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?

[kcbrown]

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. 

I do try to be as objective as I can be.   

Why would you need to run stored frames against a Pass/Fail when the feature itself is much faster running live ?

Because if you can run stored frames against the pass/fail system, then it means you can change the pass/fail waveform after the fact, which would make it possible to look for waveforms with multiple simultaneous characteristics.   It would also allow you to capture a batch of waveforms on the basis of a trigger and then examine the waveforms that surround the failures, something that it's not clear to me you can do with a standard pass/fail setup.

This could be especially important if you're using the MSO capability.  Imagine, for instance, that you're looking for the digital conditions that immediately precede some other signal (say, an analog output) going bad.  With the ability to run your captured waveforms through the pass/fail system, you'd be able to quickly find the location of the failure and then scroll backwards to examine the digital state that immediately preceded the failure.   Can such a thing be done with the existing pass/fail system?

[tautech]

Because if you can run stored frames against the pass/fail system, then it means you can change the pass/fail waveform after the fact, which would make it possible to look for waveforms with multiple simultaneous characteristics.   It would also allow you to capture a batch of waveforms on the basis of a trigger and then examine the waveforms that surround the failures, something that it's not clear to me you can do with a standard pass/fail setup.

This could be especially important if you're using the MSO capability.  Imagine, for instance, that you're looking for the digital conditions that immediately precede some other signal (say, an analog output) going bad.  With the ability to run your captured waveforms through the pass/fail system, you'd be able to quickly find the location of the failure and then scroll backwards to examine the digital state that immediately preceded the failure.   Can such a thing be done with the existing pass/fail system?

Why would you just not use the already capable Trigger suite ? 

FYI the Pass/Fail can only be assigned to one waveform.

[rf-loop]

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?

Due to lack of time only this.

I have not SDS2000X at this time for test.

But functionally  SDS1000X+ (SDS1000X  with 16ch LA + AWG)
is very near SDS2000X (with much lower processing power and only two analog channels etc)

Fast Sequence mode can not use if LA is on. 

But, now need understand how it works because there is two kind of "segmented memory"

1. Normal run (always with history buffer) (with current wfm/s speed, (in SDS1000X/X+ series max 60kwfm/s for analog channels only on)

If LA on, maximum wfm/s is far more low than 60kwfm/s.  But MSO (analog + LA together) but wfm history buffer store LA and Analog together.  In practice this is just as segmented memory acquisition but it run always backround. Only difference is that this run with current wfm speed with normal live screen.


2. Sequence mode, in SDS1000X/X+ specified over 400kwfm/s (ksegment/s) (in my tests, explained in some thread here) measured quaranteed max 485ksegm/s)  This mode available only for analog channels.
In this fast sequence mode during sequence capture it do not update display or do any other post processing during one sequence acquisition (if run in continuous mode. Afteer sequence is ready it process all segments for display so that  all wfms (segments) overlayed on the screen at once and then continue next sequence). This give all possible resources for acquistion with minimized trigger rearm.

Mask test can not run for history buffer, independent of history buffer acquisition method (fast sequence segments acquisition or normal speed wfm/s (segments) acquisition) (this buffer maximum length is 54M in SDS1000X but length is not simply fixed, so all 54M is not always in use) SDS2000X memory is very different. Measurements and math can run also for history/sequence segment buffer.

(SDS1000X but principle is same in SDS2000X)


I think it is same in SDS2000X exept that it have much more memory and much more processing power.

[kcbrown]

Because if you can run stored frames against the pass/fail system, then it means you can change the pass/fail waveform after the fact, which would make it possible to look for waveforms with multiple simultaneous characteristics.   It would also allow you to capture a batch of waveforms on the basis of a trigger and then examine the waveforms that surround the failures, something that it's not clear to me you can do with a standard pass/fail setup.

This could be especially important if you're using the MSO capability.  Imagine, for instance, that you're looking for the digital conditions that immediately precede some other signal (say, an analog output) going bad.  With the ability to run your captured waveforms through the pass/fail system, you'd be able to quickly find the location of the failure and then scroll backwards to examine the digital state that immediately preceded the failure.   Can such a thing be done with the existing pass/fail system?

Why would you just not use the already capable Trigger suite ? 

If the trigger suite is capable of combining trigger conditions (such that it triggers when all such conditions are present or when at least one such condition is present -- you'd obviously want to be able to tell the scope which of those combinatorial operators to use), then obviously that's what you should use.  Is the Siglent's triggering mechanism capable of that?

