Which scope manufacturer provides the best user experience?

[TimNJ]

Hi all,

I'm on the market for a fairly inexpensive ($1k or less) scope. The current Rigol DS1054Z promotion at $350USD is almost irresistible, but after using a DS1104Z at work for a couple of months, I'm pretty turned off to buying a Rigol for myself. The on-screen UI feels cluttered, as does the layout of the front panel. And it's not the most responsive. I find myself getting frustrated trying to dial in the right settings.

Based on my experiences with a couple different scopes, I've been trying to determine how important having a good UI/UX is and how much I'm willing to pay for that. For example, Rohde & Schwarz scopes tend to have really polished UIs, but they are way more expensive. They do have a <$1k line (RTC1000) but technically speaking, a poor value. However, from a usability perspective, maybe it's really good? And maybe that's almost as important?

Which scopes do you think are the easiest, or rather least frustrating, to use?

[james_s]

If you ask a bunch of different people, you're likely to get as many responses as there are brands of scope. I like the Tektronix UI myself but that's very likely because it's what I'm most familiar with.

[TimNJ]

If you ask a bunch of different people, you're likely to get as many responses as there are brands of scope. I like the Tektronix UI myself but that's very likely because it's what I'm most familiar with.

This is true. Just curious if there were any general "themes" regarding usability. Visually, the Tek UI looks pretty antiquated, but that doesn't really bother me. They feel reasonably well thought out and responsive, in my opinion.

[nctnico]

In that price range I like the GW Instek because it has buttons horizontally and vertically. This means you don't have to dive into sub-menus. It also has sensible preset buttons. Another option is the touch-screen only MicSig tBook 1000 series. The user interface on the MicSig tBook has been designed for touch screen from the beginning so it works very well (unlike the touchscreen interfaces which where added as an afterthought and basically replace a mouse). A good touchscreen interface does more than a thousand buttons so to say.

[james_s]

Personally I hate touchscreens, I tolerate it on my phone because there's no room for a keyboard but I find most of them frequently fail to register my touches, and the fatal flaw that they get covered in fingerprints. That's a matter of personal preference though.

[nctnico]

I think you should reconsider touch screens. Just look at how babies and small children touch everything they see. A touch screen is a very natural way to operate a piece of equipment. Buttons and knobs are just crutches. I  BTW fingerprints aren't a problem at all (unless you are eating too much chocolate).

[TimNJ]

In that price range I like the GW Instek because it has buttons horizontally and vertically. This means you don't have to dive into sub-menus. It also has sensible preset buttons. Another option is the touch-screen only MicSig tBook 1000 series. The user interface on the MicSig tBook has been designed for touch screen from the beginning so it works very well (unlike the touchscreen interfaces which where added as an afterthought and basically replace a mouse). A good touchscreen interface does more than a thousand buttons so to say.

I've had a GWInstek GDS-2074E in my cart for about a week now. Too chicken to pull the trigger on it. In terms of user interface, it looks pretty good to me. Big reason I'm considering it. On the other hand, it is 3x price of Rigol. But, I feel that it is also just a better scope, when you look past the basic standard specs.

I forgot about Micsig. Gave 'em a look for the last hour or so. Implementation looks decent but not enough to make me consider it. I think the tactile feel is pretty important in the lab. However, if they got close to the level of Rohde & Schwarz RTB2000 or Tektronix 5 series MSO, then I might change my mind.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[james_s]

I think you should reconsider touch screens. Just look at how babies and small children touch everything they see. A touch screen is a very natural way to operate a piece of equipment. Buttons and knobs are just crutches. I  BTW fingerprints aren't a problem at all (unless you are eating too much chocolate).

It's not as if I've never used one, I use touchscreens every day, I have for many years, they're everywhere and virtually impossible to avoid. I've never liked them for the reasons I mention and I don't think that's likely to change, I'm not a baby or small child nor will I ever be again. As I said it's a matter of personal preference and my preference is strongly in favor of physical buttons and knobs. You are free to prefer touchscreens, that's fine, I won't judge you for it so long as you don't judge me for mine.

Even freshly washed hands leave fingerprints and smudges, our skin produces its own oil, no chocolate required. Perhaps you don't notice them but if you can devise a way to prevent them from appearing on touchscreens you could become rich. I'm one of those fastidious people who cannot stand the feel of having sticky/dirty hands so I was frequently and still I need to wipe the prints off my smartphone frequently.

[jjoonathan]

Whereas I like touch screens quite a bit. I like the interface on my micsig more than I ever liked the interface of my rigol, even though the killer feature is the battery that lets me take it away from the bench. If I wedge my arm in the kickstand I can "hold" it and still have two hands free 

[nanofrog]

I've had a GWInstek GDS-2074E in my cart for about a week now. Too chicken to pull the trigger on it. In terms of user interface, it looks pretty good to me. Big reason I'm considering it. On the other hand, it is 3x price of Rigol. But, I feel that it is also just a better scope, when you look past the basic standard specs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

I think GW Instek you have in the cart will have the best UI experience between the Asian brands.

FWIW, I own a DS1054Z and I find the sub-menus are a PITA. But that was the compromise I made when I bought it (been a few years).

[tautech]

In that price range I like the GW Instek because it has buttons horizontally and vertically. This means you don't have to dive into sub-menus. It also has sensible preset buttons. Another option is the touch-screen only MicSig tBook 1000 series. The user interface on the MicSig tBook has been designed for touch screen from the beginning so it works very well (unlike the touchscreen interfaces which where added as an afterthought and basically replace a mouse). A good touchscreen interface does more than a thousand buttons so to say.

I've had a GWInstek GDS-2074E in my cart for about a week now. Too chicken to pull the trigger on it. In terms of user interface, it looks pretty good to me. Big reason I'm considering it. On the other hand, it is 3x price of Rigol. But, I feel that it is also just a better scope, when you look past the basic standard specs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

So it seems you like a clean GUI with only the info you need and a snappier UI than what you've had so far.
The GW and the Siglent X-E's share the same processor and that does deliver a better user experience.

Does shared vertical controls agree with your workflow ?

