Siglent SDS2204X. Any good?

[Kev31779]

Hello, I am in the market for a new 4 channel scope. I saw this one and but I don't have any experience with the Siglent brand. Any idea if this is a good scope? I am coming from an Owon scope. "I know right".  I know that this Siglent model is light years ahead of the Owon but I want to make sure that its not a dog and hard to navigate like my Owon is. Anyone have any thoughts or experience with this scope? There is not any reviews out there on it that I could find.


http://www.saelig.com/siglent-sds2000x-series/sds2204x.htm

Kevin

[tautech]

I love them, but I would, wouldn't I ?
They're big sellers in the US I've heard.

Use the Search button and enter SDS2000X, you'll find plenty to research there including Daves teardown.
There's been a heap of FW revisions since the model they evolved (SDS2000) from was released and all historical issues that annoyed users have been attended to and I know of no outstanding issues.
Of the lower priced middle range the specs make them very competitive.


PS. My personal unit is a SDS2304X

And in case you weren't aware:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/equipment-discounts-from-saelig/

[nctnico]

Based on the latest posts about the SDS2000(X) series I'm not convinced the firmware is free of (annoying) bugs. And there are still serious limitations like 14kpts Eres (high resolution) mode, decoding only what is on screen and only 16kpts FFT (which is already an improvement from the 1kpts it was until November 2016). So perhaps we could hold of the commercials until somebody who actually owns an SDS2204(X) chimes in and comments? 

Meanwhile I'd like to invite the topic starter to look at the GW Instek GDS-2204E which is in the same price range (protocol decoding included) and could be interesting as well: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/.

[pascal_sweden]

Meanwhile I'd like to invite the topic starter to look at the GW Instek GDS-2204E which is in the same price range (protocol decoding included) and could be interesting as well: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/.

Meet the scope that looks like a toy!

[tautech]

So perhaps we could hold of the commercials until somebody who actually owns an SDS2204(X) chimes in and comments? 

Commercial ? 

Facts:
The X should not be in brackets, the SDS2000 and SDS2000X are different series of DSO's.
There are a # of HW differences between these 2 series.
I've owned both (fully spec'ed) and the X is a much improved and nicer unit.
Any of the 4 channel SDS2000X models will behave in the same manner, beit the 70, 100, 200 or 300 MHz versions.

And there are still serious limitations ...........

All instruments have limitations.......know and accept them and find effective methods to work around them.
Just as you have with your Instek with its lower sample rate, smaller memory depth, lower waveform update rate and so on. 

Based on the latest posts about the SDS2000(X) series I'm not convinced the firmware is free of (annoying) bugs.

Since you don't own a SDS2204 (not X) anymore, how would/could you know ? 

[pascal_sweden]

@Tautech: Maybe you and Siglent can work out a video series to get more video content about the SDS1000X and SDS2000X series on YouTube! This would take away any doubts from the public.

There is a lot of video available about the Rigol scopes. But not so much about the Siglent scopes.
It would also be nice to see the logic analyzer functionality in action on these scopes.

Conclusion: A video series would help a lot!

Note that there are hardly any videos available about the GW-Instek scopes either (*).
But that should not stop Siglent from making a video series!

(*) The only videos available from GW-Instek, are the company videos where they keep repeating the model numbers over and over, up to the point it drives you crazy

I even wrote a separate thread about the GW-Instek company videos some time ago, to check with other forum members, if they have the same viewing experience:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/feedback-about-videos-from-gw-instek-on-youtube/msg980947/#msg980947

[tautech]

@Tautech: Maybe you and Siglent can work out a video series to get more video content about the SDS1000X and SDS2000X series on YouTube! This would take away any doubts from the public.

Hmm
At this time their specs are selling them, particularly the 1kX.
The 2kX is mostly beyond a hobbyist class where interested buyers are more focussed on capability and less on price.
Yep, point taken, I'll give Siglent US a heads up where Steve in the past has done some vids on the SSA3000X.