FYI the Pass/Fail can only be assigned to one waveform.

Yes, I understand that.  What I was getting at is that if you can run recorded frames past the pass/fail system, then you could have an initial capture based on one waveform, and then perform a second run of the captured data against a different waveform.   That might not be terribly useful if you could simply combine the two waveforms, but I'm skeptical that all combinations of waveforms can be combined in that way (they can if you can define and upload arbitrary masks, and since the Siglent can load masks from external media, that at least suggests the possibility of creating arbitrary ones).

For instance, suppose your actual pass condition is a sine wave with either 0 degrees phase shift relative to your trigger or a 90 degree phase shift.  You'd want it to fail on anything that isn't one of those.  It's not clear to me that you'd be able to construct a single pass/fail waveform that captures that requirement (at least, not that wouldn't be overinclusive in terms of what would pass it).  But if you can perform a single capture of the failures against the 0 degree phase shift waveform, and then filter the result against a 90 degree phase shift waveform, you'd have some ability to detect instances of failure to match both conditions.

I'm not arguing that one would necessarily find a lot of use for such a capability.  But I imagine that such a capability wouldn't go entirely unused, either.

[tautech]

If the trigger suite is capable of combining trigger conditions (such that it triggers when all such conditions are present or when at least one such condition is present -- you'd obviously want to be able to tell the scope which of those combinatorial operators to use), then obviously that's what you should use.  Is the Siglent's triggering mechanism capable of that?

There's an extensive suite and within each Trigger type there's a # of definable parameters.
From the manual:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/USA_website_2014/Documents/UserManual/SDS2000X_UserManual_UM0102X-E01A.pdf
P58
Suite:
Edge trigger
Slope trigger
Pulse trigger
Video trigger
Window trigger
Interval trigger
DropOut trigger
Runt trigger
Pattern trigger
And the Decode Trigger suite that is standard.

If you want to check them out in detail the manual has a good description for each.

Pass/Fail
I admit my lack of experience in using this and there are use cases where functionality that presently doesn't exist could indeed be useful. Instead I seek out the examples that rf-loop has posted and his comparisons against other brands.

Then I wonder if using some advanced Trigger and then sampling the Trigger out might not serve the same function ?

[kcbrown]

If the trigger suite is capable of combining trigger conditions (such that it triggers when all such conditions are present or when at least one such condition is present -- you'd obviously want to be able to tell the scope which of those combinatorial operators to use), then obviously that's what you should use.  Is the Siglent's triggering mechanism capable of that?

There's an extensive suite and within each Trigger type there's a # of definable parameters.
From the manual:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/USA_website_2014/Documents/UserManual/SDS2000X_UserManual_UM0102X-E01A.pdf
P58
Suite:
Edge trigger
Slope trigger
Pulse trigger
Video trigger
Window trigger
Interval trigger
DropOut trigger
Runt trigger
Pattern trigger
And the Decode Trigger suite that is standard.

If you want to check them out in detail the manual has a good description for each.

All that looks pretty standard.  I'm primarily a software guy, so seemingly arbitrary limitations are something of an anathema to me.  But in this case, I expect that the triggering system limitations are not arbitrary at all!  Rather, they're determined by what you can reasonably detect in hardware (I suspect that even protocol triggering is something that has a very large hardware component to it, with perhaps a highly optimized software component at the final stage).

It occurs to me that if the Siglent were capable of triggering off the math output, then you might be able to do some amount of combinatorial triggering.  But I don't see anything that lets you set the math output as a trigger source.  Indeed, I'm skeptical that any scope is capable of that.

Pass/Fail
I admit my lack of experience in using this and there are use cases where functionality that presently doesn't exist could indeed be useful. Instead I seek out the examples that rf-loop has posted and his comparisons against other brands.

Then I wonder if using some advanced Trigger and then sampling the Trigger out might not serve the same function ?

Well, it would be entertaining if one could wire the trigger out right back into the trigger input and have that work.      But methinks the scope's triggering system is already preoccupied by that point.   

Certainly if one had multiple scopes, one could do combined triggers.  But the idea here would be to minimize the need for that.

