielded PSU. https://plus.google.com/photos/104378593109746079667/albums/5860030731124964769?banner=pwa&authkey=CIH3roH_-ImCcw Maybe it's not a big disadvantage.

[Electro Fan]

And note that the logic analyzer of your GDS-2000A is probably good and Rigol has nothing like it yet.

Yeah, where is the Rigol 2000 Logic Analyzer?
And the Rigol 4000 Logic Analyzer?

How and when do we get those?   

[EEVblog]

Yeah, where is the Rigol 2000 Logic Analyzer?
And the Rigol 4000 Logic Analyzer?
How and when do we get those?   

I thought someone mentioned on here it's in the pipeline?

[dr.diesel]

I thought someone mentioned on here it's in the pipeline?

They are, I talked specifically with Rigol about this at the Dayton Hamvention.  A "couple months" was the timeline mentioned.

[EEVblog]

They are, I talked specifically with Rigol about this at the Dayton Hamvention.  A "couple months" was the timeline mentioned.

Is that for the 2000 series?

[dr.diesel]

They are, I talked specifically with Rigol about this at the Dayton Hamvention.  A "couple months" was the timeline mentioned.

Is that for the 2000 series?

I was specifically asking about the 4000, I believe someone else commented about the 2000 MSO.  I have the engineers card, I could ask them if anyone is interested?

[grego]

I got a note back from InstekUSA today - they escalated to engineering in Taiwan and we should be seeing some responses from them on this forum in the near future.

I wanted to thank you for informing me about David Jones video on the GDS-2304A. Hopefully we will receive a more favorable review once he has used the machine for a few weeks.
 
Our team in Taiwan has looked into your question over the EE blog, and will be responding shortly.

They also released firmware 1.15 with a few minor fixes.

[marmad]

I got a note back from InstekUSA today - they escalated to engineering in Taiwan and we should be seeing some responses from them on this forum in the near future.

I wanted to thank you for informing me about David Jones video on the GDS-2304A. Hopefully we will receive a more favorable review once he has used the machine for a few weeks.
 
Our team in Taiwan has looked into your question over the EE blog, and will be responding shortly.

Thanks for the info, Greg - although I don't know how much GW-Instek is going to reveal about their actual design techniques (possible overclocking, etc). But there are a couple of questions which are just specification clarifications which are missing from their data sheets - which it seems that they could just answer immediately:

Color depth of LCD (it appears to be 256 maximum).
Levels of intensity grading (Likely 16; 32 maximum given 4 channels and 8-bit color-depth).

[grego]

I think they are going to be commenting on the color-grading issue (since I brought that up in my email) among other things.  I specifically asked about that and the stuttering Dave saw at times.  I also pointed them at the video itself and both this thread and the one about the specific episode and begged to get an engineering to watch and respond.

I agree I don't think they will discuss specific details on construction but hopefully the software-related ones we can get some feedback.

[marmad]

I think they are going to be commenting on the color-grading issue (since I brought that up in my email) among other things.  I specifically asked about that and the stuttering Dave saw at times.  I also pointed them at the video itself and both this thread and the one about the specific episode and begged to get an engineering to watch and respond.

I agree I don't think they will discuss specific details on construction but hopefully the software-related ones we can get some feedback.

Just as a follow-up, I think it's reasonably clear what they've done in terms of design and FW. I think it's clever - in terms of keeping costs down for a 4-channel scope (look at the upcoming Rigol 4-channel response: smaller screen, single 2GSa/s split between all 4-channels, etc) - trade-offs have to be made for those price levels. But I do think it makes the DS2000 a better choice for 2-channels (unless you need MSO capabilities).

[Hydrawerk]

Well, nobody still has found out what's the GW Instek's logic analyzer like. It might be better than in my DSOX2002A (not enabled by code yet.) At least the GW will have longer memory, I think.

[Hydrawerk]

Just for comparison I found a few pictures of intensity grading of Tek DPO2000. The LCD has funnily small resolution, but the DPO feature is OK, as it should be.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, there is only one oscilloscope with true dual function generator.

[EEVblog]

Well, there is only one oscilloscope with true dual function generator.

Interestingly, the 2000X and 3000X of course have the same capability built in, but it's only on the demo outputs signals.
I've always wondered if you could somehow dump an ARB waveform into the 2nd channel by remote and somehow get it out the demo connector....
They obviously do this in the firmware when using 2 demo outputs to generate signals.

[Hydrawerk]

So all the demo signals come from the MegaZoom IV ASIC? Interesting...

