SysClk DX Logic Analyser / MSO

[Fraser]

I have just received a SysClk DX 24Msps Logic Analyser / MSO from China and thought I would share some pictures of it with the forum.

The unit is of good physical construction (bar the usual China QC issues on soldering) and looks a very neat design when on the bench. The SysClk DX provides 16 channel logic state monitoring and 2 analogue oscilloscope channels on BNC connectors. The package included the unit itself, USB 2.0 lead, DX software CD, Dupont probe leads and logic grabbers. I actually decided to not buy the logic grabbers in my order but they were supplied anyway 

The specification from the seller is shown below.

Sysclk-DX Specifications:


Two input channels with a maximum analogue sampling rate of 24Msps
   Analogue Bandwidth 3 MHz
   Analogue Channels: 2
   Input voltage measured: -10V to 10V
   Input impedance: 1MOhm/30pF
   Logic I/O Channels :16 


   Protocols:
              Channels: 16

   Maximum sampling rate: from 1 to 24Msps with 4 trigger levels
   SPI, I2C, Async, USB, PS/2, SM Bus, Sync Serial, CAN, 1-Wire, Parallel busses as well as Custom Decoder capabilities 

Utilities:
   Bus Data Extractors
   Oscilloscope/Logic Analyzer
   Bus Decoders
   PacketPresenter
   Digital Signal Generator
   Data Logger
   Voltmeter
   Frequency Counter
   I2C Bus Controller
   Frequency Generator
   PWM Controller
   Pulse Counter
   Toolbuilder Source Code API
   Remote Controller

I have yet to connect the unit to my PC or test the provided software so this posting relates to the hardware only. When I have tested the unit I will update this thread.

You will see in picture 2310 a nasty solder splash on the PCB. It is on the mask so probably is not a threat to correct operation, but still not good to see. On picture 2311 it can be seen that the BNC connectors have not had all of their chassis pins soldered. Easily corrected but not good practice.

The major ICs used in the unit are listed below:

CY7C68013A-56 Qty 2 (USB LS chip)
AD9288BSTZ-40 Qty 1 (2 channel 40Msps A to D)
SMSC USB2512A Qty 1 (USB)
24C02 Qty 2 (EEPROM)
7660 Qty 2 (-Ve rail generator)

There are two CY7C68013A (8 bit) chips to provide the 16 bit monitoring capability of the DX model. The A to D chip is capable of 40Msps maximum but only 24Msps is shown in the specification. This may be a limitation caused by the USB 2.0 data rate capability ? USB2512A is a USB 2 Port HUB controller to drive the two CY7C68013A chips. PCB has the build date of 21-11-2012 so it is quite a new model to the market.

[free_electron]

so its basically a USBEE-DX clone

[Bored@Work]

And a 99.9999% chance the software on that hand labeled CD has a striking resemblance to USBEE's original software ...

[Fraser]

No idea what lives inside a USBEE DX LA. Does anyone know the chipset used ?

I am hoping to use the SIGROK software when it supports this chipset.

I have had a search and it would appear that the USBEE DX design is significantly different to the earlier 8 bit LA's. I did find a schematic of a unit similar to mine and it is indeed designed to use any software that works with the USBEE DX. Hopefully this will mean SIGROK will soon be able to support it as they support the 8 bit AX model already.

I attach a clone DX schematic. It has a different analogue input and an extra eeprom but it gives a good idea of the principle of operation.

You would have thought USBEE would have used at least one proprietary chip to prevent use of their software with clones....but it appears not. As it is, the software is open to illegitimate use with compatible COTS hardware. Most odd 

My main LA will be the 32 bit Hantek but this looks OK for mobile use as a very basic MSO. I wanted the decoding capability as much as anything.
Note. My version of the DX has only a 3MHz analogue bandwidth...pretty useless for all but the most basic tasks.

SIGROK have made comment on DX support here:

http://sigrok.org/wiki/XZL_Studio_DX

[Fraser]

Noting the comments of two fellow Blog members, maybe I should not review this unit when used with USBEE software. That could be seen as EEVBlog supporting piracy. Not mine or, I suspect, Dave's wish.