[TimNJ]

In that price range I like the GW Instek because it has buttons horizontally and vertically. This means you don't have to dive into sub-menus. It also has sensible preset buttons. Another option is the touch-screen only MicSig tBook 1000 series. The user interface on the MicSig tBook has been designed for touch screen from the beginning so it works very well (unlike the touchscreen interfaces which where added as an afterthought and basically replace a mouse). A good touchscreen interface does more than a thousand buttons so to say.

I've had a GWInstek GDS-2074E in my cart for about a week now. Too chicken to pull the trigger on it. In terms of user interface, it looks pretty good to me. Big reason I'm considering it. On the other hand, it is 3x price of Rigol. But, I feel that it is also just a better scope, when you look past the basic standard specs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

So it seems you like a clean GUI with only the info you need and a snappier UI than what you've had so far.
The GW and the Siglent X-E's share the same processor and that does deliver a better user experience.

Does shared vertical controls agree with your workflow ?

Yeah that sounds about right! I don't think shared vertical controls is really a problem at all, as long as it makes sense.

Siglent SDS1000X-E does look pretty good now that I look at it...especially at $500USD.

[tautech]

In that price range I like the GW Instek because it has buttons horizontally and vertically. This means you don't have to dive into sub-menus. It also has sensible preset buttons. Another option is the touch-screen only MicSig tBook 1000 series. The user interface on the MicSig tBook has been designed for touch screen from the beginning so it works very well (unlike the touchscreen interfaces which where added as an afterthought and basically replace a mouse). A good touchscreen interface does more than a thousand buttons so to say.

I've had a GWInstek GDS-2074E in my cart for about a week now. Too chicken to pull the trigger on it. In terms of user interface, it looks pretty good to me. Big reason I'm considering it. On the other hand, it is 3x price of Rigol. But, I feel that it is also just a better scope, when you look past the basic standard specs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

So it seems you like a clean GUI with only the info you need and a snappier UI than what you've had so far.
The GW and the Siglent X-E's share the same processor and that does deliver a better user experience.

Does shared vertical controls agree with your workflow ?

Yeah that sounds about right! I don't think shared vertical controls is really a problem at all, as long as it makes sense.

Siglent SDS1000X-E does look pretty good now that I look at it...especially at $500USD.

Yes, SDS1104X-E is a sharp little DSO and it seems in your case shouldn't be overlooked.
Probably the best thread about them is the review by Performa01 where he's gone into them in great detail and there's more info in another thread by rf-loop.
Happy hunting. 

[tggzzz]

A touch screen is a very natural way to operate a piece of equipment.

... with significant disadvantages both in a car and on instruments.

In both cases you have to look at and concentrate on the screen, to make sure your fingers are in the right place and moving "correctly".
With cars, you should be looking out the windscreen.
With scopes, you probably want to watch as you hold/move probes on the UUT, and to look at the waveform when twiddling the timebase etc.

[JPortici]

I think you should reconsider touch screens. Just look at how babies and small children touch everything they see. A touch screen is a very natural way to operate a piece of equipment. Buttons and knobs are just crutches. I  BTW fingerprints aren't a problem at all (unless you are eating too much chocolate).

True dat.
I may be from the younger(-ish?) generation, but one of the best user experiences i had on scopes was from the keysight DSOX-3000T.
I almost felt at home using that scope, every function, on screen and menu based, was discovered naturally while trying to do things as i expected them to be.

I have also experienced the whole transition of touch screens from resisitive touch, to the first iphones, to the first android pieces of shit to the perfectly capable devices that are the cheap (~150€) smartphones we have today.

[james_s]

A touch screen is a very natural way to operate a piece of equipment.

... with significant disadvantages both in a car and on instruments.

In both cases you have to look at and concentrate on the screen, to make sure your fingers are in the right place and moving "correctly".
With cars, you should be looking out the windscreen.
With scopes, you probably want to watch as you hold/move probes on the UUT, and to look at the waveform when twiddling the timebase etc.

I could tolerate it on a scope if it were well done, still not as nice to me as real knobs and switches but whatever, not a big deal.

In a car a touchscreen is absolutely terrible. Condensation and gloves cause issues, and the biggest problem  is I can't operate one without looking at it. In a car I want tactile switches, buttons and sliders that I can operate purely by feel without taking my eyes off the road. I cannot imagine what someone was thinking burying functions in nested menus but whatever, that's off topic.

[nctnico]

A touch screen is a very natural way to operate a piece of equipment.

... with significant disadvantages both in a car and on instruments.

In both cases you have to look at and concentrate on the screen, to make sure your fingers are in the right place and moving "correctly".
With cars, you should be looking out the windscreen.
With scopes, you probably want to watch as you hold/move probes on the UUT, and to look at the waveform when twiddling the timebase etc.

The subject is obviously test equipment... not cars. Where your reasoning goes wrong is that the timebase knob is outside the field of focus of your eyes but the touchscreen isn't.

[bugi]

Where your reasoning goes wrong is that the timebase knob is outside the field of focus of your eyes but the touchscreen isn't.

Well, with the practical experience of trying to do adjustments on a touchscreen control while looking at that same touchscreen for the results (on a mobile phone and couple large tablets), I can say that a physical control devices win 10-0. Either the touchscreen control is still far enough away from what is being looked (even few cm is enough), or it is too close and hand/fingers cover the thing being looked.  This could of course be something that might be learned over time, but so far, few hours on touchscreen and I was still just as annoyed with the experience, vs. keyboard and mouse combo for the same was easy (but of course, been exercising mouse usage for 25years). Or using a knob on a scope was intuitive and easy after less than a minute of learning the sensitivity.

For that kind of activities, it is currently not even a contest.

Once the knob is between fingers, one typically does not have to look at the knob to make adjustments, but making changes on a touchscreen control will sooner or later end up with finger slipping off the control (and in worst case, on top of another control, messing things totally up). There are modern somewhat helpful software tweaks for that problem, though, but to expect the electronics/measurement industry to bother with them (yet) is quite the daydream, considering at how crappy level they still are (compared to e.g. the best experiences on mobile apps or PC software that have actually bothered to work properly on the usability), even on the expensive ones.  I guess it comes from the development cost distribution; when hardware development is so expensive, there isn't that much left for software, whereas mobile/PC software devs can put everything on just that software.