[mike1305]

Well, nobody still has found out what's the GW Instek's logic analyzer like. It might be better than in my DSOX2002A (not enabled by code yet.) At least the GW will have longer memory, I think.

We've played with it a bit here. A boon is that it comes with a few serial decode abilities for free with the analyzer. So that's pretty cool. An unfortunate limitation is that you can't decode serial buses using analog channels. To see analog channels and decode you have to double probe the signal, which of course doubles the loading effects on the DUT. Big bummer there.

We are working on FW 1.14 and waiting for 1.15 as we speak so perhaps that changed?

[ddavidebor]

well, it does not double.

logic analizer usually have 100kohm internal impedance, while oscilloscope 1Mohm

[grego]

Well, nobody still has found out what's the GW Instek's logic analyzer like. It might be better than in my DSOX2002A (not enabled by code yet.) At least the GW will have longer memory, I think.

We've played with it a bit here. A boon is that it comes with a few serial decode abilities for free with the analyzer. So that's pretty cool. An unfortunate limitation is that you can't decode serial buses using analog channels. To see analog channels and decode you have to double probe the signal, which of course doubles the loading effects on the DUT. Big bummer there.

We are working on FW 1.14 and waiting for 1.15 as we speak so perhaps that changed?

1.15 is available now but the notes don't refer to that, just a couple of simple fixes.

[mike1305]

Yep, just installed it. Nothing much changed. According to their changelog:

V1.15 Change log

Fixed position adjustment error for average mode

Fixed the data missing issue during the GPIB high-speed data transmitting

Added horizontal expand mode (optional APP installation required)

Trying to figure out what that last one is.

[Bored@Work]

Yep, just installed it. Nothing much changed. According to their changelog:

V1.15 Change log

Fixed position adjustment error for average mode

Fixed the data missing issue during the GPIB high-speed data transmitting

Added horizontal expand mode (optional APP installation required)

Trying to figure out what that last one is.

Download it and try http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349
Select the Download tab, then scroll down to Software, last entry in that section.

The Expand by Center option will scale the
waveform from the center of the display when
the waveform is scaled using the TIME/DIV
knob.

The Expand by Trigger Pos will scale the
waveform from the trigger position when the
waveform is scaled using the TIME/DIV knob.

[Hydrawerk]

The Horizontal Exansion APP doesn't seem to be much useful... It even doesn't look like an APP.
But GW Instek added an info about the DVM APP. It might be more useful, but there's still too few information... I am not sure if you need a DVM when you have eight auto measurements... And what's the DVM's maximal frequency? Is it trigger independent?
At my DSOX2002A the DVM runs only to 100kHz  , it's trigger independent and you even have to buy this option...  But I got it for free together with Wavegen. 

[mike1305]

Thanks for the context there guys. I notice they have an APP section in the scope. Seems like an interesting way to add extra features later. Although I agree, this horizontal app should just be embedded in the UI somewhere instead of a standalone application.... 

[Electro Fan]

Well, nobody still has found out what's the GW Instek's logic analyzer like. It might be better than in my DSOX2002A (not enabled by code yet.) At least the GW will have longer memory, I think.

Hydrawerk, have you had any experience using the LA in your DSOX2002A?  Or nothing yet?  If yes, what do you like about it, what would like to see different - any and all thoughts on the LA functions would be welcome.  If you have already posted somewhere regarding the LA (or know of posts on the LA by other users) please let us know the link(s).  Thanks, EF

[Yaksaredabomb]

I remember speculation about whether installing two function generator modules would allow both outputs to be used at the same time.

At least a couple sellers say yes, it's possible:

http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGDS-2304A.html
"Two function generators can be used at the same time to provide dual output signals."

http://www.bellnw.com/manufacturer/Instek/GDS-2072A.htm
"Two function generators can be used at the same time to provide dual output signals."

HOWEVER,

Page 4 of the "Quick start guide for DS2-FGN" here http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349 says differently:
"Note: Even though it is possible to install two function generator modules, only one function generator option can be used at any one time."

And yet, the "GDS-2000A brochure" (found at the same url) says exactly the same thing found on the sellers' websites.  I'm sure the sellers are simply making direct quotes from page 2 of the brochure.

To add to the confusion, not only does Instek appear to both be saying only 1 can be used at "any one time" (even with 2 installed) AND both can be used at the "same time" if 2 are installed, they ALSO appear to be saying both outputs can be used with a single module installed!  See page 23 of the "GDS-2000A user manual" (same url), where it says:
"The function generator outputs are used with an optional function generator module."