Really though, an independent reviewer of some repute would be best to do an in-depth review but as we know even those soon become out of date if more features are added or issues fixed with new FW.
It's a case of doing your homework and base decisions on the latest information, not historical POV's or long since fixed bugs.

[nctnico]

Really though, an independent reviewer of some repute would be best to do an in-depth review but as we know even those soon become out of date if more features are added or issues fixed with new FW.

Which is why it is so important to put an instrument on the market which is actually finished otherwise the bugfest smell never goes away. When a reviewer comes up with bugs they need to be fixed ASAP before the review goes out. GW Instek got that right. The GDS2204E was already working well when I got it and they fixed the two issues I found during my evaluation within 4 weeks. The SDS2000(X) series OTOH needed a total firmware rewrite after the instrument was already on the market for over a year. Based on the lack of responses to your firmware update announcements I can only assume the very few people on this forum who own(ed) an SDS2000(X) series scope have lost interest to share their experiences.

I agree that in the price range where the SDS2000X is positioned people focus on capabilities and thus expect a scope which works with features which are useful (not checkbox features like 1kpts FFT or limited length Eres mode). Also the low end scopes from well established brands like Hameg, Keysight and Tektronix are competing in that price bracket. However without proper software quality control (testing) Siglent is never going to be a serious player in that price range. Just look at the silly decoding bugs they fixed in the latest release. Those should never have slipped past software testing! It doesn't take a genius to figure out there must be many more bugs lurking around which will turn up in a thourough test. But who is going to do such a thourough test if the manufacturer doesn't do that? What kind of assurance do customers have the firmware is free from bugs which cripple functionality? Would you offer a customer a money back guarantee in the case they run into a bug which prevents certain functionality from working?

Anyway IMHO it seems Siglent isn't focussing on oscilloscopes due to the fierce competition and low volumes (note price drops and continuous special offers on Siglent scopes!). Other equipment types like their SSA302x spectrum analyser receive much more attention in the form of more frequent firmware updates and bigger improvements (fixing bugs and adding new features).

[Kev31779]

I am all kinds of confused now. You guys are all over this. I just started my search for a new scope and it seemed like the Siglent was and may be a good deal. I guess it depends on who you ask. If I could get a 200MHZ 4 ch Keysight for $1500 I would jump on it.

[tautech]

I am all kinds of confused now. You guys are all over this. I just started my search for a new scope and it seemed like the Siglent was and may be a good deal. I guess it depends on who you ask. If I could get a 200MHZ 4 ch Keysight for $1500 I would jump on it.

You wouldn't be disappointed in the new X series despite what historical owners thought of its predecessor.

You need to check with Siglent US in Ohio to see if the promotion is still running, as each promotion is region specific I can't say if it is or not. Give them a bell tomorrow.

Do you have somewhere local where you can give one a trial ?

Just fire away with any further questions as there's a lot of info on these scopes here and maybe I can point you to a post or find the answer for you.

Edit
There lots of resellers all over the states, if you use this link to find one close to you:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/how_to_buy
Click on your region.

[Kev31779]

It looks like right now you can get the SDS2204X for $1440 after the discount code that I was told to check out on another thread. Is that the current deal or do you think I could do better?

[kcbrown]

I am all kinds of confused now. You guys are all over this. I just started my search for a new scope and it seemed like the Siglent was and may be a good deal. I guess it depends on who you ask. If I could get a 200MHZ 4 ch Keysight for $1500 I would jump on it.

What you're seeing here is the result of opinions of scopes being largely religious in nature.  No scope is perfect (take, for example, the Keysight you would like to have -- its memory depth is relatively small, so for some uses, a different scope might prove superior).  They all have tradeoffs.

So you might want to take a systematic approach to this.  First define exactly what you need the scope to do, and then define what you think you might want the scope to be able to do in the future.  From there, determine which scopes qualify in that regard.  To do this, you might want to first examine the user manual for each contender, to see how you'd go about using it.  If the user interface is important to you (it is to many), then this will give you some idea of how easy it is to get to the features you want to use.   Then look at the specifications to see if they meet your requirements.  Specifications that aren't in the official documentation of the scope (for instance, whether or not serial decoding is done solely with on-screen data -- I can find no mention of such a thing in either the SDS2000X manual or the GDS-2000E manual) are things you'll need to ask about on the forum here.