Anyway, we've moved rather far afield from the OP's original questions.   With respect to the Siglent vs the Instek, it looks like (as one would expect) they each have their advantages and disadvantages.  I think Siglent would do very well to implement a search capability against recorded waveforms akin to what Instek has implemented.  I think it would make Siglent's massive memory depth a lot more useful than it already is, and would put their scope head and shoulders above anything else.  You might suggest to them that they do precisely that, if you're so inclined.

For what it's worth, I don't think Instek implements any sort of ability to run recorded waveforms past their pass/fail mechanism either.  While such a thing might have limited uses, lack of it seems to be something of an arbitrary limitation, seeing how the pass/fail mechanism already exists.   How feasible it would be to implement such a thing surely depends on the way the pass/fail mechanism is already implemented.  It may be that it simply can't be implemented against already-recorded waveforms, at least without a lot of work.

[kcbrown]

My thanks to rf-loop for brining the technical details of the Siglent X series scopes.  That's good stuff there.   

[nctnico]

Maybe it is time to list the strong points of the GDS-2000E series as well:
- Fast hardware platform with quad core 1GHz ARM so it can do all kinds of waveform operations/measurements fast
- SCPI command over LAN (LXI) so you can telnet to the scope and send it commands by typing them
- Save data (images, samples data, etc) onto a network share directly over LAN
- Data logging
- Save screendumps in PNG format
- Up to 1MPts FFT
- Free form math equations
- Search function for trigger condition and peaks (for example a list of peaks in FFT)
- Statistical analysis of measurements over recorded segments
- Protocol decoding over the entire memory (up to 10MPts)
- UART protocol decoding has (limited) support for message/packet based protocols
- Triggering on specific data inside a protocol
- Input filtering (low, band and high pass)
- Peak detect also works in roll mode
- Reference traces can be used for analysis (math), saved/recalled using waveform data, scaled (horizontal/vertical) and moved (horizontal/vertical)
- Seperate select button and rotating knob which works better than when combined in one.
- Force trigger button
- User sets the record length. Automatic is terrible because often you'll want to zoom in or scroll left/right and if the automatic length is short you'll have no data to look at.
- Lifetime warranty (ends 5 years after GW Instek stops producing the model)
- Last but not least: no bugs I'm aware of and if I do find one GW Instek has proven to be able to fix them quickly.

Also don't get wound up about waveforms/s. It is a purely hypothetical number which can only be achieved at a specific time/div setting in dot mode. For starters nobody uses dot mode on a scope because it just doesn't draw a visible signal in many cases. Also the idea behind a high waveforms/s number is that you have a higher chance of seeing rare glitches. Unfortunaly many don't factor in that people blink their eyes and may want to take a coffee break.

BTW The wind turbine remark of rf-loop is way off. The fan in the GDS2000E series doesn't need replacing at all and (after mounting it with rubber fan mounts) the sound level is on par with what you'll get from the SDS2000X series. Maybe GW Instek already addressed this issue because I got a relatively early model produced two years ago when posting this.

[voltsandjolts]

GW Instek Warranty:

http://www.gwinstek.com/en-US/Page/warranty_service_procedure

Note: GW Instek GDS-2000, GDS-1000A, GDS-1000A-U, GDS-1000, and GDS-1000-U series DSO has a lifetime-warranty period. All Products with LCD displays carry a warranty for one year.

 

[kcbrown]

Also don't get wound up about waveforms/s. It is a purely hypothetical number which can only be achieved at a specific time/div setting in dot mode. For starters nobody uses dot mode on a scope because it just doesn't draw a visible signal in many cases. Also the idea behind a high waveforms/s number is that you have a higher chance of seeing rare glitches. Unfortunaly many don't factor in that people blink their eyes and may want to take a coffee break.

Some people seem to believe that the high waveforms/sec number is useful so that the user has some chance of seeing a rare glitch or something, certainly.  But that some people believe that doesn't mean that such is what a high waveforms/sec number is good for.

No, the real reason a high waveforms/sec rate is desirable is that it is indicative of the speed of the acquisition and processing engine, and that is useful because you can then turn that capability towards having the scope automatically detect anomalies.

While a high waveforms/sec rate is no guarantee that the scope will have a high probability of such automatic detection, a low waveforms/sec rate is essentially a guarantee that the scope will not have that.

BTW The wind turbine remark of rf-loop is way off. The fan in the GDS2000E series doesn't need replacing at all and (after mounting it with rubber fan mounts) the sound level is on par with what you'll get from the SDS2000X series. Maybe GW Instek already addressed this issue because I got a relatively early model produced two years ago when posting this.