Okay, so it's a small stretch to interpret the last quote as definitively stating one module will allow both outputs to be used at once - but if this was the only quote a person had to go on I do think it's reasonable to interpret it that way.  "Outputs" are used with "an" optional "module" (singular).  If that doesn't mean multiple outputs are used with only one module installed, then I think it really ought to have been written more clearly.

Three different messages in the manufacturer's own documentation!  What a mess!

Of course, if I had to guess which document is correct I'd assume it's the "Quick start guide for DS2-FGN".

[Bored@Work]

Of course, if I had to guess which document is correct

Forget the documents. Reality trumps document, every time.

And Dave showed us the reality. A single output at a fixed pin of the function generator. No chance that module can put out two separate signals.

Further, Dave's hi-res stills http://www.flickr.com/photos/eevblog/8872848654/#sizes/o/in/set-72157633773967624/ show that the GEN1 output is directly connected through to both expansion sockets. (unless they do some  magic under the sockets)

So no chance two of that shown function generator modules can work at the same time. Maybe not even if you hack one and change its output pin to GEN2. The oscilloscope software probably doesn't support it.

On the other hand, the GEN2 output (the one not used) seems to receive some special treatment between the two sockets (R1506, R1507 are visible and R1506 apparently allowing to connect GEN2 to GEN1). I can't see if the resistors are populated or if there is maybe some magic going on at the other side of the PCB. However, giving Instek the benefit of the doubt, it seems they could make another function generator module with two outputs, or another single output module that could use GEN2.

[marmad]

So no chance two of that shown function generator modules can work at the same time. Maybe not even if you hack one and change its output pin to GEN2. The oscilloscope software probably doesn't support it.

In Dave's video, the FG module is first using the GEN2 output. Later, after he's swapped the modules in back, the FG module is using the GEN1 output.

[Bored@Work]

So no chance two of that shown function generator modules can work at the same time. Maybe not even if you hack one and change its output pin to GEN2. The oscilloscope software probably doesn't support it.

In Dave's video, the FG module is first using the GEN2 output. Later, after he's swapped the modules in back, the FG module is using the GEN1 output.

The software said it would. Big difference. And Dave had to reboot because the instrument was acting funny.

With a simple, fixed output pin on the module, and the GEN1 connection going straight through to both sockets I leave it up to you to explain how you think that magic can happen.

[marmad]

With a simple, fixed output pin on the module, and the GEN1 connection going straight through to both sockets I leave it up to you to explain how you think that magic can happen.

I was just responding to your statements about the GEN2 output. I'm not saying one way or the other if the DSO can support 2 FGs.

On the other hand, the GEN2 output (the one not used)...

[Hydrawerk]

Hydrawerk, have you had any experience using the LA in your DSOX2002A?  Or nothing yet?  If yes, what do you like about it, what would like to see different - any and all thoughts on the LA functions would be welcome.  If you have already posted somewhere regarding the LA (or know of posts on the LA by other users) please let us know the link(s).  Thanks, EF

Well, I don't have the digital probes, but I could start the 30-day trial so i tried the LA a bit. You can connect signals directly to the digital connector of your scope. It works. You don't need any special digital probe with built-in electronics. But now my trial has gone and I am not gonna buy the LA option licence DSOX2MSO... http://www.home.agilent.com/en/pd-1953247-pn-DSOX2MSO/infiniivision-2000-x-series-oscilloscope-mso-upgrades?cc=CZ&lc=eng

[Hydrawerk]

Unfortunately, this is the only picture I took. It was in the demo mode, so there was nothing connected to the digital port. Well, the DSOX2002A logic analyzer has quite small memory, only 50kpoints. I don't know if it can be upgraded but probably not. DSOX2MEMUP upgrades only analog channels I think. On the ither hand, it probably maintains the high waveform update rate even if you turn on all channels. And it's 1GSa/s per each digital channel.
Note that GDS-2000A logic analyzer has 2Mpoints per channel. It's much better.

[Yaksaredabomb]

...
Nothe that GDS-2000A logic analyzer has 2Mpoints per channel. It's much better.

I'm really liking the "2M record length (per channel)" in the picture you attached, but given the discrepancies in Instek documentation I mentioned here I'll believe it when someone verifies it.

[marmad]

I'm really liking the "2M record length (per channel)" in the picture you attached, but given the discrepancies in Instek documentation I mentioned here I'll believe it when someone verifies it.

