EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: tautech on May 17, 2020, 11:46:46 am
-
New range of DSO's with 500 MHz, 1 GHz and 2 GHz BW's and 12.1" 1280*800 display.
October 2021 release
(https://int.siglent.com/u_file/product/21_10_09/1.png)
Feature set.
5 GSa/s (10 GSa/s ESR)
500 Mpts Mem depth
Vertical resolution 8-bit, up to 16-bit in Hi-Res mode
170,000 wfm/s, 750,000 wfm/s Sequence mode
8 Mpt FFT
Noise floor (rms, 50 Ω, typical value) 0.5 mV/div = 125 μV @ 1 GHz
4 independent Math waveforms
80,000 History pages
Vertical zoom
Webserver
HDMI
Wireless mouse, dongle and battery supplied.
Active probe support (LeCroy & Tek adaptors available)
16ch MSO optional
External 25 MHz AWG optional
Standard Decode: I2C, SPI, UART, CAN, LIN
Optional Decode: CAN FD, FlexRay, I2S, MIL-STD-1553B, SENT, Manchester
I/O's: USB 3.0 Host x2, USB 2.0 Host x2, USB 2.0 Device, LAN, micro SD, HDMI, TRIG OUT, PASS/FAIL
SW options
FG (requires SAG1021I AWG module)
MSO
Power Analysis
Eye diagram, Jitter analysis
BW upgrades
Additional Decodes.
Datasheet now attached.
Price indication 2GHz 4ch SDS6204A = under $10k
https://int.siglent.com/products-overview/sds6000a/ (https://int.siglent.com/products-overview/sds6000a/)
https://siglentna.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds6000a-digital-storage-oscilloscope/ (https://siglentna.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds6000a-digital-storage-oscilloscope/)
https://www.siglenteu.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds6000a/ (https://www.siglenteu.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds6000a/)
Datasheet
https://int.siglent.com/u_file/document/SDS6000A_Datasheet_EN01C.pdf (https://int.siglent.com/u_file/document/SDS6000A_Datasheet_EN01C.pdf)
Siglent video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXfnOkDpCDA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXfnOkDpCDA)
Size comparison SDS2104X Pus, SDS5054X and SDS6204A on right.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1429828)
POI list
Mainboard pics
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/msg4291990/#msg4291990 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/msg4291990/#msg4291990)
-
They look pretty sweet but oof that cost.. starting at the low low price of 6k USD and up, a scope i will never have till a decade later lol
model Analog bandwidth Number of channels Maximum real-time sampling rate Maximum waveform capture rate Maximum storage depth Vertical resolution Reference price (tax included)
SDS6104 H12 Pro 1 GHz 4 + EXT 5 GSa / s 750,000 wfm / s 250 Mpts / ch 12-bit ¥ 192,680
SDS6054 H12 Pro 500 MHz 4 + EXT 5 GSa / s 750,000 wfm / s 250 Mpts / ch 12-bit ¥ 159,680
SDS6034 H12 Pro 350 MHz 4 + EXT 5 GSa / s 750,000 wfm / s 250 Mpts / ch 12-bit ¥ 121,080
SDS6104 H10 Pro 1 GHz 4 + EXT 5 GSa / s 750,000 wfm / s 250 Mpts / ch 10-bit ¥ 89,880
SDS6054 H10 Pro 500 MHz 4 + EXT 5 GSa / s 750,000 wfm / s 250 Mpts / ch 10-bit ¥ 68,880
SDS6034 H10 Pro 350 MHz 4 + EXT 5 GSa / s 750,000 wfm / s 250 Mpts / ch 10-bit ¥ 48,880
-
So, finally, ZODIAC is here!
-
ETA,
edit and obsolete quote removed
Feature set.
5 GSa/s for all channels (10GSa ESR)
Single channel 500Mpts, two channel 250Mpts, 3 and 4 channels 125Mpts / channel
Vertical resolution 8-bit. No 10bit, no 12 bit models outside China. Up to 16-bit in Hi-Res mode (software based, more bits less BW)
Up to 170,000 wfm/s and up to 750,000 wfm/s in Sequence mode
8 Mpt FFT
4 independent Math waveforms (yes including also up to 4 simultaneous FFT)
up to 80,000 History pages
Vertical zoom
Webserver
BodePlot (max 120MHz) can use all Siglent SDG and SAG
16ch MSO (optional) max 1GSa/s. Max 50Mpts/ch
External 25 MHz AWG (optional)
Power analysis (optional)
Eye Diagram / Jitter analysis (optional)
We live interesting times...
-
Interesting indeed. Is Lecroy going to stop making oscilloscopes themselves and rebadge their entire line?
-
:-+ :popcorn:
-
Siglent still cannot get the wfm/s to professional levels... if they announce 170,000 it is going to be more like 20,000 or less
-
Martin72 will be a happy bunny 8)
Looks like a rehashed newer Leroy HDO4/6000A with 1/2 the sample rate.
What options are available Mr Tautech any eye jitter apps in the offing at all
It is a plane?, he can jump single 1 mile high code blocks in a single bound, looks a like a job for Tv84 >:D
-
Video (https://share.plvideo.cn/front/video/preview?vid=a29fa437561705677255119c893e19d2_a)
-
Siglent still cannot get the wfm/s to professional levels... if they announce 170,000 it is going to be more like 20,000 or less
can you explain that a bit?
-
How many people are working in the R&D dept at Siglent?
I don't understang how they can get out of so many different devices in such a short time.
Impressive :-+
-
It's not siglent per say its the price of cooperation between Lecroy and Siglent scratch my back and we will give you our first generation 12 bit tecnology hence only 5G/s I suspect this is interleaved as the 2012 Lecroy' 12 bit equipment was only 2.5G/s this will have Siglent hardware and a first gen Lecroy adc
Now if you could marry the Rigol horsepower with the Lecroy 12 bit DC and Siglent's Lecroy O.S. now that would make an interesting project.
Tv84 happy to purchase one for a play date if you wish :-+
-
Just noticed the price points currently Lecroy are happy to deal the Hdo6000hd 12 bit 10G/s interleaved 1Ghz and Mso spectrum view @ 45% off retail which works out a much better deal than the new Siglent
https://teledynelecroy.com/europe/promotions/promotions.aspx
There is a 6000hd replacement due pretty soon apparently mind you the basic Keysight MSR 500Mhz starts at 18k gbp lot to think about
-
Siglent still cannot get the wfm/s to professional levels... if they announce 170,000 it is going to be more like 20,000 or less
can you explain that a bit?
Even KS entry level has 200,000wfm/s so 170,000 on this type of scope is way too low
But historically it is near impossible to get the published wfm/s from Siglent. I.e. i cannot get near 10,000 on the 2000x plus, it is more like 5,000. And if you have measurement open, it pauses like every second
-
Just noticed the price points currently Lecroy are happy to deal the Hdo6000hd 12 bit 10G/s interleaved 1Ghz and Mso spectrum view @ 45% off retail which works out a much better deal than the new Siglent
https://teledynelecroy.com/europe/promotions/promotions.aspx
::)
Ex demo model.
-
Oh, finally. Unfortunately i have no insights about this one :( what's the ADC? Love the huge screen
-
Probably can't afford anything like this for a long time but it certainly looks interesting.
What makes me wonder what is the deal between Siglent and Lecroy? Is Siglent allowed to reuse older Lecroy tech?
The SW of this must be still an enormous R&D effort, is it done by Siglent by on its own from scratch (risks of buggy SW) or there is some reuse there as well?
With higher sampling rate this could be a very serious tool.
Siglent can become a quite disruptive player in T&M area very soon with such rate of new equipment introduction (thinking of the not so long ago introduced SVNAs, RTSAs and now this DSO).
-
It's not siglent per say its the price of cooperation between Lecroy and Siglent scratch my back and we will give you our first generation 12 bit tecnology hence only 5G/s I suspect this is interleaved as the 2012 Lecroy' 12 bit equipment was only 2.5G/s this will have Siglent hardware and a first gen Lecroy adc
Now if you could marry the Rigol horsepower with the Lecroy 12 bit DC and Siglent's Lecroy O.S. now that would make an interesting project.
Tv84 happy to purchase one for a play date if you wish :-+
I'm not sure I understand better ;D
Because if the price is much lower, I don't understand Lecroy's strategy.
If Siglent can mix platforms from Lecroy, with almost the same GUI/OS, Lecroy will no longer sell low/mid-range oscilloscope.
The best would be for Lecroy to buy Siglent.
But I'm not a marketer, I'm sure they know what they're doing.
-
Tv84 happy to purchase one for a play date if you wish :-+
Save the date!
-
It's not siglent per say its the price of cooperation between Lecroy and Siglent scratch my back and we will give you our first generation 12 bit tecnology hence only 5G/s I suspect this is interleaved as the 2012 Lecroy' 12 bit equipment was only 2.5G/s this will have Siglent hardware and a first gen Lecroy adc
Now if you could marry the Rigol horsepower with the Lecroy 12 bit DC and Siglent's Lecroy O.S. now that would make an interesting project.
Tv84 happy to purchase one for a play date if you wish :-+
I'm not sure I understand better ;D
Because if the price is much lower, I don't understand Lecroy's strategy.
If Siglent can mix platforms from Lecroy, with almost the same GUI/OS, Lecroy will no longer sell low/mid-range oscilloscope.
The best would be for Lecroy to buy Siglent.
But I'm not a marketer, I'm sure they know what they're doing.
Lecroy doesn't make low/low-mid-range oscilloscope anyway.. It's not enough of profit margin..
As long as they make nice profit just reselling it's good business.
And if they do buy it, they will still keep both "premium brand" and "general population brand".. Like Lexus and Toyota..
-
It's not siglent per say its the price of cooperation between Lecroy and Siglent scratch my back and we will give you our first generation 12 bit tecnology hence only 5G/s I suspect this is interleaved as the 2012 Lecroy' 12 bit equipment was only 2.5G/s this will have Siglent hardware and a first gen Lecroy adc
Now if you could marry the Rigol horsepower with the Lecroy 12 bit DC and Siglent's Lecroy O.S. now that would make an interesting project.
Tv84 happy to purchase one for a play date if you wish :-+
I'm not sure I understand better ;D
Because if the price is much lower, I don't understand Lecroy's strategy.
If Siglent can mix platforms from Lecroy, with almost the same GUI/OS, Lecroy will no longer sell low/mid-range oscilloscope.
The best would be for Lecroy to buy Siglent.
But I'm not a marketer, I'm sure they know what they're doing.
Lecroy doesn't make low/low-mid-range oscilloscope anyway.. It's not enough of profit margin..
As long as they make nice profit just reselling it's good business.
And if they do buy it, they will still keep both "premium brand" and "general population brand".. Like Lexus and Toyota..
Exactly but perhaps with more synergies as it is precisely the case in the automotive sector and more understandable for us buyers.
Because even if this SDS6000pro is based on an old Lecroy platform, we are still talking about 4x1Ghz 5GS/s 12bit and 250M of memory.
These characteristics are starting to be expensive at Lecroy for my little wallet.
But synergies already exist, it seems to be almost the same enclosure than WaveSurfer 4000HD and surely much more ( screen, adc, etc)
But as I said I'm not a marketer.
-
I really don´t like the black "panda" look on the screen.
-
Difference is actually very obvious. Both Toyota and Lexus use same platforms and engines.. It's design, trim, luxury, soundproofing, and general feel that is different.
Same here. Lecroy shines in software/analysis options. For instance, protocols on best Siglent are still so few, only comparable with cheapest WS3000Z. Just one step up, and you get all kinds additional stuff. Hardware can be same, but it's exclusion triggers, Wavescan, LabNotebook, tons of protocols and other advanced stuff that is differentiator here..
So it's more like, if they keep working together, that they will keep the lines separated. Or maybe they part their ways like Rigol did with their partner...
Time will tell..
-
Difference is actually very obvious. Both Toyota and Lexus use same platforms and engines.. It's design, trim, luxury, soundproofing, and general feel that is different.
Same here. Lecroy shines in software/analysis options. For instance, protocols on best Siglent are still so few, only comparable with cheapest WS3000Z. Just one step up, and you get all kinds additional stuff. Hardware can be same, but it's exclusion triggers, Wavescan, LabNotebook, tons of protocols and other advanced stuff that is differentiator here..
So it's more like, if they keep working together, that they will keep the lines separated. Or maybe they part their ways like Rigol did with their partner...
Time will tell..
If one day Lecroy and Siglent share the same HW plateform, maybe a furious will be able to turn Lecroy apps on Siglent scope.
I wonder if this kind of person hangs out on a forum like EEVBlog ? ;D
-
If one day Lecroy and Siglent share the same HW platform, maybe a furious will be able to turn Lecroy apps on Siglent scope.
Been done years back, flashing Siglent FW onto LeCroy's and vice versa.
-
I really don´t like the black "panda" look on the screen.
Maybe this looks better ? :P
(https://www.siglent.com/u_file/product/20_05_07/480-450-5.png)
-
Yes a black arse end :-DD
Tautech so what options are available for this apart from the usual basic lists you have shown.
What is the price of the BW upgrades on the 12 bit model from say 350Mhz to 1Ghz?
Any plans for eye or Jitter at all?
Lecroy can manage jitter on the 4 series will it come to the 6000 pro?
-
But historically it is near impossible to get the published wfm/s from Siglent. I.e. i cannot get near 10,000 on the 2000x plus, it is more like 5,000. And if you have measurement open, it pauses like every second
i don't have 2000x plus, but of of curiosity, did someone else reported it as well?
-
Tautech so what options are available for this apart from the usual basic lists you have shown.
OP has been updated with all I could find for the moment.
What is the price of the BW upgrades on the 12 bit model from say 350Mhz to 1Ghz?
Any plans for eye or Jitter at all?
Dunno much yet, not even a projected release date. :( ....well not from my sources is the sales dept.
Don't wanna bother the guys in R&D so rather just let them get on with it.....but I'm always fishing for little bits of info. ;)
However if the Pro has the grunt there's no reason that feature requests can't be added later.
Can't see Bode plot mentioned in the datasheet but I haven't even skimmed through the user manual yet. ::)
-
But historically it is near impossible to get the published wfm/s from Siglent. I.e. i cannot get near 10,000 on the 2000x plus, it is more like 5,000. And if you have measurement open, it pauses like every second
i don't have 2000x plus, but of of curiosity, did someone else reported it as well?
I posted a test on the SDS2000X plus thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3074532/#msg3074532 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3074532/#msg3074532)
-
Anyone know rough release date and price targets for these scopes? 6k USD mentioned earlier for entry model.
-
Anyone know rough release date and price targets for these scopes? 6k USD mentioned earlier for entry model.
Chinese home market only
-
Will it be that hard to import one if this one worth it ?
-
For the sort of outlay you are talking seriously consider the LeCroy HDO4000A, they have offers at the moment on new fully loaded scopes plus its a Euro zone purchase if any warranty issues arise. These are 12 bit scopes as well.
Lecroy direct sales costs
WaveSurfer 4000HD Series
WAVESURFER 4024HD 6995€
WAVESURFER 4034HD 7995€
WAVESURFER 4054HD 8995€
WAVESURFER 4104HD 9995€
-
About the new Siglent scope: Is 12-bit supported for the entire bandwidth range, or does it only work for lower bandwidths?
What about the WaveSurfer from LeCroy? Does it support the full bandwidth?
-
For the sort of outlay you are talking seriously consider the LeCroy HDO4000A, they have offers at the moment on new fully loaded scopes plus its a Euro zone purchase if any warranty issues arise. These are 12 bit scopes as well.
Lecroy direct sales costs
WaveSurfer 4000HD Series
WAVESURFER 4024HD 6995€
WAVESURFER 4034HD 7995€
WAVESURFER 4054HD 8995€
WAVESURFER 4104HD 9995€
Hummm 17K$ for a Siglent SDS6034 H12 Pro, apart for the memory, I don't see what the Siglent has more/better ?
Apart from that, there have been several mentions of "ZODIAC" here and there...what is it? Is this the name of their new platform?
-
About the new Siglent scope: Is 12-bit supported for the entire bandwidth range, or does it only work for lower bandwidths?
What about the WaveSurfer from LeCroy? Does it support the full bandwidth?
Hi Pascal
Pretty sure its the same platform in a different case with more memory (at a cost) Lecroy and Sigent do share many things. Lecroy were the first to introduce 12 bits some 8 years ago
The Waverunner HDO4000 is 12 bits all the time I suspect the Siglent may also.
Have to be honest at this sort of outlay in the segment of the market you are talking about the Lecroy would be my choice, I am biased as I do own a Lecroy, but also Siglent and Rigol
-
Based on the indication that the SDS6000 Pro is Chinese market only it seems to me it is a rehash of the Lecroy HDO4000 for the Chinese market. Lecroy and Siglent have done this before where Siglent marketed a China-only version and Lecroy offered the same device to the rest of the world (SDS3000 / Wavesurfer 3000 IIRC).
-
Based on the indication that the SDS6000 Pro is Chinese market only it seems to me it is a rehash of the Lecroy HDO4000 for the Chinese market. Lecroy and Siglent have done this before where Siglent marketed a China-only version and Lecroy offered the same device to the rest of the world (SDS3000 / Wavesurfer 3000 IIRC).
I have mentioned this before and I agree 100% nctnico.
Suspect the Lecroy HDO4000 is getting a revamp in the not too distant future possibly
-
Anyone know rough release date and price targets for these scopes? 6k USD mentioned earlier for entry model.
Chinese home market only
^ For the foreseeable future. ;)
-
Tautech's use of winky emoticons signifies he knows of the imminent release of several new Siglent models he has corporate knowledge about, one could speculate ;) ;) ;)
When are they due on the market under a month or in the next 14 days? Or possibly the premature use of a ;) ?
-
Tautech's use of winky emoticons signifies he knows of the imminent release of several new Siglent models he has corporate knowledge about, one could speculate ;) ;) ;)
When are they due on the market under a month or in the next 14 days? Or possibly the premature use of a ;) ?
We won't see Pro in the west in Siglent colors for a good while unfortunately. :(
-
We won't see Pro in the west in Siglent colors for a good while unfortunately. :(
TT
I wasn't thinking of the Pro model but the possibility of 'other' new Siglent items due within a short time span or just overly judicious use smiles ;D
-
We won't see Pro in the west in Siglent colors for a good while unfortunately. :(
TT
I wasn't thinking of the Pro model but the possibility of 'other' new Siglent items due within a short time span or just overly judicious use smiles ;D
Yeah well they haven't been sitting around in the last year SDS5000X, SDS2000X+, SVA's, SSA's and SSA X-R to 7.5 GHz and RF gen's to 6 GHz and 2020 is nowhere near over yet !
-
Yeah well they haven't been sitting around in the last year SDS5000X, SDS2000X+, SVA's, SSA's and SSA X-R to 7.5 GHz and RF gen's to 6 GHz and 2020 is nowhere near over yet !
Exactly my point :) so the latest new hush, hush models are due when in the next couple of weeks? ;D
-
What options are available Mr Tautech any eye jitter apps in the offing at all
OP updated with newer image and some updated overview specs including now a 2 GHz model also. :o
-
Siglent is showing SDS6104A at DesignCon'21 in San Jose this week. According to the rep, the US release is planned for this autumn.
-
Siglent is showing SDS6104A at DesignCon'21 in San Jose this week. According to the rep, the US release is planned for this autumn.
Welcome to the forum.
Nice and thanks for sharing but a shame you didn't spend a moment demonstrating how they should have set a stable trigger ! :-DD
Do you have any further info to share ?
-
I love my SDS2104X Plus, but the one thing I wish they'd done was make the scope wider and included separate controls for each of the four channels, rather than single controls and needing to select which channel it applies to. The SDS5000X series' controls are exactly what I really wanted, but didn't want to spend the extra money just for that. Now I see the SDS6000 Pro series also has the shared controls. I guess some people just like the smaller form factor the having shared controls allowed, but not me. To me, it seems like a step backwards. Well, I don't think I'll be in the market for a new scope for a long time, unless suddenly my bandwidth requirements jump up a lot, so in actuality it doesn't matter to me what they do with the SDS6000 Pro series. But still sometimes it's nice to dream about what could be near-perfect equipment even if you can't afford it.
10/12 bit would certainly be nice to have. Maybe after a few there will be a SDS5000X Plus model with some of the enhanced features of the SDS6000 Pro series, but at a more affordable price.
-
Try the touch screen (and the data entry for things like offset). Separate controls for everything is overrated
-
Try the touch screen (and the data entry for things like offset). Separate controls for everything is overrated
Perhaps I just need more time to get used to it. With all the scopes I've used in the past having separate controls, that way of operating has become engrained in my mind and is second nature. Until now it's still awkward to not have those controls, but it's only been a month that I've had my SDS2104X+, so maybe you're right.
-
Try the touch screen (and the data entry for things like offset). Separate controls for everything is overrated
Perhaps I just need more time to get used to it. With all the scopes I've used in the past having separate controls, that way of operating has become engrained in my mind and is second nature. Until now it's still awkward to not have those controls, but it's only been a month that I've had my SDS2104X+, so maybe you're right.
