Siglent SDS6000A DSO's 500MHz-2GHz

[tautech]

You shouldn´t take some things too seriously, especially in forums...

Trouble is, it is not widely known there are several Siglent beta testers here, some of which have had significant contribution to the development of these products and know how good they really are so when asked for a seemingly basic/simple test of the current Siglent flagship scope a reaction of humorous disbelief comes rapidly to the surface.

Yet truth is we have also contributed to the development to Siglent scope, yes you too Martin as have I however rf-loop operates at a higher and very analytical level where we can all learn from his high levels of knowledge.

PartialDischarge, is there anything else you'd like to see ?

[2N3055]

I don't know what you find so funny …

Maybe it’s because you seem to want to challenge an upper midrange 2 GHz MSO with a 5 ns pulse – a test scenario more commonly found when checking the base functionality of a 200 MHz entry level DSO?

And hence my comment about his ignorance, because I'm not interested in the edge response but what comes after that to see if reflections happen, so 1ns or 5ns rise time is ok.
Also for the 10us/div I'm interested in the flatness of the pulse as this low frequency area is common to have non flat frequency responses in many scopes due to non-linear capacitances in the boards where the attenuators are built.
So never assume what other knows or does not know, and laughing at others for asking just shows sheer stupidity, besides the aforementioned ignorance.

It's a shame you didn't answer what IS the verdict, how did the scope do ?
What kind of reflections do you expect to see with 5ns pulse and maybe 100-150 mm of complete path length in scope?
Any reflections will blend in the 5ns edge...
You expect impedance mismatch will be so high that you will see discontinuity between cables and scope input?
There was no explanation for any questions..
You obviously (or at least claim you do, and I have no reason to doubt it) have some knowledge and reason why you asked those questions.
I would like to know. I like learning new things..



Could we please, all, calm down and stop overreacting and check the facts before we start calling each other names..

[randomOracle]

This is a very nice new scope from Siglent ... BUT

- for a professional scope, it lacks the 10 MHz ref in/out. SRSLY? The smaller model SDS5000X has it.
- interface to PC is only USB2 ... or Fast Ethernet (100 Mbit)? This is a major limitation on all their other scopes. Many RIGOLs at least have Gbit LAN (but only USB2)
- Sequence mode was quite limited last time I checked, especially fetching traces could only be done one trace at a time; they got this fixed as per my request for the SDS5000X; not sure how this is implemented in the SDS6000A

Now look at the LeCroy scopes: they have very limited memory compared to the SDS6000A but typically have the three aspects that I just named. So clearly, this is a marketing issue, as LeCroy can still charge a lot of $$$ for providing deeper memory.

For many professional users relying on automated measurements (where throughput matters and 10 MHz synchronization to other devices), this scope simply is not going to cut it. It is a shame, since otherwise I would have bought it. In terms of bang-for-buck, I think a PicoScope 6404D or the 6000E series is the better choice -- all software upgrades are for free for the whole lifetime of the product. The 6404D is currently only 3775 EUR through the PicoAssured program ... only downside is that this will get you 8 bit only.

[2N3055]

This is a very nice new scope from Siglent ... BUT

- for a professional scope, it lacks the 10 MHz ref in/out. SRSLY? The smaller model SDS5000X has it.
- interface to PC is only USB2 ... or Fast Ethernet (100 Mbit)? This is a major limitation on all their other scopes. Many RIGOLs at least have Gbit LAN (but only USB2)
- Sequence mode was quite limited last time I checked, especially fetching traces could only be done one trace at a time; they got this fixed as per my request for the SDS5000X; not sure how this is implemented in the SDS6000A

Now look at the LeCroy scopes: they have very limited memory compared to the SDS6000A but typically have the three aspects that I just named. So clearly, this is a marketing issue, as LeCroy can still charge a lot of $$$ for providing deeper memory.

For many professional users relying on automated measurements (where throughput matters and 10 MHz synchronization to other devices), this scope simply is not going to cut it. It is a shame, since otherwise I would have bought it. In terms of bang-for-buck, I think a PicoScope 6404D or the 6000E series is the better choice -- all software upgrades are for free for the whole lifetime of the product. The 6404D is currently only 3775 EUR through the PicoAssured program ... only downside is that this will get you 8 bit only.

SDS6000A has very tight timebase, pretty much measures frequency of my siggen with OCXO to the last digit...
If I may ask, what is so important with 10MHz REF IN for you? What are you measuring so it is so important? Just curious..
Some kind of synchronization ?