Well, there seems to be 16M x 16 {32M x 8} of DRAM available - so assuming they mean 2M maximum when none of the analog channels are on, it's possible. Greg would be able to verify this reasonably quickly.

[Yaksaredabomb]

I haven't seen anyone ask this yet, but maybe I've missed it.  Could a GDS-2000A owner please confirm the external dimensions of the scope?  Including knobs and all protrusions, ie, what are the inside dimensions of the smallest rectangular box that would just barely fit the scope?
 
The specs I found list 380mm x 220mm x 145mm, which is about 15.0" x 8.7" x 5.7" (inches).  I'd rather have real-world, end-user measurements though, please.
 
Thanks!
 
Edit:  The scope only, probes, power cord, and logic analyser or other protruding options removed.

[Yaksaredabomb]

...  Could a GDS-2000A owner please confirm the external dimensions of the scope?  Including knobs and all protrusions, ie, what are the inside dimensions of the smallest rectangular box that would just barely fit the scope?  ...
Edit:  The scope only, probes, power cord, and logic analyser or other protruding options removed.

Have any owners had the chance to measure its dimensions yet?
 

...
Note that GDS-2000A logic analyzer has 2Mpoints per channel. It's much better.

Maybe most know this by now, but I just found what might be bad news in the manual.  The last sentence on page 114 reads: "Please note that digital channels are not supported for measurement using segments."

And here, I thought the segmented memory would be a big help with capturing a string of messages on a bus.  Of course, the decode only works on the digital channels.  So it appears you can either:

1) Use the analog channels to capture up to 2048 messages and scroll through them one by one (possibly over the course of several seconds or even minutes+).  You then have to decode them yourself.

OR

2) Use the LA channels to capture a single, normal 2M aquisition and the scope will decode whatever messages are found.  This will most likely only be a very short time frame since you'll have a constant sampling rate throughout the aquisition.  If you need the 500MS/s rate you'll only be able to look at however many messages occur in a fraction of a second.  So if messages are separated by more time than that, and the DUT can't be made to only produce parts of sequences, there will be a lot of work with offsets and delayed triggers etc to try to capture messages deeper in the communication.

Also, of possible interest is the manual's section on record length that's already been talked about, with "short" confirmed to be 1Ks.  Page 109 has the typo about short memory being 1M, and page 110 has a table with two columns (normal and auto) duplicated.  Why not just have two columns, "Single" and "Normal/Auto" or "Normal and Auto"?
 
Edit June 6th: My display name has recently changed from "jneumann" to "Yaksaredabomb"

[Hydrawerk]

Have any owners had the chance to measure its dimensions yet?
 

Oh, I believe what they say in the user manual (EDIT) about dimensions.

[Yaksaredabomb]

Oh, I believe what they say in the user manual.

   You're kidding, right?   
 
Joking aside I'd still prefer to hear someone's actual measurements.  Not much different than asking for a screenshot showing the memory depth at a certain sampling rate, video showing the intensity grading with a certain signal, or a hands-on account of any other feature.
 
Edit June 6th: My display name has recently changed from "jneumann" to "Yaksaredabomb"

[grego]

I'm heading out of town this weekend for a week but I'll see if I can get that for you before I go.

[Hydrawerk]

Note that GW Instek provides no photo of scope's intensity gradation like this. http://www.rigolna.com/images/products/DS2000.jpg
Their photo has no gradation shown.
http://www.gwinstek.com/product/images/picture/FC_2012109144736.jpg

[Yaksaredabomb]

Note that GW Instek provides no photo of scope's intensity gradation like this. http://www.rigolna.com/images/products/DS2000.jpg
Their photo has no gradation shown.
http://www.gwinstek.com/product/images/picture/FC_2012109144736.jpg

Then again, Instek's photo shows several digital inputs while Rigol's photo doesn't show any....   

[Hydrawerk]

Dave, this GDS-2000A deserves some more investigation. I believe that it has some strong points... When you don't need long memory (7MB or so), fast waveform update rate or intensity gradation.  The LA might be fine?? 
And hey, is the scope design much simpler, when they did not implement fine vertical or horizontal scale? Owon did the same. 

[Yaksaredabomb]

...  Could a GDS-2000A owner please confirm the external dimensions of the scope?  Including knobs and all protrusions, ie, what are the inside dimensions of the smallest rectangular box that would just barely fit the scope?  ...
Edit:  The scope only, probes, power cord, and logic analyser or other protruding options removed.