However, for actions like menu handling or selecting parameters from a list, a touchscreen is much more convenient, even without any touch feedback (as long as the visual response is "instant").

So, I'm fully expecting touchscreen scopes to become more common over time (considering that the touch layer is quite cheap thing these days), and hopefully softwares gets developed so that one can choose (on that same scope) whether to touch the screen or buttons/knobs, whichever happens to be more natural for the user and action.

[tggzzz]

A touch screen is a very natural way to operate a piece of equipment.

... with significant disadvantages both in a car and on instruments.

In both cases you have to look at and concentrate on the screen, to make sure your fingers are in the right place and moving "correctly".
With cars, you should be looking out the windscreen.
With scopes, you probably want to watch as you hold/move probes on the UUT, and to look at the waveform when twiddling the timebase etc.

The subject is obviously test equipment... not cars. Where your reasoning goes wrong is that the timebase knob is outside the field of focus of your eyes but the touchscreen isn't.

The problem manifest in cars is equally true with test equipment - and anything else where you need to adjust a control while simultaneously observing the effects.

Focus is a second-order issue.

More important is the surprisingly small area where we can hope to get 20/20 vision - the fovea centralis. This subtends a "massive" 5 degrees[1] of vision field. At arms length that translates to a 5cm diameter. Hence if you are looking at the touch control, you simply cannot be simultaneously looking at fine details in the trace.

That's not a problem with conventional controls - you don't need to look at your fingers when they twist a control.

[1] 5 degrees is a generous figure. FFI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis

[TimNJ]

If you are after a fast scope without the bells and whistles, consider Keysight 1000 series. Hack the unit to 100MHz (and guaranteed to lose warranty since it's a hardware hack) if you outgrow 50MHz, but for a general purpose home lab, 50MHz should be good.

I think Keysight 1000 is a solid entry level scope, and a good effort compared to the garbage Tek has to offer, but overall not the best value.

I’d expect two channels to be enough most of the time, but undoubtedly there will be times where 3 or 4 will come in handy. What does the Keysight have to offer that would make it a more attractive product compared to say, Siglent SDS1000X-E? Better firmware?

[TimNJ]

In that price range I like the GW Instek because it has buttons horizontally and vertically. This means you don't have to dive into sub-menus. It also has sensible preset buttons. Another option is the touch-screen only MicSig tBook 1000 series. The user interface on the MicSig tBook has been designed for touch screen from the beginning so it works very well (unlike the touchscreen interfaces which where added as an afterthought and basically replace a mouse). A good touchscreen interface does more than a thousand buttons so to say.

I've had a GWInstek GDS-2074E in my cart for about a week now. Too chicken to pull the trigger on it. In terms of user interface, it looks pretty good to me. Big reason I'm considering it. On the other hand, it is 3x price of Rigol. But, I feel that it is also just a better scope, when you look past the basic standard specs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

So it seems you like a clean GUI with only the info you need and a snappier UI than what you've had so far.
The GW and the Siglent X-E's share the same processor and that does deliver a better user experience.

Does shared vertical controls agree with your workflow ?

Yeah that sounds about right! I don't think shared vertical controls is really a problem at all, as long as it makes sense.

Siglent SDS1000X-E does look pretty good now that I look at it...especially at $500USD.

Yes, SDS1104X-E is a sharp little DSO and it seems in your case shouldn't be overlooked.
Probably the best thread about them is the review by Performa01 where he's gone into them in great detail and there's more info in another thread by rf-loop.
Happy hunting. 

Thanks for the suggestion. I’m going to do an in depth comparison between GWInstek GDS-2000E and Siglent SDS1000X-E. They seem very similar at first glance, in terms of general specifications. I’d like to figure out if theres any reason the GWInstek is over double the price of the Siglent.

I do feel that the GWInstek might have more solid/mature firmware at this point but that’s only a speculation.

[Fungus]

Siglent doesn't seem to have the best user interface, as noted here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1526209/#msg1526209

Basic things like turning on a measurement for a channel require you to go into a big text menu and select items from it using a twisty knob.

That's not a good UI paradigm.

[nctnico]

I do feel that the GWInstek might have more solid/mature firmware at this point but that’s only a speculation.

It is not speculation. GW Instek has better polished firmware and does better testing before releasing firmware. The GW Instek just works as advertised. Also the GW Instek has a seperate select button which is way better compared to a push & rotate button in one you find on many scopes.

[Bob Sava]

Personally I don't like Siglent's UI - not for how much time it takes to make a selection - but for inconsistencies on how GUI operates (cursors vs gated for example) and *most importantly* lack of indicators (feedback) on what features are currently on.  On the other hand, Siglent has hardware specs of scopes 2x price. 

When considering GW Instek keep in mind that they only have 10M memory which puts them behind Siglent and Rigol.

[tautech]

Thanks for the suggestion. I’m going to do an in depth comparison between GWInstek GDS-2000E and Siglent SDS1000X-E. They seem very similar at first glance, in terms of general specifications. I’d like to figure out if theres any reason the GWInstek is over double the price of the Siglent.

Did you overlook the GW has a bigger display and twice the sampling rate ?
Both these features are also available in the SDS2000X series models at comparable additional cost.

What you have to work with on the display is very important to some but each user has a different tolerance for clutter and information overload. Proficient scope users don't need their screen cluttered in measurements excepting for advanced measurements.

I quickly cobbled this screenshot together in an order to show how Siglent keep their display as tidy as possible and even with all the stuff actuated there's good use of what otherwise just looks like vacant space.

[TimNJ]

Thanks for the suggestion. I’m going to do an in depth comparison between GWInstek GDS-2000E and Siglent SDS1000X-E. They seem very similar at first glance, in terms of general specifications. I’d like to figure out if theres any reason the GWInstek is over double the price of the Siglent.

Did you overlook the GW has a bigger display and twice the sampling rate ?
Both these features are also available in the SDS2000X series models at comparable additional cost.