You may be surprised at which scope ends up winning the above competition.

[tautech]

It looks like right now you can get the SDS2204X for $1440 after the discount code that I was told to check out on another thread. Is that the current deal or do you think I could do better?

That sounds good, a lot better than my list @ $ 2189 so it seems the promo is still running. 

Did you select any options or is that just bare scope ?

[kcbrown]

It looks like right now you can get the SDS2204X for $1440 after the discount code that I was told to check out on another thread. Is that the current deal or do you think I could do better?

The Instek GDS-2204E is currently selling for $1350 at tequipment.net.  Saelig's asking price is about $200 higher than that currently.   Saelig's asking price for the Siglent SDS2204X is nearly identical to that of the Instek.  All of these prices are before accounting for the EEVblog discount.

Tautech, what are the advantages of the Siglent SDS2204X over the Instek GDS-2204E?  It's unclear to me if there are any, but I'm sure there must be some.

[Kev31779]

That sounds good. I might give the  Siglent SDS2204X a shot. To be honest I don't use it for more than some small home brew projects and repairs on the bench at home and some repairs I do for Youtube when I am repairing amplifiers. So I don't expect I need something super powerful but I would like to have something I would enjoy and that I am able to expand my projects to higher limits. I am also a Ham radio operator and work on lots of radio's. I would like to have a scope that has good features and be able to help diagnose some complex problems and become a little bit future proof as my testing and knowledge gets more complex. I dont expect to get any options with it. I already have a generator. I am really getting frustrated with my Owon as you all know they are kind of slow and have odd menu layouts. I think i'm done with it and need to move on. I had it since 2011.

[nctnico]

If you are not after protocol decoding or digital channels then why not look for a used oscilloscope on Ebay? You should be able to score a reasonable 500MHz or even a 1GHz scope with your budget. But you'd probably have to set your expectations low when it comes to memory depth. IMHO the Agilent/Keysight scopes are nice and they work well (I've got an older Agilent as well) but their memory length is limited. A used DSOX2000 series might be possible for your budget with some haggling.

If you insist on a new oscilloscope then also consider FFT (spectrum analysis) can be a very usefull feature when working with audio and radio (looking at a modulated signal for example). Currently when it comes to FFT on oscilloscopes (at least the ones without a PC inside) the GW Instek GDS-1000B and GDS-2000E series are king. Because they have oodles of processing power even a 1 Mpts FFT has a quick (useable) update rate without slowing the entire scope down.

[Kev31779]

Ill take a look around.

[kcbrown]

That sounds good. I might give the  Siglent SDS2204X a shot. To be honest I don't use it for more than some small home brew projects and repairs on the bench at home and some repairs I do for Youtube when I am repairing amplifiers. So I don't expect I need something super powerful but I would like to have something I would enjoy and that I am able to expand my projects to higher limits. I am also a Ham radio operator and work on lots of radio's. I would like to have a scope that has good features and be able to help diagnose some complex problems and become a little bit future proof as my testing and knowledge gets more complex. I dont expect to get any options with it. I already have a generator. I am really getting frustrated with my Owon as you all know they are kind of slow and have odd menu layouts. I think i'm done with it and need to move on. I had it since 2011.

This raises the question of how much bandwidth you really need (or foresee that you'll need).  Going from 100MHz to 200MHz nearly quadruples the price if your baseline is a hacked Rigol DS1054Z, and doubles it if your baseline is an unhacked scope (such as the Instek GDS-1104B).

A hacked Rigol DS1054Z will get you 100MHz and a pretty significant memory depth, but you might be put off by the user interface.  If you don't need digital decoding, then the Instek is likely to be worth considering as well (though if you need 100MHz, then it'll cost you around $700 -- but its FFT is probably better than anything else in that price range).

What exactly are you after here, and why, over and above something better than the Owon you already have (speaking of which, which Owon do you have?)?