Treat this thread as a peek inside a DX clone and decide for yourself whether it is worth waiting for the SIGROK software support.

I have just checked the contents of the CD-R and as B@W suggested, it is USBEE DX. No attempt to disguise it at all. There was an additional program also included, but I am staying silent on that 

[senso]

Oh man, the layout 

[JimmyMz]

Where can you get those "20 pcs colorful logic analyzer probes"? Those would be perfect for my Analog Discovery.

Look up EZ-Hooks. 

[poorchava]

Layout! (or lack thereof... ). Fook, my first pcb looked better.......... 

[Rasz]

http://kazus.ru/forums/showthread.php?t=14159
http://kazus.ru/forums/showthread.php?t=13724
From first reverse attempts to working clones, before Chinese did it

[Fraser]

Thanks for the link Rasz. Very interesting.

With regard to the PCB layout...I totally agree....it looks like a first attempt that no one has bothered to tidy up. the traces look like a childs sketch in places ! BUT is this truly an issue at 24Msps which in my world of RF is only an HF frequency and PCBs can be pretty ropey at such. I know that the input side PCB track lengths should be of matched lengths in an LA to avoid minute timing issues between inputs but for me this is unlikely to be an issue.

I wonder what application they used to design the PCB ? It could be a lesson in how not to make an LA PCB then ?

At the end of the day I suspect the manufacturer takes the view that if it works at 24msps the look of the PCB becomes of no importance so development stops.

I missed off a couple of chips in my list of the major components.

The inputs to the A to D pass through an amplifier which is marked 'HPA' on one channel and 'AOL' on the other. It would appear that the AOL part was fitted after original production, possibly due to component failure ? The chips have 5 pins but I have yet to identify the actual part number.

[amyk]

So... two Cypress LAs and a hub?

Noting the comments of two fellow Blog members, maybe I should not review this unit when used with USBEE software. That could be seen as EEVBlog supporting piracy. Not mine or, I suspect, Dave's wish.

When they give away the software publicly on their website for free, I don't think it's piracy. If you're referring to the EULA, those are a gray area... we already have the insanely popular Rigol hacking thread(s) and a few others around that certainly wouldn't be if he thought otherwise.

Either way I find the idea of just adding a second chip for more channels to be hilarious; not because the Chinese would be the ones to do that, but apparently because the USBee was like that too. Why not split the bandwidth over 2 USB ports then. You might be able to get 32 channels with alternative software, as one FX2 already supports 16 channels with Sigrok and this thing has two of them.

[Fraser]

There is a lot of debate on these clone units. USBEE official ID code is used in the EEPROMS to fool the software into working with it. That isn't truly a hack, its an emulation without permission.

I find the USBEE retail price suitably high to have justified better protection via the use of a hardware HASP II dongle but USBEE decided to save money. It could be said that USBEE brought this situation on themselves but I will not make further comment on that.

It should be stated that the CD-R disk contents DEFINITELY breaches USBEE IPR as it contains a keygen to crack a protection code. I will say no more

 

[Fraser]

Whilst doing some investigation of USBEE pod clones I did a search on the USBEE website to see what they say on the matter. This is what I found

http://www.usbee.com/usbeeclone.html

There is a problem with their statements though.

USBEE software was made easy to download, without registration of a legitimate product or any form of activation needed. I hate activation as it can cause hassle to the user, BUT it is the reasonable responsibility of a manufacturer to take adequate precautions against the illegitimate use of their product. Such precautions are often defeatable by the very clever but I see little evidence that USBEE have made any effective attempt at such IPR protection of their product, software or hardware.