What you have to work with on the display is very important to some but each user has a different tolerance for clutter and information overload. Proficient scope users don't need their screen cluttered in measurements excepting for advanced measurements.

I quickly cobbled this screenshot together in an order to show how Siglent keep their display as tidy as possible and even with all the stuff actuated there's good use of what otherwise just looks like vacant space.

Totally aware of the bigger screen. Surprising what difference an extra inch makes. But what’s this about the sampling rate? I thought they were both 1GSa/s (max). Does the Instek not lose sampling rate as more channels are turned on.

My main scope at work is actually a Siglent SDS2104X. I don’t have too many complaints about it. Definitely better than the Rigol, in my opinion.

Thanks for your help and input.

[TimNJ]

I do feel that the GWInstek might have more solid/mature firmware at this point but that’s only a speculation.

It is not speculation. GW Instek has better polished firmware and does better testing before releasing firmware. The GW Instek just works as advertised. Also the GW Instek has a seperate select button which is way better compared to a push & rotate button in one you find on many scopes.

As ridiculous as this sounds, the fact that the GW Instek has a normal select button instead of that horribly unreliable pushable encoder thing, is a big advantage in my mind. The pushable knobs are fine to reset vertical or horizontal position but not on a selector knob! Why did everyone start doing that..

I’ve been really intrigued by the GW Instek ever since I saw it, and I’m surprised more people don’t talk about it around here.

[TimNJ]

I guess ultimately the question is: “Is it worth paying $500 more for a few UI/UX improvements?”

That’s a question only I can decide. It’s tough to put a price on those things.

[tautech]

But what’s this about the sampling rate? I thought they were both 1GSa/s (max). Does the Instek not lose sampling rate as more channels are turned on.

The 4ch GW has the same ADC layout as SDS2004X; 2x 2GSa/s ADC's that offer 2GSa/s with 1 channel active on each ADC or 1GSa when all channels are active. What the GW lacks vs SDS2000X models is significantly less memory.

In case you'd missed it for SDS1004X-E, they have the same dual ADC configuration but the memory setup is a little different. They have two blocks of 14 MPts, one for each ADC.

Totally aware of the bigger screen. Surprising what difference an extra inch makes.

Yep, if you were to use it all day you'd want the bigger display.
Still the background, fonts and trace colors of the little Siglent offer enough contrast that you can still use it in bright sunlight.
Happy hunting.

BTW, just seen your other comments.
Next week when you're in front of your SDS2104X, yank the Multipurpose knob off and fit one of the bigger ones from elsewhere on the front panel. 
Really the factory should've made that simple and easy improvement by now. 

[bugi]

Next week when you're in front of your SDS2104X, yank the Multipurpose knob off and fit one of the bigger ones from elsewhere on the front panel. 
Really the factory should've made that simple and easy improvement by now. 

O.o so simple?!?  I wonder if some seller would sell spare knobs for those (so no need to replace another from the panel)... (I'd also buy couple full encoders/whatever they use, as couple of mine are giving a nasty sound/feel while rotating, so for a future almost certain to happen self-repair...)

[TimNJ]

But what’s this about the sampling rate? I thought they were both 1GSa/s (max). Does the Instek not lose sampling rate as more channels are turned on.

The 4ch GW has the same ADC layout as SDS2004X; 2x 2GSa/s ADC's that offer 2GSa/s with 1 channel active on each ADC or 1GSa when all channels are active. What the GW lacks vs SDS2000X models is significantly less memory.

In case you'd missed it for SDS1004X-E, they have the same dual ADC configuration but the memory setup is a little different. They have two blocks of 14 MPts, one for each ADC.

Totally aware of the bigger screen. Surprising what difference an extra inch makes.

[emoji4]
Yep, if you were to use it all day you'd want the bigger display.
Still the background, fonts and trace colors of the little Siglent offer enough contrast that you can still use it in bright sunlight.
Happy hunting.

BTW, just seen your other comments.
Next week when you're in front of your SDS2104X, yank the Multipurpose knob off and fit one of the bigger ones from elsewhere on the front panel.  [emoji6]
Really the factory should've made that simple and easy improvement by now.  [emoji57]

Ah thanks. Then I guess my SDS1000X-E vs GDS-2000E comparison is not quite apples to apples. Perhaps SDS2000X is more appropriate to compare. The memory depth on the SDS2000X is quite insane but also horrendously slow when trying to move around/examine a captured waveform. Good feature to have though.

Thanks again. I feel like I’m leaning towards the GW Instek. (Almost out of need to satisfy my own curiosity about it.) Also, I’ve read that GW Instek is very good about updating firmware and responding to customer concerns.

[apblog]

Although I *love* my Keysight 3000T, I agree that the 1000 series isn't a great value compared to the GW Instek.

I agree that the GWI is probably better than the Siglent.  I've head nothing but bad things about Siglent firmware and my own experiences bear that out. 

Keep in mind too that the GWI 2000E is supposed to have a *fantastic* FFT.  I'm actually thinking about buying one to supplement my 3000T, just for the 1Mpoint FFT capability.  You should look into that yourself to confirm that I'm thinking of the right model, I can't seem to get to the GWI website right now.

[Fungus]

As ridiculous as this sounds, the fact that the GW Instek has a normal select button instead of that horribly unreliable pushable encoder thing, is a big advantage in my mind.

I agree 100%.

FWIW I also think most oscilloscopes could do with a redesign in the UI area, starting with the overuse of the encoder knob.

[Bob Sava]

GW Instek 1000B: "really horrible to use":

@10:30

[TimNJ]

Although I *love* my Keysight 3000T, I agree that the 1000 series isn't a great value compared to the GW Instek.

I agree that the GWI is probably better than the Siglent.  I've head nothing but bad things about Siglent firmware and my own experiences bear that out. 

Keep in mind too that the GWI 2000E is supposed to have a *fantastic* FFT.  I'm actually thinking about buying one to supplement my 3000T, just for the 1Mpoint FFT capability.  You should look into that yourself to confirm that I'm thinking of the right model, I can't seem to get to the GWI website right now.

