Scope : wait for new models ?

[tautech]

i don't see protocol decoding there?

It's there, I checked but didn't copy it in.

so... which protocols? protocol triggering?

Other units this manufacturer builds supports decoding and triggering of :
IIC, SPI, UART, RS232, CAN, LIN
So I don't see any reason why these units won't too. Time will tell for sure.

[JPortici]

ah! just say you can't tell yet, that's a rather poor answer :-/

[Fungus]

Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.

That's an insane amount of stock! 

Xmas?

[tautech]

ah! just say you can't tell yet, that's a rather poor answer :-/

OK, so you made me download and translate the datasheet, so here's the gen:

Serial bus triggering and decoding, supported protocols IIC, SPI, UART / RS232, CAN, LIN

[tautech]

That about sums up the specs of the GW Instek GDS2000E series which you can buy today so why wait a few months (and probably a few years to fix the bugs)?

Waveform capture rate of 100,000 frames per second (normal mode); 400,000 frames per second (Sequence mode)

The waveform capture is the least important because it is only achieved in dot mode (nobody uses that) as very specific time/div settings. Don't fall for the hype because waveforms/seconds is like the power rating of the (combustion) engine in a car: it is only achieved in a limited RPM range.

You know better than that, Oh that's right dot mode is problematic with a small memory depth DSO.

[JPortici]

ah! just say you can't tell yet, that's a rather poor answer :-/

OK, so you made me download and translate the datasheet, so here's the gen:

Serial bus triggering and decoding, supported protocols IIC, SPI, UART / RS232, CAN, LIN

perfect it's one i could consider then

[nctnico]

That about sums up the specs of the GW Instek GDS2000E series which you can buy today so why wait a few months (and probably a few years to fix the bugs)?

Waveform capture rate of 100,000 frames per second (normal mode); 400,000 frames per second (Sequence mode)

The waveform capture is the least important because it is only achieved in dot mode (nobody uses that) as very specific time/div settings. Don't fall for the hype because waveforms/seconds is like the power rating of the (combustion) engine in a car: it is only achieved in a limited RPM range.

You know better than that, Oh that's right dot mode is problematic with a small memory depth DSO.

It has been debated several times already that waveforms/second rating is meaningless: First of all it has to drop with longer memory and/or lower samplerates secondly you'd need infinite waveforms/second to catch a glitch with 100% certainty (IF you can keep staring at the screen). Just look at the math and it is pretty obvious. I use test equipment to make a living and when selecting an oscilloscope the waveforms/second is the last number I look at. Big screen and deep memory are much higher on my list.

Also dot mode isn't problematic for a small memory depth DSO. It is problematic for every DSO at short time/div settings because the dots are too far apart to see the signal. If you want to reach 400.000 waveforms/s at 1Gs/s you can only sample 2500 points at most. Add re-trigger/dead time and you'll likely end up with a number close to 1000 points.

[tggzzz]

ah! just say you can't tell yet, that's a rather poor answer :-/

OK, so you made me download and translate the datasheet, so here's the gen:

Serial bus triggering and decoding, supported protocols IIC, SPI, UART / RS232, CAN, LIN

perfect it's one i could consider then

With anything like this, the devil can be in the details, so it can be useful to find other people's experiences.

When I was designing network/protocol capture tools, I made sure that the triggers and filters were as flexible as the MAC/PHY hardware allowed, ran at full speed and captured everything within very generous limits. I know not all manufacturer's equipment could say that; hence my company's tools were valued by their (very knowledgable) customers.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am making no comment about any specific tool mentioned in this thread.

[rstofer]

Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.

That's an insane amount of stock! 

Five are gone since yesterday (down to 2060).  It might be fun to follow along and see how long it takes to clear the inventory.

[saturation]

I posted on an old thread a short track I did of their sales.  Love or hate it, it sells like no other, I've seen it drop once over 100 day.  As of this post the count is 2017 from 2065.


https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-reliability/msg945055/#msg945055

Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.

That's an insane amount of stock! 

Five are gone since yesterday (down to 2060).  It might be fun to follow along and see how long it takes to clear the inventory.

[rstofer]

I posted on an old thread a short track I did of their sales.  Love or hate it, it sells like no other, I've seen it drop once over 100 day.  As of this post the count is 2017 from 2065.


https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-reliability/msg945055/#msg945055

Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.

That's an insane amount of stock! 

Five are gone since yesterday (down to 2060).  It might be fun to follow along and see how long it takes to clear the inventory.