And I'm a big fan of Picosope. BIG fan.
But I cannot see how these two products are directly comparable?

[randomOracle]

the point of the 10 MHz ref in/out is not to improve the timebase, it is about synchronizing multiple devices (e.g., scope, AWG, digital pattern generator, etc.). This is important for time-synchronous sampling and everything where you rely on controlled phase-shift of signals / measurements. I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all) was not included. Just look at all professional scopes from the premium companies (Keysight, Tektronix, LeCroy). They always have it on their "better" scopes. Same for the USB3 / Gbit LAN. This is crippling an otherwise super nice oscilloscope for no reason. The PicoScope 6404D I mentioned because it is just 3775 EUR for 500 MHz, 5 GS/s, 2 Gpts memory, and 8 bit ADCs; whereas the Siglent SDS6054A for 6480 EUR has 500 MHz, 5 GS/s, 500 Mpts, and 12 bit ADCs.

Why would I pay approx. 2700 EUR more for essentially the same specs. The 12 bit ADC vs. 8 bit ADC is only a degradation in signal fidelity. The lack of synchronization in the SDS6054A is a hard fact that cannot be compensated otherwise. Plus: it is the year 2022 with USB4. Selling something without USB3 or Gbit LAN for connecting it to my PC ... jeez. What is the product life cycle of this scope? 5 years? By that time we will probably have USB5 and this junk still uses USB2. Ridiculous.

[tautech]

Some I repeat some of your argument doesn't wash.
Front USB connectivity is USB 3 with the two rear sockets that we might use for a mouse, keyboard or to power active probes are USB 2.
Should we need all 4 USB sockets the MicroSD slot at rear can be used for captures as can the webserver to take captures directly to your PC browsers download folder.
Should the timebase ±2 ppm accuracy be insufficient for the odd time synchronization is needed the capable engineer always has the Ext Trigger as a workaround.

However if a Ref In is a prerequisite as you say the cheaper SDS5000X has that and also now the 3 memory management modes thanks to SDS6000A development yet there is a similar feature set between these 2 series however SDS6000A holds an significant edge which is the reason we sold our SDS5054X to a customer recently.

randomOracle
Get your self in front of one as sellers of instruments of this class should have a demo unit but do tell them you want a few hours with it as there's an awful lot to explore.

[tomud]

I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all) was not included.

Seriously ? How ?

I would like to know how this can be done for less than $5...

Just from the reference 10MHz I need to make a clock for the ADC converter (ADC08D100 - only 2GSPS https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/adc08d1000.pdf ).
Of course with low phase noise etc. This solution is simpler than in the SDS6000A, so I will be happy to find out how it can be done so cheaply.
I hope I will learn something interesting, and this amount is not some guesses of a person who has never designed a system with fast ADC...

[Performa01]

This is a very nice new scope from Siglent ... BUT

- for a professional scope, it lacks the 10 MHz ref in/out. SRSLY? The smaller model SDS5000X has it.

Who defines what features a "professional scope" has to have?

Originally, I was surprised as well and complained about the lack of a reference in/out. Of course we expect a higher end model to have more features, not less.

Yet there are at least two reasons for this:

1. Quite unexpectedly, there were zero requests for a reference input from the professional users, also from those working in big labs.

Of course, this alone would not have prevented Siglent from still implementing that feature, but:

2.  As should be an open secret, the SDS6000 hardware platform is very similar to the LeCroy WaveSurfer 4000HD, which doesn't provide a clock reference in/out either.

[nctnico]

the point of the 10 MHz ref in/out is not to improve the timebase, it is about synchronizing multiple devices (e.g., scope, AWG, digital pattern generator, etc.). This is important for time-synchronous sampling and everything where you rely on controlled phase-shift of signals / measurements. I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all)

This is not relevant on an oscilloscope. An oscilloscope triggers on an edge from which all channels are sampled synchronously / time related. If the oscilloscope's internal clock isn't very stable, it could make sense to have an external 10MHz input but for measurements with a relatively long timespan. However with a good internal clock, you might end up adding more jitter compared to the internal timebase. For some projects I do edge-to-edge measurements in the tens of ps range (not with a Siglent scope) and what is hindering me for such measurements is the (inherent) trigger jitter. Using an external clock doesn't solve that.

was not included. Just look at all professional scopes from the premium companies (Keysight, Tektronix, LeCroy). They always have it on their "better" scopes. Same for the USB3 / Gbit LAN. This is crippling an otherwise super nice oscilloscope for no reason.