I own a very expensive ~US$3000 Siemens car diagnostic system. The hardware is high tech and would be expensive to duplicate, but Siemens took the route of protecting the essential software using a HASP USB key. My USB key was lost and the current vendor of the software stated that the unit was basically rendered a paperweight, until I bought a new HASP dongle, only available as part of a 1 year subscription at $1500  I had a genuine incentive to legitimately hack my Siemens software to get my unit working again without the HASP. I discovered that such a hack is not viable even when $3000 is at stake. A very kind dealer assisted me in the end and I have a working Siemens OBD diagnostics package for a $50 donation to charity. (he gifted me an old version HASP and software set)

http://www.safenet-inc.com/products/software-rights-management/sentinel-hasp-hl/


What I am saying here is that any product developer that produces a low tech hardware platform, that uses a complex software to run it, should not be foolish enough to believe that someone will not clone it, if easily accomplished. This may be a user morals situation, but when USBEE charge a not inconsiderable price for what is basically very crude hardware, coupled to clever software, have they not been very nieve and foolish in not protecting it from piracy in a better manner ? This should be considered a lesson to fellow designers on this Forum. If you want to sell a product that will be popular, and quite expensive, pay the extra to incorporate effective anti-piracy protection or processes.

In this specific case I do feel the designer has been a little nieve and it is hard to feel sorry for USBEE when the world has been filled with clone products from China going all the way back to the old Apple II computer !

I have recently purchased the Hantek 4032L LA that offers better hardware performance than the USBEE DX. I bought the SysClk DX in the knowledge that it was likely a DX clone, but that it would offer a decent hardware platform with which to use the SIGROK software in which I am interested. Will I run the USBEE software to see how well it performs...... I make no comment as USBEE are threatening people with prosecution, a pretty empty threat IMHO but a threat no less.

The CD-R provided with the unit I purchased contained the public available USB DX SW plus a definitely illegal version of USBEE Suite, complete with the keygen to produce an unlock key for it. I will not run such software as that is an absolute illegitimate breach of the products defences, making it absolutely wrong to use.

I am a user of ENCASE forensic software that is also protected by a HASP II dongle so I do know a little about the law 

My message to USBEE.....wake up !!! Sort out your product protection, and stop whinging that someone copied your COTS based hardware, and runs your publicly available, unprotected, software on it !  Oh and your claims the Chinese hardware does not work and is disabled by your 'clever' software are no longer true.

[abyrvalg]

That clone whining page shows as their main page for me (based on my Eastern Europe IP I guess) - what a silly move. Based on their high price and low end specs (what is 24Msps? - no rocket science, home hobbyst tool) I would estimate their "losses" in this part of the world to be 0 usd - nobody would buy it here regardless of clones/protection having so many alternatives with higher specs/lower price around (4032L mentioned above is light years ahead in terms of hw for just $220). Add some protection, new features that differentiate from clones and rethink the price - that's much more efficient strategy than fighting against a half of the world.

[alm]

Keep in mind that the money also pays for software development, not just putting a Cypress USB SoC on a PCB. From what I remember, reviews of Hantek LA software weren't too positive, so I'm guessing they spend less on software development.

I agree that it's foolish to believe that Chinese manufacturers will not clone their hardware and illegally distribute their software. As a user, however, I'm not sad that they did not use dongles or activation schemes. If I had the choice between two competitors (eg. Usbee and Saleae), and one of them used online activation, then that would be a reason for me to choose the other one. As Aurora already stated, copyright protection mechanisms tend to hurt the legitimate user. For example, the company disappears or pulls out of USB LAs and shuts down their activation servers, and the software and hardware becomes useless. Or it doesn't work with a different Windows version or hardware configuration. I remember a problem with Adobe product activation and certain mass storage (SCSI) drivers. The Chinese clone makers will just distribute a cracked version with the activation check removed/bypassed. It happens to MS and Adobe, who spend large sums of money on copyright protection.

Does the lack of protection make any difference for the customer to decide whether it's morally right or wrong to use a clone? Should we really be complaining to Usbee about not using user-unfriendly copyright protection? Or can they just focus on making the best software for their paying customers, and ignore the illegal copies, since the incremental costs for software are close to $0 anyway?

[amyk]

What I am saying here is that any product developer that produces a low tech hardware platform, that uses a complex software to run it, should not be foolish enough to believe that someone will not clone it, if easily accomplished. This may be a user morals situation, but when USBEE charge a not inconsiderable price for what is basically very crude hardware, coupled to clever software, have they not been very nieve and foolish in not protecting it from piracy in a better manner ? This should be considered a lesson to fellow designers on this Forum. If you want to sell a product that will be popular, and quite expensive, pay the extra to incorporate effective anti-piracy protection or processes.