I think getting used to it is the key. If you take a look, pretty much all the new scopes are going that direction. First thing is that new scopes have MUCH larger screens than old ones.
Unless you want to make a really huge scope, space gets scarce on front panel.
And also, it isn't really slower. I never really understood why people change settings on a scope all the time, some so fast that they don't even have time to see what the change was..
If you look at some of the videos, some people nervously twiddle knobs left and right all the time.. At a pace that scope doesn't really stay at one setting more than a fraction of the second. I wonder what they saw on the screen in that 1/10 of the second. I guess ninja reflexes, or whatnot. I cannot do it that way.
I also don't simply twiddle knobs just to see what is going to happen. Usually there is a thought process behind the action.
I'm not judging, just saying there are different people, who use scope differently.
When I first started using shared vertical control scope, it was weird too. Today, I routinely switch back and forth to a scope with individual controls and one with shared one. And Picoscopes that don't even have a single button (PC based, all screen and keyboard). And not for a second I find any of those to be superior or worse. They are just different, and once you get used to it, they ALL feel natural, and are fast to use.
That should not be major factor to choose scope. Whoever tells you differently just didn't gave themselves a time to get used to it. That is my experience.
If someone doesn't want to get used to different things and they are set in their ways, that is a valid choice, but it is by choice.
Same as when people say Keysight has the most intuitive GUI. It doesn't. User manual that shows only basic stuff is 300-400 pages long. Most of the stuff I had to learn by heart and took me quite a lot of time. It is just that Keysight is a major player and most people used Keysight at least at one point in their life. So it is more familiar, not so much intuitive.
-
The question here is will these scopes have 12 bit reolustion outside China?
-
Try the touch screen (and the data entry for things like offset). Separate controls for everything is overrated
Perhaps I just need more time to get used to it. With all the scopes I've used in the past having separate controls, that way of operating has become engrained in my mind and is second nature. Until now it's still awkward to not have those controls, but it's only been a month that I've had my SDS2104X+, so maybe you're right.
A few tips if I may;
Use a USB mouse with the X Plus then instead of pressing buttons to select channels you can just click on the channel tab to bring that channel to be active with the vertical control.
Also for any alphanumeric box a click will pop up the virtual keyboard for which you can either use touch or click on the keys. You'll also find a mouse scroll wheel much faster in the longer menus that sport the blue scroll line at far right.
Sometimes it can be useful to overlay a waveform a little on another and when doing so the active channel is always the one overlaying all others.
However more time with it will pay off and in no time all this becomes second nature.
-
Glad they kept the active probe interface on the scope. I would like to see more supported probes. The only interfacing probe currently is a non-differential 1Ghz probe . Would like to see them add the CP5030 to this interface. Also, if the scopes ran barrier (software KVM) desk setups would be super nice. Use the same mouse for you scope as you do for your local machine.
When's this SDS6000 being released?
-
Glad they kept the active probe interface on the scope. I would like to see more supported probes. The only interfacing probe currently is a non-differential 1Ghz probe . Would like to see them add the CP5030 to this interface. Also, if the scopes ran barrier (software KVM) desk setups would be super nice. Use the same mouse for you scope as you do for your local machine.
All Siglent touch scopes run VNC as remote protocol. That is remote control protocol that is standard in the industry.. And it runs at very fast frame rate.. No need for proprietary solutions..
-
OP info updated and datasheet attached.
-
Any plans for eye or Jitter at all?
Optional:
Eye Diagram/Jitter Analysis (software) SDS6000Pro-EJ
-
Is this new DSO based upon a core 5GSPS 8 bit ADC and "somehow" augmented up to 16 bit resolution at much lower bandwidths? Curious about the "somehow" and it's implementation, and wonder how well the effective ENOB behaves with the augmentation. More specifically how well the 8M FFT dynamic range behaves with the augmentation??
Also, any idea of what the price range will be??
Best,
-
I´m afraid, even the 500Mhz is way out of range what price concerns...
Speaking for me, I was interested in the SDS5000 350Mhz and it´s price is the very last I would spend for my hobby interests.
Luckywise the SDS2K+ cames up and saves my money... :D
So when I want to go a step more forward, probably I must change to the forthcoming one.
But it´s price...
Remarkable fact for all siglent fans with more budget to pay :
Actually, the lecroy wavesurfer 3024Z is under 5000 bucks....
Offtopic:
OP info updated and datasheet attached.
In every other forum I´ve been, the threadstarter is always marked as "Threadstarter" - Here is the only forum I know, where you have to seek/going to the very first post, when you want to know, who is the starter..
-
Wish Siglent could do plain flat scope box variants , connectors in and out, no screen, no buttons.
-
Wish Siglent could do plain flat scope box variants , connectors in and out, no screen, no buttons.
The inbuilt websever or VNC operation allows for this as you don't need access to the instrument to operate it.
-
Just spotted this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fM23TLXX8s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fM23TLXX8s)
...first video I've personally seen on this thing.
DAVE
-
Is this new DSO based upon a core 5GSPS 8 bit ADC and "somehow" augmented up to 16 bit resolution at much lower bandwidths? Curious about the "somehow" and it's implementation, and wonder how well the effective ENOB behaves with the augmentation. More specifically how well the 8M FFT dynamic range behaves with the augmentation??
Also, any idea of what the price range will be??
Best,
You can double the resolution of the ADC by either interpolation (probably not fast enough) or by
bonding two ADC. In that case, you would most likely be able to use only 2 channels in high-res mode.
Another option would be to actually use a 16 bit ADC (which might not be fast enough for full bandwidth),
and you get high-rs mode only at half the bandwidth ...
I would have expected them to use a 12 or 14 bit ADC, like so many others are ...
In any case, I am eagerly awaiting that baby !!! When will they start taking orders, lol ???
rudi
-
Wish Siglent could do plain flat scope box variants , connectors in and out, no screen, no buttons.
I am glad they are investing in a 12" LCD screen. I'd be even happier with a larger screen, lol
Hanket makes "black box" scopes if you don't like the screen and UI ...
Cheers,
rudi
-
Is this new DSO based upon a core 5GSPS 8 bit ADC and "somehow" augmented up to 16 bit resolution at much lower bandwidths? Curious about the "somehow" and it's implementation, and wonder how well the effective ENOB behaves with the augmentation. More specifically how well the 8M FFT dynamic range behaves with the augmentation??
Also, any idea of what the price range will be??
Best,
You can double the resolution of the ADC by either interpolation (probably not fast enough) or by
bonding two ADC. In that case, you would most likely be able to use only 2 channels in high-res mode.
Another option would be to actually use a 16 bit ADC (which might not be fast enough for full bandwidth),
and you get high-rs mode only at half the bandwidth ...
I would have expected them to use a 12 or 14 bit ADC, like so many others are ...
In any case, I am eagerly awaiting that baby !!! When will they start taking orders, lol ???
rudi
Only 8 bit models coming with additional oversampling ERES bits and you can place orders for these now.
Official release is not far away. :-X
-
Is this new DSO based upon a core 5GSPS 8 bit ADC and "somehow" augmented up to 16 bit resolution at much lower bandwidths? Curious about the "somehow" and it's implementation, and wonder how well the effective ENOB behaves with the augmentation. More specifically how well the 8M FFT dynamic range behaves with the augmentation??
Also, any idea of what the price range will be??
Best,
You can double the resolution of the ADC by either interpolation (probably not fast enough) or by
bonding two ADC. In that case, you would most likely be able to use only 2 channels in high-res mode.
No, it doesn't work that way. Think about a DC level sitting between 2 ADC levels. No amount of oversampling will give you extra resolution needed to resolve the DC level more accurately. And then there are ADC unlinearities. In the end an 8 bit ADC is designed to provide you with 256 levels. Anything more is overkill.
-
No amount of oversampling will give you extra resolution needed to resolve the DC level more accurately.
It will if you add some noise for dithering...
-
No amount of oversampling will give you extra resolution needed to resolve the DC level more accurately.
It will if you add some noise for dithering...
But noise is something you don't want in a DSO. ADCs and oscilloscope front-ends get pretty low noise even on the cheaper models. The Tektronix TDS500/700 series from the early 90's already had a lack of noise to do proper high-res with the 20MHz bandwidth limiter on. Putting a higher end oscilloscope on the market with only 8 bits kind of makes it outdated from the start nowadays. Probably Lecroy wants to prevent Siglent to put the 10 bit and 12 bit models on the non-Chinese market but IMHO that is a good reason for Siglent to rethink their partnership with Lecroy.
-
When was the last time you saw a perfectly flat trace with 0LSB of wiggle on a functioning oscilloscope?
Manufacturers minimize noise subject to the constraint of having enough noise for dithering.
-
When was the last time you saw a perfectly flat trace with 0LSB of wiggle on a functioning oscilloscope?
Manufacturers minimize noise subject to the constraint of having enough noise for dithering.
The reality is that you can't guarantee that in an acquisition system with an unknown source like a DSO is dealing with. For oversampling to work you'll need evenly distributed noise. Turn on the bandwidth limiter and that condition may no longer be met. Same goes for a very low noise signal source for which the extra bits of resolution would be beneficial. My good old Tektronix 744A would show all kinds of fantasy signals when it didn't have enough noise for oversampling.
-
There's no need for speculation regarding the Highres Mode.
I've already demonstrated how well the resolution enhancement works in the SDS2000X Plus - a scope that isn't exactly known to be noisy, even less so with low sensitivities like 300 mV/div or 960 mV/div.
10 Bit Mode (reply #32):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg2786952/#msg2786952 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg2786952/#msg2786952)
10 Bit Mode further enhanced to 16 bits by ERES 3.0 (reply #62):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg2857298/#msg2857298 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg2857298/#msg2857298)
-
Asked because the HiRes mode is most useful with the FFT. Really would like to know what the effective ENOB is at the various ERES levels speculation aside, this will indicate how well the "method" Siglent utilized behaves.
Do know this works quite well with the SDS2000+ as Performa01 indicates. However, this may not be a direct comparison to the new SDS6000 series since resolution enhancement by means of oversampling & dithering depends on many factors, one of which is the core ADC performance which is obviously not the same ADC utilized in the SDS2000+ series.
Best
-
Glad they kept the active probe interface on the scope. I would like to see more supported probes. The only interfacing probe currently is a non-differential 1Ghz probe .
New active probes are on the way, 2.5 GHz single ended and differential.
https://siglentna.com/products/accessories/probes/active-probes/
LeCroy and Tek active probes are supported via adapters.
https://siglentna.com/products/accessories/probes/probe-adapters/
When's this SDS6000 being released ?
Taking orders for them now and SDS6000A info is now up on all Siglent websites.
-
Taking orders for them now and SDS6000A info is now up on all Siglent websites.
The Siglent NA site says "Call for a quote" under the price.
Which, of course, means "if you have to ask, you can't afford it!" :o
:D
-
Taking orders for them now and SDS6000A info is now up on all Siglent websites.
The Siglent NA site says "Call for a quote" under the price.
Which, of course, means "if you have to ask, you can't afford it!" :o
:D
Or you could interpret that as 'we don't have stock yet'. ;)
The EU site has some pricing...........
-
6480€ excluding VAT for SDS6054A ( Batronix )
Why 8bit ?? :rant:
-
Nearly 8000€ for private customers for the entry-model, there goes my dream...
-
Honestly, who needs such performance for hobby only ?
-
Honestly,
Having is better than needing... ;)
But you´re right, of course.
-
Honestly,
Having is better than needing... ;)
But you´re right, of course.
Your last sentence is absolutely correct. Not enough said elsewhere. It should be written into the law.
That said, the price is still surprising.
Looks like a copy of the Lecroy 4000HD series, except the Lecroys are 12-bit. And there are promotions at -50% fully loaded which should place them more or less at the price of Siglent ...
-
Honestly,
Having is better than needing... ;)
But you´re right, of course.
Your last sentence is absolutely correct. Not enough said elsewhere. It should be written into the law.
That said, the price is still surprising.
Looks like a copy of the Lecroy 4000HD series, except the Lecroys are 12-bit. And there are promotions at -50% fully loaded which should place them more or less at the price of Siglent ...
Siglent having the 2GHz version as their standout (although the bandwidth to sample rate ratio gets a little tight for some peoples likings). What is interesting about both these Lecroy and Siglent products is their very flat pricing for bandwidth (and the upgrade pricing), very little money to go for the top bandwidth model.
-
Lecroys old waverunner LT series got 500Mhz and 500MSa/s with no problems, so I won´t worry about 2ghz and 5/10 GSa/s.
Apart from that, the prices are a clear statement to be a pro-equipment.
So in my opinion, the new siglent 6000 series should be compared to:
- Tektronix MDO 4 Series
- R&S RTA4000 series
- Keysight DSO/MSO 4000 series
- Lecroy Wavesurfer 4000HD series
- Rigol MSO8000 series
Where tek, R&S and lecroy got more than 8bit native resolution.
IMHO, the new siglent series is a ticket for them to be a "A-Brand", now they "must" proof it, in terms of quality and service to the customer.
-
https://www.conrad.de/de/p/teledyne-lecroy-wavesurfer-4104hd-analog-oszilloskop-1-ghz-12-bit-1-st-2196853.html (https://www.conrad.de/de/p/teledyne-lecroy-wavesurfer-4104hd-analog-oszilloskop-1-ghz-12-bit-1-st-2196853.html)
Oops..
-
https://www.conrad.de/de/p/teledyne-lecroy-wavesurfer-4104hd-analog-oszilloskop-1-ghz-12-bit-1-st-2196853.html (https://www.conrad.de/de/p/teledyne-lecroy-wavesurfer-ok4104hd-analog-oszilloskop-1-ghz-12-bit-1-st-2196853.html)
Oops..
Yeah, but delivery in 10 weeks, Wich really means 2-3 months ...
-
https://www.conrad.de/de/p/teledyne-lecroy-wavesurfer-4104hd-analog-oszilloskop-1-ghz-12-bit-1-st-2196853.html (https://www.conrad.de/de/p/teledyne-lecroy-wavesurfer-4104hd-analog-oszilloskop-1-ghz-12-bit-1-st-2196853.html)
Oops..
WaveSurfer 4104HD
ENOB 8.3 bit.
Sample Rate (Single-shot) 5 GS/s on 2 Ch 2.5 GS/s on 4 Ch
Memory Length (4 Ch / 2 Ch / 1Ch) 12.5M / 25M
Siglent 6000A,
Sample Rate 5GSa/s (10GSa/s ESR) all channels.
Memory Length 500M one ch, 250M 2 ch, 125M 3 or 4 ch.
Oops... :)
-
Did Rf loop have a hand in this design? or other Siglent products answers on a postcard 8)
The time delay on the Lecroys has been for quite a while, a few parts are non stock, just like a slot of components recetly as Wurth have just quoted 48 weeks ona specific inductor :=\
8 bits instead of 12 possibly a small of matter of a non compete agrement regarding certain models possibly?
The new Siglent looks like a good tool and bear in mind these arn't really hobby scope ranges now
-
When will Dave get his hands on one of these babies and do a review ?
rudi
-
Did Rf loop have a hand in this design? or other Siglent products answers on a postcard 8)
Nah, man is simply encyclopedia..
The time delay on the Lecroys has been for quite a while, a few parts are non stock, just like a slot of components recetly as Wurth have just quoted 48 weeks ona specific inductor :=\
8 bits instead of 12 possibly a small of matter of a non compete agrement regarding certain models possibly?
The new Siglent looks like a good tool and bear in mind these arn't really hobby scope ranges now
8bit it is, for many reasons.. But, nice 4x5GS/s ADC all the time, oodles of memory, and your special a Jitter/Eye package... Up to 2GHz BW..
4 Math channels with formula editor...etc etc.
And no, not hobby grade. Serious machine.
-
Did Rf loop have a hand in this design? or other Siglent products answers on a postcard 8)
Postcard with stamp:
I don’t know where in reality or alternative reality you live. But if you imagine that I, “born in Winston Churchill’s time as prime minister,” would develop modern instruments - maybe we could write a sarcastic story about it for kids when I separate the transistor from the tube, but some times hardly.
Despite the above, I can sometimes even read the public data sheets of devices alongside thinking.
Even though my memory is outdated, I may still also find something to say also here from my own partially outdated world of knowledge and experience as well.
If it is still unclear. Should it be explained by bending the iron rod or copper wire.
:-DD
-
If anyone is interested to buy my Rigol MSO7000 ( Rigol MSO7014 but fully loaded by our well known genius friend ) I'm willing to devote myself to buying this thing :popcorn:
-
When will Dave get his hands on one of these babies and do a review ?
Yes, if he is serious to test using a Bodnar fast rising pulse generator (30..40ps rise/fall time) so we will see the beef.
Also to show how low the Jitter SW figures goes and how accurate they even are.
Keep in mind for 4 x 1..2 GHz props ... to pay the same amount once more :-DD
my 2 cents
-
When will Dave get his hands on one of these babies and do a review ?
Yes, if he is serious to test using a Bodnar fast rising pulse generator (30..40ps rise/fall time) so we will see the beef.
Also to show how low the Jitter SW figures goes and how accurate they even are.
Keep in mind for 4 x 1..2 GHz props ... to pay the same amount once more :-DD
my 2 cents
Dave didn't do a real review of any scope in many years. That is a serious work and takes too much time and is not really interesting to his viewers. It makes no sense of him to spend a month doing only that and get less views than with some other theme. As for opening a scope and showing there is some electronics inside I can tell you what's inside : some electronics and 12" screen. And a 120 mm fan, and some sheet metal, and power supply.. No rust.
What do you mean by your statements : what beef? What do you expect to see?
It has jitter figures that are better than specified.
Third one I really don't understand.
-
Dave didn't do a real review of any scope in many years. That is a serious work and takes too much time and is not really interesting to his viewers. It makes no sense of him to spend a month doing only that and get less views than with some other theme. As for opening a scope and showing there is some electronics inside I can tell you what's inside : some electronics and 12" screen. And a 120 mm fan, and some sheet metal, and power supply.. No rust.
What do you mean by your statements : what beef? What do you expect to see?
It has jitter figures that are better than specified.
Third one I really don't understand.
I'm not sure why you think DSO reviews (specially a new one from Siglent) are less popular than other topics. We all have preferences, but to dismiss a DSO review because you think it is less popular doesn't make sense. For me, I am less interested what's inside, then to see how it performs in actual real-world application. I am ready to buy one !
1. "beef" is a synonym for problem(s). What HPW is trying to say (IMHO) is that the device he refers to with 30-40ps raise/fall time will show potential shortcoming of the scope.
2. I believe what HPW means is that we will see how well the Jitter Software behaves and how useful it will be.
3. HPW is saying that 4 probes, for 1-2 GHz, will cost as much as the scope ...
Of course, I do not speak for HPW ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
rudi
-
This is the kind of instrument that would totally benefit from an external keyboard (like tek DPO7) full knobs, one for each channel.
Its a big instrument I would not like to leave over the bench but on a shelf in my eyesight.
(https://news.mynavi.jp/article/20150330-dpo70000sx/images/003l.jpg)
-
That is really nice to have such a remote keyboard!
Recently, I attached a small (travelers) mouse to my SDS5104, and after initial hesitation, I now find myself using it more and more. Unfortunately, I have not figured out yet how to reach all features with the mouse, and have to reach out from time to time to the knobs!
Also, I made my instrument rack such, that I can slide it back and forth on my bench. I can move it closer when I need to operate any of the instruments.
Cheers,
rudi
-
Dave didn't do a real review of any scope in many years. That is a serious work and takes too much time and is not really interesting to his viewers. It makes no sense of him to spend a month doing only that and get less views than with some other theme. As for opening a scope and showing there is some electronics inside I can tell you what's inside : some electronics and 12" screen. And a 120 mm fan, and some sheet metal, and power supply.. No rust.
What do you mean by your statements : what beef? What do you expect to see?
It has jitter figures that are better than specified.
Third one I really don't understand.
I'm not sure why you think DSO reviews (specially a new one from Siglent) are less popular than other topics. We all have preferences, but to dismiss a DSO review because you think it is less popular doesn't make sense. For me, I am less interested what's inside, then to see how it performs in actual real-world application. I am ready to buy one !
1. "beef" is a synonym for problem(s). What HPW is trying to say (IMHO) is that the device he refers to with 30-40ps raise/fall time will show potential shortcoming of the scope.
2. I believe what HPW means is that we will see how well the Jitter Software behaves and how useful it will be.
3. HPW is saying that 4 probes, for 1-2 GHz, will cost as much as the scope ...
Of course, I do not speak for HPW ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
rudi
It is the work amount / number of views ratio that is important.
A teardown is an almost easy job, a review is not.
However a teardown would be interesting between a 8bit SDS6000A VS a 12bit SDS6000 pro.
-
However a teardown would be interesting between a 8bit SDS6000A VS a 12bit SDS6000 pro.
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
-
In my dreams, there is a dip switch to switch from 8bit to 12 bit just like that.
So don't be too hard with me please :'(
-
However a teardown would be interesting between a 8bit SDS6000A VS a 12bit SDS6000 pro.
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
... or also not. We cannot know until someone had a look under the hood of both instruments. It might well be that there is no hardware difference at all...