[Kev31779]

I have the Owon DS6062 It is a 60 Mhz scope. I just feel after years with it and dealing with the odd menu system and slow speeds. It is hindering my ability to see thing as they should. Modulated HF signals from transceivers looks awful and chunky. It was always is kind of choppy and slow when looking at these types of signals. I also hate trying to find things in the menu as it is not very user friendly in that respect. Well at least not to me. The screen is ok I guess. My biggest quirk is some of the measurements just don't seem right or it is  just to jumpy or  jittery sometimes when testing circuits at higher frequency's or even real low amplitudes. I just think after 6 years I have just developed a hate for it I guess and looking to upgrade.

[tautech]

Tautech, what are the advantages of the Siglent SDS2204X over the Instek GDS-2204E?  It's unclear to me if there are any, but I'm sure there must be some.

Those that hit me with a quick look at just the webpages:
SDS2000X:
1 or 2 GSa/s depending on the # of channels used.
140 Mbts memory depth/ch #'s used
Ext in on all models
1M and 50 inputs
140,000 wfm/s
Segmented and History 80,000 frames

Options if required that can be added later:
25 MHz arbitrary waveform generator
16 digital channels

There will be competing and better features in the UI of each DSO too, one will do something better than the other and so on, that is the test equipment world.

[kcbrown]

I have the Owon DS6062 It is a 60 Mhz scope. I just feel after years with it and dealing with the odd menu system and slow speeds. It is hindering my ability to see thing as they should. Modulated HF signals from transceivers looks awful and chunky. It was always is kind of choppy and slow when looking at these types of signals. I also hate trying to find things in the menu as it is not very user friendly in that respect. Well at least not to me. The screen is ok I guess. My biggest quirk is some of the measurements just don't seem right or it is  just to jumpy or  jittery sometimes when testing circuits at higher frequency's or even real low amplitudes. I just think after 6 years I have just developed a hate for it I guess and looking to upgrade.

OK, so it sounds like the user interface is important to you, as are the measurements.

The question of measurements may eliminate the Rigol DS1054Z as a contender, since some of its automatic measurements are apparently questionable (e.g., RMS voltage).  The Rigol uses the screen data to do its measurements, which can yield measurements which are more limited than those you might get from a scope that used the raw data for measurements.  Its user interface isn't the most responsive in the world, either (it's not horrible, mind you, but if these things matter to you, then you might be annoyed by it).   I'd say that on the basis of your comments thus far, the Rigol is probably out of the running despite the rather incredible amount of capability you get for the money.

I've no idea what the Siglent line uses as the basis of its measurements.  If it does decoding on the basis of screen values, then it may have the same limitations as the Rigol as regards measurements (though it might not have as many bugs).   My understanding is that the Instek line uses raw data for most such things (nctnico should be able to talk more about that), and if that's the case, then it may well prove to be the winner as regards measurements.

The Instek GDS-1000B and 2000E lines reportedly have a very responsive user interface (both use the Xilinx Zynq, which is apparently quite powerful) something that you might like.  The Siglent's may also prove quite responsive.  Such a thing is difficult to determine by watching videos, but those I've seen show the Instek line to be remarkably responsive (it looks to me like it compares reasonably favorably to that of the Agilent DSOX-2000 series, which is impressive).

You really should examine the user manuals for each line.   The main problem with the Siglent line is that you don't get 4 channels until you hit the 2000X series, so you're in it for at least $1200 by that point.  If you don't need 200 MHz worth of bandwidth, then the Instek 1000B series may well be the best overall choice, and at $700 for the 100MHz version, you'd be saving quite a lot of money compared with the more expensive Siglent (though at the expense of sample rate -- 1GS/s for the Instek 1000B versus 2GS/s for the Siglent 2000X or Instek 2000E).