Gbit / USB3 is only necessary if the device can actually use all that bandwidth. Fun fact: the R&S RTB2004 comes with a 1Gbit ethernet interface and yet the GW Instek GDS2000E series can pump out data several times faster even though it has a 100Mbit ethernet interface. I strongly doubt any of the examples you list can dump waveform data fast enough to max out a 100Mbit ethernet link.

[2N3055]

the point of the 10 MHz ref in/out is not to improve the timebase, it is about synchronizing multiple devices (e.g., scope, AWG, digital pattern generator, etc.). This is important for time-synchronous sampling and everything where you rely on controlled phase-shift of signals / measurements. I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all) was not included. Just look at all professional scopes from the premium companies (Keysight, Tektronix, LeCroy). They always have it on their "better" scopes. Same for the USB3 / Gbit LAN. This is crippling an otherwise super nice oscilloscope for no reason. The PicoScope 6404D I mentioned because it is just 3775 EUR for 500 MHz, 5 GS/s, 2 Gpts memory, and 8 bit ADCs; whereas the Siglent SDS6054A for 6480 EUR has 500 MHz, 5 GS/s, 500 Mpts, and 12 bit ADCs.

Why would I pay approx. 2700 EUR more for essentially the same specs. The 12 bit ADC vs. 8 bit ADC is only a degradation in signal fidelity. The lack of synchronization in the SDS6054A is a hard fact that cannot be compensated otherwise. Plus: it is the year 2022 with USB4. Selling something without USB3 or Gbit LAN for connecting it to my PC ... jeez. What is the product life cycle of this scope? 5 years? By that time we will probably have USB5 and this junk still uses USB2. Ridiculous.

Calling something "professional" just because it has more BNC connector is not my thing.
Most of those REF IN where put in because of "expectations" without being useful most of the time.
For instance, Keysight MSOX4000 series has REF IN, but that is combined with a timebase that has very bad stability, worse than SDD1000X-E series from Siglent.

Single scope referencing to 10 MHz ref clock in your lab might have a benefit of traceability.
You cannot simply synchronize across different devices unless they are made to by synchronized. Clock in phase is vastly different from synchronised operation (star/stop and such).

For synchronising multiple devices (up to 512 channels) Siglent made SDS6000L (that has 1GBit Ethernet too)...

Also "only a degradation in signal fidelity" seems an important parameter on an instrument that's only raison d'être is analyzing signal integrity... Essentially same specs not even close. Two very different animals.. With Picoscope 6000E excelling in one type of application  and SDS6000A in other...

Also specmanship competitions are useless.  What would be the purpose of USB4? Your keyboard will be faster? Mouse? Saving to USB disks mostly is slow because of USB sticks are not fast. With fast USB stick disk it is quite fast..This is not a gaming computer where we have to keep with "what's fashionable today?".

On every single scope I ever tried (including PC based LeCroys) the speed of transfer of acquisition data to PC was limited by application/OS speed of transfer, not the network interface speed. And sad truth is that it is probably because it is not optimized, because in reality very few users use these scopes as acquisition hardware. Those that need that capability a lot, use scopes or other specialized acquisition hardware made for that purpose, that are optimized.

If you, for instance want to grab data from your application on a PC as fast as you can while being on a budget, than you should actually look into Picoscope. Make a note, though, that you will need to purchase  one of the NEW 6000E series. Those have quite high throughput. Older 6000D is not fast in transfers despite having USB3 (like I said before fast interface means nothing if device cannot shovel data fast enough).
But 6000E series puts you in another price range.. Also it has only 1 or 2  of 5 GS/s ADC (depending of model), while SDSD6000A have 4 ADC.
Also Picoscopes have more protocol decoders, but none of the protocol triggers..

So yeah, it is an art of compromises...

[2N3055]

the point of the 10 MHz ref in/out is not to improve the timebase, it is about synchronizing multiple devices (e.g., scope, AWG, digital pattern generator, etc.). This is important for time-synchronous sampling and everything where you rely on controlled phase-shift of signals / measurements. I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all)

This is not relevant on an oscilloscope. An oscilloscope triggers on an edge from which all channels are sampled synchronously / time related. If the oscilloscope's internal clock isn't very stable, it could make sense to have an external 10MHz input but for measurements with a relatively long timespan. However with a good internal clock, you might end up adding more jitter compared to the internal timebase. For some projects I do edge-to-edge measurements in the tens of ps range (not with a Siglent scope) and what is hindering me for such measurements is the (inherent) trigger jitter. Using an external clock doesn't solve that.

was not included. Just look at all professional scopes from the premium companies (Keysight, Tektronix, LeCroy). They always have it on their "better" scopes. Same for the USB3 / Gbit LAN. This is crippling an otherwise super nice oscilloscope for no reason.

