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.
That is Dave's opinion and he just doesn't like GW Instek for some reason.
Dave junior is a fan though.
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.
Dave junior is a fan though.How do you know that?
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.
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.
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.
Do you find the UI of GW Instek slow? (A little late for me now!)
Couple of errors there WRT sampling rate with all channels on.
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..
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.
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 ? ? ? ?
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.
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.
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.
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.