The Instek's FFT function seems to be better than the Siglent's (or, indeed, anything else in the same price class from what I can tell) in at least a couple of ways.  The first is that the update rate is very fast -- it looks to me like it's around 10 times per second or so.  The second is that the display will actually show you X and Y axis values that you can use to determine at a glance what the FFT is showing (at least, if the user manual images are to be believed).  The FFT is Instek's big advertising point, but whether or not that really matters to you ultimately depends on what you're going to do with it.  That said, it seems to be indicative of the overall responsiveness of the scope as well.

I'd love to see a head to head shootout between the Instek 2000E series and the Siglent 2000X series.  The Siglent's memory buffer is very large and looks to be quite nice in terms of one's ability to scan through frames with it.  I can't tell from reading the manual whether or not it's possible to run the remembered frames through the pass/fail system.    It looks like the Instek 1000B series doesn't implement segmented memory, but the 2000E series does.

[tautech]

The Siglent's memory buffer is very large and looks to be quite nice in terms of one's ability to scan through frames with it.  I can't tell from reading the manual whether or not it's possible to run the remembered frames through the pass/fail system.    It looks like the Instek 1000B series doesn't implement segmented memory, but the 2000E series does.

Nice to see some reasoned discussion. 

Why would you need to run stored frames against a Pass/Fail when the feature itself is much faster running live ?
From this post 3 years ago is some answer to Siglent Pass/Fail capabilities:

Pass/fail function speed.

Siglent advertise it have fast hardware based  pass/fail mask test.

It looks like it is true and it can around same speed as normal full waveform update rate.

Here tiny test. (test made with disassembled (case open etc) oscilloscope what may lead to some extra noise in signal but here it do not have any meaning)

CH1 and CH2 on. 50ns/div.
Display mode = dots.
Signal adjusted so that it give fail continuously.
Also some automatic measurements on. (not affect speed)
Pass/Fail output give pulse every time waveform is captured and it do not pass.

with this setting, ~109400  test fail indicating pulses in second.
Measured with HP53131A counter (reading frequency from Pass/fail output.)
Checked also using Tektronix 2465 analog oscilloscope.

[rf-loop]

what are the advantages of the Siglent SDS2204X over the Instek GDS-2204E?  It's unclear to me if there are any, but I'm sure there must be some.

Here some..
GoodWill GDS2000E do not have MSO hardware at all. Not 2GSa/s (if I read datasheet right)


SDS2204X  (with optional license key it is also  MSO with 16 channel LA.)
- it have always Arb/FG hardware (need optional license key)
- it have always MSO hardware (need optional license key and probe)

Max 2GSa/s  for 2 channels in use simultaneously. (in 4 channel models)
Max 2GSa/s for 1 channel in use ( in 2 channel models)
Max 1GSa/s  for 3 or 4 channels in use  simultaneously.

Max 140Mpts for for 2 channels in use simultaneously. (in 4 channel models)
Max 140Mpts for for 1 channels in use. (in 2 channel models)
Max  70Mpts for for 3 or 4 channels in use  simultaneously.

Max 500 000 wfm/s in Sequence (also known as "segmented memory acquisition") mode (up to 80000 time stamped segments)
Max 140 000 wfm/s in normal mode.

Always backround running wfm history buffer with current speed, (up to 80000 time stamped previous waveforms fifo)


1M  and 50 ohm inputs.

Hardware ready MSO (16 channel)  (activation need license key and use need also LA probe)
(max 500MSa/s  16ch  140mpts/channel. Simultaneously with 4 analog channels)
Hardware ready Arb/FG 25MHz (activation nee license key)

Ext trigger (4 ch + Ext trig)

Trig Out/Pass/Fail out.
- pass/fail out is full speed (as also mask test is hardware  based full speed) Not as GoodWill Go/Nogo joke.
(it means that if signal example fails in mask test 140000 times in second every fail give also fail pulse out. )

All what is captured is also displayed. (trace length is always displayed length = less visual blind time)

200MHz models also with 300MHz probes.

But it is also much more heavy. Made like tank compared to GDS.
And it do not have GDS wind turbine. Of course if want DIY kit all can modify.

What is same: GDS and SDS, both are made in China.