Yes GDS-1000E, and even GDS-1000B (the little brother) have 1MPt FFT which looks like it could be surprisingly useful. Dave showed it working on a 1000B in some video. That said, the baby Siglent 1000X-E also has 1MPt FFT. Of course, that number is only part of the FFT story. Performa01’s review of the Siglent seems to imply that the performance was pretty good.

[TimNJ]

GW Instek 1000B: "really horrible to use":

@10:30

Ah yes, that’s the video. Hmm that’s too bad. It’s definitely running old firmware. I wonder it anything has changed. Should also be noted that the other scopes are much more expensive, save the Rigol whose FFT is utterly useless.

Maybe the Siglent has a better FFT after all!

[lem_ix]

Touch really shines for inputting digital triggers, maths, etc. It's a pain with the knob. I'd personally go for the Instek, currently have a R&S which is nice but as you said expensive.

[apblog]

Yes GDS-1000E, and even GDS-1000B (the little brother) have 1MPt FFT which looks like it could be surprisingly useful. Dave showed it working on a 1000B in some video. That said, the baby Siglent 1000X-E also has 1MPt FFT. Of course, that number is only part of the FFT story. Performa01’s review of the Siglent seems to imply that the performance was pretty good.

Yes, FFT is very useful.

One big factor for me is the speed at which it updates.  The Keysight only updates at a little faster than once per second,
best case. 

If I remember the video on the GWI FFT right, it was updating much faster.

Keep in mind that most of the time you will be averaging the FFT to lower the noise and see the signals.   I was recently using the Keysight FFT with 8x averaging to track down some noise interference problems, and there was no way I was ever going to see the 200ms noise burst like that.

[nctnico]

GW Instek 1000B: "really horrible to use":

That is Dave's opinion and he just doesn't like GW Instek for some reason. If you have tried to drive FFT on other scopes to get a real measurement done you'll quickly realise that the GW Instek's user interface is actually pretty good (and simple) in comparison.

[apblog]

I finally was able to access the GWI site. The MDO-2000E series is the GWI scope that I was thinking of, the one with the really nice FFT.

I wouldn't bother getting the built in power supply or AWG though, unless they are super cheap options.

[TimNJ]

I finally was able to access the GWI site. The MDO-2000E series is the GWI scope that I was thinking of, the one with the really nice FFT.

I wouldn't bother getting the built in power supply or AWG though, unless they are super cheap options.

I was under the impression that the FFT function was essentially the same between GDS-1000B, GDS-2000E, MSO, and MDO lines. No?

[nctnico]

No, for some reason GW Instek choose to make a seperate MDO2000 model which has a more fancy FFT.

[TimNJ]

No, for some reason GW Instek choose to make a seperate MDO2000 model which has a more fancy FFT.

Ah thanks for clarification. That’s interesting and a bit disappointing. Now to check pricing on MDO line..

[TimNJ]

$1400USD for MDO. $1150 for GDS. Includes AWG and advanced FFT/SA features.

That’s honestly not that bad for $250 more considering your average run of the mill AWG is between $200-300. And my current function generator is a 2MHz max analog GW Instek. Not sure how I feel about AWG embedded in the scope though.

[tautech]

GW Instek 1000B: "really horrible to use":

@10:30

Ah yes, that’s the video. Hmm that’s too bad. It’s definitely running old firmware. I wonder it anything has changed. Should also be noted that the other scopes are much more expensive, save the Rigol whose FFT is utterly useless.

Maybe the Siglent has a better FFT after all!

A quick look at SDS1004X-E FFT is @~6.45 in this vid:
https://youtu.be/Cwbwq-AKbPc

[TimNJ]

GW Instek 1000B: "really horrible to use":

@10:30

Ah yes, that’s the video. Hmm that’s too bad. It’s definitely running old firmware. I wonder it anything has changed. Should also be noted that the other scopes are much more expensive, save the Rigol whose FFT is utterly useless.

Maybe the Siglent has a better FFT after all!

A quick look at SDS1004X-E FFT is @~6.45 in this vid:
https://youtu.be/Cwbwq-AKbPc

Seems pretty good on the Siglent. I have only used scope FFT a handful of times, though, so I’m not sure what makes one FFT implementation better than another. Maybe you have an opinion on that?

[tautech]

Seems pretty good on the Siglent. I have only used scope FFT a handful of times, though, so I’m not sure what makes one FFT implementation better than another. Maybe you have an opinion on that?

C'mon, you know I've an opinion on everything. 

Simply it's just the processor's capability of crunching the data for FFT especially if you're comparing anything with older processors to these in the GW and X-E.

At one time I only had a DSO's to do FFT's and even before the X-E's none of the earlier Siglents were anything flash just as your 2104X at work is pretty ordinary but does the job. X-E's leave the older Siglents behind in this respect.
But now I have a spectrum analyser for this and you have a much much wider range of control over any of the input and display parameters.

You could if you wish dream up an FFT that you'd like to see and I'm sure some members can offer some DSO FFT screenshots.

I think you're almost at the point where you have to decide to address your curiosity or stick with a GUI/UI you already know reasonably well.

[TimNJ]

Seems pretty good on the Siglent. I have only used scope FFT a handful of times, though, so I’m not sure what makes one FFT implementation better than another. Maybe you have an opinion on that?

C'mon, you know I've an opinion on everything. 

Simply it's just the processor's capability of crunching the data for FFT especially if you're comparing anything with older processors to these in the GW and X-E.

At one time I only had a DSO's to do FFT's and even before the X-E's none of the earlier Siglents were anything flash just as your 2104X at work is pretty ordinary but does the job. X-E's leave the older Siglents behind in this respect.
But now I have a spectrum analyser for this and you have a much much wider range of control over any of the input and display parameters.

You could if you wish dream up an FFT that you'd like to see and I'm sure some members can offer some DSO FFT screenshots.

I think you're almost at the point where you have to decide to address your curiosity or stick with a GUI/UI you already know reasonably well.