Have any owners had the chance to measure its dimensions yet?
 

...
Note that GDS-2000A logic analyzer has 2Mpoints per channel. It's much better.

Maybe most know this by now, but I just found what might be bad news in the manual.  The last sentence on page 114 reads: "Please note that digital channels are not supported for measurement using segments."

And here, I thought the segmented memory would be a big help with capturing a string of messages on a bus.  Of course, the decode only works on the digital channels.  So it appears you can either....

Interesting - this post over in the "EEVblog #474 - GW Instek GDS-2000A Series Oscilloscope Unboxing  & First Impression" topic has a video from TEquipment showing segmented memory working with the logic analyzer.  So yet another direct contradiction to what's in the manual, though this time it is a positive contradiction.

[EEVblog]

There is new firmware for this scope that fixes a lot of stuff apparently:
http://webfile.gwinstek.com/ftp/GDS-2000A/GDS2K_V1.17.upg
Will go install it now.

[Yaksaredabomb]

There is new firmware for this scope that fixes a lot of stuff apparently:
http://webfile.gwinstek.com/ftp/GDS-2000A/GDS2K_V1.17.upg
Will go install it now.

Thanks for the link!  Just visited their site and it wasn't obvious how to get to it from there.  I won't have a chance to install it myself until next week, but I'm very curious to know how it goes for you and what the updates are!

[EEVblog]

Thanks for the link!  Just visited their site and it wasn't obvious how to get to it from there.  I won't have a chance to install it myself until next week, but I'm very curious to know how it goes for you and what the updates are!

Here are the changes:
http://www.ittsb.eu/forum/index.php?topic=547.0

[Yaksaredabomb]

Here are the changes:
http://www.ittsb.eu/forum/index.php?topic=547.0

Interesting.  Hope the knob sensitivity adjustment fixes the bug where the selection occasionally goes against the direction of rotation a step or two when turning the knob slowly.  That's been one of the more annoying things for me so far - makes the knob feel really cheap and wishy-washy.  Thanks for the extra info!

[hmlittle59]

Hello All,

Wanted to purchase the Rigol DS2102 today and talked to a "Tech" at the location and he preferred the GDS-2102A over the Rigol DS2102.  What's ya'll thoughts on that.   Besides the Instek is on SALE now at "TEquipment". 

This is making my head spin. Once again "OWON" is out after reading all the reviews. 

RIGOL 2102

or

GDS - 2102A(I don't like the non-expandable memory).

This is my first scope to buy and I work on Parallax Micro-Controllers. 

Thanks for any help

Howard

[grego]

For a 2 channel the Rigol hands down.

I had a 2204A from Instek and I ended up returning it.

[Chalky]

[...]
RIGOL 2102

or

GDS - 2102A(I don't like the non-expandable memory).

This is my first scope to buy and I work on Parallax Micro-Controllers. 

Thanks for any help

Howard

I don't know anything about Micro-Controllers, but I do know you can buy a Rigol DS2072 (70 MHz) and upgrade it to 200 MHz with just a licence code.  Some people have even figured out how to do that for free.  Rigol display is way better than Instek I reckon.  Much easier on my eyes.

[hmlittle59]

The Tech said that the Instek had a better Quality Display and better trigger capture, whats your thoughts on that.  It would be nice to have a larger memory but I'm not even sure that I would even use whats comes with the Instek.(for now anyway).  I've saw one video on the breakdown of the Rigol and getting ready to check out the Instek now.

Howard

[Chalky]

Instek has more pixels, but the display is far inferior to the Rigol.  Not just the waveform, but all of the display, incl. menus etc.  Rigol's advance triggers on Rigol can be unlocked with a key code, same as the bandwidth.  Some people have figured out how to make those codes with a keygen, but the proper way to obtain them is to purchase them.

[hmlittle59]

Well my mind was set on the Instek til I seen you last post about un-locking more triggering points.  I don't mine paying a little more if it will make it a Head -to- Head matchup.  I will be paying USA prices and both were at $1143.00 but the Instek is on sale for $971.00.  I do like the ability to expand the Instek with the Two(2) modules.  I may never use the 2 meg. memory but it does seem a bit low by todays standards.   

Dave seems to be the main Man for doing all the Main testing, do you know if a Head -to- Head was ever done on these Two(2) units?  I could not find any true test on this Website.

Thanks again.

Howard

[Chalky]

US$839 for the Rigol DS2072 would be price I'd look for.