-
When will Dave get his hands on one of these babies and do a review ?
Yes, if he is serious to test using a Bodnar fast rising pulse generator (30..40ps rise/fall time) so we will see the beef.
For modern DSOs a pulse is useless to check anything. You'll need a levelled RF generator to test the bandwidth and find other signal processing artefacts.
BTW: I found this Xilinx case study about the SDS6000 pro which shows the internal architecture: https://japan.origin.xilinx.com/content/dam/xilinx/publications/powered-by-xilinx/siglent-case-study.pdf (https://japan.origin.xilinx.com/content/dam/xilinx/publications/powered-by-xilinx/siglent-case-study.pdf)
However a teardown would be interesting between a 8bit SDS6000A VS a 12bit SDS6000 pro.
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
... or also not. We cannot know until someone had a look under the hood of both instruments. It might well be that there is no hardware difference at all...
It could be. It depends on the cost of the ADCs versus number of units sold.
-
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just trolling ?!
-
It would be really surprising if the 8 bit version was supplied with 4 x adc 12 bit 5GSa/s.
The price difference must be huge between 8 and 12 bit 5GSa/s ADC....but they have some headroom given the low-end price.
If it is the same architecture, I will think a lot less to buy it and I think someone will be very interested in hacking it if it's not already done :-DD
-
It would be really surprising if the 8 bit version was supplied with 4 x adc 12 bit 5GSa/s.
The price difference must be huge between 8 and 12 bit 5GSa/s ADC....but they have some headroom given the low-end price.
If it is the same architecture, I will think a lot less to buy it and I think someone will be very interested in hacking it if it's not already done :-DD
Agree! A 12bit 5GSPS ADC is very difficult to develop and thus I'd expect quite expensive, and with 4X even more expensive. This is not the same as using a TI VGA chip in the front end that can be "programmed" for added bandwidth and followed by a high speed fixed 8 bit ADC like in the SDS2000X+ series. The 8 bit ADC Siglent is using in the SDS2000X+ is quite good tho for an 8 bitter, but likely not expensive.
Very disappointed that the 6000 will not be available in NA with 12 bit ADCs, and not sure how good the ERES will behave regarding ENOB. The SDS2000X+ is pretty good tho, so hopefully Siglent will be able to squeeze out a few extra reliable bits like the 2000.
Soon I guess we'll know when a few quality reviews are posted.
Best,
-
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just trolling ?!
Why would I be trolling ?? What kind of a question is that?
Which part of 4 x 8bit ADC versus 2x12bBit ADC didn't you understand. Which part that it has different memory sizes and general specification didn't you get?
12Bit version has VGA output. 8 bit one has HDMI... etc etc..
Are you one of those people that live in fantasy world that think that PCB layout can be fixed by a software patch? That you can install large BGA ADC converters by software unlock?
Yes, I know it for the fact.. It is different hardware. Only thing they share is case.
-
It would be really surprising if the 8 bit version was supplied with 4 x adc 12 bit 5GSa/s.
The price difference must be huge between 8 and 12 bit 5GSa/s ADC....but they have some headroom given the low-end price.
If it is the same architecture, I will think a lot less to buy it and I think someone will be very interested in hacking it if it's not already done :-DD
Agree! A 12bit 5GSPS ADC is very difficult to develop and thus I'd expect quite expensive, and with 4X even more expensive. This is not the same as using a TI VGA chip in the front end that can be "programmed" for added bandwidth and followed by a high speed fixed 8 bit ADC like in the SDS2000X+ series. The 8 bit ADC Siglent is using in the SDS2000X+ is quite good tho for an 8 bitter, but likely not expensive.
Very disappointed that the 6000 will not be available in NA with 12 bit ADCs, and not sure how good the ERES will behave regarding ENOB. The SDS2000X+ is pretty good tho, so hopefully Siglent will be able to squeeze out a few extra reliable bits like the 2000.
Soon I guess we'll know when a few quality reviews are posted.
Best,
Mike,
as always, faster the ADC is, you can interpolate a bit more... So 5GS/s will be able to get a bit better results than 2GS/s for low frequencies.. more samples for averaging is available.
I don't have it so I cannot measure how much exactly.
As a sidenote, I really like that it has 4 converters. I kinda like the simplicity that sampling is always the same at all times for all channels...
-
as always, faster the ADC is, you can interpolate a bit more... So 5GS/s will be able to get a bit better results than 2GS/s for low frequencies.. more samples for averaging is available.
This assumes the 8 bit converter doesn't have any bad characteristics like hysteresis or high DNL. If it's as good as the ADC in the SDS2000X+ regarding these parameters that will be a plus :-+
Not sure this will be enough of a compelling reason for us to consider a 6000 tho, really would like 12 bit ADCs. If those 12 bit ADCs come directly from LeCroy, then understand the market concessions Siglent must make.
Best
-
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just trolling ?!
Why would I be trolling ?? What kind of a question is that?
Which part of 4 x 8bit ADC versus 2x12bBit ADC didn't you understand. Which part that it has different memory sizes and general specification didn't you get?
12Bit version has VGA output. 8 bit one has HDMI... etc etc..
Are you one of those people that live in fantasy world that think that PCB layout can be fixed by a software patch? That you can install large BGA ADC converters by software unlock?
Yes, I know it for the fact.. It is different hardware. Only thing they share is case.
Hello Sinisa,
Where did you see that the 12 bit version didn't have the same memory amount and had a VGA output ?
On this specsheet, we can see HDMI and 500Mpts memory. Maybe an out dated specsheet ?
https://www.siglent.com/upload_file/document/SDS6000_Pro_Datasheet_DS0106P_C02A.pdf (https://www.siglent.com/upload_file/document/SDS6000_Pro_Datasheet_DS0106P_C02A.pdf)
-
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just trolling ?!
Why would I be trolling ?? What kind of a question is that?
Which part of 4 x 8bit ADC versus 2x12bBit ADC didn't you understand. Which part that it has different memory sizes and general specification didn't you get?
12Bit version has VGA output. 8 bit one has HDMI... etc etc..
Are you one of those people that live in fantasy world that think that PCB layout can be fixed by a software patch? That you can install large BGA ADC converters by software unlock?
Yes, I know it for the fact.. It is different hardware. Only thing they share is case.
Hello Sinisa,
Where did you see that the 12 bit version didn't have the same memory amount and had a VGA output ?
On this specsheet, we can see HDMI and 500Mpts memory. Maybe an out dated specsheet ?
https://www.siglent.com/upload_file/document/SDS6000_Pro_Datasheet_DS0106P_C02A.pdf (https://www.siglent.com/upload_file/document/SDS6000_Pro_Datasheet_DS0106P_C02A.pdf)
Indeed. If you put this spec sheet next to the one from the SDS6000A then you'll see there are a lot of similaties AND a major difference. The SDS6000A (8 bit) supports 5Gs/s on all channels where the SDS6000 Pro supports 'only' 2.5Gs/s on all channels. Maybe there is some interleaving going on to get more bits. IMHO it is impossible to say whether these oscilloscopes have the same hardware under the hood or not without doing a teardown of both. Since a DSO is a relatively low volume product the NRE costs for 2 ADCs might be higher compared to developing 1 higher spec ADC and use it in an 8bit mode on lower spec models.
For example: Keysight has done something similar on some of their higher end models where they limit the DSO to use half the samplerate the ADC is capable of.
-
It's simply different board.. Not much to compare.
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just trolling ?!
Why would I be trolling ?? What kind of a question is that?
Which part of 4 x 8bit ADC versus 2x12bBit ADC didn't you understand. Which part that it has different memory sizes and general specification didn't you get?
12Bit version has VGA output. 8 bit one has HDMI... etc etc..
Are you one of those people that live in fantasy world that think that PCB layout can be fixed by a software patch? That you can install large BGA ADC converters by software unlock?
Yes, I know it for the fact.. It is different hardware. Only thing they share is case.
Hello Sinisa,
Where did you see that the 12 bit version didn't have the same memory amount and had a VGA output ?
On this specsheet, we can see HDMI and 500Mpts memory. Maybe an out dated specsheet ?
https://www.siglent.com/upload_file/document/SDS6000_Pro_Datasheet_DS0106P_C02A.pdf (https://www.siglent.com/upload_file/document/SDS6000_Pro_Datasheet_DS0106P_C02A.pdf)
Indeed. If you put this spec sheet next to the one from the SDS6000A then you'll see there are a lot of similaties AND a major difference. The SDS6000A (8 bit) supports 5Gs/s on all channels where the SDS6000 Pro supports 'only' 2.5Gs/s on all channels. Maybe there is some interleaving going on to get more bits. IMHO it is impossible to say whether these oscilloscopes have the same hardware under the hood or not without doing a teardown of both. Since a DSO is a relatively low volume product the NRE costs for 2 ADCs might be higher compared to developing 1 higher spec ADC and use it in an 8bit mode on lower spec models.
For example: Keysight has done something similar on some of their higher end models where they limit the DSO to use half the samplerate the ADC is capable of.
On the Xilinx PDF you linked, there are 4 individual ADC. Maybe they can't process 5GSa/s 12bit on 4 channels by some kind of hardware limitation or by marketing decision with Lecroy partnership?
-
Truth is there are significant differences between Chinese SDS6000 Pro and western SDS6000A.
The specs are out there if you know where to find them however for us in the west only the SDS6000A is of interest.
Years back when SDS3000 was released in China the one I played with at Siglent HQ didn't even have a English UI menu option and it's very likely SDS6000 Pro will be the same ....... if some relationship with LeCroy still exists to market SDS6000 Pro in the west.
Only time will tell if we can chose between SDS6000 Pro/LeCroy model *** or SDS6000A. :popcorn:
-
That is interesting, I was looking at older datasheet, and was apparently comparing to 1GHz Chinese version from that datasheet.
But it still stays the same. 12 Bit converters are much more expensive and also not easy to get. So if the scope is 8 bit, converters won't be 12 bit inside and artificially made to behave like 8 bit ones.
Nico's Xilinx whitepaper shows all there is. Today scopes are several ADC connected to large FPGAs and that is it. There is nothing interesting really, they are all the same. All the magic is FPGA bitstreams and software.
Teardowns don't show much apart from what is obvious..
-
That is interesting, I was looking at older datasheet, and was apparently comparing to 1GHz Chinese version from that datasheet.
But it still stays the same. 12 Bit converters are much more expensive and also not easy to get.
Again: you have to factor in the NRE costs. A high spec ADC may cost ball park 1 million USD to develop. Certainly not less than $250k. The production costs are pretty much the same after that no matter what resolution the ADC is. Given the relatively low number of units sold it just doesn't make sense to develop 2 seperate ADCs. OTOH it could be the 8 bit version uses off-the-shelve ADCs. It all depends on the economics and we simply don't know enough to be sure.
-
If you put this spec sheet next to the one from the SDS6000A then you'll see there are a lot of similaties AND a major difference. The SDS6000A (8 bit) supports 5Gs/s on all channels where the SDS6000 Pro supports 'only' 2.5Gs/s on all channels.
No.
SDS6000 Pro H12 and H10 2GHz models have 5GSa/s for all channels simultaneously and then one 500M memory shared for all analog channels and as can see looks like same with all 8bit SDS6000A models.
Difficult to read public data sheets published by manufacturer instead of wild speculations?
---------------
Sidenote/Clarification in general: Every SDS6000******** model have HDMI out. (SDS6000 Pro H10, H12: 350MHz to 2GHz and SDS6000A: 500MHz to 2GHz models. )
-
SDS6000 Pro H12 and H10 2GHz models have 5GSa/s for all channels simultaneously and then one 500M memory shared for all analog channels and as can see looks like same with all 8bit SDS6000A models.
Indeed.
One could make an educated guess that all the worldwide selling SDS6000A models originate from the chinese 2 GHz SDS6204 H12 Pro flagship.
Some folks here already noticed that the price difference between the various bandwidth models is rather low - so this is a first pointer that
a) the hardware is identical for all models - other than for the SDS5000X
b) this is clearly aimed for the professional market and there is no particularly cheap entry model for all the hackers out there.
We also get a frontend without compromises: full sensitivity at full bandwidth for all models up to 2 GHz.
Whether Siglent has gone to the effort to develop a new acquisition board to fit a vastly different 8 bit ADC - that's another question ;)
-
SDS6000 Pro H12 and H10 2GHz models have 5GSa/s for all channels simultaneously and then one 500M memory shared for all analog channels and as can see looks like same with all 8bit SDS6000A models.
Indeed.
..... this is clearly aimed for the professional market and there is no particularly cheap entry model for all the hackers out there.
We also get a frontend without compromises: full sensitivity at full bandwidth for all models up to 2 GHz.
Yes, it is for professional markets what may mean also more "things" than just instrument itself.
Small note for BW:
2GHz model BW is specified as 1 GHz when input vertical scale is under 2.3 mV/div. (1:1)
-
Interesting information from datasheets published by @rf-loop:
The specified power consumption of the lower frequency models of the SDS 6000 H10/12 Pro is lower (150W max / 90W typ / 4W s/b) vs. the highest range model (193W / 123W / 4W).
The SDS 6000 A datasheet lists the 193W / 123W / 4W for the whole range of instruments.
Considering Siglent's datasheet are usually quite accurate, this may be a hint towards an interesting conclusion... :o
-
If you put this spec sheet next to the one from the SDS6000A then you'll see there are a lot of similaties AND a major difference. The SDS6000A (8 bit) supports 5Gs/s on all channels where the SDS6000 Pro supports 'only' 2.5Gs/s on all channels.
No.
SDS6000 Pro H12 and H10 2GHz models have 5GSa/s for all channels simultaneously and then one 500M memory shared for all analog channels and as can see looks like same with all 8bit SDS6000A models.
Difficult to read public data sheets published by manufacturer instead of wild speculations?
You better check your own links: on pages 3 and 10 of the SDS6000 Pro H12 spec sheet it states that it has 2.5 Gs/s per channel with all channels enabled. Google translate tells me that 5Gs/s is only supported in interleave mode with half the channels (1+2 or 3+4) enabled.
-
You better check your own links: on page 3 and page 12 of the SDS6000 Pro H12 spec sheet it states that it has 2.5 Gs/s per channel with all channels enabled. I don't need to understand Chinese to spot that.
Sometimes some understanding doesn't hurt. These are the specifications in question for the SDS6204 H10/12 Pro, translated from the Datasheet:
Real-time sampling rate: 10 GSa/s (ESR) @ per channel
Memory depth : 500 Mpts/ch（single channel), 250 Mpts/ch (dual channel), 125 Mpts/ch (four-channels)
-
You better check your own links: on page 3 and page 12 of the SDS6000 Pro H12 spec sheet it states that it has 2.5 Gs/s per channel with all channels enabled. I don't need to understand Chinese to spot that.
Sometimes some understanding doesn't hurt. These are the specifications in question for the SDS6204 H10/12 Pro, translated from the Datasheet:
Real-time sampling rate: 10 GSa/s (ESR) @ per channel
Memory depth : 500 Mpts/ch（single channel), 250 Mpts/ch (dual channel), 125 Mpts/ch (four-channels)
Now explain what ESR means... Google translate tells me: :ESR: Enhance the sampling rate, obtain better measurement accuracy through 2x interpolation which still doesn't explain what is does exactly. It looks more like the 2GHz model has different acquisition hardware compared to the 1GHz and lower models.
-
For domestic market (China) there are two versions of hardware: one up to 1 GHz and 2 GHz. 2 GHz version has 4 ADC and has 5GS/s at all times (10 GS/s with ESR). Also, if you look closely, it has slightly different memory architecture (Unified memory : 500, 250, 125 MS as opposed to to 2x 250/125MS) and therefore different FPGA configuration and such. Also, a 2GHz capable front end.
The architecture for 2GHz domestic one was probably used as basis to develop 8 bit version of that, and with 4 (different type) 8 bit ADC was made in worldwide platform, that is single for all bandwidths (500MHz, 1 GHz and 2 GHZ). They all share same motherboard, front end etc. There are software upgrade options that use that fact, otherwise it wouldn't be possible.. As mentioned by Nico many times, BOM optimization, streamlining development and such.
Therefore domestic Chinese SDS6000 series is same family, but worldwide motherboard is different board and should be viewed as such.
@Tom, difference in power ( <= 1GHz and 2 GHz domestic China version ) comes from, as explained, different hardware..
Variation in consumption comes from scope CPU load, and channels enabled..
With all math channels, decodes, digital scope power goes up. In stop mode it goes down..
-
Some folks here already noticed that the price difference between the various bandwidth models is rather low - so this is a first pointer that
a) the hardware is identical for all models - other than for the SDS5000X
b) this is clearly aimed for the professional market and there is no particularly cheap entry model for all the hackers out there.
c) This is the first Siglent model with "licensing hack" by design.
-
You better check your own links: on page 3 and page 12 of the SDS6000 Pro H12 spec sheet it states that it has 2.5 Gs/s per channel with all channels enabled. I don't need to understand Chinese to spot that.
Sometimes some understanding doesn't hurt. These are the specifications in question for the SDS6204 H10/12 Pro, translated from the Datasheet:
Real-time sampling rate: 10 GSa/s (ESR) @ per channel
Memory depth : 500 Mpts/ch（single channel), 250 Mpts/ch (dual channel), 125 Mpts/ch (four-channels)
Now explain what ESR means... is it some equalent time sampling system? Google translate tells me: :ESR: Enhance the sampling rate, obtain better measurement accuracy through 2x interpolation which still doesn't explain what is does exactly.
Yes, ESR is interpolation method. There is LeCroy ESR whitepaper that explains it. It is still 5GS/s sampling but it does help with built in measurements, making them more accurate.
-
You better check your own links: on page 3 and page 12 of the SDS6000 Pro H12 spec sheet it states that it has 2.5 Gs/s per channel with all channels enabled. I don't need to understand Chinese to spot that.
Sometimes some understanding doesn't hurt. These are the specifications in question for the SDS6204 H10/12 Pro, translated from the Datasheet:
Real-time sampling rate: 10 GSa/s (ESR) @ per channel
Memory depth : 500 Mpts/ch（single channel), 250 Mpts/ch (dual channel), 125 Mpts/ch (four-channels)
Now explain what ESR means... Google translate tells me: :ESR: Enhance the sampling rate, obtain better measurement accuracy through 2x interpolation which still doesn't explain what is does exactly. It looks more like the 2GHz model has different acquisition hardware compared to the 1GHz and lower models.
Samplerate is, as we normally talk about, 5GSa/s simultaneously for every channel in SDS6000******** 2GHz models in China and in all SDS6000A models outside of China. From which it follows that fNyquist based to fastest native samplerate is 2.5GHz. 10GSa/s ESR do not change this.
ESR in LeCroy oscilloscopes is well explained in attached LeCroy white paper. But this is LeCroy. How it is implemented in Siglent model... there is not available public Siglent white paper about it.
ETA: lack of my browser refresh after come bac from out and I did not see @2N3055 previously wroted good answer.
-
The LeCroy white paper reference by 2N3055 is a must read for anyone using any of these mentioned instruments.
http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/whitepapers/enhanced-sample-rate-whitepaper.pdf (http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/whitepapers/enhanced-sample-rate-whitepaper.pdf)
Edit: A quick search shows TI has candidate 12 bit ADCs, as does AD, and they aren't cheap at ~$1K per chip.
Best,
-
ESR in LeCroy oscilloscopes is well explained in attached LeCroy white paper. But this is LeCroy.
Thanks for the link to the paper. Meh, I'm sort of underwhelmed by the concept and whatever benefits the system may have for measurement and analysis, marketing it as an equivalent to a higher sample rate is dubious, IMO. And here they are comparing 2.5GSa/s rather than 5GSa/s to their '10G estimated points/s. Is that really better?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1312079;image)
-
The LeCroy white paper reference by 2N3055 is a must read for anyone using any of these mentioned instruments.
http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/whitepapers/enhanced-sample-rate-whitepaper.pdf (http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/whitepapers/enhanced-sample-rate-whitepaper.pdf)
Edit: A quick search shows TI has candidate 12 bit ADCs, as does AD, and they aren't cheap at ~$1K per chip.
Best,
Just same what was attached pdf in my previous message. ;)
-
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1311980;image)
Why you name it as Siglent ESR
@bdunham7 corrected it. Now OK :)
-
ESR in LeCroy oscilloscopes is well explained in attached LeCroy white paper. But this is LeCroy.
Thanks for the link to the paper. Meh, I'm sort of underwhelmed by the concept and whatever benefits the system may have for measurement and analysis, marketing it as an equivalent to a higher sample rate is dubious, IMO. And here they are comparing 2.5GSa/s rather than 5GSa/s to their '10G estimated points/s. Is that really better?
Well, it helps to improve the visualisation of a signal. That is what interpolation on a DSO is all about; showing an image which is as close to the actual waveform shape as possible. Then again, how much of that pre-edge ringing is the actual signal and how much is due to the Gibbs effect?
-
Well, it helps to improve the visualisation of a signal.
Yes, but like sharpening a photo, there's a limit to the amount of improving you can do before you are distorting. In this case, I'm not seeing the 'improvement', at least visually.