Right. I understand the computational demands of FFT, but was just thinking about some of Dave's comments on usability of the FFT function in his roundup. Then again, I have learned to take Dave's opinions with a grain of salt. Additionally, FFT isn't the main priority here and regardless, it will be usable on either of these scopes. If I wind up needing a better frequency spectrum analysis tool in the future, I'll probably just buy a DSA. Thanks. Now time to make a decision.

[TimNJ]

Pulled the trigger on the GW Instek GDS-2074E.

Definitely had some last minute second thoughts, but am hoping that any sense of buyer's remorse/regret will evaporate once I begin to actually use the scope.

Thanks everyone for your input over the last couple of days. I'll keep you all posted. What is anyone interested in knowing about this scope? I can try my best to provide screenshots, explanations, etc.

[Fungus]

That is Dave's opinion and he just doesn't like GW Instek for some reason.

Dave junior is a fan though. 

[Bob Sava]

Definitely had some last minute second thoughts, but am hoping that any sense of buyer's remorse/regret will evaporate once I begin to actually use the scope.

Sounds like your first hand experience with Rigol and Siglent made you look elsewhere. 

[TimNJ]

That is Dave's opinion and he just doesn't like GW Instek for some reason.

Dave junior is a fan though. 

How do you know that?

[TimNJ]

Definitely had some last minute second thoughts, but am hoping that any sense of buyer's remorse/regret will evaporate once I begin to actually use the scope.

Sounds like your first hand experience with Rigol and Siglent made you look elsewhere.

Something like that. That said, while I really don't like Rigol's approach, Siglent isn't half bad. But, Siglent is definitely still a little quirky. I'm not saying that GWInstek will be the answer to all of my problems, but I thought it  was at least worthy of a shot.

[akimmet]

I have a GW Instek GDS-1102B, and the UI is far better than the Rigol DS1054Z I demoed.
The frustrating UI on the Rigol was the main reason for getting the Instek scope over the Rigol.

Since my purchase there have been newer models that are probably better choices than the Instek.
If I needed to get a new scope today, I would probably spend the extra for the newer Keysight DSOX1102G.

[Fungus]

Dave junior is a fan though. 

How do you know that?

Because he said so:


nb. Be sure to watch all the way through.

[TimNJ]

I have a GW Instek GDS-1102B, and the UI is far better than the Rigol DS1054Z I demoed.
The frustrating UI on the Rigol was the main reason for getting the Instek scope over the Rigol.

Since my purchase there have been newer models that are probably better choices than the Instek.
If I needed to get a new scope today, I would probably spend the extra for the newer Keysight DSOX1102G.

That's interesting. The only advantage I see the DSOX1102G would have over the GDS-1102B is optional serial decode (for an extra $150-300) and sampling rate. What do you see in the Keysight that you like, in particular?

GW Instek is like half the price. You do get 2x max sampling rate on Keysight, but only 1Mpt memory, compared to 10Mpt on GW Instek. I think 1Mpt is just too small these days, but maybe that's just my own experience.

[akimmet]

I have a GW Instek GDS-1102B, and the UI is far better than the Rigol DS1054Z I demoed.
The frustrating UI on the Rigol was the main reason for getting the Instek scope over the Rigol.

Since my purchase there have been newer models that are probably better choices than the Instek.
If I needed to get a new scope today, I would probably spend the extra for the newer Keysight DSOX1102G.

That's interesting. The only advantage I see the DSOX1102G would have over the GDS-1102B is optional serial decode (for an extra $150-300) and sampling rate. What do you see in the Keysight that you like, in particular?

GW Instek is like half the price. You do get 2x max sampling rate on Keysight, but only 1Mpt memory, compared to 10Mpt on GW Instek. I think 1Mpt is just too small these days, but maybe that's just my own experience.

Mostly for the built-in signal generator, and segmented memory. I was also impressed by some of the videos that show how fast the UI is.

[TimNJ]

I have a GW Instek GDS-1102B, and the UI is far better than the Rigol DS1054Z I demoed.
The frustrating UI on the Rigol was the main reason for getting the Instek scope over the Rigol.

Since my purchase there have been newer models that are probably better choices than the Instek.
If I needed to get a new scope today, I would probably spend the extra for the newer Keysight DSOX1102G.

That's interesting. The only advantage I see the DSOX1102G would have over the GDS-1102B is optional serial decode (for an extra $150-300) and sampling rate. What do you see in the Keysight that you like, in particular?

GW Instek is like half the price. You do get 2x max sampling rate on Keysight, but only 1Mpt memory, compared to 10Mpt on GW Instek. I think 1Mpt is just too small these days, but maybe that's just my own experience.

Mostly for the built-in signal generator, and segmented memory. I was also impressed by some of the videos that show how fast the UI is.

Oh right I forgot it has a wave gen. Yeah, that does make the Keysight a bit more appealing, for sure.

Do you find the UI of GW Instek slow? (A little late for me now!)

[nctnico]

A build-in wavegen is usually very expensive and limited compared to an external one.

[akimmet]

Do you find the UI of GW Instek slow? (A little late for me now!)

The GW Instek is by no means slow, they are far more responsive than the Rigols I have tried. Only that the Keysight scopes seem to have the most responsive UI in the entry level model range.

[TimNJ]

Just wanted to share a few of the alternatives I was considering.

My main requirements were:
1.) A user interface that doesn't make me want to light myself on fire
3.) Good overall performance + serial decode
2.) Relatively inexpensive (around $1,000USD or less, June 2018)

From a technical perspective, the GW Instek GDS-2000E is the best, but the Siglent isn't too far off. Siglent appears to be a great value, but I wanted a more "finished" product, one with fewer bugs/quirks. Ultimately, I bought the GW Instek in the hope that I would "enjoy" using it more. That's a hard thing to assign a monetary value to, I know. I'll let you all know if I think it was worth it, compared to my experiences with Rigol and Siglent at work.

See below table.

Also, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is buying a Tektronix DPO2000B ? ? ? ?

Edit: Removed table. Will re-upload with corrections and improvements.

[tautech]

Couple of errors there WRT sampling rate with all channels on. 

[TimNJ]

Couple of errors there WRT sampling rate with all channels on. 

Which ones? I thought I had those all figured out. Thanks.