I don't intend to follow this but they're down to 2017 in two days.  So that's 48 in two days since we started looking.  The inventory probably won't last 6 weeks!  The scope is really a good seller.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Dont http://www.tequipment.net has EU warehouse ?, to bad.
Funny, they have 2065 Rigol 1054Z in stock, they sell a lot.

That's an insane amount of stock! 

That may include manufacturer stock allocated to them. Or could just be artificially inflated to make them look bigger!

[mikeselectricstuff]

i don't see protocol decoding there?

It's there, I checked but didn't copy it in.

As standard or option ?
Considering that pretty much everything these days has at least one of UART, I2C or SPI,  it's ridiculous that this isn't now standard on all new scopes.

[nctnico]

It seems decoding and other options are often offered as some (time limited) free deal but it doesn't take long for the deal to re-appear. Still I rather have them included in the base price than having to haggle or wait for the 'free options deal'.

[tautech]

i don't see protocol decoding there?

It's there, I checked but didn't copy it in.

As standard or option ?
Considering that pretty much everything these days has at least one of UART, I2C or SPI,  it's ridiculous that this isn't now standard on all new scopes.

It's listed in the Chinese datasheet as an option Mike but as Nico says who knows what the status of it will be when it's released to western markets.
As a distributor I've not been informed at all of this model at all yet (top secret  )....only just what I've spotted on the .cn website and Google translated.

[NorthGuy]

I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.

Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.

We already see bandwidth upgrade promotions here and there. So, sooner or later, the bandwidth crippling will stop, and then market will become more fair and it will be possible to buy more bandwidth for the same money. May be it's worth waiting.

[EEVblog]

I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.

At the low (say <300MHz) end that's true. At the mid to higher frequency range that's still not true. Try go and design a high perfornance 1GHz+ analog front end and sell it in a $400 retail scope, you'll go broke pretty quick.

[tautech]

I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.

Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.

So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s  than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ? 

[nctnico]

I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.

Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.

So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s  than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ? 

Nope, because they don't work (Eres and decoding don't even use the full memory depth for example). Besides that GW Instek is lightyears ahead of Siglent when it comes to implementing 'little things' which make life easier like input lowpass/bandpass/highpass filtering, math expressions, internal storage, dedicated key for 10x probe setting, storing images/data to a server over LAN, plain SCPI over LAN (LXI?) instead of the obfustigated VXI-11 protocol, optional split screen FFT, force trigger button, autoset undo, etc, etc. An oscilloscope is not only about the specs on the datasheet but also about how easy it is to use and what kind of features it has. I think you will do well if you also sell GW Instek scopes to your customers because you'll cover a lot more ground that way.

[snoopy]

I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.

Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.

We already see bandwidth upgrade promotions here and there. So, sooner or later, the bandwidth crippling will stop, and then market will become more fair and it will be possible to buy more bandwidth for the same money. May be it's worth waiting.

Once you start looking for a scope with a bandwidth over 500MHz price increases dramatically which is why I settled on an old Tektronix TDS scope from the 90's for any of my high bandwidth requirements. Unfortunately it's still hard to mass produce hi-end scopes with bandwidths in excess of 1GHz. At these frequencies you need to consider active probes which can cost megabucks and are a specialized device.

cheers

[tggzzz]

Once you start looking for a scope with a bandwidth over 500MHz price increases dramatically which is why I settled on an old Tektronix TDS scope from the 90's for any of my high bandwidth requirements. Unfortunately it's still hard to mass produce hi-end scopes with bandwidths in excess of 1GHz. At these frequencies you need to consider active probes which can cost megabucks and are a specialized device.

Indeed.

Sometimes cheaper alternatives can be used, e.g. in known impedance system a splitter+coax+50ohm termination, or just a "low" impedance Z0 resistive divider probe, or for a differential signal perhaps http://emcesd.com/pdf/cd94scr.pdf

In all cases grounding becomes rather important, and that makes it more likely that "browsing signals" with a probe will show signal integrity effects.

[rf-loop]

I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.

Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.

So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s  than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ? 

Nope, because they don't work (Eres and decoding don't even use the full memory depth for example). Besides that GW Instek is lightyears ahead of Siglent when it comes to implementing 'little things' which make life easier like input lowpass/bandpass/highpass filtering, math expressions, internal storage, dedicated key for 10x probe setting, storing images/data to a server over LAN, plain SCPI over LAN (LXI?) instead of the obfustigated VXI-11 protocol, optional split screen FFT, force trigger button, autoset undo, etc, etc. An oscilloscope is not only about the specs on the datasheet but also about how easy it is to use and what kind of features it has. I think you will do well if you also sell GW Instek scopes to your customers because you'll cover a lot more ground that way.