-
Why you name it as Siglent ESR (your original msg attached image name Siglent ESR.png) . Where you have seen Siglent do this compare or presents the matter with that image. These are from Teledyne LeCroy.
Siglent sell outside China only 8 bit SDS6000A.
I'm underwhelmed by the concept and I dislike the marketing of it, no matter who presents it. However, in the interests of accuracy and just for you, I've changed the title of the photo. Now is Siglent's 10GSa/s 'ESR' on the 8-bit SDS6000A scopes they sell outside China significantly different in either operation or the overall fact that the extra samples are interpolated?
-
While ESR doesn’t increase the effective sample rate, hence has no effect on the Nyquist frequency, it generates more data for screen rendering and automatic measurements. As always, there are pros and cons to this approach:
+ improves the accuracy of automatic measurements in many cases
+ can improve the visual representation of a waveform in some (rare) cases
+ works silently in the background and we get the benefits without firmware change
– uses up twice as much memory for data that could be generated at any time later in the process
– may result in ambiguous waveform rendering even in dots mode when Nyquist has been violated
The best feature of ESR is that it can be turned off.
The attached screenshots demonstrate the improved accuracy of transition time measurements in a long record.
The main window contains a 5 µs long capture of a ~160 MHz square wave with approx.. 210 ps rise time. The zoom window shows the details at 2 ns/div. We measure the transition times in both the main and the zoom window – and these are different for a reason:
In the main window, a 25 kpts long record provides more data than what is required for displaying the waveform, hence no interpolation required. Consequently, the resolution of time measurements is limited by the sample rate: 5 GSa/s -> 200 ps sample interval. This means we have to live with an average error of 100 ps.
In the 20 ns wide zoom window, there are only 100 samples, hence interpolation is required for the measurements and we get results much closer to the truth for comparison purposes.
First a standard measurement without ESR. The zoom window measurements hint on a rise time (signal source & scope combined) of some 310 ps. The measurement on the long record reads some 100 ps higher, just as predicted (always look at the mean values in the measurement statistics!).
Second is the same measurement, but with ESR enabled. The error of the long record measurement is now only some 50 ps. ESR does of course not affect the zoom measurement.
-
It is an interesting technique and I think it is valid for improving measurements. With sin x/x reconstruction (IMHO interpolation is the wrong term) the original sample points are kept but a more true shape of the waveform is created. My guess is that measurements normally use linear interpolation which is highly affected by the position of the sample points and thus resulting in extra jitter in the measurement result.
-
With sin x/x reconstruction (IMHO interpolation is the wrong term) the original sample points are kept but a more true shape of the waveform is created.
It's a reconstruction based on interpolation. So using "interpolation" is perfectly correct (and shortens the text).
-
With sin x/x reconstruction (IMHO interpolation is the wrong term) the original sample points are kept but a more true shape of the waveform is created.
It's a reconstruction based on interpolation. So using "interpolation" is perfectly correct (and shortens the text).
There is a little bit more to it. In measurement land interpolation is a very dirty word because interpolation means estimating values that lie between points. So it is a word to avoid that if you can when talking about measurements & equipment because it will turn certain people off. Where it comes to DSOs, sin x/x does not interpolate but reconstructs so NOT calling it interpolation is valid (note how the ESR paper from Lecroy puts so much emphasis on meeting the Nyquist criteria to make sin x/x valid).
-
sin x/x does not interpolate
:palm: I must have skipped some lessons...
-
sin x/x does not interpolate
:palm: I must have skipped some lessons...
Indeed you have ;). When the Nyquist criteria is met (with some margin) you can prove mathematically that you can draw only 1 waveform through the sampled points which is what sin x/x does. This means you are not interpolating (estimating) but reconstructing.
-
Yes we are reconstructing by using sin(x)/x to interpolate parts of the curve (or points, in the end there will always be physical plot points on the screen at least) between..
Estimation is not a synonym for interpolation.
Interpolation is a specific type of value estimation, that is closely related to approximation.
Hence we approximate missing values by using sin(x)/x function, that we curve fit to sampled data points.
Therefore reconstructing the data between sample points. We say that data was interpolated.
Or I don't understand it right...?
-
I don't want to drag out this semantic discussion out any further so this is the last thing I'm going to write about it: As I explained before you have to be really careful with the word 'interpolation' because it has a negative tone in combination with using test equipment. And there is reason for it since interpolation means estimation and thus implies inaccuracies / fantasy data. This has become very clear to me in previous discussions so I avoid using the word unless it is actually appropriate.
-
The best feature of ESR is that it can be turned off.
Hardly a ringing endorsement...
The attached screenshots demonstrate the improved accuracy of transition time measurements in a long record.
I certainly don't want to dismiss the efforts of some very talented people at LeCroy, as I'm sure this 'feature' is of some use and I certainly don't know enough technically to pass judgement on it. It's the marketing angle where I'm sure the sales department was giddy with excitement being able to write "10Gsa/s blah blah". That's an area I know enough to pass judgement on, b/t/w.
As for what it does, according to your explanation, it appears that without ESR the scope only performs the sinx/x interpolation on the screen display (and to adjust the trigger point on the fly) and not the whole capture? So then ESR is simply using sinx/x to generate points in between the actual captured points so that the measurements can be done in the way they normally are--not using sinx/x interpolation--on a greater number of points. OK.
However, I can't quite reconcile that with the photo excerpt that I posted from LeCroy's paper. More samples means more Gibbs ears? As I commented there, I fail to see the improvement in that case, and since the screen display is already being processed by sinx/x, what are they actually doing?
-
The best feature of ESR is that it can be turned off.
Hardly a ringing endorsement...
It has to be the best feature, if only because I have requested it.
And the reason was … see the cons in my previous posting.
I certainly don't want to dismiss the efforts of some very talented people at LeCroy, as I'm sure this 'feature' is of some use and I certainly don't know enough technically to pass judgement on it. It's the marketing angle where I'm sure the sales department was giddy with excitement being able to write "10Gsa/s blah blah". That's an area I know enough to pass judgement on, b/t/w.
I don’t know exactly how LeCroy advertise their gear, but I do know what Siglent’s strategy outside of China is.
Have a look at the international SDS6000A instruments – do you see 10 GSa/s printed on them anywhere?
Have a look at the company webpage. There it says “5 GSa/s (10 GSa/s ESR) per channel” over and over again, so clearly hinting on a genuine samplerate of 5 GSa/s. It is also clearly stated what ESR is – some form of 2x interpolation. So nobody gets fooled.
Have a look at the datasheet. It’s the same as stated above.
Sorry, I cannot see what’s wrong with the marketing. Should the ESR feature be concealed?
As for what it does, according to your explanation, it appears that without ESR the scope only performs the sinx/x interpolation on the screen display (and to adjust the trigger point on the fly) and not the whole capture? So then ESR is simply using sinx/x to generate points in between the actual captured points so that the measurements can be done in the way they normally are--not using sinx/x interpolation--on a greater number of points. OK.
ESR has nothing to do with the general post processing strategies, except that it doubles the number of data points regardless of anything else.
It is only logical that there will neither be linear interpolation “x” or a sin(x)/x reconstruction if there are already enough samples to fill the screen.
So for the display, there will be a 1:1 sample mapping at a certain timebase, e.g. 20 ns/div.
Interpolation or reconstruction is used at faster timebases – where the number of samples gets less then the horizontal screen pixels.
Decimation or agglomeration is used at slower timebases.
You seem to suggest that this is somehow awkward, suboptimal or at least unusual? Just think about it:
In an extreme situation, you use the fastest timebase, which is 100 ps/div. At a sample rate of 5 GSa/s, you only get one sample per two divisions, that is five samples total. That means the interpolation or reconstruction has to provide some 1200 additional values, i.e. multiplying the initial amount of samples by 240. So there are situation, where you need to create that many additional data. Now what does that mean for the memory consumption?
Even ESR, which only doubles the number of samples already requires twice the memory for that. You probably say, for enhancing measurements on long records we do not need to multiply the data by 240 – what do we use then? 1 ps resolution requires a 200 fold expansion of the sample data – our scope then has to have either 200 times the memory (= 200 Gpts) or we leave it as it is and can only advertise it as “2.5 Mpts memory length.”
Even if we make do with just 10 ps, then it is still a factor of 20.
So it’s easy to criticize, but you should also consider the consequences.
However, I can't quite reconcile that with the photo excerpt that I posted from LeCroy's paper. More samples means more Gibbs ears? As I commented there, I fail to see the improvement in that case, and since the screen display is already being processed by sinx/x, what are they actually doing?
Yes, I’m with you here.
As my screenshots demonstrate, there is no difference in the Y-t view – at least not for a rather benign signal with ~200 ps rise time. I do not have a 30-40 ps signal source, maybe I should get one and see what happens then (most likely nothing unexpected).
Anyway, you can be sure that you’ll hardly ever see a whitepaper with questionable screenshots, that create more questions than answers, from Siglent.
-
Sorry, I cannot see what’s wrong with the marketing. Should the ESR feature be concealed?
So it’s easy to criticize, but you should also consider the consequences.
My only 'criticism' re Siglent is of the marketing, and IMO the way it is stated makes it too easy to confuse with ETS. I would not have listed it as a headline feature like that.
As for the technical issues, the I understand the tradeoffs in making measurements. You could generate a huge number of interpolated points, which would use too much memory, or (in some cases--like pulse width or rise time) just do the interpolation on-the-fly locally where it is needed for each measurement, just like is done with the trigger interpolation. That would probably use too much processor power and I have no good ideas on how to actually implement that, so there are no technical criticisms from me regarding this feature.
And I'm just curious--why stop at 10GSa/s? If you have a short capture, why not interpolate away until the memory is fully used, then do measurements? You'd be able to measure pulsewidth as nicely as the trigger interpolation is able to lay successive traces right on top of one another.
-
My only 'criticism' re Siglent is of the marketing, and IMO the way it is stated makes it too easy to confuse with ETS. I would not have listed it as a headline feature like that.
Well, it is the proper description of the acquisition system, listed together with other key features. ESR in parenthesis, nothing that sticks out in any way, nothing like a bigger or bolder font.
As for the possible confusion of ESR with ETS … if we cannot rely on EEs to be able to properly understand what they read, then we get some more problems indeed. ETS went largely out of fashion anyway.
Overall, we could criticize pretty much all manufacturers, because there will always be some room for confusion and/or unjustified expectations from the marketing material. At least I firmly believe that anyone can get honest and accurate information from the Siglent material, as long as they read carefully and are capable to understand what they’ve just read. I’m aware that we cannot generally presume that though…
As for the technical issues, the I understand the tradeoffs in making measurements. You could generate a huge number of interpolated points, which would use too much memory, or (in some cases--like pulse width or rise time) just do the interpolation on-the-fly locally where it is needed for each measurement, just like is done with the trigger interpolation. That would probably use too much processor power and I have no good ideas on how to actually implement that, so there are no technical criticisms from me regarding this feature.
Yes – and I can give you some good reasons why this is not really feasible…
Have you had a look at the screenshots in my earlier posting? Look at the counter in the measurement statistics for rise and fall times. You will notice that the count is vastly different in the main and zoom window. You might conclude that every single transition is analyzed separately, and a single record can provide a very high number of measurements.
So, interpolating all the transition regions in a record is certainly a lot more effort than fine-adjusting the (single) trigger point. Just for fun, let’s have a look at my example:
800 full cycles of a 160 MHz signal fit into a 5 µs long record. Each cycle has two transitions, so there is a total of 1600 transitions in a single record. But that’s not the only problem by far. Now we need to find the 10% and 90% points for our measurements. Where are they located? We do not know until we have a valid measurement result – that’s where the cat bites her own tail. We would have to analyze the entire region around the transition. How much? Well, it depends on the transition time. In theory the signal could have slow transitions, up to the point where it turns into a triangle, where we need to look at almost the entire signal period.
Long story short: We can either do it in advance, with a rather stupid algorithm, i.e. for the entire record and with massive hardware support, so that it doesn’t cost any additional time, or we do it as part of the software based measurements, and slow down the frame rate to an extent that everyone will complain very loudly.
And I'm just curious--why stop at 10GSa/s? If you have a short capture, why not interpolate away until the memory is fully used, then do measurements? You'd be able to measure pulsewidth as nicely as the trigger interpolation is able to lay successive traces right on top of one another.
A good question.
Remember that ESR usually is just there, nothing configurable at all. As mentioned earlier, it was not even switchable originally.
The main reason will be the limited bandwidth of the data bus and the memory. You cannot push the sample rate up to the sky, because you need to be able to transfer that amount of data into the acquisition memory in real time. It really doesn’t pay off to fit the bus hardware and sample memory required for a high-end system with 100 GSa/s or more, just to have some interpolation that only produces more or less redundant data from a low end 5 GSa/s ADC in the end.
There is a major difference to ETS, where you take a number of consecutive records to assemble the final representation of the input signal. The bandwidth requirements here remain the same as for standard real time sampling. It just takes a number of acquisitions until a complete ETS record is built. That’s why ETS is only applicable for static signals.
-
There is too much marketing blah-blah surrounding the ESR/enhanced sample rate term (and most engineers have little time to read it) so I'm trying to guess what's it really about (please correct or confirm).
Unfortunately the core of the very good description from bdunham7 touching the same essence was not really discussed.
The sinc interpolation is nothing new, in fact every modern DSO I've seen has it as an option and very useful when the timebase is so low that there as significantly more display points than samples available (for example 200ps with 5GSa/s).
For a small number of samples the micro (ARM or whatever) has sufficient power to do this (but can be done also in FPGA). This is about the visualisation of the signal and it's not about doubling the sample points but getting a "sample point" for each display pixel.
Things however get radically different if we start to talk about measurements that's supposed to operate on large number of samples (so even when the timebase is not so low) and that needs the "sinc interpolation" done in the FPGA. Due to the massively more data this means not getting hugely more virtual sample points, but some kind measurement result based on interpolated (although this may not be the best term here) data.
What is achieved with this is that the measurement accuracy gets to a comparable level with it with a 5GSa/s DSO as without it with a 10GSa/s DSO.
So for visualization it has negligible impact (in fact the 10GSa/s DSO has an edge here due to the more physical samples) and it's mainly about measurement?
Am I way off with my thinking, or kind of OK just missed something (I mean in the essence of the story I know that probably there are way more in the dirty details)?
-
Unfortunately the core of the very good description from bdunham7 touching the same essence was not really discussed.
Oh? have I missed something?
Things however get radically different if we start to talk about measurements that's supposed to operate on large number of samples (so even when the timebase is not so low) and that needs the "sinc interpolation" done in the FPGA. Due to the massively more data this means not getting hugely more virtual sample points, but some kind measurement result based on interpolated (although this may not be the best term here) data.
What is achieved with this is that the measurement accuracy gets to a comparable level with it with a 5GSa/s DSO as without it with a 10GSa/s DSO.
I'm not quite sure if I really understand your question. ESR is a technique applied very early in the digital signal processing chain. We can probably compare it with the acquisition modes Avg and ERES which process and substitute the data on their way from the ADC to the sample memory.
ESR is special in that it doubles the amount of data, so all the subsequent processing cannot tell the difference from a true ADC with twice the sample rate.
Because it has to be done in real time, all these acquisition modes need to be accomplished by hardware.
ESR gives twice the amount of data and doubles the sample rate, hence the resolution. Measurements gain accuracy, not only time measurements, but also amplitude, because peaks can be located more precisely which in turn leads to a better estimation of the peak amplitude for instance.
Measurements use the sample memory on records with more than some 1200 samples (more than fits on the screen). So the resolution of the data there is proportional to the sample rate. For shorter records, measurements use some secondary buffer with the sin(x)/x reconstruction of the waveform in it.
So for visualization it has negligible impact (in fact the 10GSa/s DSO has an edge here due to the more physical samples) and it's mainly about measurement?
Am I way off with my thinking, or kind of OK just missed something (I mean in the essence of the story I know that probably there are way more in the dirty details)?
For visualization, it should have very little to no impact, because for longer records we don't need any additional samples for good visualization, whereas for short records it should make no difference whether we have a two-stage process in applying sin(x)/x with only doubling the number of samples first and then again in the display buffer to do the rest - or if everything is accomplished in a single run in the display buffer just once.
-
OK, clear explanation, thanks. I think we're on the same page now.
-
Hello the, we just got the unit, I like to share a nice picture of it, by the way the front cover comes as standard with the oscilloscope :-+
-
Hello the, we just got the unit, I like to share a nice picture of it, by the way the front cover comes as standard with the oscilloscope :-+
So please report to us, what probes you may use and any nice fast pulse measurements (as Bodnar fast pulse 40..50ps) to show...
Hp
-
Hello the, we just got the unit, I like to share a nice picture of it, by the way the front cover comes as standard with the oscilloscope :-+
So please report to us, what probes you may use and any nice fast pulse measurements (as Bodnar fast pulse 40..50ps) to show...
Hp
So no beef seen so far (no tear down or test reports), all waiting for the SDS6000 Pro for any better bits... or are those all out of turtles budged :-//
-
Some folks here already noticed that the price difference between the various bandwidth models is rather low - so this is a first pointer that
a) the hardware is identical for all models - other than for the SDS5000X
b) this is clearly aimed for the professional market and there is no particularly cheap entry model for all the hackers out there.
c) This is the first Siglent model with "licensing hack" by design.
Are there any threads for SDS6000 hacking? I recently got an SDS6000 PRO (Chinese version)
-
Hello the, we just got the unit, I like to share a nice picture of it, by the way the front cover comes as standard with the oscilloscope :-+
So please report to us, what probes you may use and any nice fast pulse measurements (as Bodnar fast pulse 40..50ps) to show...
Hp
So no beef seen so far (no tear down or test reports), all waiting for the SDS6000 Pro for any better bits... or are those all out of turtles budged :-//
I have an SDS6104 H12 Pro, 1Ghz, 5Gsa/s, 12bit, RF signal source (output amplitude is not very accurate), but there is no HIGH frequency probe adapted to SDS6000, only some RF feeders, which may provide some test data you want to know. Please let me know the specific test method and I will try it.
-
Wish we could get these here in NA :-[
If you don't mind could you do a classic two tone IMD test. Maybe a 1MHz and 1.01MHz signals fed thru 1K resistors with 100 ohm shunt. Perform an FFT that shows the tones and the 3rd order IMD products at 0.99MHz and 1.02MHz. This will revel the input channel and ADC performance and how well the new scope can be utilized as a low frequency spectrum analyzer.
Anyway, you are the envy of us with your new SDS6104 H12 Pro, congratulations :-+
Best
-
Two tone IMD test results, but I do not know which parameters to pay attention to.
3dB bandwidth is about 1.2ghz,
ADC noise is 1.5mV,
ENOB: I don't know how to take the test
When four channels are enabled at the same time, the sampling rate is reduced to 2.5Gsas
ERES can be enhanced 0.5 to 3 bits,
0.5Bits: <-1db@1Ghz
1Bits: -3 db @ 500 MHZ, <-1 db @ 300 MHZ
3Bits: -3 db @ 40 MHZ, <-1db@30Mhz
-
Well,
the world is not only on Sinus, Square waves with rise time & overshoots as using low capacity probes (active probes) would show the beef.
A good past (30..50ps rising square wave) as using the https://www.leobodnar.com (https://www.leobodnar.com) would show more about.
Currently also no data given from the new 1.0 & 2.0 GHz FET probes... rise time, overshoots...
Hp
-
Well,
the world is not only on Sinus, Square waves with rise time & overshoots as using low capacity probes (active probes) would show the beef.
A good past (30..50ps rising square wave) as using the https://www.leobodnar.com (https://www.leobodnar.com) would show more about.
Currently also no data given from the new 1.0 & 2.0 GHz FET probes... rise time, overshoots...
Hp
I just placed an order for a similar product, this is the schematic, it looks like it should work
Regarding ERES, I did some additional tests, using a 1V/div range to test a 100mV signal. After zooming in and observing the waveform, the signal noise is significantly reduced, but the waveform has no obvious distortion.
-
This looks like the 3rd Order IMD products are about 65dB down, which is OK but was hoping to see something like ~75dB.
Thanks for taking the time for the measurements.
Best,
-
OK, you are at 1MHz... 10Mhz and 100MHz would tell much more and faster pulses with larger swings would tell more bout.
Hp
-
Well,
the world is not only on Sinus, Square waves with rise time & overshoots as using low capacity probes (active probes) would show the beef.
A good past (30..50ps rising square wave) as using the https://www.leobodnar.com (https://www.leobodnar.com) would show more about.
Currently also no data given from the new 1.0 & 2.0 GHz FET probes... rise time, overshoots...
Hp
I just placed an order for a similar product, this is the schematic, it looks like it should work
Regarding ERES, I did some additional tests, using a 1V/div range to test a 100mV signal. After zooming in and observing the waveform, the signal noise is significantly reduced, but the waveform has no obvious distortion.
Don't think this is what you expect, the edges are very slow. The time sweep is 200ns/div according to the display. Could be the fast rise/fall pulse generator is not working properly, maybe the transistor is not achieving a collector base junction complete avalanche breakdown.
Best,
-
OK, you are at 1MHz... 10Mhz and 100MHz would tell much more and faster pulses with larger swings would tell more bout.