[rf-loop]

The Siglent's memory buffer is very large and looks to be quite nice in terms of one's ability to scan through frames with it.  I can't tell from reading the manual whether or not it's possible to run the remembered frames through the pass/fail system.    It looks like the Instek 1000B series doesn't implement segmented memory, but the 2000E series does.

Nice to see some reasoned discussion. 

Why would you need to run stored frames against a Pass/Fail when the feature itself is much faster running live ?
From this post 3 years ago is some answer to Siglent Pass/Fail capabilities:

Pass/fail function speed.

Siglent advertise it have fast hardware based  pass/fail mask test.

It looks like it is true and it can around same speed as normal full waveform update rate.

Here tiny test. (test made with disassembled (case open etc) oscilloscope what may lead to some extra noise in signal but here it do not have any meaning)

CH1 and CH2 on. 50ns/div.
Display mode = dots.
Signal adjusted so that it give fail continuously.
Also some automatic measurements on. (not affect speed)
Pass/Fail output give pulse every time waveform is captured and it do not pass.

with this setting, ~109400  test fail indicating pulses in second.
Measured with HP53131A counter (reading frequency from Pass/fail output.)
Checked also using Tektronix 2465 analog oscilloscope.

But this my test is very old. Today these are more fast you know.
This test was using oldest possible SDS2304 hardware version. Not later MSO HW version and not at all 2000X model. Also  before FW what improve speed and memory. At this time max wfm/s was slow. Also mask test function is improved after this test. So, all these old SDS2000 tests, opinions, reviwews etc  are fully and totally obsolete if we talk about SDS2000X series today.

[kcbrown]

Tautech, what are the advantages of the Siglent SDS2204X over the Instek GDS-2204E?  It's unclear to me if there are any, but I'm sure there must be some.

Those that hit me with a quick look at just the webpages:
SDS2000X:
1 or 2 GSa/s depending on the # of channels used.

For some reason, I thought the Instek 2000E series sampled at 2GS/s.  Apparently not!  I suppose even 1GS/s still gets you more than Nyquist demands for 200MHz waveforms, but even so, this is a notable advantage for the Siglent.

140 Mbts memory depth/ch #'s used

That could prove quite the advantage depending on what one is doing.  I like the looks of the segmented memory implementation that Siglent uses (but see below).

Ext in on all models

That, too, is nice, especially if you've got something where you really need all 4 channels for probing.

1M and 50 inputs

This isn't much of an advantage, what with the availability of 50 ohm terminators.  I'd expect that to matter quite a bit more when you have signal frequencies exceeding 500MHz or so, where I could see the difference between built-in termination circuitry and an external terminator starting to matter (that's just a guess on my part, but it seems logical that as the frequency goes up, the importance of getting the termination exactly right would start to matter a lot more), but that's not really what we're talking about here.

140,000 wfm/s

The Instek 2000E series hits 120K wfm/s.  Not much of a difference here.

Segmented and History 80,000 frames

While the Instek has segmented memory, having 140M points for segmented memory has to count for something here.  So this could be a significant advantage for the Siglent.   It doesn't look like it's possible to run the stored frames through the pass/fail system, though. 

That said, one advantage the Instek has that the Siglent seems to lack is a search capability for the stored segments.  The Instek can search for segments that match parameters which you can define after the fact, which are very much like trigger conditions.  So it looks like you can stop acquisition and then go back through the stored segments using whatever trigger conditions you like (within limits).  I can't tell if it supports running the stored segments through its pass/fail mechanism, however.

Siglent would do well to implement a similar mechanism for its segmented memory subsystem, if it hasn't done so already.  Being able to store 80K segments doesn't strike me as being all that useful if you have to look through all of them manually, but it can be a major advantage if you have the ability to perform automatic searches through them.

Options if required that can be added later:
25 MHz arbitrary waveform generator

I don't know how much that feature costs, but with the price of the Siglent SDG2042X being what it is, my feeling is that you're likely to be far better off with a standalone waveform generator.

16 digital channels

Yep, that's certainly a potential advantage for the Siglent, especially if those are also stored along with the analog waveforms in the segment system.  Are they?