Gbit / USB3 is only necessary if the device can actually use all that bandwidth. Fun fact: the R&S RTB2004 comes with a 1Gbit ethernet interface and yet the GW Instek GDS2000E series can pump out data several times faster even though it has a 100Mbit ethernet interface. I strongly doubt any of the examples you list can dump waveform data fast enough to max out a 100Mbit ethernet link.

I agree.

If there is a large difference in sample clock frequency and you are getting long acquisitions, you might get phase errors at the end of capture... One scope acquisition will get stretched or compressed compared to other scope.
As you said, trigger time will be precisely adjusted. So at the beginning they will start together but will diverge with time.

As a data point, on my SDS6000 H12, edge to edge measurements are accurate to sub 10-12 ps P-P... RMS trigger jitter is better than 2-3 ps, limited by input signal edge uniformity....

[nomead]

the point of the 10 MHz ref in/out is not to improve the timebase, it is about synchronizing multiple devices (e.g., scope, AWG, digital pattern generator, etc.). This is important for time-synchronous sampling and everything where you rely on controlled phase-shift of signals / measurements. I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all) was not included. Just look at all professional scopes from the premium companies (Keysight, Tektronix, LeCroy). They always have it on their "better" scopes. Same for the USB3 / Gbit LAN. This is crippling an otherwise super nice oscilloscope for no reason. The PicoScope 6404D I mentioned because it is just 3775 EUR for 500 MHz, 5 GS/s, 2 Gpts memory, and 8 bit ADCs; whereas the Siglent SDS6054A for 6480 EUR has 500 MHz, 5 GS/s, 500 Mpts, and 12 bit ADCs.

Why would I pay approx. 2700 EUR more for essentially the same specs. The 12 bit ADC vs. 8 bit ADC is only a degradation in signal fidelity. The lack of synchronization in the SDS6054A is a hard fact that cannot be compensated otherwise. Plus: it is the year 2022 with USB4. Selling something without USB3 or Gbit LAN for connecting it to my PC ... jeez. What is the product life cycle of this scope? 5 years? By that time we will probably have USB5 and this junk still uses USB2. Ridiculous.

Well SDS6054A isn't a 12-bit scope, despite we all wish that desperately. Only chinese Pro-version is.

Picoscope 6000E Series does 12-bit by interleaving. Would it be natively 10-bit?

[randomOracle]

I think if users would have read my comment carefully, they would have understood: I do mostly measurements in sequence mode until memory is full. Then I go and fetch the whole content of the memory. And yes, then the difference is quite significant between Fast Ethernet and Gbit Ethernet or USB2 vs. USB3. The problem is: most people do not notice this difference because they do single-shot acquisitions, and then the overhead is quite high of "payload data" vs. "initiating transaction and protocol overhead to transfer this data to PC". Clearly, then you are not using your scope the right way for this purpose. On the SDS5000X this was not implemented properly: I could record in sequence mode but there was no command to fetch the whole memory as one chunk. I had to scroll through history (one command) and fetch trace by trace (another command), which was in my case even slower then repeated single-shot acquisitions. I notified Siglent about this issue and they fixed this within the limits of the architecture given by the SDS5000X.

Considering that they offer USB3 on the SDS6000A for a mouse/flashdrive etc. especially ridicules the fact that they do not offer USB3 for that interface where it would have mattered: scope to PC, where they only offer USB2.

Same for 10 MHz ref in/out: if you do not use and and do not know how to use it, then indeed you do not need it. It makes a huge difference in my long-running measurements. Besides, there is no OCXO in the scope. So whatever awesome timebase they put in there, it will suffer big time over temperature changes (e.g., day-night shifts if not in AC controlled room). Just because this is not important to you, it does not imply it could not be important to others. I'm still of the opinion that this would have been a nice feature.