Hp
So would changing the input BW limiter to Full. ;)
Yet maxwelllls SDS6000 Pro is just the 1 GHz model so apart from the additional bits and different memory management it will perform similar to a SDS5104X and this is mine with Leo's pulser.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/test-equipment-anonymous-(tea)-group-therapy-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1302860)
-
Yep, good spot tautech :-+
I completely missed that!!
Best
-
Hello,
Maxwelllls wrote: "Regarding ERES, I did some additional tests, using a 1V/div range to test a 100mV signal"
The noise is impressive low.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Yep, good spot tautech :-+
I completely missed that!!
Best
Another thing you missed.....
This China only model has an English UI unlike the SDS3000 from a few years back that I fiddled with at the factory.
I can envisage a few 6k Pro models somehow finding their way to western shores. :popcorn:
-
@Tautech
Any information spec's available for new the FET probes 6000 models as 1.0 & 2.0 GHz ... rise time, overshoots... ??
Hp
-
@Tautech
Any information spec's available for new the FET probes 6000 models as 1.0 & 2.0 GHz ... rise time, overshoots... ??
Hp
Only User Manuals.
SAP1000
https://int.siglent.com/article/detail-131.html
SAP2500
https://int.siglent.com/article/detail-772.html
-
This looks like the 3rd Order IMD products are about 65dB down, which is OK but was hoping to see something like ~75dB.
Why would you expect the 3rd order dynamic range to be any different from e.g. the SDS2000X Plus?
With a higher resolution ADC, you get less granular noise, hence a wider first order dynamic range.
In contrast, the third order dynamic range is determined solely by the linearity of the ADC. There is no reason why an 8 bit ADC could not provide the same linearity as a 12 bit variant.
Of course, if you imagine a constant +/-1 LSB INL specification, then the higher resolution ADC will be more linear. But the ADCs in modern scopes are calibrated – have you ever asked yourself why self-cal takes so long? – and consequently even the 8 bit models have a fairly good linearity. This is also absolutely necessary, otherwise any resolution enhancement measures like ERES or long FFT would not yield any sensible results.
Finally, the linearity and consequently the third order dynamic range is not determined by the ADC alone, but also the frontend. It should be pretty obvious that a 1 GHz or even 2 GHz frontend might not be able to provide the absolutely best linearity, as there are other challenges as well. Figures around 60 dB aren’t bad at all and vastly exceed the standards for hifi audio equipment 😉
-
Why would you expect the 3rd order dynamic range to be any different from e.g. the SDS2000X Plus?
Simply because of the 12 bit ADC in some of the SDS6000 variants!
With a higher resolution ADC, you get less granular noise, hence a wider first order dynamic range.
Agree, you should see less granular noise and thus better DR.
In contrast, the third order dynamic range is determined solely by the linearity of the ADC. There is no reason why an 8 bit ADC could not provide the same linearity as a 12 bit variant.
Completely Wrong!! The linearity is dictated by the entire analog chain including attenuators (MOS switches), preamps, VGA, buffers and ADC, not solely by the ADC as you state.
Of course, if you imagine a constant +/-1 LSB INL specification, then the higher resolution ADC will be more linear. But the ADCs in modern scopes are calibrated – have you ever asked yourself why self-cal takes so long? – and consequently even the 8 bit models have a fairly good linearity. This is also absolutely necessary, otherwise any resolution enhancement measures like ERES or long FFT would not yield any sensible results.
Self calibration is not a "fix" for a poorly performing system, and can do little to correct the non-linearity of the entire channel before the ADC that is usually frequency, waveform and amplitude dependent. With sensitive signals present with much larger signals one must be concerned are all the waveform details real or an artifact of the system nonlinearity??
[/quote]
Finally, the linearity and consequently the third order dynamic range is not determined by the ADC alone, but also the frontend. It should be pretty obvious that a 1 GHz or even 2 GHz frontend might not be able to provide the absolutely best linearity, as there are other challenges as well. Figures around 60 dB aren’t bad at all and vastly exceed the standards for hifi audio equipment 😉
Good you corrected your earlier erroneous statement!!
Don't work with audio so can't say, but things we've developed during my career 60dB isn't nearly good enough. We've done various custom dedicated application real time spectrum analyzers with custom chips, high dynamic range wide-band receivers, and many other systems often pushing 100db or more.
Ever wonder why Real Time Spectrum Analyzers don't use 8 bit ADCs ???
They use the highest resolution ADCs available that meet the intended bandwidth, to help achieve the necessary dynamic range. No one is going to buy a RTSA based upon an 8 bit ADC :P
These ADCs are quite expensive and fundamentally why RTSA (and 12 bit scopes) are more expensive. There are some new type ADCs that we were fortunately involved with back in ~2010, that may prove highly beneficial for applications like Electronic Warfare, high DR wide-band receivers, and likely later filtering down to scopes & RTSA. Waveform information is quantized simultaneously in time and amplitude, and offers a unique means of achieving higher DR at higher frequencies, also the anti-aliasing filter is post ADC conversion. The actual input waveform creates the unique properties with this ADC, and the waveform dictates its' own "Nyquist" requirement not fixed as in conventional ADCs. Anyway, well outside this thread on the new SDS6000.
Best,
-
No need to go overboard…
Initially I was talking about the ADC exclusively, because this would be the obvious difference between a 12 bit SDS6000 H12 Pro and any other Siglent DSO, e.g. an 8 bit SDS5000X.
Later, I’ve expanded the picture to the entire acquisition system, including the frontend.
Yes, the hifi audio standards come from the sixties of the last century and nobody considers them to be relevant any more. All I wanted to illustrate is the fact that there were times, where an intermodulation distortion of -60 dB would have been a fancy figure even at very low frequencies of just a couple kHz. Hence also the smiley.
Anyway, my main statement was that intermodulation distortion is a matter of linearity, not resolution.
And I’ve tried to remind all readers that in this regard the 8 bit ADCs are almost es good as the 12 bit ones, as there is not a lot of difference between the 8 and 12 bit models and the 8 bit models perform significantly better than wat would usually be expected from an average 8 bit system.
We can get pretty good intermodulation figures for audio systems nowadays, the same goes for narrowband HF applications like communication receivers and swept spectrum analyzers for a long time, where the high end instruments could reach more than 110 dB third order dynamic range, but for ultra-wideband circuits like a DSO frontend it’s not that easy.
I’ve never stated that we won’t need a high resolution ADC for better spectrum analysis. It’s just that the intermodulation distortion of all things is the least related to ADC resolution.
So, the rhetoric question why spectrum analyzers don’t use 8 bit ADCs is easily answered:
1. Even the cheapest/oldest/crappiest SA is supposed to have a first order dynamic range of about 70 dB, so 12 bits would be a bare minimum to achieve that. And we actually want significantly more nowadays.
2. Harmonic distortion. Other than intermodulation distortion, which can be quite a bit better, total harmonic distortion will always exceed 0.4% (-48 dB) in an 8 bit system. This would not be acceptable, especially not in a wideband application like an RTSA.
-
Not going overboard when in context someone makes a statement like this:
"In contrast, the third order dynamic range is determined solely by the linearity of the ADC. There is no reason why an 8 bit ADC could not provide the same linearity as a 12 bit variant"
This could certainly confuse some even tho you corrected it later. Why even use such a egregious statement in the first place |O
If you followed my reasoning and questions regarding the new SDS6000 H12 Pro in previous posts, it's always been about DR in regard to Spectrum Analysis. Here's what was said when asking the two owners of this new scope that kindly offered to make the two tone measurements:
"This will revel the input channel and ADC performance and how well the new scope can be utilized as a low frequency spectrum analyzer."
Think this clearly states what our interest was in the additional resolution offered by the 12 bit ADC wrt the SA use case.
BTW I haven't seen much improvement with our two SDS2000X+ using ERES to "enhance" the resolution wrt the two tone tests, and to be honest was hoping this would improve the DR with the new SDS6000 H12 Pro. After more testing and such I'm sure we'll have a better idea if this is true.
Having a wideband front end, whether a scope for receiver certainly does place a more difficult design task on the designers and exactly why we were interested in the two-tone tests on these new SDS6000 and not only the ADC DR specs.
Siglent has done a superb job with the SDS2000X+ front end design, well the entire scope IMO. So suspect the new scope would benefit from the SDS2000X+ design in many ways, including the front end.
Also agree the SDS2000X+ "behaves" well beyond what a knowledgable person would "expect" from just an 8 bit ADC system :-+
Best,
-
The fast Pulse test results are shown in the figure below
The ERES has no improvement effect on the two tone test even a little bit of deterioration
-
Can you repeat the rise time measurement with 50Ohm input impedance (instead of 1MOhm)?
A note (perhaps not for you but for those who don't have a fast rise time generator): An ADF4351 dev. board that can be obtained for cheap can do a ~70ps rise time (and it can also serve as a cheap signal source).
-
The amplitude of the pulse generator is too high. Now I have added a 10dB attenuator for a new test (50ohm). The waveform is as follows.
The second picture shows the results of a test using tek MSO54
BTW:A two-tone test with MSO54 gave a result around -75dB
-
BTW:A two-tone test with MSO54 gave a result around -75dB
Thanks for doing these tests. With the MS054 attenuator the difference between the two tone peak and 3rd IMD ~75dB down, this is better since the previous display shows ~66dB down. If you don't mind and have the time could you show the FFT plot with the attenuator?
If this 10dB improvement in IMD two tone is due to the input attenuator, then this might point to the input amp chain limiting or becoming non-linear on the signal peaks.
Best,
-
The attenuator is not used in the dual-tone test, which is exactly the same as the SDS6000 test method. The difference of 10dB is only the difference of ADC performance
-
Ok, think I understand now. The 2 tone test did not use the attenuator on either the Siglent or Tek scopes, the Siglent showed ~66dB down and the Tek ~75dB down IMD tones, both of which are true 12 Bit ADCs.
Best,
-
@maxwelllls,
For the license generator, use these SDS6000 model strings:
ZDL-HD-LP
ZDL-HD-1G
PS: there are also references to some new devices (??): NeZha and ATOM
-
@maxwelllls,
For the license generator, use these SDS6000 model strings:
ZDL-HD-LP
ZDL-HD-1G
PS: there are also references to some new devices (??): NeZha and ATOM
The license generated with "ZDL-HD-1G" is correct!!! :-+ :-+ :-+
-
So, business as usual. :popcorn:
-
Hm, I´ve expected more options... 8)
-
Hm, I´ve expected more options... 8)
Maybe they are still in the oven...
-
You maybe correct Martin 8)
-
Question for the 6000 owners either one, what is your touch screen response like?
-
World released 8 bit version already has one very important option more : a jitter/eye analysis package...
That is why I warned previously, that, no matter how interesting that Chinese only scope is, we should concentrate on what can be bought on world market.
-
Sorry but, until now, I only saw an "out of this world" device. :D
-
Sorry but, until now, I only saw an "out of this world" device. :D
Not a critique, I understand, but there might be differences and as I said already one has Jitter/eye package and other doesn't.
It is brand new, it's their midrange offering and it is not unimaginable it might develop a bit further with time, and maybe add more options. We will see.
-
I think, offering the "waste amount" of decoding types like lecroy wr/hdo does, would be a real benefit.
And, of course, digital filter package...
And multigrid display.
And Wavescan.
And milk and honey.... ;D
The first three things would fit to an scope like this.
-
I think, offering the "waste amount" of decoding types like lecroy wr/hdo does, would be a real benefit.
And, of course, digital filter package...
And multigrid display.
And Wavescan.
And milk and honey.... ;D
The first three things would fit to an scope like this.
I think a real benefit would be if they develop some sort of interface where we can add our own
decoders. Imagine a github depository with hundreds or even thousands of protocols !!!
In the long term, it would be less work for Siglent, and a great benefit for all of their users ...
rudi
-
Question for the 6000 owners either one, what is your touch screen response like?
It's pretty smooth in most scenarios, but there's a bit of a lag when turning on FFT with high storage. However, you can use the knob to set channel parameters normally while FFT is refreshed.
BTW: Except for zooming and looking at the waveform, I prefer to use the knob for the most part. :-DD
-
LOL... :-DD
-
For those that may be able to experiment with Eye+Jitter, the option code is "EJ".
Don't know if it works...
-
if I read this thread well, only an SDS6000 PRO model was confirmed to permit option unlocking.
Could someone please confirm if unlocking still works with recent FW/OS versions of an SDS6000 A model?
Because these findings are somewhat concerning: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds5000x-oscilloscope-hack-status-dec-2021/msg3912842/#msg3912842 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds5000x-oscilloscope-hack-status-dec-2021/msg3912842/#msg3912842)
If unlocking wouldn't work anymore, the current WaveSurfer 4000 HD "fully loaded" promotion is very very tempting. Half the max. BW, but 12 bits and actually more functions out of the box compared to Siglent.
Btw, hello from a long time lurker - engineer in disguise of a physicist :D
-
You may have difficulty in actually finding one in stock, current lead time around 18 weeks, just been quoted the same lead time on a second wavepro :o
-
If unlocking wouldn't work anymore, the current WaveSurfer 4000 HD "fully loaded" promotion is very very tempting. Half the max. BW, but 12 bits and actually more functions out of the box compared to Siglent
Hacking an 7800€ (entry-price)scope...seriously?
Comparing the datasheets, the wavesurfer 4000 hd lost against the 6000A in nearly every case.
Bandwith, samplerate, memory, math-channels, FFT and so on.
And what the promo concerns, take it with caution.
It "says", 61% discount on the package.
On the option-package or on the package scope+options? ;)
To compare prices, you´ll have to take the 4054HD as it got the bandwith the entry scope of the 6000A series got.
Price for the 4054HD on distrelec for example is near on 11000€ without any options.
The 6000A 500Mhz costs nearly 7800€.
-
12 bit versus 8 bit and the Lecroy WaveSurfer 4k series HD is a mature device. The value of the latter is something that is not to be underestimated.
-
Siglent says thank you for your compliment. ;)
-
To compare prices, you´ll have to take the 4054HD as it got the bandwith the entry scope of the 6000A series got.
Price for the 4054HD on distrelec for example is near on 11000€ without any options.
The 6000A 500Mhz costs nearly 7800€.
Of course, that's what I meant - the 4104HD 1GHz model is currently just under 11k EUR (excl. VAT) and includes all options! With all the equivalent, additionally purchased options the Siglent would be more expensive. While I don't need the automotive serial decode stuff, the included function generator and power analysis features are useful. With the most recent 4000 HD firmware from this month, there's even a spectrum analyzer option. But that one may not be part of the "fully loaded" promotion. And then we still haven't talked about the increased accuracy and probably lower noise floor (versus the lower BW/memory specs you mentioned). Does anyone have an RMS noise figure for the 6000A series, btw?
One reason I haven't jumped directly at the LeCroy is that I'd like to test the UI first. For some reason, LeCroy partners seem not very keen on doing business with private customers :-// still poking them.
From work, I only know older higher-end LeCroy models and have seen here some general remarks about increased latency on the LeCroy low-end units. Is it comparable to Siglent's UI responsiveness? It's Windows CE versus Linux, right? (which may bias me unreasonably towards Siglent)
-
And then we still haven't talked about the increased accuracy and probably lower noise floor (versus the lower BW/memory specs you mentioned). Does anyone have an RMS noise figure for the 6000A series, btw?
Hard to believe that the two will differ greatly in this respect, at the end we compare siglent vs siglent. ;)
And they are known for their low noise frontend.
But interesting, you won´t find something in the sds6000A datasheet (or I´m too blind).
It's Windows CE versus Linux, right? (which may bias me unreasonably towards Siglent)
Yep, waversurfer models got windows CE, waverunner/hdo and above got windows 10 actually.
At work we got several old waverunner scopes and some newer ones, like an WS3024Z, WR9054, HDO6034A.
Wavesurfer always means entry-level by lecroy, with reduced features, performance, etc.
-
Taken from SDS6000 FW package. It seems the bitstreams are made by LeCroy.
The FW is the same for both 6000 versions with different file settings for 8 bits, 10 bits and 12 bits.
There is a tool "easydebug" in the FW that can be used this way: :) (I wonder if this tool works in other Siglent scopes... ::) )
***************************USAGE*********************************
USAGE1: %s <r|w> chip address [value]
USAGE2: %s burst acq|mst offset length
USAGE2: %s burst rgb [grid]
USAGE2: %s load fpga path
USAGE3: %s mcu mcu_cmd [arg]
USAGE4: %s version
USAGE4: %s check channel|board_type |
Options:
*************************USAGE 1*********************************
r/w Read or write device
chip cpld|map |mst |acq1|acq2|pll |pll2|pll3|
adcn(n=1,2,3,...) |dacn(n=1,2,3,...) |
vgan(n=1,2,3,...) |594x(x=1,2,3,...) |
595 |
address Hex register address
value Hex register value
e.g. %s r adc1 0x1e
*************************USAGE 2*********************************
burst get data frome acq/mst by length from offset site
get screenshot, save as .bmp to /usr/bin/siglent
load Load fpga bin file
fpga all|acq1|map|mst|awg
path fpga bin file path
e.g. %s load map /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/LeCroyZD.bin
*************************USAGE 3*********************************
mcu mcu operation
mcu_cmd version |setduty |update |getduty |
gettemp |getprobus|getid |getprotype|
arg (setduty)fanduty |(update)binfile
e.g. %s mcu version
*************************USAGE 4*********************************
version get easydebug version
check get borad information
e.g. %s check board_type
By looking at the upgrade script, we can see that the model is determined by a byte extracted from a CPLD:
get_product(){
ver=$(easydebug r cpld 1e | grep "Read" | awk -F '0x' '{print $3}' | awk '{print strtonum("0x"$0)}')
# 0x1e >= 0xc0 => plus
if [ $ver -ge 192 ]; then
echo "zodiac_plus"
elif [ $ver -ge 128 ]; then
echo "zodiac"
else
echo "low_profile"
fi
}
-
Taken from SDS6000 FW package. It seems the bitstreams are made by LeCroy.
Is that a bad thing? >:D
For a while it is obvious that SDS6000 <-> HD4000 is a collaboration platform.
Also that bitstream name might also just mean that part is common on both scopes, and that Siglent made it for both...
-
For a while it is obvious that SDS6000 <-> HD4000 is a collaboration platform.
Where the 12 bit 6000 got the nose in front, because of it´s higher memory.
This become more important, the more resolution you got.
-
Where the 12 bit 6000 got the nose in front, because of it´s higher memory.
This become more important, the more resolution you got.
Hello,
why need more resolution more memory? (The bitcount of a sample is greater, but why are more samples needed?)
Best regards
egonotto
-
Taken from SDS6000 FW package. It seems the bitstreams are made by LeCroy.
Is that a bad thing? >:D
Not at all. One thing I learned in this forum is that having a LeCroy badge is :-+.
-
I think a real benefit would be if they develop some sort of interface where we can add our own
decoders. Imagine a github depository with hundreds or even thousands of protocols !!!
In the long term, it would be less work for Siglent, and a great benefit for all of their users ...
rudi
Rudi,
Worth looking at ScopeHal (https://github.com/azonenberg/scopehal-apps (https://github.com/azonenberg/scopehal-apps)), which pretty much does what you want. I used it a lot on SDS2104X for SWD analysis while bringing up some new arm debug probes.
DAVE
-
New firmware for SDS6000A models.
Version V1.4.0.0
https://int.siglent.com/upload_file/zip/firmware/Oscilloscope/SDS6000_V1.4.0.0_EN.zip
122 MB
Release notes
Channel: two custom probe ratio options supported
Fixed several bugs
Bode Plot draw error (missing draw)
Bode Plot - Very slow, nearly stuck, with some signal levels
Counter - totalizer not showing all numbers
Counter (time period) shows incredible numbers
-
First impressions are a jet aircraft taking off :o then the fan throttles back to be surprisingly quiet. :phew:
Found a bug in the time set menu where if set by location takes no account for DST despite entering the correct time. Nope, user error. :palm:
Tv84 happy to purchase one for a play date if you wish :-+
Save the date!
Screenshot FYI ;)
-
First impressions are a jet aircraft taking off :o then the fan throttles back to be surprisingly quiet. :phew:
Found a bug in the time set menu where if set by location takes no account for DST despite entering the correct time. Nope, user error. :palm:
Tv84 happy to purchase one for a play date if you wish :-+
Save the date!
Screenshot FYI ;)
Nice, you get The Oscilloscope. ;)
-
Screenshot FYI ;)
Which FW version is in the machine?
-
Nice, you get The Oscilloscope. ;)
The Oscilloscope it really is as it's full of tricks as you well know. :)
A couple of screenshots of Leo's 30ps pulser and the only changes were made to memory handling in the Acquisition menu. The best of all worlds. ;)
Screenshot FYI ;)
Which FW version is in the machine?
Came with the latest public version now further updated and currently running Autocal.
-
@tautech
please do the same using the fastest resolution... may 500ps..50ps time base.. so only one rising edge..
-
@tautech
please do the same using the fastest resolution... may 500ps..50ps time base.. so only one rising edge..
Sure, here you go. (Fixed mem depth)
Edit to add another with Auto mem management engaged.