Tiny examples: Autoset undo. Of course Siglent have. Just one button undo. (return to previous settings)

FFT have 4 kind of display modes: FFT alone full window. FFT full window with overlayed full window signal. FFT and signal separately splitted.  And separately splitted + signal zoom window overlayed with FFT window if signal zoom in use at same time.

[tautech]

I think now could be the perfect time to wait. It looks to me that all this bandwidth crippling business is steadily going away (for the economy part of the market). It is ridiculous that the price of the DSOs is determined by bandwidth because the most expensive characteristic for production is not the analog bandwidth, but the sample rate. Pricing by bandwidth is just a remnant from the past and a method to get more money from the customer. But it might be coming to the end.

Look, for example, at GW Instek GDS-2204E. Many people choose it over Siglent SDS2104X which costs the same, but is only 100 MHz scope while Instek is 200 MHz. However, Siglent is much more of a scope, its sample rate is twice that of Instek and it is actually 300 MHz scope if un-crippled. So, Siglent spent more money to build a better scope, but Instek still comes as a winner - because Instek didn't cripple the bandwidth. If Siglent un-crippled their scopes to 200, or even 300 MHz, Instek wouldn't be able compete.

So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s  than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ? 

Nope, because they don't work (Eres and decoding don't even use the full memory depth for example). Besides that GW Instek is lightyears ahead of Siglent when it comes to implementing 'little things' which make life easier like input lowpass/bandpass/highpass filtering, math expressions, internal storage, dedicated key for 10x probe setting, storing images/data to a server over LAN, plain SCPI over LAN (LXI?) instead of the obfustigated VXI-11 protocol, optional split screen FFT, force trigger button, autoset undo, etc, etc. An oscilloscope is not only about the specs on the datasheet but also about how easy it is to use and what kind of features it has. I think you will do well if you also sell GW Instek scopes to your customers because you'll cover a lot more ground that way.

Numerous thing have changed since you had a SDS2204 with the newer X series and to add to those that have been pointed out the SDS2kX now have a input attenuation ring around the ch BNC to set for the 10x probe.
I posted about those 6 mth ago, you must have missed it or it didn't sink in.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent's-new-product-sds2000x-series/msg984510/#msg984510

From the website:
Supports SCPI remote control commands

[nctnico]

The little things make the big difference! For example: remote commands over LAN are nice but the feature is useless if they are encapsulated in an obfustigated protocol like VXI-11. Look deeper than random quotes from a website and you'll see for yourself why the GDS2000E series is such a better deal than the SDS2000(X) series.

[NorthGuy]

So you don't consider that the SDS2000X 2 or 4 ch models having more than 3x the memory depth and more wfm/s  than the GDS-2204E as worth anything ? 

I think about it this way. The heart of the scope is ADC. ADC has certain sample rate. The more the sample rate, the more expensive ADC is, and the price grows exponentially. Faster sampling also requires faster and/or bigger FPGAs to accept all these samples. Siglent designed SDS2000X scope around an ADC with 1Gs/s sample rate. As we know, ADC requires low pass filter. For 1Gs/s sample rate, the required frequency of the fron end filter is somewhere around 300 MHz. What Siglent does for SDS2104X? They install bigger capacitors, so the filter is now 100 MHz instead of 300 MHz. What the customer can do:

1) Live with incorrect capacitors and have 100 MHz scope instead of 300 MHz.
2) Open it up and replace the capacitors with the correct values.
3) Pay $1,000 to Siglent so that they would install correct capacitors.

Siglent, of course, would think you should take option 2 (you void warranty) or 3 (you pay more), but here's the catch. Here's option 4:

4) Buy Instek GDS-2204E instead.

With Instek, you get only 500MS/s sample rate, but Siglent's 1GS/s isn't worth much with incorrect 100MHz front end filter. Why pay for the bigger ADC? Instek, on the other hand is a 200 MHz scope! Other than that, it comes down to slightly clumsier software and idiotic VXI-11 protocol vs more memory. 120k wfms/s is not that much different from 140k wfms /s. If either company sells the same amount of the scopes, Instek gets much more profit because their hardware is cheaper.

But. If not for the bad capacitors, Siglent would be a clear winner.

***

Screwing the front end filter the other way doesn't help neither. Here's a cheap 1GHz scope:

http://www.analogarts.com/products/usb-oscilloscope/sa985-1-ghz-bandwidth-oscilloscope

But the sample rate is 125Ms/s 

***

All this may have some historical meaning, but I predict that in the (near) future bandwidth is going to be determined by the sample rates, not by marketing schemes. And it means more bandwidth for the same money for the customers.

Of course it may not be true for bigger scopes. If a scope costs as much as a car (or a house), everything is different.