[grego]

Well my mind was set on the Instek til I seen you last post about un-locking more triggering points.  I don't mine paying a little more if it will make it a Head -to- Head matchup.  I will be paying USA prices and both were at $1143.00 but the Instek is on sale for $971.00.  I do like the ability to expand the Instek with the Two(2) modules.  I may never use the 2 meg. memory but it does seem a bit low by todays standards.   

Dave seems to be the main Man for doing all the Main testing, do you know if a Head -to- Head was ever done on these Two(2) units?  I could not find any true test on this Website.

Thanks again.

Howard

The 2 meg is a bit of a marketing gimmick.  It's only 2 meg in single-shot mode.  Otherwise it's 1 meg.  And if you use both channels it's 500k.  Just FYI.

[echen1024]

Yea, that's the problem with most of these scopes. Marketing gimmicks. But I still think, for what you're paying, just go buy an Agilent.

[marmad]

Yea, that's the problem with most of these scopes. Marketing gimmicks. But I still think, for what you're paying, just go buy an Agilent.

Like I'd buy an Agilent 2000 X-Series over a Rigol DS2000 series.    Talk about throwing money away for less features!

[Chalky]

Yea, that's the problem with most of these scopes. Marketing gimmicks. But I still think, for what you're paying, just go buy an Agilent.

Agree with Marmad 100%.  DS2072 is great.  I considered Agilent, before buying the Rigol, glad I didn't waste my money.

[echen1024]

Probably. After looking in detail at the Rigol DS2000 series, I can say it's significantly better at a lower price. The only thing I miss is 4 channels.

[hmlittle59]

Thanks....You guys are not helping with this, have to buy now mood I was in    .  Now I will go and look at the Agilent 2000 series. 

Thanks for all the input...

Howard

[hmlittle59]

Hello Again,
 
Another day in the Scope search.  After looking at more You Tube video's, I going to buy the Rigol 2072.  Looking a the comparison with the Owon 3000 series, that made up my mind.   

Thanks for all the help. I was set on the Owon until I saw all the reviews and demo video's. 

Thanks again

Howard 

[rbola35618]

One of the things that I did not like was that in certain settings the rigol's display looked very dim even when the intensity was set to high. I experience this on a ds4000 scope. Does the Rigol ds2000 have the same problem?

Robert

[Chalky]

Hello Again,
 
Another day in the Scope search.  After looking at more You Tube video's, I going to buy the Rigol 2072.  Looking a the comparison with the Owon 3000 series, that made up my mind.   

Thanks for all the help. I was set on the Owon until I saw all the reviews and demo video's. 

Thanks again

Howard

For a 2-channel scope, nothing beats it (DS2072) on price.  Specially once it's laden with all the extra features! 

[Yaksaredabomb]

There is new firmware for this scope that fixes a lot of stuff apparently:
http://webfile.gwinstek.com/ftp/GDS-2000A/GDS2K_V1.17.upg
Will go install it now.

...

Here are the changes:
http://www.ittsb.eu/forum/index.php?topic=547.0

Has anyone had a chance to try out the new firmware yet?
 
This scope definitely isn't a "clear winner" for everyone and does have its shortfalls and annoyances, but for a budget 4-channel DSO with relatively inexpensive MSO and decoding options it doesn't seem too bad.  I was tired of waffling back and forth on my scope decision and procrastinating on projects that would benefit from a scope (or even require one) so I bought a GDS-2204A a few weeks back.  I do find the extra vertical pixels come in handy (LCD is 800x600), especially with the 4 analog channels or when using the 8 digital channels (there's a 16-channel option too but I only bought the 8-channel version).
 
Sadly I'm still swamped and haven't had a chance to try out the update myself.  We'll see about this weekend.  I hope the knob sensitivity adjustment smoothes out the knob action.  The enhanced SW and VPO performance also sounds great - maybe someone will be clever enough to find a way to measure the performance improvements?

[Hydrawerk]

Thanks for the link!  Just visited their site and it wasn't obvious how to get to it from there.  I won't have a chance to install it myself until next week, but I'm very curious to know how it goes for you and what the updates are!

Here are the changes:
http://www.ittsb.eu/forum/index.php?topic=547.0

Well, oh...
At Agilent it is very easy to find new firmware and changelog on their website http://www.home.agilent.com And you do not need any registration.
It is strange to find the GW Instek changelog on a greek forum... 

[Hydrawerk]

Have you seen this competitive datasheet DPO2000B vs. GDS-2000A?