In this specific case I do feel the designer has been a little nieve and it is hard to feel sorry for USBEE when the world has been filled with clone products from China going all the way back to the old Apple II computer !

I have recently purchased the Hantek 4032L LA that offers better hardware performance than the USBEE DX. I bought the SysClk DX in the knowledge that it was likely a DX clone, but that it would offer a decent hardware platform with which to use the SIGROK software in which I am interested. Will I run the USBEE software to see how well it performs...... I make no comment as USBEE are threatening people with prosecution, a pretty empty threat IMHO but a threat no less.

The CD-R provided with the unit I purchased contained the public available USB DX SW plus a definitely illegal version of USBEE Suite, complete with the keygen to produce an unlock key for it. I will not run such software as that is an absolute illegitimate breach of the products defences, making it absolutely wrong to use.

I am a user of ENCASE forensic software that is also protected by a HASP II dongle so I do know a little about the law 

My message to USBEE.....wake up !!! Sort out your product protection, and stop whinging that someone copied your COTS based hardware, and runs your publicly available, unprotected, software on it !  Oh and your claims the Chinese hardware does not work and is disabled by your 'clever' software are no longer true.

So I take it you think using something like compatible inkjet cartridges is also "piracy"? Apparently that is a violation of the EULA for some printers too now. F**k that!

If I can download without any cost their software, then I believe it's within my rights to use it for whatever hardware works. They can not provide support or whatever else, and I may not be allowed to redistribute (*copy*right), but that's about all. If they think their software is worth $$ then they should charge for that or bundle it with the hardware and not give it away for free. USBee suite is also available for free download from their website, so it's probably just the keygen that is possibly illegal.

They probably blocked the clone whining page because people from those countries wouldn't react well to that sort of rant... from having talked to some of the clone-makers in Shenzhen they think along the lines of "we also have families to feed and aren't wealthy like you".

Interestingly enough Saleae has basically the same hardware although they wrote their own software. Sigrok is a nice alternative but I think we really need a better (especially Windows) software for all the Cypress LAs out there, with more features and less "wank". Get all the cloners to start bundling that... and you can say goodbye to USBee and Saleae.

[a1976888]

Hi all,
Sorry for resuming this old post but I'd like to buy my first oscilloscope to learn how to use it and I found this one:
http://www.osciloskopy.com/oscilloscopes_eng.php?det=63

I'd like to know if it is the same as the SysClk DX or it is an improved version of it. Theoretically this one has 40Mhz analog bandwidth.

Thanks!

[Fraser]

Walk away,,,,,

Sample frequency is 24MHz giving a true real time capability of 24/10 = 2.4Mhz. With lesser waveform accuracy, maybe 5MHz RT bandwidth. Hopeless for anything serious that a DSO would be used for. The DSO in these units tend to be an an 'added value' item and are not true DSO's like fully featured bench or portable units.

As to the price being asked....they are having a laugh. Take a look at prices on e*ay, these are very cheap there.

This is the same, or very similar to the SysClk unit that I purchased. On e*ay there are pictures of the internal PCBs. From memory, the SysClk is the better built of the two units. I would not either as your first or only DSO. I recommend that you buy a decent bench DSO and maybe a cheap chinese Logic analyser to see how useful it truly is to you.

Note that many of these units use what is effectively pirated software as they are clones of the USBEE product. The software user licence does not authorise use with such cloned units. They do work though. Just thought you should be aware in case it matters to you.

[a1976888]

Understood!

Actually I'm more interested in an osciloscope than a LA. Any chance to buy a "nice for beginner" one for about 50-60€?

Thanks again!

[alm]

The only good option for that price would be a used analog scope. See this video:


Any DSO under €250 or so (eg. DSO Nano, QDSO) is terrible. See for example these reviews by Dave and Mike.

[a1976888]

Seen the videos, I think you're right. I will go for a really really old scope! 

Thanks!