Opening the scope is often sufficient grounds for a warranty claim denial, so performing that kind of surgery has to be done with that fact in mind.  One would hope that Instek has addressed that issue, however...

[nctnico]

Also don't get wound up about waveforms/s. It is a purely hypothetical number which can only be achieved at a specific time/div setting in dot mode. For starters nobody uses dot mode on a scope because it just doesn't draw a visible signal in many cases. Also the idea behind a high waveforms/s number is that you have a higher chance of seeing rare glitches. Unfortunaly many don't factor in that people blink their eyes and may want to take a coffee break.

Some people seem to believe that the high waveforms/sec number is useful so that the user has some chance of seeing a rare glitch or something, certainly.  But that some people believe that doesn't mean that such is what a high waveforms/sec number is good for.

No, the real reason a high waveforms/sec rate is desirable is that it is indicative of the speed of the acquisition and processing engine, and that is useful because you can then turn that capability towards having the scope automatically detect anomalies.

That is a wrong assumption. The only way to detect an anomaly with 100% certainty is by using the trigger system to look for it. Only the trigger system uses a sliding window over the signal (and thus no blind time). Any other method (high waveform update rates, mask testing) has blind time so the chance you capture an anomaly isn't 100%. Just look at the formulas used by R&S, Keysight, Tektronix, etc and you'll see you can proof that mathematically. I would not want to rely on chance to see if a product complies or not in an automatic test. If you don't test something 100% it won't work in the hands of the customer.

Also I really wouldn't want a product to be tested by just looking for anomalies. How long would you let the test run? IOW: you have to test with reproducable signals. So signal in (trigger from generator to scope) and mask test the outgoing signal is a much more likely use case for mask testing and this doesn't need high update rates because you'd have to record the result and switching to a different test point will take at least 1 millisecond.

Oh and my GDS-2204E doesn't have warranty void stickers.

[kcbrown]

Also don't get wound up about waveforms/s. It is a purely hypothetical number which can only be achieved at a specific time/div setting in dot mode. For starters nobody uses dot mode on a scope because it just doesn't draw a visible signal in many cases. Also the idea behind a high waveforms/s number is that you have a higher chance of seeing rare glitches. Unfortunaly many don't factor in that people blink their eyes and may want to take a coffee break.

Some people seem to believe that the high waveforms/sec number is useful so that the user has some chance of seeing a rare glitch or something, certainly.  But that some people believe that doesn't mean that such is what a high waveforms/sec number is good for.

No, the real reason a high waveforms/sec rate is desirable is that it is indicative of the speed of the acquisition and processing engine, and that is useful because you can then turn that capability towards having the scope automatically detect anomalies.

That is a wrong assumption. The only way to detect an anomaly with 100% certainty is by using the trigger system to look for it.

Sure, but all trigger systems are at least somewhat limited in their capability, and that means you might not be able to define a trigger to capture the anomaly.

If the pass/fail ("go/no go" for the Instek) mechanism is built into the triggering mechanism, then you might have a shot at always being able to define a trigger to capture an anomaly.  In the absence of that, however, you're left with the waveform update rate and the pass/fail mechanism's throughput (whichever is less) as the limiting factor in terms of how likely you are to be able to detect some arbitrary anomaly.

Only the trigger system uses a sliding window over the signal (and thus no blind time). Any other method (high waveform update rates, mask testing) has blind time so the chance you capture an anomaly isn't 100%. Just look at the formulas used by R&S, Keysight, Tektronix, etc and you'll see you can proof that mathematically. I would not want to rely on chance to see if a product complies or not in an automatic test. If you don't test something 100% it won't work in the hands of the customer.

I completely agree that the triggering system is what you should be using to detect the anomaly if you can.  But there's no guarantee that you can, right?

Also I really wouldn't want a product to be tested by just looking for anomalies. How long would you let the test run? IOW: you have to test with reproducable signals. So signal in (trigger from generator to scope) and mask test the outgoing signal is a much more likely use case for mask testing and this doesn't need high update rates because you'd have to record the result and switching to a different test point will take at least 1 millisecond.

I'm skeptical that product testing is the only use of a pass/fail system.  I expect you'd be able to use it for troubleshooting as well, no?

Regardless, we're talking about the probability of detecting an anomaly within some bounded period of time.  The waveform update rate and mask test throughput will surely affect that, because they will affect the blind time between waveform tests.  That's the sort of thing I'd expect the Instek to be very good at since it's such a fast scope in general.