[Hydrawerk]

Well, come on... The GW Instek has a search function, too. Don't you know it, Tektronix guys??

[Yaksaredabomb]

Well, oh...
At Agilent it is very easy to find new firmware and changelog on their website http://www.home.agilent.com And you do not need any registration.
It is strange to find the GW Instek changelog on a greek forum... 

Felt off-topic at first getting into how Agilent does things but I see how it's relevant as a comparison.  Would be nice if Instek took a page from Agilent's book on firmware updates.

Have you seen this competitive datasheet DPO2000B vs. GDS-2000A?

On this gwinstek.com page you can find their own "Comparison fact sheet between GDS-2000A and Tek MSO/DPO2000B".  Of course it's biased to show the Instek having more checks and the Tek having more x's haha.

Also note that, although prices vary, I got my GDS-2204A and 8-channel LA option for about $1000 USD less than the Tektronix DPO2024B costs without any options.  So of course you would expect the Tek to significantly outperform or have other desirable features to justify the cost (and I'm not saying it doesn't).

Well, come on... The GW Instek has a search function, too. Don't you know it, Tektronix guys??

Nice catch - I've actually used the search feature and it's kind of nice.  Way better than scrolling and scrolling and scrolling.  Still a little "clunky" but I might not notice that as much when I'm more used to how it works.


So - has anyone tried the new firmware yet?  I see I still can't find it very easily on gwinstek.com so maybe it's still pending final release.  Or maybe this is as close as we'll get.

[grego]

Have you seen this competitive datasheet DPO2000B vs. GDS-2000A?

Marketing speak.  Honestly, Tek needs to get their crap together and come out with something people really want.  They are getting killed in the lower end scope ranges.

Notice (not that this is the only real point of comparison mind you) that they don't even mention wfm/s?  That's because the Tek is only 5000 wfm/s max whereas the Instek is 80,000.  That's not a metric you want to highlight.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, Tektronix DPO2000B can have active probes (that are bloody expensive). But that is not a big advantage for a hobbyist.

[echen1024]

Well, Tektronix DPO2000B can have active probes (that are bloody expensive). But that is not a big advantage for a hobbyist.

I don't think their target market is hobbyists. I think they are targeting the 1000 unit/order, institutional type.

[Yaksaredabomb]

... I think they are targeting the 1000 unit/order, institutional type.

I wonder who would possibly have a need to order 1000 scopes at once?  Maybe if all the universities in a state (or several states) all got together and decided on one?

Not meaning to be critical or take you too literally - it just provoked my imagination and now I'm wondering.

[echen1024]

... I think they are targeting the 1000 unit/order, institutional type.

I wonder who would possibly have a need to order 1000 scopes at once?  Maybe if all the universities in a state (or several states) all got together and decided on one?

Not meaning to be critical or take you too literally - it just provoked my imagination and now I'm wondering.

I don't know either. Just a random figure.

[Hydrawerk]

There is new firmware for this scope that fixes a lot of stuff apparently:
http://webfile.gwinstek.com/ftp/GDS-2000A/GDS2K_V1.17.upg
Will go install it now.

So is the scope better now? Was the intensity grading feature improved?

[Hydrawerk]

Now GW Instek published their firmware directly on their website. That's good. http://www.gwinstek.com.tw/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349
Go to the Download section. Then go to the Software section.
Also please download the Firmware upgrade guide.

[Yaksaredabomb]

Now GW Instek published their firmware directly on their website. That's good. http://www.gwinstek.com.tw/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349
Go to the Download section. Then go to the Software section.
Also please download the Firmware upgrade guide.

Sweet!  That is good news - thanks!

[marmad]

Sadly I'm still swamped and haven't had a chance to try out the update myself.  We'll see about this weekend.  I hope the knob sensitivity adjustment smoothes out the knob action.  The enhanced SW and VPO performance also sounds great - maybe someone will be clever enough to find a way to measure the performance improvements?

How about a report on the waveforms per second rate when you have the DSO set to AUTO record length? Using the tiny 1k SHORT length (which is how they measure their 80k wfrm/s) is a serious drawback for getting decent sample speeds at most timebases - so I'd like to see an honest chart reflecting the wfrm speeds when using a reasonable record length size.

[Hydrawerk]

And what do you think about the Trig Out signal? It has a very low level. Kiriakos wrote:

c) The Trigger-Out has an voltage range not higher than 200 mV AC, which varies significantly depending the time base of the scope and usually ranges from 120 mV to 5 mV and even less than that.

http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Wfms%20measurments.html
But he was wrong with waveform update rate measurement...