-
@tautech: Are you using an 30 or 50ps fast pulse?? Also do not like much the overshoots..
-
FPGA's inside:
acq1_2G_Z.bin / acq1_2G_ZC.bin use a IDCode = 04A59093 (anyone knows this device?) :-//
LeCroyZD.bin uses IDCode = 04002093 (Xilinx XC6SLX16)
MASTER_ACQ_FPGA - /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/acq1_2G_LPM.bin (Board Type = 2)
SLAVE_ACQ_FPGA - /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/acq1_2G_LPS.bin (Board Type = 3)
ACQ1_NEW_FPGA - /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/acq1_2G_ZC.bin
ACQ1_FPGA - /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/acq1_2G_Z.bin
MST_FPGA - /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/mst_Z.bin
AWG_FPGA - /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/awg_Z.bin
MAP_FPGA - /usr/bin/siglent/config/fpga/LeCroyZD.bin
Partition Map for MMC device 1 -- Partition Type: EFI (Each LBA = 0x200 bytes)
Part Start LBA End LBA Size Name
1 0x00000100 0x000002ff 00000200 "mlo"
2 0x00000300 0x00000fff 00000D00 "uboot"
3 0x00001000 0x000017ff 00000800 "devicetree"
4 0x00001800 0x00003fff 00002800 "oem"
5 0x00004000 0x000047ff 00000800 "lcd"
6 0x00004800 0x0000efff 0000A800 "kernel"
7 0x0000f000 0x00072fff 00064000 "reserved1"
8 0x00073000 0x001d0fff 0015E000 "rootfs"
9 0x001d1000 0x001dafff 0000A000 "firmdata0"
10 0x001db000 0x001dd7ff 00002800 "caldata"
11 0x001dd800 0x0024b7ff 0006E000 "siglent"
12 0x0024b800 0x0064b7ff 00400000 "datafs"
13 0x0064b800 0x00747fde 000FC7DF "reserved2"
Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/root 673.0M 580.8M 43.2M 93% /
devtmpfs 1.4G 4.0K 1.4G 0% /dev
tmpfs 1.9G 12.0K 1.9G 0% /dev/shm
tmpfs 1.9G 17.5M 1.9G 1% /run
tmpfs 1.9G 0 1.9G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs 1.9G 24.0K 1.9G 0% /tmp
tmpfs 16.0M 0 16.0M 0% /media/ram
tmpfs 50.0M 584.0K 49.4M 1% /var/volatile
/dev/mmcblk1p11 197.1M 122.1M 59.6M 67% /usr/bin/siglent
/dev/mmcblk1p9 18.4M 379.0K 16.6M 2% /usr/bin/siglent/firmdata0
/dev/mmcblk1p10 3.8M 33.0K 3.5M 1% /usr/bin/siglent/firmdata1
/dev/mmcblk1p12 1.9G 4.0M 1.8G 0% /usr/bin/siglent/usr
/dev/mmcblk1p13 481.0M 2.3M 449.5M 1% /ota
/dev/sda1 3.6G 192.0K 3.6G 0% /usr/bin/siglent/usr/mass_storage/U-disk0
Parsing of sys_cfg.cfg:
Reversing 1st part of the file [00000000-00000CF7]...
XORing with 0xFF (incrementing pattern)...
XORing with 0xFF from 0x0000067C until 0x00000CF7
00000000 - Main Checksum: FFFFE333 [00000004-00000CF7] CKSM OK
00000008 - Product_Type: SIGLENT
00000028 - CFG Type: SDS6000
0000003C - Manufacturer_Name: SIGLENT
00000047 - CFG Flag_LongMemory: 00
00000048 - Product_ID: 15100
0000004C - Logo Image Size: 00000000 (0 pixels)
00000050 - USB_Prod_ID_PTP: EE39
00000052 - USB_Prod_ID_RAW: EE38
00000054 - USB_Prod_ID_TMC: EE3A
00000056 - USB_Vendor_ID: F4EC
00000058 - Prefix: SDS
0000005C - Logo_Manufacturer: Siglent
0000009C - CFG Flag_pic_machine: 01
0000009D - CFG Flag_sys_machine: 01
0000009E - CFG Flag_____USB_TMC: 01
0000009F - CFG Flag___SCPI/ERES: 01
000000A0 - CFG Fl_invert/neuter: 00
000000A1 - CFG Flag___skew/gate: 00
000000A2 - CFG Flag____vxi/roll: 01
000000A3 - CFG Flag___________A: 00 not_used(?)
000000A4 - CFG Flag___lang_mask: 0000
000000A6 - CFG Flag__lang_total: 13
000000A7 - CFG Flag_mach_series: 00
000000A8 - Machine Name 20 MHz:
000000B7 - Machine Name 40 MHz:
000000C6 - Machine Name 60 MHz:
000000D5 - Machine Name 100 MHz:
000000E4 - Machine Name 150 MHz:
000000F3 - Machine Name 200 MHz:
00000102 - Machine Name 250 MHz:
00000111 - Machine Name 300 MHz:
00000120 - Machine Name 50 MHz:
0000012F - Machine Name 70 MHz:
0000013E - CFG Flag___BW_change: 01
0000013F - CFG Flag_hide_set_BW: 01
00000140 - Machine Name 350 MHz: SDS6034A
0000014F - Machine Name 500 MHz: SDS6054A
0000015E - Machine Name 750 MHz:
0000016D - Machine Name1000 MHz: SDS6104A
0000017C - Machine Name2000 MHz: SDS6204A
telnet password:
root:$6$Y62LU2y.lvnI6m6r$Sp7/1zAtiLnyzmE8nSfyYJHlvVcSlkCEBY54xFFfvGQHNiHOCmNir5/M0SpZ9YvKSsewymxWYLKvCaYqgsO/W1:18389:0:99999:7:::
-
@tautech: Are you using an 30 or 50ps fast pulse?? Also do not like much the overshoots..
30ps Leo Bodnar pulser.
Some overshoot visible in its test screenshot.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/test-equipment-anonymous-(tea)-group-therapy-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1302788)
-
There is no edge on the top graph. the amplitude is really low and the overshoot/undershoot values look weird. On the bottom graph (also 50ps /div?) the edge fall time isn't at sub-ps levels either. The risetime of the SD-30 sampling head is around 9ps. IOW: those sub-ps numbers look like a measurement error to me.
-
Sub-Picoseconds!! That implies THz performance :o
Best,
-
In attachment cal sheet for my pulser
-
Even Leo can have a bad day I guess ;)
-
In attachment cal sheet for my pulser
I only got two x-times folded papers to fit in the tiny package - Did I miss a pdf version from it..... ???
-
I only got two x-times folded papers to fit in the tiny package - Did I miss a pdf version from it..... ???
Sinisa digitsed his. I also got 2 pieces of paper.
-
From another thread:
Any chance you could show the 10 bit and various ERES modes with this new scope?
No 10 bit mode or ERES in 6000A, but an 8 additional bits of Hi-Res is what these offer and it's back in the Acquire menu with its button very conveniently placed directly below the timebase encoder.
Signals from STB3, PWM and last 2 pics DPO test signals.
Scope SDS6204A FW 4.0
Supplied 500 MHz SP3050A compact probe.
All relevant scope settings visible in menus.
-
2 more pics with Gnd input coupling.
-
tautech,
I ordered a pulser from Leo 2 days ago, I will do the same measurements when my SDS6204 arrives (looks nice!).
-
tautech,
I ordered a pulser from Leo 2 days ago, I will do the same measurements when my SDS6204 arrives (looks nice!).
Mine was only a couple of weeks from UK to NZ.
I didn't get it for this stuff so much as I have RF sources to 3.2 GHz for testing BW etc but instead I have a plan to check a range of probes against Siglent probes and step response tests will be part of that.
Now I finally have a pretty fast scope yet I'm still becoming familiar with it the winters days coming will be a good opportunity to finally get onto this project I've been wanting to do although the heat is off some now Siglent have revised pricing on their passive probes.
You should be impressed with the SP3050A probes.....and your new scope. :)
-
@tautech,
Thanks, looks good :-+
If you have a chance, what's the pulse rise time look like with the various ERES? This should give a good indicator of BW with ERES modes.
Best,
-
If you have a chance, what's the pulse rise time look like with the various ERES? This should give a good indicator of BW with ERES modes.
Kinda tricky as we only have Hi-Res. ;)
After many many tries with all modes of which there would be too many screenshots to post the best/fastest risetimes were measured with these settings:
ESR = ON
Peak Detect or Normal acquisition
Mem Management = Auto
The addition of Hi-Res limits channel mem depth to 12.5 Mpts.
Hi-Res 4 bits pushes out risetimes to 1.3 ns from ~245ps
Examination of risetime screenshots in above posts displays the settings that provide the cleanest races with least digitization noise are in Fixed Mem mode such as the one below although the measured risetimes are just a couple of ps longer than in Auto Mem mode.
Still getting used to this scope and already I have a preference to use it in Fixed Mem mode, not for the new feature that will become evident in time ;) but for the nice fine traces it displays.
-
Still getting used to this scope and already I have a preference to use it in Fixed Mem mode,
I can't help it but I'm having an 'I told you so moment'. >:D
-
The addition of Hi-Res limits channel mem depth to 12.5 Mpts.
Hi-Res 4 bits pushes out risetimes to 1.3 ns from ~245ps
So the BW using the 0.35 ROT is ~270MHz at ~12 bits (8 + Hi-Res @ 4).
The Hi-Res 12.5Mpts limit should effect the FFT resolution.
If you have a chance could you show the zoomed in pulse edge with Hi-Res?
Anyway, thanks for the info.
Best,
-
Still getting used to this scope and already I have a preference to use it in Fixed Mem mode,
I can't help it but I'm having an 'I told you so moment'. >:D
And yet I still never use it...
Read again. He likes it because it slows down wfms/s so trace is thin...
But you deliberately chose to ignore that and copied only part that fits your agenda..... But what is new, right? :-//
I do use something else though: a fixed sampling frequency mode...That is useful.
-
Still getting used to this scope and already I have a preference to use it in Fixed Mem mode,
I can't help it but I'm having an 'I told you so moment'. >:D
And yet I still never use it...
Read again. He likes it because it slows down wfms/s so trace is thin...
But you deliberately chose to ignore that and copied only part that fits your agenda..... But what is new, right? :-//
Geez, did you got out of the wrong side of the bed today! :box: Your sense of humor must be somewhere under the pillow or so. Go look for it quickly and stop eating lemons!
-
Still getting used to this scope and already I have a preference to use it in Fixed Mem mode,
I can't help it but I'm having an 'I told you so moment'. >:D
And yet I still never use it...
Read again. He likes it because it slows down wfms/s so trace is thin...
But you deliberately chose to ignore that and copied only part that fits your agenda..... But what is new, right? :-//
Geez, did you got out of the wrong side of the bed today! :box: Your sense of humor must be somewhere under the pillow or so. Go look for it quickly and stop eating lemons!
:-DD
Well you just found it, I guess.. THIS made me smile..
:-+
P.S.: I guess I'm a bit grumpy nowadays...
-
Still getting used to this scope and already I have a preference to use it in Fixed Mem mode,
I can't help it but I'm having an 'I told you so moment'. >:D
And yet I still never use it...
Read again. He likes it because it slows down wfms/s so trace is thin...
But you deliberately chose to ignore that and copied only part that fits your agenda..... But what is new, right? :-//
I do use something else though: a fixed sampling frequency mode...That is useful.
Yes, the feature set of so many acquisition modes places this DSO way on top of Siglent's current offerings and so offer the right combination for any need. This makes it a very powerful tool.
The PM has shared the next beta FW with us but at this time it is certainly not ready for release and needs further bashing into shape whereas the current public version appears OK for all basic use that we have explored.
Still we have some suggestions of small polishing improvements to the UI that we'll offer for consideration.
-
... He likes it because it slows down wfms/s so trace is thin...
I do use something else though: a fixed sampling frequency mode...That is useful.
Owners of contemporary Siglent DSOs other than the SDS6000 don't need to get envious. If they really want to bring the the trigger rate almost to a halt by slowing it down from e.g. 157k to <30 waveforms per second, thus reducing the non-blind time by a factor of about 5000, they could just use the "slow" acquisition mode in the same menu and they will get the same "thin" trace because of the vastly reduced amount of visible data. This way at least the history would still be available.
As Sinisa mentioned, "constant sample rate" has its uses and is the main reason why manual memory management has been implemented.
-
Had these out so a snap of the lineup.
L to R: SDS2104X Plus, SDS5054X, SDS6204A
SDS2104X+ is fastest to boot by just a few seconds closely followed by SDS6204A then SDS5054X a few seconds later.
-
The big three and the secret star is the sds2k+...
-
In the software of the SDS2000X+/5000X/6000X there is a SCPI command that shows the board model and Siglent's licensing scheme currently being used in the scope:
:syst:board?
Recent example answers that I've seen:
SDS5054X - "4CH_500M_LIC-V2"
SDS6204A - "ZDLP_LIC-V2"
SDS2104X HD - "UNNAMED_LIC-V2"
SDS2504X+ - "4CH_500M_LIC-V1"
SDS6000Pro - "ZDL_LIC-V1"
The first 3 equipments came out already using Siglent's new licensing scheme v2. For the 5000 and X+ there are still equipments being sold with v1.
-
Hmmm, older SDS5054X with improvement to 1GHz = 4CH_1G_LIC-V1
-
SDS2504X+ - "4CH_500M_LIC-V1"
Response from our brandnew SDS2104X+, tested on work today :
600bps_LIC-V1
Martin
-
600bps_LIC-V1
600bps ? ? ?
-
No joke, checked this twice....
Maybe it´s because there are no options installed...?
When the other two new arrive, I´ll check this again.
Martin
-
:palm: When there is no input validation...
-
Means what ?
-
Means what ?
That Siglent programmers are not perfect. As you can see by that structure, once you run out of ch+BW combinations the function passes to the next string... giving you a "600bps device". Once you upgrade the SDSX+ to 500MHz all will be good.
-
You´re doing interesting things... :D
-
Got my SDS6204A a couple of days ago (from Batronix, Germany). I got the AWG and LA option with it.
Below is rising/falling edge with Leo Bodnar pulser.
Version is 1.4.0 and :syst:board? returns ZDLP_LIC-V2.
-
Service Manual
-
Hi everyone!
I am a happy owner of an sds5054x with all options and 1ghz bandwidth unlocked thanks to you, great community members.
I am also a siglent fun.
Please give me a reason to upgrade to this baby. I can't sleep at night thinking about it :-\
-
Hi everyone!
I am a happy owner of an sds5054x with all options and 1ghz bandwidth unlocked thanks to you, great community members.
I am also a siglent fun.
Please give me a reason to upgrade to this baby. I can't sleep at night thinking about it :-\
Welcome to the forum.
SDS5104X is a quite capable DSO and now with the latest FW that imports the memory management menu SDS6000A has the gap has narrowed and while the larger 12" display is nice the individual vertical controls on SDS5000X are nice too for those stuck in their ways.
I have both and only if I wanted the larger display, more BW, 4 Math traces, 8Mpts FFT or HDMI support would I get a SDS6000A.
AFAIK SDS6kA BW and options have yet to be unlocked.
Remember, Dave did a 1 GHz DSO shootout a while back and SDS5104X was judged best bang for buck ....that was before the memory management improvements....so maybe it's time he looked at this picture again now the SDS6kA is here. :popcorn:
-
SDS5104X is a quite capable DSO and now with the latest FW that imports the memory management menu SDS6000A has the gap has narrowed
Do you think SDS2000X+ might get that improvement as well?
-
SDS5104X is a quite capable DSO and now with the latest FW that imports the memory management menu SDS6000A has the gap has narrowed
Do you think SDS2000X+ might get that improvement as well?
I don’t but I also don’t really know however like you I have wondered about this too.
The new 2000HD has it and fair enough as it is double the price of the X Plus and IMO this differentiation in the feature set will remain to justify the HD price.
So for now X Plus owners need work with the dual timebase LeCroy zoom method.
-
new firmware for SDS6000A
V1.4.3.3 (Release Date 06.28.22 )
https://www.siglenteu.com/download/13076/ (https://www.siglenteu.com/download/13076/)
Edit: Wrong URL
Note: This release cannot be downgraded to former releases.
1. Math: added filter operator
2. Supported to save waveform as Memory traces, which store the raw
data instead of the screen data (as Ref does), and can be source of
Measure/Math etc.
3. Measure: improved the AIM limit from 1,000 to up to 65,000 (AIM limit:
the upper limit of horizontal parameters measure statistics in one frame )
4. Optimized intensity display of math traces.
5. Added support for mouse wheel when using a mouse
6. Supported CP030 current probe (with LPA10 adapter)
7. Eye Diagram: 100Base-TX signal supported
8. Trigger: Pattern trigger strategy changed
9. Power Analysis:
a) Supported MOSFET SOA (Safe Operating Area)
b) Bigger table size
10. Fixed several bugs
a) Moving the traces by gestures may cause the scope to freeze
b) [Bode Plot]Vertical Ref.level manual setting is partially bad
c) [Measure]Track plot - not working well in general
d) [Power Analysis]Current harmonics forgets table/bar view
e) Waveform Capture Rate breakdown at 20 ns/div
f) Measurements skip buffers in history mode
-
This is the SDS5000X FW.
-
This is the SDS5000X FW.
It is ! :scared:
Correct link:
https://int.siglent.com/upload_file/zip/firmware/Oscilloscope/SDS6000_V1.4.3.3_EN.zip
~120MB
-
Sorry for the wrong URL, updated now!
-
Would you mind posting the SDS5000X link again? Or was this the 4/27/22 release?
-
Would you mind posting the SDS5000X link again? Or was this the 4/27/22 release?
Yes it was and it's an important update. ;)
-
SDS6000A board picture
-
Misc pics 1/3
-
Misc pics 2/3
-
Misc pics 3/3
-
SDS6000A board picture
Description of the main parts (pic attached).
-
Following its little HD brother... ;)
-
Following its little HD brother... ;)
I'm surprised you didn't crack it sooner. :popcorn:
-
I'm surprised you didn't crack it sooner. :popcorn:
Your fault, you are not selling them fast enough, so small playground! :D
Maybe now the ADCs price change... :-DD
-
Just recently I’ve demonstrated how to get a better frequency resolution at higher frequencies for the SDS2000X HD. One fo the methods was downconversion using the waveform math as a mixer. For this, a second channel had to be fed with the oscillator signal. See reply #273 in the following thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-12bit-(published-for-chinese-domestic-market-only)/msg4320658/#msg4320658 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-12bit-(published-for-chinese-domestic-market-only)/msg4320658/#msg4320658)
I’ve also mentioned that maybe one day we might get full length reference traces in our DSOs, which would enable us to do the downconversion without additional signal source. The SDS6000 already takes one step in that direction, as it has the Memory channels, which can be used as input for math expressions. A Memory trace can have up to 12.5 Mpts, so this is some serious amount of data.
Yes, it’s actually possible to do a clean downconversion from 29.6 MHz to 600 kHz, see attached screenshot.
SDS6204_FFT_512kpts_DC_M29MHz_125MSa_6.25MSa_29.6MHz_0dBm_Excl
Of course, this is not quite as crucial, as the SDS6000 has four times the FFT-length, hence four times the frequency resolution of an SDS2000X Plus/HD from the outset.
WARNING: Wnile this demonstrates the basic potential of memory traces, this particular example is unlikely to work with an 8-bit SDS6000A!
-
Does this scope have a real separate 50Ohm input?
I'm surprised at the low noise it has comparing other models....
-
Does this scope have a real separate 50Ohm input?
Vertical scale
(probe 1X): 1 MΩ: 0.5 mV/div – 10 V/div
50 Ω: 0.5 mV/div – 1 V/div
https://int.siglent.com/u_file/document/SDS6000A_Datasheet_EN01C.pdf
We have the 2 GHz model, do you want to see any particular measurement ?
-
We have the 2 GHz model, do you want to see any particular measurement ?
Can u show the pulse response with a fast pulse generator (at least 5ns rise) and 50Ohm termination both in 10ns/div and 10us/div?
-
We have the 2 GHz model, do you want to see any particular measurement ?
Can u show the pulse response with a fast pulse generator (at least 5ns rise) and 50Ohm termination both in 10ns/div and 10us/div?
Done in reply #206 with a Leo Bodnar 30ps pulser. :)
-
We have the 2 GHz model, do you want to see any particular measurement ?
Can u show the pulse response with a fast pulse generator (at least 5ns rise) and 50Ohm termination both in 10ns/div and 10us/div?
:-DD :-DD :-DD
U think it is some kind of FNIRSI & alii......... :-DD
-
:-DD :-DD :-DD
U think it is some kind of FNIRSI & alii......... :-DD
I don't know what you find so funny, but I'm glad that your ignorance makes you laugh so hard! keep it at it, laugh is good!
-
Does this scope have a real separate 50Ohm input?
I'm surprised at the low noise it has comparing other models....
What exactly do you want to know?
The SDS6000 is still a general purpose MSO with universal BNC inputs that can be switched from high-Z to 50 ohms.
The relevant question would be: what is the input return loss in 50 ohms mode?