These two are simply features found on "higher-spec'ed" scope and that would have been little effort to implement. It is not like I'm asking for twice the analog bandwidth.
Seems like people got offended by the term "professional". This may have been exaggerated, but just look at all scopes <$5k and then all scopes >$5k and you will notice that below that threshold, most scopes do not have the 10 MHz ref in/out ... and most hobbyists would not buy a scope >$5k; but the likelihood for a scope to have this is much higher if it costs more than $5k or $10k

[randomOracle]

Here is an article discussing time-synchronous sampling and also the temperature dependency over long-running measurements:

https://www.eetimes.com/ensuring-synchronous-sampling-of-multiple-high-frequency-signal-channels/

If you do not work, e.g., in physics or a domain where long-running measurements are a thing. Then you do not need this. Again, to be rude to others just because you do not know this does not mean others would not benefit from having this.

[randomOracle]

Here is an article backing my statement about transfer speeds:

https://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/pdf/lsib_datasheet.pdf

This is from LeCroy promoting their (now discontinued?) LSIB protocol. It contains a comparison of USB (must be USB2), GbE, 100BaseT, and GBIP (LOL!).
As can be seen, the more data is transferred "per session", the higher the throughput and only then the higher-speed protocols make sense.

Unfortunately, USB3 is not shown here and of course, it is used by LeCroy to promote their LSIB. Clearly, implementation speed will vary between scopes, but that does not change the basic relationship seen in the plot.

[randomOracle]

I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all) was not included.

Seriously ? How ?

I would like to know how this can be done for less than $5...

Just from the reference 10MHz I need to make a clock for the ADC converter (ADC08D100 - only 2GSPS https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/adc08d1000.pdf ).
Of course with low phase noise etc. This solution is simpler than in the SDS6000A, so I will be happy to find out how it can be done so cheaply.
I hope I will learn something interesting, and this amount is not some guesses of a person who has never designed a system with fast ADC...

All the PLL stuff to generate the ADC clock is already in the scope. Typically there is just a switch that flips between the standard internal time-base (some TCXO?) and external-time base.
If this would be so expensive, why do you think the cheaper SDS5000X has it? On the AWG-side of things: even the SDG1000X has it (which is as low as $359). BTW, most/all SDRs that often deal with much higher frequencies than the SDS6000A have this, too.

Example: Ettus B210 schematic
https://files.ettus.com/schematics/b200/b210.pdf

[nctnico]

I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all) was not included.

Seriously ? How ?

I would like to know how this can be done for less than $5...

Just from the reference 10MHz I need to make a clock for the ADC converter (ADC08D100 - only 2GSPS https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/adc08d1000.pdf ).
Of course with low phase noise etc. This solution is simpler than in the SDS6000A, so I will be happy to find out how it can be done so cheaply.
I hope I will learn something interesting, and this amount is not some guesses of a person who has never designed a system with fast ADC...

All the PLL stuff to generate the ADC clock is already in the scope. Typically there is just a switch that flips between the standard internal time-base (some TCXO?) and external-time base.
If this would be so expensive, why do you think the cheaper SDS5000X has it? On the AWG-side of things: even the SDG1000X has it (which is as low as $359). BTW, most/all SDRs that often deal with much higher frequencies than the SDS6000A have this, too.

Example: Ettus B210 schematic
https://files.ettus.com/schematics/b200/b210.pdf

But you may find that even with the external reference, it may not actually work as expected on the specific examples you list... Due to limited synthesizer resolution and/or rounding errors, you can end up with small frequency offsets.

[Performa01]

I think if users would have read my comment carefully...

I've already disclosed the main reasons why there is no reference clock in/out on the SDS6000.

And @nomead is right: we should never forget that the SDS6000 isn't a 12-bit instrument outside China. Even though the HW might be identical, the ADCs would only be calibrated to 8 bits, hence not useful beyond that.

The block transfer of the entire history will be supported with SDS6000 FW 1.4.4.0 or higher.

[randomOracle]

I think if users would have read my comment carefully...

I've already disclosed the main reasons why there is no reference clock in/out on the SDS6000.

[...]

The block transfer of the entire history will be supported with SDS6000 FW 1.4.4.0 or higher.

Seems like you have some insight that I have not and a certain user base was asked. Fine. Taking a quote out of context (regarding the sequence mode and transfer speeds) is still not OK

But you may find that even with the external reference, it may not actually work as expected on the specific examples you list... Due to limited synthesizer resolution and/or rounding errors, you can end up with small frequency offsets.

apparently, this discussion is totally pointless.

[tomud]

I'm just hugely disappointed that a feature that costs <$5 to implement (if at all) was not included.

Seriously ? How ?