I agree that the waveform update rate is a somewhat overblown metric -- there's so much more to a scope than just that.  But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant, either.

Oh and my GDS-2204E doesn't have warranty void stickers.

I'm pleasantly surprised.  Is the same true of their current production?  You did mention that you got an early one.

[nctnico]

I'm skeptical that product testing is the only use of a pass/fail system.  I expect you'd be able to use it for troubleshooting as well, no?

I never used masked testing for troubleshooting. It use a trigger condition to make 100% sure and/or infinite persistence to get a general idea. One purpose is to check whether interrupts are always handled in time and don't take too long while having a device do various tasks.

Regardless, we're talking about the probability of detecting an anomaly within some bounded period of time.  The waveform update rate and mask test throughput will surely affect that, because they will affect the blind time between waveform tests.

If there is a probability a product defect will be missed then the test isn't useable so just turning on mask testing for X time is not going to be acceptable as a test. Murphy's law is like the laws of physics: you cannot change it.

That's the sort of thing I'd expect the Instek to be very good at since it's such a fast scope in general.

I don't have the go/nogo testing option for my GDS-2204E but since it uses reference waveforms I guess it can do testing while comparing traces up to 1Mpts in length sample by sample. If it can do that it allows for testing signals with low and high frequency components with a very fine grained mask. It won't be fast but you can (for example) test several different output signals in one test cycle.

[kcbrown]

I'm skeptical that product testing is the only use of a pass/fail system.  I expect you'd be able to use it for troubleshooting as well, no?

I never used masked testing for troubleshooting. It use a trigger condition to make 100% sure and/or infinite persistence to get a general idea. One purpose is to check whether interrupts are always handled in time and don't take too long while having a device do various tasks.

Well, obviously the methods you use are going to be determined by what you're facing.

Infinite persistence is an excellent approach to visually determine whether or not there's a problem, but it's just as dependent upon the waveform update rate as anything else.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the waveform update rate a reflection of how quickly the scope is able to process the data it has on hand once the trigger fires?   Put another way, the trigger system itself operates on a continuous stream of data up until the trigger fires, but once that happens, the scope has to process the resulting data at that point and reset the trigger before moving on.  The waveform update rate is the rate at which the scope can process trigger events, no?   Isn't that why you can use the trigger out connector as a means of determining the waveform update rate?

Regardless, we're talking about the probability of detecting an anomaly within some bounded period of time.  The waveform update rate and mask test throughput will surely affect that, because they will affect the blind time between waveform tests.

If there is a probability a product defect will be missed then the test isn't useable so just turning on mask testing for X time is not going to be acceptable as a test. Murphy's law is like the laws of physics: you cannot change it.

Well, you certainly can't avoid Murphy's Law, I'll grant you that!   But much of quality control is statistical in nature already.  You can't guarantee 100% quality -- you can only approach it, and the thoroughness of your testing will determine how close you get.

Obviously one would prefer a non-statistical test, but such a test might not be available, depending on what you're looking for.

For instance, how would you use the triggering system to detect an unacceptable amount of phase noise in a signal (ignore for the moment that a scope is not the right instrument for that in the first place)?

That's the sort of thing I'd expect the Instek to be very good at since it's such a fast scope in general.

I don't have the go/nogo testing option for my GDS-2204E

I thought the option was freely available to anyone who purchases the unit, no?  I think it's a separate download, though.  You might find some uses for it in your own testing.  Or not.  Depends on what you're testing, and perhaps how creative you get.   

but since it uses reference waveforms I guess it can do testing while comparing traces up to 1Mpts in length sample by sample. If it can do that it allows for testing signals with low and high frequency components with a very fine grained mask. It won't be fast but you can (for example) test several different output signals in one test cycle.

For all I know, it might even be relatively fast.

[nctnico]

For instance, how would you use the triggering system to detect an unacceptable amount of phase noise in a signal (ignore for the moment that a scope is not the right instrument for that in the first place)?

Phase noise (jitter) is a frequency domain effect so it will result in periods which are too long AND too short. Assuming the phase noise/jitter limits you are testing against are worse than that of the DSO's sampling and trigger system the pulse width trigger should work just fine.

[kcbrown]

For instance, how would you use the triggering system to detect an unacceptable amount of phase noise in a signal (ignore for the moment that a scope is not the right instrument for that in the first place)?