EDIT: Ah, Siglent SDS1000X-E is 500MSa/s with all 4 channels, isn't it..

[tautech]

Couple of errors there WRT sampling rate with all channels on. 

Which ones? I thought I had those all figured out. Thanks.

EDIT: Ah, Siglent SDS1000X-E is 500MSa/s with all 4 channels, isn't it..

Plus any others that run 1 GSa/s processors for all 4 channels. Do they use one or two ?
DSO architecture has a few traps for the unwary.......another, total memory and how it's divided up with all channels active. What do the data sheets say and what don't they say. 
Another; Trigger path, digital or analogue.

[TimNJ]

Couple of errors there WRT sampling rate with all channels on. 

Which ones? I thought I had those all figured out. Thanks.

EDIT: Ah, Siglent SDS1000X-E is 500MSa/s with all 4 channels, isn't it..

Plus any others that run 1 GSa/s processors for all 4 channels. Do they use one or two ?
DSO architecture has a few traps for the unwary.......another, total memory and how it's divided up with all channels active. What do the data sheets say and what don't they say. 
Another; Trigger path, digital or analogue.

Yeah. As I was sifting through the datasheets for these scopes, I noticed quite a bit of ambiguity. I guess every manufacturer wants to say "We have a 1GSa/s/ch oscilloscope!!" but exactly what that means in each case is kind of unknown. Makes these kinds of comparisons tricky, if not misleading. But it's the best I can do.

[bugi]

Also difficult to compare 2 vs 4 channel scopes in the same sheet; to be fair, the 4 channels should have only the best combination of two channels enabled to compare against 2 channel scopes. Typically the sample rates and memories can then 2x better. But in that case mentioning the 4 channels (of two would not be in use) would be misleading. Yep, almost all such parameters would need own rows in the sheet like "2 channel performance" and "4 channel performance", and the latter row would just have "N/A" for the 2-channel scopes.

[rf-loop]

Just wanted to share a few of the alternatives I was considering.

My main requirements were:
1.) A user interface that doesn't make me want to light myself on fire
3.) Good overall performance + serial decode
2.) Relatively inexpensive (around $1,000USD or less, June 2018)

From a technical perspective, the GW Instek GDS-2000E is the best, but the Siglent isn't too far off. Siglent appears to be a great value, but I wanted a more "finished" product, one with fewer bugs/quirks. Ultimately, I bought the GW Instek in the hope that I would "enjoy" using it more. That's a hard thing to assign a monetary value to, I know. I'll let you all know if I think it was worth it, compared to my experiences with Rigol and Siglent at work.

Also, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is buying a Tektronix DPO2000B ? ? ? ?

This table have some errors. Why do table without any facts check. This is like trumpth, not truth.

Some have corrected Siglent what also was bullshit in original table. It have 2 ADC and 2 14M memory.
2 pcs 2 channel groups. Both have shared 1GSa/s ADC and 14M memory.

So it 1GSa 14M for one channel but also
1GSa/s  simultaneously for 2 channels with 14M fore both channel.
If more than 2 channels is in use then all channels have max 500MSa/s and 7M

But then GoodWill  GDS1000B (4channel model)
It have ONE Hittite HMCAD1511 ADC and for all channels on simultaneously it really can not 1GSa/s for all channels. Impossible.
So, it can max 1GSa/s for 1 channel in use.
If two channels are in use simultaneously it can max 500MSa/s
If more than 2 chanels in use it can do max 250MSa/s   Why you write 1GSa/s?
I do not know how this 10M memory is arranged.

GDS2000E, do it really have 4pcs 1GSa/s ADC?
How is memory shared if not fully separate ADC's?

Yes I know GoodWill do not tell it clearly in any place what I have read. Why they shame truth - I do not know.

As far as I know GDS2000E use  2 pcs  2x500MSa/s ADC !  (ADC08DL502)
How mem is arraged so that it have 10M for all channels simultaneously, I really do not know is it or not.
But one is sure, it do NOT have 1GSa/s for all channels simultaneously in use. Simply, it is technically impossible. So why you write it have 1GSa/s for all cnhannels on simultaneously? (even GW do not claim it when read carefully)

What other thigs are wrong in table, I have not time for more Fact-checking.

[nctnico]

No need to get your panties in a bunch. GDS2000E has 500Ms/s with 4 channels enabled and 10Mpts per channel with 4 channels enabled. In segmented mode the GDS2000E has 20Mpts of memory per channel available.

[tautech]

GDS2000E has 500Ms/s with 4 channels enabled and 10Mpts per channel with 4 channels enabled. In segmented mode the GDS2000E has 20Mpts of memory per channel available.

Well, yes you will know. Thanks.
So double the price for an 8" display and 3 more Mpts/channel than X-E?
Hmmmm.

[nctnico]

GDS2000E has 500Ms/s with 4 channels enabled and 10Mpts per channel with 4 channels enabled. In segmented mode the GDS2000E has 20Mpts of memory per channel available.

Well, yes you will know. Thanks.
So double the price for an 8" display and 3 more Mpts/channel than X-E?
Hmmmm.

Don't forget firmware which works as advertised  Specs on paper are just that... specs on paper. I originally bought my GDS2204E as an experiment to have a bring-along scope in case I need a scope at a customer. It ended up replacing a rather expensive Agilent scope because it turned out to have less noise and being easier to operate.

[rf-loop]

In SDS1104X-E fast seqmented mode (what GoodWill 2kE do not even have) max memory per channel is 27M. (just cheked one example, 4channel on, each channel 3912 segment, each segments length is 7kpts = 4x 27384000 sample points ) Siglent normal mode waveform history buffer (always backround, works more like GW segmented acquisition using normal acquisition speed, up to measured 118kwfm/s continuous average and 128kwfm/s max peak. These are not data sheet values, these are true measured values)  (1ch in use, 50ns/div)
I have never seen true measured facts about GW speed.