The answer is: VSWR < 1.2 up to 1.2 GHz, VSWR < 1.4 up to 2 GHz (typical)
Regarding the noise, there is little difference between high-Z and 50 ohms inputs. Yet the 1 meg inputs are a bit more quiet, which shouldn’t be too much of a surprise because of the nice lowpass filter created by the input capacitance of the high-Z architecture.
According to the datasheet, the SDS6000 is limited to 1 GHz at input gain settings below 2.3 mV/div. Yet the actual gain difference is less than 3 dB at 2.5 GHz, so the noise bandwidth is almost the same. In any case, this is the reason why I provide measurements not only for the highest sensitivity of 500 µV/div, but also for 2.3 mV/div.
Input 1 meg, gain = 2.30 mV/div, BW = 2 GHz: 116 µVrms noise
Input 50 ohms, gain = 2.3 mV/div, BW = 2 GHz: 142 µVrms noise
Input 1 meg, gain = 500 µV/div, BW = 1 GHz: 116 µVrms noise
Input 50 ohms, gain = 500 µV/div, BW = 1 GHz: 128 µVrms noise
See corresponding screenshots
SDS6204_Noise_FFT_1M_2.3mV_2GHz
SDS6204_Noise_FFT_1M_500uV_1GHz
SDS6204_Noise_FFT_50_2.3mV_2GHz
SDS6204_Noise_FFT_50_500uV_1GHz
-
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?
Anyway, here’s a 10 ns wide pulse with 1.5 ns rise/fall time, measured at 10 ns/div, see first screenshot.
SDS6204_Pulse_10ns_10-1.5ns
Next is the same pulse at 10 µs/div; we can see the repetition frequency of 1 MHz. We can also see the FFT-spectrum of the pulse, which tells us that even 1.5 ns transition times don’t require massive bandwidth for a faithful reproduction and 350 MHz should be plenty for an 8-bit system.
This also demonstrates the beauty of deep measurements, which provide accurate pulse width and rise/fall times even at slower time bases and longer records like the 0.5 mega points here.
SDS6204_Pulse_FFT_10us_10-1.5ns
-
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.
-
So never assume what other knows or does not know, and laughing at others for asking just shows sheer stupidity, besides the aforementioned ignorance.
And what do your assumptions show? Intelligence? Education?
-
And what do your assumptions show? Intelligence? Education?
Oh I can tell you that you'll never see me laughing at someone for his questions, if I see someone here with basic or beginner questions either I pass for lack of time or do answer trying to help in what I can.
-
You shouldn´t take some things too seriously, especially in forums... ;)
-
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 ?
-
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..
-
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 $$$ for providing deeper memory.
For many professional users relying on automated measurements (where throughput matters and 10 MHz synchronization to other devices), this scope simply is not going to cut it. It is a shame, since otherwise I would have bought it. In terms of bang-for-buck, I think a PicoScope 6404D or the 6000E series is the better choice -- all software upgrades are for free for the whole lifetime of the product. The 6404D is currently only 3775 EUR through the PicoAssured program ... only downside is that this will get you 8 bit only.
-
This is a very nice new scope from Siglent ... BUT
- for a professional scope, it lacks the 10 MHz ref in/out. SRSLY? The smaller model SDS5000X has it.
- interface to PC is only USB2 ... or Fast Ethernet (100 Mbit)? This is a major limitation on all their other scopes. Many RIGOLs at least have Gbit LAN (but only USB2)
- Sequence mode was quite limited last time I checked, especially fetching traces could only be done one trace at a time; they got this fixed as per my request for the SDS5000X; not sure how this is implemented in the SDS6000A
Now look at the LeCroy scopes: they have very limited memory compared to the SDS6000A but typically have the three aspects that I just named. So clearly, this is a marketing issue, as LeCroy can still charge a lot of $$$ 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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....
-
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?
-
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
-
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/ (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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (https://files.ettus.com/schematics/b200/b210.pdf)
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 :-DD
-
Yep. The best way to avoid failure is not to try. 8)
-
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
I did ask you what are you doing... you might be an Oracle, we are not. I did ask what was important to you.
I also did ask you, did you do exactly this thing. And said that in this case your statement, from options mentioned Picoscope 6000E would be better for you.
All your statements how 25000 USD LeCroy "implements properly" something is a moot point (as I said) because it has different architecture, very powerful PC motherboard inside etc.
You didn't read that bottleneck in standard desktop scopes is not the interface itself but system throughput.
Not the raw interface speeds. Which obviously are faster if they are faster. Putting a 10 GBit Ethernet in a platform that can sustain 20 MB/s would be expensive marketing, nothing more.
You didn't read that Siglent has scope platform (in China only at this moment) that is rack mount, up to 512 channels combined system to achieve exactly this type of application you're doing. And other manufacturers too. There are also dedicated acquisition cards etc etc...
You are doing something that is NOT mainstream use of a embedded desktop scope and scopes of this type (not price class, but use type) are simply not optimised for this type of use.
The article you linked to calls for a specific synchronous sampling technique, and is calling specifically for special digitizer hardware that is not a general purpose scope. Like I said.
Most of the users here don't even like LeCroy scopes, because they are "not real scopes" to them. They feel like that for Picoscopes too.
Most people never downloaded a speck of data from scope to PC for analysis.
Most of them will save a screenshot from web server or to USB drive, or maybe data but to USB drive (fast USB for that is available). Many never connected scope to network at all, and some are not allowed to do so in their workplace. That is the market for this type of scope.
To you it all seems easy but it is not. Products are made on basis of platforms. You cannot make some Frankenstein contraption of random set of parts that are not working well together. You start with some reference design for basic computing platform that can be tailored for super fast internal data transfer and temporal synchronization between acquisition/trigger/primary data processing block and general computing/UI block. You do it on something you can have common codebase for. You also don't want to invent everything from the scratch (like OS) because it may give no gains but is expensive to make and maintain long term.
Also, this scope was collaboration with LeCroy. There is very "similar" scope from LeCroy, and it also has same specification in regards of all the things you mentioned.
It all started with your bit of rant about how it is makes an "unprofessional" equipment if a scope doesn't have specific features you need for your purpose.
Then I started to try to explain to you that is not an merit for calling something professional or not. It is a mere feature set and target market position (who do you sell to and for what kind of use). There are many minor subgroups between scopes (of same price range) targeted for different users. Long memory, high definition, many decoders and analysis packages, for digital, for power, automotive, for SI, etc etc.... There is also a scientific, nuclear, physics etc, and also automated testing applications.
By your logic, very expensive LabMaster 10 Zi-A is "not professional" because if used for power applications, it would perform badly for power converters measurements and you cannot use standard probing solutions... No, it would simply be wrong tool for the job.
That is all. No offense was meant.
Best,
-
Yeah, that will teach randomOracle for sure... to stay away from this forum. :horse:
-
You didn't read that bottleneck in standard desktop scopes is not the interface itself but system throughput.
let me explain:
- instead of heaving this loop(arming - trigger - fetch data)
you do this:
- arm - measure sequence - fetch sequence
so you save many-times over the "fetch data" command which is only issued once and then a big chunk of data is fetched that includes multiple measurements. this is independent of the scope bandwidth and already saves you a lot of communication which otherwise slows down the scope.
so you use a crappy scope and flood it with arm-trigger-fetch messages to fetch small chunks. no surprise that bandwidth goes down and I'm not arguing against that.
the better approach is to fetch large chunks of data as this increases the payload size relative to the protocol overhead (cf. link to LeCroy document). this improves system throughput a lot, even on crappy scopes because this type of load they can handle much better.
next thing: the SDS6000A _already has_ USB3 on the front for mouse/flash drive ... so clearly the system should be able to sustain USB3 speeds. so why not have USB3 to connect to the computer? your system bandwidth argument is illogical in the sense that for a scope that has USB3, it should be able to sustain the speed of it, too. If not, clearly, the designers made a mistake. Which is my whole point here: they simply "forgot" to include USB3 on the back and this is what I complain about here. You may disagree and that is totally fine since apparently it is not something you need. If others need that, you should be fair to accept that, too.
You didn't read that Siglent has scope platform (in China only at this moment) that is rack mount, up to 512 channels combined system to achieve exactly this type of application you're doing. And other manufacturers too. There are also dedicated acquisition cards etc etc...
Do I care about a device that is in China and cannot be bought by me? If this is internally based on the SDS6000A platform (which to a certain degree seems to be the case, based on the SDS6000L product number), then this further supports the fact that this is a pure marketing decision: they want to sell the SDS6000L with synchronization ... and not muddy the water by having the SDS6000A also offering this feature. I'm looking forward to tear-downs of both scopes and then we will know. Of course, this was their decision right from the start when they did the design. I'm fully aware how products like this are made and that this is a complex process. However, this is something they generally can do (SDS5000X, SDS6000L) and the extra dollars spent would not hurt much on a per unit basis (again: assuming they would have considered that in the design process).
Long story short: USB3 on the back and the synchronization was missed and/or a pure marketing decision. Not necessarily for technical reasons. This is truly sad. Siglent makes great hardware but with this one, they fell short of my expectations. But seems like people on this forum can't accept a good rant.
[...]
There was simply too much finger-pointing and bold font in the remainder of your post that I will ignore this part.
-
You didn't read that bottleneck in standard desktop scopes is not the interface itself but system throughput.
let me explain:
- instead of heaving this loop(arming - trigger - fetch data)
you do this:
- arm - measure sequence - fetch sequence
so you save many-times over the "fetch data" command which is only issued once and then a big chunk of data is fetched that includes multiple measurements. this is independent of the scope bandwidth and already saves you a lot of communication which otherwise slows down the scope.
so you use a crappy scope and flood it with arm-trigger-fetch messages to fetch small chunks. no surprise that bandwidth goes down and I'm not arguing against that.
the better approach is to fetch large chunks of data as this increases the payload size relative to the protocol overhead (cf. link to LeCroy document). this improves system throughput a lot, even on crappy scopes because this type of load they can handle much better.
next thing: the SDS6000A _already has_ USB3 on the front for mouse/flash drive ... so clearly the system should be able to sustain USB3 speeds. so why not have USB3 to connect to the computer? your system bandwidth argument is illogical in the sense that for a scope that has USB3, it should be able to sustain the speed of it, too. If not, clearly, the designers made a mistake. Which is my whole point here: they simply "forgot" to include USB3 on the back and this is what I complain about here. You may disagree and that is totally fine since apparently it is not something you need. If others need that, you should be fair to accept that, too.
You didn't read that Siglent has scope platform (in China only at this moment) that is rack mount, up to 512 channels combined system to achieve exactly this type of application you're doing. And other manufacturers too. There are also dedicated acquisition cards etc etc...
Do I care about a device that is in China and cannot be bought by me? If this is internally based on the SDS6000A platform (which to a certain degree seems to be the case, based on the SDS6000L product number), then this further supports the fact that this is a pure marketing decision: they want to sell the SDS6000L with synchronization ... and not muddy the water by having the SDS6000A also offering this feature. I'm looking forward to tear-downs of both scopes and then we will know. Of course, this was their decision right from the start when they did the design. I'm fully aware how products like this are made and that this is a complex process. However, this is something they generally can do (SDS5000X, SDS6000L) and the extra dollars spent would not hurt much on a per unit basis (again: assuming they would have considered that in the design process).
Long story short: USB3 on the back and the synchronization was missed and/or a pure marketing decision. Not necessarily for technical reasons. This is truly sad. Siglent makes great hardware but with this one, they fell short of my expectations. But seems like people on this forum can't accept a good rant.
[...]
There was simply too much finger-pointing and bold font in the remainder of your post that I will ignore this part.
We seem to have problem in communication here.
You do grab sequence and then transfer data to PC. That is best way, I agree.
Data transfer to PC is not very fast on OS level (let's call it that). Because general purpose scopes are not servers and it is not optimized for that.
As for USB, there is some confusion about that. Front USB ports and USB port in the back are not the same. With USB an equipment can be either host or peripheral . Your PC is host device, USB stick is peripheral. Scope connected to PC is a peripheral device, like USB stick.
Different direction than those ports in the front of scope where scope is a PC.
And while USB 3 and 4 are coming for free courtesy of CPU chipset on motherboard, an additional special peripheral controller needs to be added to CPU bus to add USB peripheral direction. And these are not so mainstream as you think. And way you connect it is not so easy or fast, because many embedded CPU platforms usually don't have super fast CPU busses exposed .
As a data point, Signal Hound BB60C USB3 spectrum analyzer uses Cypress (same as Picoscope 3000D series) USB3 chip and achieves max throughput of 160 MB/s. But that is because internal FPGA is wired directly to USB3 controller and is doing nothing except that, namely just trying to shovel data directly to PC. With same chip Picoscope 300D achieves fraction of that speed, because it has to do other stuff (BB60C does al data crunching on PC while Picoscope does bunch of data processing internally before). BB60C is quite a different architecture to a general purpose scope.
So adding a USB3 would have been done at additional cost of different computing platform, and additional computing resources just for USB3 peripheral part. That I tried to explain, most of the users don't use scope as you do. So scope platform would be much more expensive to 100% of users because of 1% of potential users... At one point you need to make a business (not marketing) decision. and that is all. One device cannot do all. Even without artificial market segmentation decisions.
It was not "removed on purpose because of marketing". SDS6000A as a platform predates SDS6000L for maybe 2 years. Rack mount data acquisition version was made later, to serve that market. Your conclusion on this is simply wrong. I know it for a fact. As you said, some of us do have a bit "deeper" knowledge on this topic, not just speculations.
As a final note I was not "finger pointing". Quite the opposite, I wanted to make sure it is clear that I understand that you have specific need (that is not really mainstream use of scope in a big picture) and that I understand that, but that does not give you right to proclaim "professional or not" based on specific feature set features. There are many, very professional, scopes from many tier A manufacturers that also have low data throughput to PC and no REF IN and that does not make them unprofessional. Just not good for your use. Which is unfortunate but it is what it is.
I will reiterate: for your use a Picoscope 6000E series would be a better match. You would have better control of scope from your software, and throughput on these is quite respectable. They were made for this kind of application.
So I confirm your proposition that Picoscope 6000E would be better choice for you, based on your use case, I corrected some of your wrong facts, and explained why some of your statements are wrong, hoping there will be some learning experience to someone.
You basically got free scope application engineer consultation for free. Why am I suddenly a bad guy?
-
Hi Guys,
I have a liberated SDS5000X. Overall, I love the scope.
But there is one thing that really bothers me a lot, to a point
where I want to throw the scope in the bin:
The CPU is incredibly slow. Sometimes the UI freezes for a few
second. Often it fails to decode long streams of SPI data, etc.
So, my question is this: Does the SDS6000 have a faster CPU ?
More memory (for the CPU to work with) ?
Do you know what FPGA the SDS5000X uses vs the SDS6000 ?
And finally, can the SDS6000 liberated the same way as the
SDS5000X ?
Many thanks,
luudee
-
I have a liberated SDS5000X. Overall, I love the scope.
But there is one thing that really bothers me a lot, to a point
where I want to throw the scope in the bin:
The CPU is incredibly slow. Sometimes the UI freezes for a few
second. Often it fails to decode long streams of SPI data, etc.
Have you tried a factory Default to delete any previous hidden settings ?
New firmware coming soon that hopefully can address some issues.
So, my question is this: Does the SDS6000 have a faster CPU ?
More memory (for the CPU to work with) ?
Do you know what FPGA the SDS5000X uses vs the SDS6000 ?
I had both for a while and didn't notice any significant differences in operation/performance.
Are you on the latest V0.9.7R2 firmware ?
And finally, can the SDS6000 liberated
Yes
the same way as the SDS5000X ?
No.
-
...
I had both for a while and didn't notice any significant differences in operation/performance.
Are you on the latest V0.9.7R2 firmware ?
Hi Rob,
yeah I bet, but did you try to do real work, with a busy set up ? :-)
Try running all 4 analog channels,
two digital busses, one of the busses being decoded (SPI)
and also use the zoom mode ...
It will be slower than my grandmother trying to cross the street !
Yes, I do have the latest firmware, and did a factory reset as well ...
Cheers,
luudee
-
yeah I bet, but did you try to do real work, with a busy set up ? :-)
I do :)
Yes, the ui gets slowed down, about as much as in any scope i've ever used (beside keysight for the obvious reasons, but i'll take everything more this scope has over ui speed when doing lots of stuff).
When i have busy setups i stop acquisition after i have acquired what i want to look at. Scope in stop mode is much more responsive for obvious reasons. Then there's the history mode to look back at previous acquisitions.
Or if things must run, once it's set up and i let it run it's as responsive as ever
-
I do :)
Yes, the ui gets slowed down, about as much as in any scope i've ever used (beside keysight for the obvious reasons, but i'll take everything more this scope has over ui speed when doing lots of stuff).
When i have busy setups i stop acquisition after i have acquired what i want to look at. Scope in stop mode is much more responsive for obvious reasons. Then there's the history mode to look back at previous acquisitions.
Or if things must run, once it's set up and i let it run it's as responsive as ever
I hear you ! :-)
Yeah, I also put it in Stop more after a capture ...
Anyway, I was hoping to hear from somebody who had a chance
to use both the SDS5000 and SDS6000. I wonder if the 6000 is
faster or not ...
Cheers,
rudi
-
I would also be Interested in whether the SDS6000 is as much faster as the SDS5000 ?
It means that the SDS 6000 has a better CPU, but is it faster ?
If so, noticeably faster?
Thank You
Nicole
-
Welcome to the forum.
There might be some info on capabilities here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXlBxhaj0oA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXlBxhaj0oA)
Note, this video is 5 mths old so may not have the last released V1.4.3.3 firmware installed.
-
Posted in the SDS2000X HD thread and for completeness a size comparison of SDS6000A vs SDS2000X HD pic added here too. Random probes in use that were close to hand.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1650584)
-
Defpom has nearly an hour long look at our SDS6204A.
Grab a seat and drink...... :popcorn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSCQKgOFMF8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSCQKgOFMF8)
-
O seem can go to place order now......:popcorn::popcorn:
-
Defpom has nearly an hour long look at our SDS6204A
A teardown wasn´t possible I guess...
Would be interesting to see if there are indeed only 8 bit ADCs assembled.
Reading the datasheet I´ve stumbled over the ERES function - Up to +4bits are uncommon, usually you got 3 bits.
-
New firmware for SDS6000A models
Version V1.4.4.1
~130MB
https://int.siglent.com/upload_file/zip/firmware/Oscilloscope/SDS6000_V1.4.4.1_EN.zip
Release notes
1. Force trigger strategy changed (same as SDS2000X HD)
2. Save/Recall
a) Supported to save all sequence segments
b) Supported Auto Save
3. Fixed several bugs
a) Cannot communicate with the SDG2000X and SDG7000A over USB in Bode Plot
b) Random +/-200 ps skew between channels after power/reboot cycle
c) [Power analysis] - Switching losses - Error in calculations
d) FFT wrong vertical scale
e) Memory channel trace always on top
-
New 2.1 GHz SSG3021X RF gen arrived today and to date we had not done a BW check on our SDS6204A ! :horse:
1V checked at 100 MHz and 2.1 GHz.
700mm N-BNC Siglent N-BNC-2L cable used for tests.
-
New firmware for SDS6000A models.
Version： V1.4.5.2
132 MB
https://int.siglent.com/upload_file/zip/firmware/Oscilloscope/SDS6000_V1.4.5.2_EN.zip
Release notes
1.Eye Diagram: supported 100Base-T1 (PAM3)
2.SCPI: Supported Search
3.Supported USB-GPIB
4.Fixed several bugs
DY-WTFK-202203165613：Spectrum menu after installing
DY-WTFK-202209237014: Scope restarts acquisition after few seconds when stopped
DY-WTFK-202207076348: Filter settings way off in special acquisition modes
DY-WTFK-202209237015: Zone trigger doesn’t work at some input frequencies
-
DY-WTFK-202203165613：Spectrum menu after installing
DY-WTFK-202209237014: Scope restarts acquisition after few seconds when stopped
DY-WTFK-202207076348: Filter settings way off in special acquisition modes
DY-WTFK-202209237015: Zone trigger doesn’t work at some input frequencies
:o :o
Bug IDs!!!!!!! Great progress. :clap:
-
And WTFK stands for WTF I guess.. 8)
-
DY-WTFK-202203165613：Spectrum menu after installing
DY-WTFK-202209237014: Scope restarts acquisition after few seconds when stopped
DY-WTFK-202207076348: Filter settings way off in special acquisition modes
DY-WTFK-202209237015: Zone trigger doesn’t work at some input frequencies
:o :o
Bug IDs!!!!!!! Great progress. :clap:
Yup and I own one of those. ;)
Once your reported bug has been confirmed it is given one if those ID's and on their private forum we can see the individual ID's in various threads.
Also first time I've seen them mentioned in a release however they have been using them for as long as I've been a member there.
And WTFK stands for WTF I guess.. 8)
Officially it stands for Dear Yoda WTF Ken ? :D
-
Yup and I own one of those. ;)
Another suggestion from yours truly was to add some color to digital....this is coming.....soon....and hopefully to all models.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1780976)
-
Anyone knows what is the new Siglent scope SDS6008Pro?