Phase noise (jitter) is a frequency domain effect so it will result in periods which are too long AND too short. Assuming the phase noise/jitter limits you are testing against are worse than that of the DSO's sampling and trigger system the pulse width trigger should work just fine.

That's absolutely right, and I have no idea why that approach didn't occur to me.   

[kcbrown]

Earlier, I wrote:

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.

If the 2000X series FFT is anything like that of the 1000X series, then I'm incorrect in the above as regards the Siglent's display of the FFT values.  This message from tautech shows the 1000X series FFT screen: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-series-oscilloscopes/msg1069585/#msg1069585

The FFT screen shown in that message looks quite nice.

[nctnico]

It can look nice on a screendump but if the update rate is slow then using FFT becomes annoying because it doesn't follow what you are doing immediately (probing a test point or adjust something on a generator). Unlike any other scope I have (or owned before) I'm using the FFT function on my GW Instek quite often just to take a look at the frequency spectrum because the FFT is fast. Also long FFT means high frequency resolution showing frequencies as distinctive peaks you can aim a cursor at very precisely. Given the fact that the SDS2000X is driven by a low cost Analog Devices Blackfin series (I think I have a nearly 20 year old eval. kit from when this series was introduced somewhere) it must be clear it is no match for what the GDS2000E series can do when it comes to FFT. But don't take my word for it: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2072e-1mpoints-fft-gt-i'm-impressed/

[pascal_sweden]

Siglent users who like and trust Siglent gear, don't have to use a poor man's FFT-on-a-scope solution for looking at a frequency spectrum. They use the real thing, an affordable spectrum analyzer from Siglent! =)

[nctnico]

Good luck using a multi-GHz spectrum analyser on a 1kHz signal because they usually start at 9kHz. Also most spectrum analysers aren't very good at the low frequency range. And what if you need sub-Hertz resolution? For some measurements FFT on a scope really is the best solution.

[rf-loop]

If the 2000X series FFT is anything like that of the 1000X series, then I'm incorrect in the above as regards the Siglent's display of the FFT values.  This message from tautech shows the 1000X series FFT screen: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-series-oscilloscopes/msg1069585/#msg1069585

The FFT screen shown in that message looks quite nice.

There is no any doubt that GoodWill 2000E FFT is far better than  Siglent SDS2000X or  SDS1000X FFT.
But, still I can use it for IF filter fast adjustment without any difficulties from update speed or any other thing.

These are SDS1102X  (SDS2000X is functionally same but it have bit more processing power.


(note freq counter. It is Trig counter and as can see triger is not continuous carrier (look trig level)
Carrier is < -10dBm 455kHz. Modulation 2.8kHz


Same 455kHz but full window and modulation 5kHz  Watching mod peaks is easy to tune filter. (even better if use dual or triple tone mod)

 

[kcbrown]

It can look nice on a screendump but if the update rate is slow then using FFT becomes annoying because it doesn't follow what you are doing immediately (probing a test point or adjust something on a generator). Unlike any other scope I have (or owned before) I'm using the FFT function on my GW Instek quite often just to take a look at the frequency spectrum because the FFT is fast. Also long FFT means high frequency resolution showing frequencies as distinctive peaks you can aim a cursor at very precisely. Given the fact that the SDS2000X is driven by a low cost Analog Devices Blackfin series (I think I have a nearly 20 year old eval. kit from when this series was introduced somewhere) it must be clear it is no match for what the GDS2000E series can do when it comes to FFT. But don't take my word for it: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2072e-1mpoints-fft-gt-i'm-impressed/

You'll get no argument from me on any of those points.  My purpose in writing what I did was to correct an error on my part with respect to the display of the scales on the FFT output.  What I'd previously seen suggested that the Siglent scopes didn't display the scale values, but if the SDS1000X FFT is indicative of what the SDS2000X series will show, then it means it will show the scales and, at least, you'll be able to easily see what the FFT is telling you.

I consider the FFT of the Instek line to be its showcase feature.

[pascal_sweden]

Good luck using a multi-GHz spectrum analyser on a 1kHz signal because they usually start at 9kHz. Also most spectrum analysers aren't very good at the low frequency range. And what if you need sub-Hertz resolution? For some measurements FFT on a scope really is the best solution.

Maybe a better alternative for those lower frequency measurements is the following device