Max segments 4x 80000, max quaranteed acquisition speed is up to measured well over 450000 segment/s (measured) and conservative value in data data sheet 400kwfm/s). (if compare to Keysight... trigger rearm 19us, max 50 segments joke....)
Also Siglent 3 channel 500 data point SFRA useability for serious work is far over Keysight (and GoodWill)

[Bob Sava]

@TimNJ could you compare analog stages between the three scopes, specifically how they handle signal distortion at high gain as explained here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/msg1533101/#msg1533101

[TimNJ]

This table have some errors. Why do table without any facts check. This is like trumpth, not truth.

Some have corrected Siglent what also was bullshit in original table. It have 2 ADC and 2 14M memory.
2 pcs 2 channel groups. Both have shared 1GSa/s ADC and 14M memory.

So it 1GSa 14M for one channel but also
1GSa/s  simultaneously for 2 channels with 14M fore both channel.
If more than 2 channels is in use then all channels have max 500MSa/s and 7M

But then GoodWill  GDS1000B (4channel model)
It have ONE Hittite HMCAD1511 ADC and for all channels on simultaneously it really can not 1GSa/s for all channels. Impossible.
So, it can max 1GSa/s for 1 channel in use.
If two channels are in use simultaneously it can max 500MSa/s
If more than 2 chanels in use it can do max 250MSa/s   Why you write 1GSa/s?
I do not know how this 10M memory is arranged.

GDS2000E, do it really have 4pcs 1GSa/s ADC?
How is memory shared if not fully separate ADC's?

Yes I know GoodWill do not tell it clearly in any place what I have read. Why they shame truth - I do not know.

As far as I know GDS2000E use  2 pcs  2x500MSa/s ADC !  (ADC08DL502)
How mem is arraged so that it have 10M for all channels simultaneously, I really do not know is it or not.
But one is sure, it do NOT have 1GSa/s for all channels simultaneously in use. Simply, it is technically impossible. So why you write it have 1GSa/s for all cnhannels on simultaneously? (even GW do not claim it when read carefully)

What other thigs are wrong in table, I have not time for more Fact-checking.

rf-loop,

Thank you for pointing out these errors. These were the specs I extracted from a "datasheet analysis" of the scopes. I guess I was ignorant to some of the subtleties of scope architecture and the possible differences between scopes which look the same on paper. In my defense, the numbers on the table are what the specifications seem to imply. But alas, not necessarily the whole truth.

I did not intend to mislead, and will of course fix any and all mistakes. We fix each other's mistakes all the time on this forum.

[rf-loop]

This table have some errors. Why do table without any facts check. This is like trumpth, not truth.

Some have corrected Siglent what also was bullshit in original table. It have 2 ADC and 2 14M memory.
2 pcs 2 channel groups. Both have shared 1GSa/s ADC and 14M memory.

So it 1GSa 14M for one channel but also
1GSa/s  simultaneously for 2 channels with 14M fore both channel.
If more than 2 channels is in use then all channels have max 500MSa/s and 7M

But then GoodWill  GDS1000B (4channel model)
It have ONE Hittite HMCAD1511 ADC and for all channels on simultaneously it really can not 1GSa/s for all channels. Impossible.
So, it can max 1GSa/s for 1 channel in use.
If two channels are in use simultaneously it can max 500MSa/s
If more than 2 chanels in use it can do max 250MSa/s   Why you write 1GSa/s?
I do not know how this 10M memory is arranged.

GDS2000E, do it really have 4pcs 1GSa/s ADC?
How is memory shared if not fully separate ADC's?

Yes I know GoodWill do not tell it clearly in any place what I have read. Why they shame truth - I do not know.

As far as I know GDS2000E use  2 pcs  2x500MSa/s ADC !  (ADC08DL502)
How mem is arraged so that it have 10M for all channels simultaneously, I really do not know is it or not.
But one is sure, it do NOT have 1GSa/s for all channels simultaneously in use. Simply, it is technically impossible. So why you write it have 1GSa/s for all cnhannels on simultaneously? (even GW do not claim it when read carefully)

What other thigs are wrong in table, I have not time for more Fact-checking.

rf-loop,

Thank you for pointing out these errors. These were the specs I extracted from a "datasheet analysis" of the scopes. I guess I was ignorant to some of the subtleties of scope architecture and the possible differences between scopes which look the same on paper. In my defense, the numbers on the table are what the specifications seem to imply. But alas, not necessarily the whole truth.

I did not intend to mislead, and will of course fix any and all mistakes. We fix each other's mistakes all the time on this forum.

Yes, there is really many traps if only read manufacturers data sheets and advertisements. Finding truth need some times lot of investigations if can not take equipment on table and test in real life. Some manufactures hide more than others. Sad, we are out from time when documents was nearly perfect if take example old Hewlett-Packard and old time Tektronix where nearly every detailed things was explained with deep details.
 

[TimNJ]

Okay, I am fairly certain this is correct. Please correct me if there are any other glaring errors.

This table probably isn't of much use to anyone, but I'll just leave it here anyway

[nctnico]

AFAIK the 200MHz GDS2204E is only tens of dollars more expensive than the GDS2104E. It doesn't make much sense to buy the 100MHz version of the GDS2000E.

[TimNJ]

AFAIK the 200MHz GDS2204E is only tens of dollars more expensive than the GDS2104E. It doesn't make much sense to buy the 100MHz version of the GDS2000E.

Hmm all of the places I’ve looked have it listed for approximately $200 more.

[CC555]

Just wanted to share a few of the alternatives I was considering.

My main requirements were:
1.) A user interface that doesn't make me want to light myself on fire
3.) Good overall performance + serial decode
2.) Relatively inexpensive (around $1,000USD or less, June 2018)

I like my gds2204 but I am not happy with its serial decoders:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/msg1381102/#msg1381102

[TimNJ]

Just wanted to share a few of the alternatives I was considering.

My main requirements were:
1.) A user interface that doesn't make me want to light myself on fire
3.) Good overall performance + serial decode
2.) Relatively inexpensive (around $1,000USD or less, June 2018)

I like my gds2204 but I am not happy with its serial decoders:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/msg1381102/#msg1381102

Hmm that's too bad. I seemed to have missed that concern. Hopefully, there will be a firmware update for that. Kind of goes against the whole "GWInstek: It just plain works" mantra though.