[digsys]

Any updates on the GDS-2304A ? TM have a "show special?" at ~OZ$1770 (no options).
What was the comparison consensus / outcome? Thoughts?

[Hydrawerk]

New videos. Well, GW Instek guys should buy a HD video camera.

[Hydrawerk]

GW Instek GDS-2000A is now sold rebranded as Texio DCS-9700 Series.
DCS-9700??
http://www.texio.co.jp/en/03prod_01_03_DCS-9700.html

[AndersAnd]

GW Instek GDS-2000A is now sold rebranded as Texio DCS-9700 Series.

http://www.texio.co.jp/en/03prod_01_03_DCS-9700.html

Good Will Instrument Co., Ltd. [a.k.a. GW Instek] is now the owner of Texio [formerly Kenwood TMI] according to Texio's website:
Company: http://www.texio.co.jp/en/02comp_02.html

Shareholder   Good Will Instrument Co., Ltd.

History: http://www.texio.co.jp/en/02comp_03.html

2012
...Established TEXIO TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION affiliated of GOOD WILL INSTRUMENTS CO.,LTD
Power supply and electric measuring instruments business have been transferred to TEXIO TECHNOLOGY from NIKKE TECHNO SYSTEM...

[Hydrawerk]

A review by Kiriakos.
http://www.ittsb.eu/GDS-2102A%20Mini%20review%20.html

[Hydrawerk]

As Dave mentioned before, the VPO performance is not good at GDS-2000A scopes.

This is how it should look like.
http://youtu.be/_TSr9nFN1GU?t=12m20s

[Hydrawerk]

Other examples of good VPO performance.

[Prismattery]

Fast question. This GW instek GDS-2072A vs RIGOL DS2072A. Which one to choose?

Will be used for hobby projects and some more advanced power electronics projects.

[Yaksaredabomb]

Fast question. This GW instek GDS-2072A vs RIGOL DS2072A. Which one to choose?

Will be used for hobby projects and some more advanced power electronics projects.

For 70 MHz, 2 analog channels, and no digital channels most will probably agree the Rigol is better.

I wanted more bandwidth (200MHz) and 4 channels, though, so I went with the Instek as it was far more cost effective than anything else with the same specs at the time I bought it.  Plus there was a great deal on the 8-channel LA option at the time (slightly over 50% off) so I went for that too - which wouldn't have been a possibility with the Rigol.  Sadly I *still* have yet to use it much so I can hardly say anything about how well I like it.  There are several hobby projects I was pretty excited about but the rest of life keeps getting in the way.

Good luck!

[Joel_l]

Hi,

I'm thinking about returning the Siglent SDS1204 I just bought ( not very happy with many aspects of it ) and trying the GDS-2204A. I see that there has been several FW updates since the lack of a fine adjustment on the vertical scales was brought up and fed back to Instek. Does anyone know if fine vertical adjustment been added?

Thanks

Joel

[Hydrawerk]

I do not think so... Fine control was not added IMHO.
It seems that this scope is suitable for you if you need quite cheap four channel  scope and you do not need good VPO performance or high waveform update rate. Also the search function might be useful. You have probably seen Dave's video, have you?


Note the crap function generator. Nowadays you can buy Rigol DS2000 with arbitrary generator.
On the other hand, GW Instek will last longer IMHO. It does not have such a powerful hardwware, but it should be durable.
And I think that even that expensive GDS-3000 series has no fine vertical control.
Contact your authorized dealer for more info.

[Joel_l]

I did watch parts of Dave's video ( a lot of skipping ahead ). What I want from a scope I thought was basic, stable display of simple wave forms and reasonably accurate measurements. I get neither from the 1204. It would also be nice to have independent control of timebase and sample rate within the abilities of the scope and memory depth. On paper the GDS -2000A's look interesting.

Joel

[Hydrawerk]

Oh, was it so bad with that Siglent? They sell the same model as LeCroy WaveAce, I think. http://teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/oscilloscopemodel.aspx?modelid=6886&capid=102&mid=504

[Joel_l]

I did hear back from Siglent on my issues and they said they were addressed in the latest firmware. Now I waiting to hear why FW x.12 (on their website) is later than FW x.33 ( on my scope ). In the end, if the issues are addressed, I will be happy with the 1204. To keep things on topic in this thread, see my thread SDS1204CFL to track progress on this issue if you are interested.

Joel