Which are its differences for the SDS6000Pro?
It's neither the 6000L nor the 7000A.
8 channels??
-
Where did you find it ? Can´t find it on their chinese site..
-
Where did you find it ? Can´t find it on their chinese site..
If I say it was an epiphany would you believe? :)
-
Ahh, light is on... :D :)
-
Officially we only know SDS7000A is coming:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds7000a-dsos-coming/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds7000a-dsos-coming/)
We need wait for more news.....
-
Where did you find it ? Can´t find it on their chinese site..
Its online now
https://www.siglent.com/products-overview/sds6000-pro/ (https://www.siglent.com/products-overview/sds6000-pro/)
-
Hello
When translated into German, it says "Low noise floor: up to 2 μVrms at full bandwidth of 153 GHz".
Best regards
egonotto
-
Hello
When translated into German, it says "Low noise floor: up to 2 μVrms at full bandwidth of 153 GHz".
Best regards
egonotto
That is translator error. English translation : Low noise floor: as low as 153 μVrms at full 2 GHz bandwidth
-
On the chinese webpage the SDS 6000A completely disappeared - does that mean, that the SDS6000A and the SDS6000 Pro might be identical hardwarewise? Just reduced in capabilities for the market outside China?
-
On the chinese webpage the SDS 6000A completely disappeared - does that mean, that the SDS6000A and the SDS6000 Pro might be identical hardwarewise? Just reduced in capabilities for the market outside China?
Not sure it was ever there, only the Pro version IIRC.
Some models were developed in conjunction with LeCroy of which Siglent has had a longtime development partnership and western marketing rights were LeCroy's as part of the deal.
SDS3000 and SDS3000X are examples that we have never seen in the west.
SDS6000A has one ADC/ch which retains full sampling rates when all channels are active.
-
On the chinese webpage the SDS 6000A completely disappeared - does that mean, that the SDS6000A and the SDS6000 Pro might be identical hardwarewise?
SDS 6000A is only for "our" market.
For an 8-bit scope it has remarkably good vertical specs and it´s ERES goes up to 16bit..
-
On the chinese webpage the SDS 6000A completely disappeared - does that mean, that the SDS6000A and the SDS6000 Pro might be identical hardwarewise? Just reduced in capabilities for the market outside China?
Since I rarely ever check the Chinese Website, I cannot know for sure but would be very surprised if the SDS6000A has ever been there.
The international SDS6000A is near identical to the Chinese SDS6204 H10/12 Pro; that means it has one ADC per channel, even for the lowest 500 MHz bandwidth model. So in this regard we are better off than our Chinese peers.
The big trump of the SDS6000A is, that even though only 8 bits of the ADC can be used, we still get 12-bit performance in terms of INL. These are the best conditions for a great working software resolution enhancement (ERES), because it's easy to increase the resolution (at the cost of bandwidth), but you cannot improve the linearity, which in turn is required for monotonicity of the transfer curve.
-
New firmware for SDS6000A models
Version： V1.4.8.3
130 MB
https://int.siglent.com/upload_file/zip/firmware/Oscilloscope/SDS6000_V1.4.8.3_EN.zip
Release notes
FFT: supported horizontal log axis
Channel: optimized strategy of adding a trace
Fixed several bugs
a. Bode plot: load and sweep settings not remembered; no virtual keypad for setting of some parameters
b. ARINC429 trigger not work on SDS6104 Pro
-
HI All.........Is that mean the happy time is over? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm:
2: Read Operation
Return Count: 10 bytes
ZDL-HD-1G\n
4: Read Operation
Return Count: 58 bytes
Siglent\sTechnologies,SDS6054A,XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,1.17.1.4.3.3\n
The key gen not working.........
# Enter here the basic model
# You get this by running "MD5_PR?" at the SCIP prompt
# A sample: You have the SDS1104X-E than enter "SDS1000X-E"
# Some more basic models: "SDS1000X-E", "SDS2000X-E", "SDS2000X+", "SDS5000X", "ZODIAC-"
Model = 'ZDL-HD-1G'
-
The key gen not working.........
It never did for SDS6000A models.
You must follow different solutions.
-
The key gen not working.........
It never did for SDS6000A models.
You must follow different solutions.
Using NMAP but did't find the telnet port...... :'(
-
The key gen not working.........
It never did for SDS6000A models.
You must follow different solutions.
Using NMAP but did't find the telnet port...... :'(
Try connect using telnet to port 5024/tcp. If it wouldn't work try scan all tcp ports with nmap.
nmap -sT -p1-65535 [ the IP address ]
-
Try connect using telnet to port 5024/tcp. If it wouldn't work try scan all tcp ports with nmap.
nmap -sT -p1-65535 [ the IP address ]
NSE: Script Pre-scanning.
Initiating NSE at 09:57
Completed NSE at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating NSE at 09:57
Completed NSE at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating NSE at 09:57
Completed NSE at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating ARP Ping Scan at 09:57
Scanning 192.168.1.39 [1 port]
Completed ARP Ping Scan at 09:57, 1.99s elapsed (1 total hosts)
Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 09:57
Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 09:57
Scanning 192.168.1.39 [65535 ports]
Discovered open port 111/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5900/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 775/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 55629/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5025/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5355/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5024/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 09:57, 2.40s elapsed (65535 total ports)
Initiating Service scan at 09:57
5024 just for SCPI....
Welcome to the SCPI instrument 'Siglent SDS6054A'
>>)
5025 in telnet can connect but nothing....am i missing something?(SSH not work on 5025)
-
Try connect using telnet to port 5024/tcp. If it wouldn't work try scan all tcp ports with nmap.
nmap -sT -p1-65535 [ the IP address ]
NSE: Script Pre-scanning.
Initiating NSE at 09:57
Completed NSE at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating NSE at 09:57
Completed NSE at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating NSE at 09:57
Completed NSE at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating ARP Ping Scan at 09:57
Scanning 192.168.1.39 [1 port]
Completed ARP Ping Scan at 09:57, 1.99s elapsed (1 total hosts)
Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 09:57
Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 09:57, 0.00s elapsed
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 09:57
Scanning 192.168.1.39 [65535 ports]
Discovered open port 111/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5900/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 775/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 55629/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5025/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5355/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Discovered open port 5024/tcp on 192.168.1.39
Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 09:57, 2.40s elapsed (65535 total ports)
Initiating Service scan at 09:57
5024 just for SCPI....
Welcome to the SCPI instrument 'Siglent SDS6054A'
>>)
5025 in telnet can connect but nothing....am i missing something?(SSH not work on 5025)
Minki, I suggested all ports scan, because you mentioned “Using NMAP but did't find the telnet port...... :'(“.
I was guessing that you tried the default nmap scan which include only the most common ports and telnet server maybe listening on another port.
Telnet server will respond asking you for username and as next for a password. If you got connected it doesn't mean that you’re connected
to a “telnet” server. As an example you may try telnet to “google.com 443” but you’re not connected to telnet server…
I’m guessing the string in red color frame it’s what you tried to paste in the terminal (PuTTY) without seeing prompt asking for username,
the string looks to me a line from /etc/shadow file.
I’m not judging, but if you’re not 100% confident in your IP protocol knowledge and modern UNIX/Linux security model then you should
wait to time when somebody will provide proofed solution, otherwise instead of improving your relatively expensive scope you may turn it to a brick.
[attachimg=1]
-
Just open up and found some interesting thing...
Some PCBA had Lecory logo on it
1.Power cable PCB
[attachimg=1]
2.AC trigger PCB
[attachimg=2]
And any one can help for tell the location and PIN out of the main MCU JTAG for memdump :palm: :-[ :'(
[attachimg=3]
-
Any one can help for locate the JTAG pin out of MCU.... :phew:
[attachimg=1]
And AWG...?It seem only on sds2000x-hd...?
[attachimg=2]
-
I finally got it :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
Excellent :-+
-
There have been complaints about spurious signals in the Chinese SDS6204 H10 Pro in a completely unrelated thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-new-sds800x-hd-first-bactch-unboxing-and-noise-compare-with-dho800/msg5238798/#msg5238798 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-new-sds800x-hd-first-bactch-unboxing-and-noise-compare-with-dho800/msg5238798/#msg5238798)
Yes, this looks nasty. Yet it’s just the price of high bandwidth.
If we try to analyze the 2nd screenshot, we see spurious signals up to about -60 dBV at 200 mV/div vertical gain. Full scale is 1.6V, so the spurious signals are ~64 dB below full scale (-64 dBFS). This corresponds to a ratio of 1600 which in turn is equivalent to 10.6 bits. Quite adequate for a 10 bit machine…
Of course there is more to the ENOB calculation than just these not input related spurs. Yet it shows that they are not the limiting factor.
Btw, there is no point in activating ESR for the FFT.
For comparison purposes, here is the corresponding spectrum of a 12 bit SDS6204 H12 Pro:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1962222;image)
SDS6204 Pro H12_Spurs_200mV
The strongest spurious signal is about -76 dBV at 200 mV/div. This means -80 dBFS, hence a ratio of 10000 which would be equivalent to 13.3 bits. Once again this is not the limiting factor for the ENOB.
-
Yes, this looks nasty. Yet it’s just the price of high bandwidth.
...
For comparison purposes, here is the corresponding spectrum of a 12 bit SDS6204 H12 Pro:
Wow, so many interleaved ADC cores? ;)
[Having frequencies of fs/2^N, I'm fairly confident they're interleaving spurs. What do you think?]
Btw, there is no point in activating ESR for the FFT.
Enabling it even reduces the FFT resolution for a given number of points, due to the higher sample rate.
ESR is also not supposed to improve sinc-interpolated waveform display.
I think the primary aim of ESR is rather to get a higher time resolution to improve the accuracy for some types of measurements.
[I guess the same should be possible with the interpolate math function on those models that don't support ESR as a dedicated feature.]
-
Wow, so many interleaved ADC cores? ;)
[Having frequencies of fs/2^N, I'm fairly confident they're interleaving spurs. What do you think?]
Well, the frequency spacing is exactly 39.0625 MHz; I cannot see the relation to the sample frequency. On the other hand, the SDS2000X HD is almost completely spur-free, there only is a single spur at 500 MHz = fs/4. Yes there is one at 1 GHz as well, but this is at the very end of the spectrum and outside the specified bandwidth.
Btw, there is no point in activating ESR for the FFT.
I think the primary aim of ESR is rather to get a higher time resolution to improve the accuracy for some types of measurements.
[I guess the same should be possible with the interpolate math function on those models that don't support ESR as a dedicated feature.]
Yes, exactly. Yet there is a difference when compared to the Interpolate math function, because ESR is handled in realtime during acquisition. It takes up twice as much sample memory and the DSO software is unable to distinguish the ESR data from the output of a real ADC with twice the sample rate.
It is a feature introduced by LeCroy, which has its uses in some special cases, but I prefer to have it disabled most of the time.
-
Well, the frequency spacing is exactly 39.0625 MHz; I cannot see the relation to the sample frequency.
5000 MHz / 128 ?
-
5000 MHz / 128 ?
Oh yes, of course!
-
5000 MHz / 128 ?
Oh yes, of course!
What still irritates me is the low sample rate of only 39M that the ADC cores would have and the large number of interleaved cores. For comparison, the HMCAD1511 which is used in several low-cost 1GSa/s scope models has 8 interleaved ADC cores, with 125MSa/s each. And for faster ADCs, I'd rather expect an even higher sample rate per core. But who knows...
-
5000 MHz / 128 ?
Oh yes, of course!
What still irritates me is the low sample rate of only 39M that the ADC cores would have and the large number of interleaved cores. For comparison, the HMCAD1511 which is used in several low-cost 1GSa/s scope models has 8 interleaved ADC cores, with 125MSa/s each. And for faster ADCs, I'd rather expect an even higher sample rate per core. But who knows...
This looks as a clear 5000 MHz / 128 = 39.0625Mhz SQUARE Wave or other combination(s)... guessing as exact 128 diff by the reference frequency (synthesizer) or oscillation on the VRef power.
The other one as about -100dB are for me the spurs...
Hopefully the upcoming SDS3000 12 bit, SDS7000 12 bit are any better or just send them back to the development group.
Hp
-
Some interesting high speed ADCs utilizing multiple individual channels, recall from ~2008 when we saw the early Fuji 56GPSP ADC later expanded to 64GSPS, this was developed in 65nm CMOS with 2 ADCs per chip.
Later some other interesting ADCs utilizing multiple individual channels emerged, like the 2014 IBM 90GSPS in 32nm SOI, with 5.2 ENOB at 20GHz which utilized 64 ADC channels @ 1.4GSPS per ADC, and the 2017 Broadcom 64GSPS in 20nm with 128 channels per ADC (has 4 ADCs per chip).
https://indico.cern.ch/event/121657/attachments/68435/98170/ADC_DAC_CERN.pdf (https://indico.cern.ch/event/121657/attachments/68435/98170/ADC_DAC_CERN.pdf)
https://www.electronicspecifier.com/products/mixed-signal-analog/fujitsu-launches-ultrafast-56gsa-s-8-bit-adc-technology-for-100g-coherent-receivers-and-high-performance-test-equipment (https://www.electronicspecifier.com/products/mixed-signal-analog/fujitsu-launches-ultrafast-56gsa-s-8-bit-adc-technology-for-100g-coherent-receivers-and-high-performance-test-equipment)
https://www.fujitsu.com/uk/Images/c45.pdf (https://www.fujitsu.com/uk/Images/c45.pdf)
Best,
-
Trigger Jitter
The datasheet specifies the trigger jitter as follows:
• <9ps RMS (typical) for ≥300MHz sine and ≥6 divisions peak to peak amplitude for vertical gain settings from 2.5mV/div to 10V/div.
• <5ps RMS (typical) for ≥500MHz sine and ≥6 divisions peak to peak amplitude for vertical gain settings from 2.5mV/div to 10V/div.
The EXT trigger jitter is not exactly stellar at <200 ps RMS – but then again this is a classical analog (comparator) trigger and not the fully digital trigger system that we get when using one of the input channels as trigger source.
Now let’s verify this with a 1 GHz sine signal from an OCXO-driven AWG (SDG7102A), fed into channels 3 and 4 of an SDS6204 H12 Pro (which has an individual ADC for each channel) via a 12.4 GHz resistive power splitter. This way we can observe the jitter in the trigger channel as well as a not triggered channel, where both are using different ADCs, hence are completely unrelated.
The high quality 1 GHz sine signal has been chosen for its fast edges and low inherent jitter – after all we want to characterize the DSO and not the signal source. See the attached screenshot which has been taken after more than 15 minutes running with infinite persistence:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds6000-pro-10-and-12-bit-dso-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1968657;image)
SDS6204 Pro H12_Trigger_Jitter_1GHz_15m
At a timebase of 100 ps/div, we can see the peak to peak jitter in the triggered as well as the non-triggered channel after more than 15 minutes at infinite persistence.
The jitter measurements are as follows:
Triggered channel: 6 ps pk-pk, 698 fs rms;
Un-triggered channel: 11.3 ps pk-pk, 1.564 ps rms;
Skew Ch.3-Ch.4: 12.06 ps pk-pk, 1.594 ps rms;
-
Hi,
For a new project we want to look at the signals of a 1000 Base T connection.
I have roughly thought about it and would consider a 1Ghz scope for this - is that enough or would we have to go even higher?
Either way, only the 6000A would come into question, it is one of the cheapest on the market despite its performance.
The only question is, 1Ghz or 2Ghz.... ;)
-
Hi,
For a new project we want to look at the signals of a 1000 Base T connection.
I have roughly thought about it and would consider a 1Ghz scope for this - is that enough or would we have to go even higher?
Either way, only the 6000A would come into question, it is one of the cheapest on the market despite its performance.
The only question is, 1Ghz or 2Ghz.... ;)
Short version, 2GHz version would be better, but 1GHz should be usable..
Some lit... Holler if you need more..
DS7000A has compliance package >:D.... Just saying... :-DD
-
Hi my friend,
DS7000A is too big for this project in financial terms.. ;)
Incidentally, this is an issue that affects both models.
Both want to be Pro models, and the data sheet says they are - but it's astonishing how few options come with these scopes.
The protocol and analysis options for our waverunner fill a whole page, unfortunately the 500Mhz are not enough.
-
Look at the Tektronix appnote. Is says 8ns bit times. Just like 100Mbit ethernet, 1Gbit ethernet has a maximum frequency content of around 125MHz. CAT5E wiring just ain't going to pass higher frequencies. I'm not sure what the goal is here, but a 500MHz oscilloscope is going to do just fine to look at the signals. Compliance testing is of little use as you likely can't change anything on the transmitter / receiver chip (unless you are designing these kind of chips). What is left is the transmission system (wiring, filters, transformers) and for that you can use a network analyser to check the impedances of the transmission lines / system. All in all: what is the goal of the measurements?
-
Look at the Tektronix appnote. Is says 8ns bit times. Just like 100Mbit ethernet, 1Gbit ethernet has a maximum frequency content of around 125MHz. CAT5E wiring just ain't going to pass higher frequencies. I'm not sure what the goal is here, but a 500MHz oscilloscope is going to do just fine to look at the signals. Compliance testing is of little use as you likely can't change anything on the transmitter / receiver chip (unless you are designing these kind of chips). What is left is the transmission system (wiring, filters, transformers) and for that you can use a network analyser to check the impedances of the transmission lines / system. All in all: what is the goal of the measurements?
Says minimum 400ps risetime, BW 10x of 125Mhz, sample rate of 5GS/S. That fits to roughly 1 GHz scope. That is minimum
125Mhz is not the problem here but risetime, as always. 125Mhz is guaranteed for long cable runs. For short cables it will be more..
You will see that they performed actual testing with 4 GHz scope with 10GS/s...
Naturally, if you want to measure what characteristics are is different to just checking if it passes basic requirements.
I don't know what requirements are. From what little was said, it is not cable testing... And for that, a LAN analyser with compliance testing would be better match anyways.
-
I only got the flippant announcement "to snoop around in it"...
But I'll ask again.
-
Look at the Tektronix appnote. Is says 8ns bit times. Just like 100Mbit ethernet, 1Gbit ethernet has a maximum frequency content of around 125MHz. CAT5E wiring just ain't going to pass higher frequencies. I'm not sure what the goal is here, but a 500MHz oscilloscope is going to do just fine to look at the signals. Compliance testing is of little use as you likely can't change anything on the transmitter / receiver chip (unless you are designing these kind of chips). What is left is the transmission system (wiring, filters, transformers) and for that you can use a network analyser to check the impedances of the transmission lines / system. All in all: what is the goal of the measurements?
Says minimum 400ps risetime, BW 10x of 125Mhz, sample rate of 5GS/S. That fits to roughly 1 GHz scope. That is minimum
No, that is Tektronix wanting to sell you an oscilloscope which is extreme overkill. Probably their lower bandwidth oscilloscope lack the analysis capabilities. If you look through the appnote you'll see that some measurements end at 100MHz and most of the accesoires (like filters and splitter) are specced up to a couple of hundred MHz.
-
Look at the Tektronix appnote. Is says 8ns bit times. Just like 100Mbit ethernet, 1Gbit ethernet has a maximum frequency content of around 125MHz. CAT5E wiring just ain't going to pass higher frequencies. I'm not sure what the goal is here, but a 500MHz oscilloscope is going to do just fine to look at the signals. Compliance testing is of little use as you likely can't change anything on the transmitter / receiver chip (unless you are designing these kind of chips). What is left is the transmission system (wiring, filters, transformers) and for that you can use a network analyser to check the impedances of the transmission lines / system. All in all: what is the goal of the measurements?
Says minimum 400ps risetime, BW 10x of 125Mhz, sample rate of 5GS/S. That fits to roughly 1 GHz scope. That is minimum
No, that is Tektronix wanting to sell you an oscilloscope which is extreme overkill. Probably their lower bandwidth oscilloscope lack the analysis capabilities. If you look through the appnote you'll see that some measurements end at 100MHz.
Not Tektronix, the actual working group...
-
In the meantime, the wishes have become more concrete, so the Siglent models are out.
Because protocol analyzes should also be possible and, as I already mentioned, the available options for the large models are rather limited.
For our Waverunner model, however, there are dozens of options available, but the hope that its bandwidth (500Mhz, smallest model) would be sufficient has died.
Lecroy recommends 1Ghz for T100 and 2.5Ghz for T1000.
But this doesn't belong here, maybe I'll open a new thread.
-
In the meantime, the wishes have become more concrete, so the Siglent models are out.
Because protocol analyzes should also be possible and, as I already mentioned, the available options for the large models are rather limited.
For our Waverunner model, however, there are dozens of options available, but the hope that its bandwidth (500Mhz, smallest model) would be sufficient has died.
Lecroy recommends 1Ghz for T100 and 2.5Ghz for T1000.
But this doesn't belong here, maybe I'll open a new thread.
Opening a new thread sounds like a good plan. Having quite a bit of hands-on experience with various types of electrical and optical ethernet and other types of high speed serial interfaces, I strongly doubt an oscilloscope or protocol analyser is going to help solve a problem you may have. Getting the problem definition clear is likely way more useful as it will point into the direction of the solution.