I would like to know how this can be done for less than $5...

Just from the reference 10MHz I need to make a clock for the ADC converter (ADC08D100 - only 2GSPS https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/adc08d1000.pdf ).
Of course with low phase noise etc. This solution is simpler than in the SDS6000A, so I will be happy to find out how it can be done so cheaply.
I hope I will learn something interesting, and this amount is not some guesses of a person who has never designed a system with fast ADC...

All the PLL stuff to generate the ADC clock is already in the scope. Typically there is just a switch that flips between the standard internal time-base (some TCXO?) and external-time base.
If this would be so expensive, why do you think the cheaper SDS5000X has it? On the AWG-side of things: even the SDG1000X has it (which is as low as $359). BTW, most/all SDRs that often deal with much higher frequencies than the SDS6000A have this, too.

Example: Ettus B210 schematic
https://files.ettus.com/schematics/b200/b210.pdf

Don't compare the SDS5000 with the SDS6000 as the sampling rate increases, it all gets very complicated. I gave an example of an ADC converter with 2GSPS in interleaving mode (ADC on which one oscilloscope channel up to 500MHz could be realized). Think how you would solve it and you can clearly see here that it is very easy to break something (so that the signal from GPSDO etc. does not deteriorate the parameters). It makes no sense to compare it to the USRP, the construction of the SDR B210, ADALM-PLUTO is much easier.

Of course, you can do something like this, but you have to think carefully and it will certainly not be less than $5, even with high production. Development is not only the cost of electronic parts (most often the cost of electronic parts in such projects is negligible).
It's just like that in my experience, it is so that the further you go into the rabbit hole, the more problems you see.

[randomOracle]

The SDS5000X has 5 GS/s ... the SDS6000A has 5 GS/s -- and of course, I was just referring to the BOM. Let it be $10. It is a negligible overhead to include for an otherwise nice scope. Seems like people are just trying to find excuses why not to include this. Sure, of that we will find many which is why this discussion will lead nowhere sadly.

[nctnico]

But you may find that even with the external reference, it may not actually work as expected on the specific examples you list... Due to limited synthesizer resolution and/or rounding errors, you can end up with small frequency offsets.

apparently, this discussion is totally pointless.

No, just a friendly warning from someone using equipment for time & frequency transfer purposes that having a 10MHz input doesn't guarantee you actually get accurate timing / frequency. This goes a bit offtopic but I have had to go on a long journey to find an AWG suitable for measurements & introducing errors in really high-end time & frequency transfer systems. I ended up with a Tektronix AFG31000 series. Same for the Ettus B210: it has synthesizer limitations / rounding errors that cause small frequency offsets.

[Martin72]

The SDS5000X has 5 GS/s ... the SDS6000A has 5 GS/s -- and of course, I was just referring to the BOM. Let it be $10. It is a negligible overhead to include for an otherwise nice scope.

It´s not only the material.
You have to change the pcb layout, you have to change the case (cutout) and what about all the scopes that were already build and sold...

[nctnico]

The SDS5000X has 5 GS/s ... the SDS6000A has 5 GS/s -- and of course, I was just referring to the BOM. Let it be $10. It is a negligible overhead to include for an otherwise nice scope.

It´s not only the material.
You have to change the pcb layout, you have to change the case (cutout) and what about all the scopes that were already build and sold...

Well, the input should have been in the design to being with. But it could be the synthesizer /PLL would have needed to be designed entirely different to facilitate a 10MHz input. It is not always trivial to generate all necessary frequencies from a single clock source while maintaining low jitter / phase noise.

[tomud]

The SDS5000X has 5 GS/s ... the SDS6000A has 5 GS/s -- and of course, I was just referring to the BOM. Let it be $10. It is a negligible overhead to include for an otherwise nice scope.

It´s not only the material.
You have to change the pcb layout, you have to change the case (cutout) and what about all the scopes that were already build and sold...

Well, the input should have been in the design to being with. But it could be the synthesizer /PLL would have needed to be designed entirely different to facilitate a 10MHz input. It is not always trivial to generate all necessary frequencies from a single clock source while maintaining low jitter / phase noise.

Exactly.

As I mentioned, I am playing with ADC in terms of assessing the possibility of building an amateur 500MHz oscilloscope and the topic of clocks is not as simple as it seemed at the beginning (Ignoring the high costs and low profitability of this venture). But that's how it is. Until a man spends a large amount of dollars himself, he will not know how many problems await him