REVIEW - Siglent SDS2000 series - A Comparison of Features with Rigol DS2000 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 10:11:01 am
content: Table of contents:00:00:00: Unpacking00:05:04: Initial impressions of look/feel, boot-up, and display00:08:01: Some thoughts on physical layout00:12:40: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Measurement features00:16:28: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Cursor features00:19:26: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Trigger packages00:22:58: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Math features00:25:54: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Delayed Sweep00:29:25: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Pass/Fail utility00:31:24: Color temperature grading00:32:33: Frame (Segment) playback: history mode00:37:02: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Manual and automatic frame playback00:39:07: Frame (Segment) recording: acquire mode00:44:15: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Frame analysis00:48:10: Bug involving waveform update rate00:49:01: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Bus decoding (I2C)00:59:45: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Bus decoding on recorded frames (segments)01:02:12: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Trigger Out delay and jitter01:03:55: Bug (?) involving sin(x)/x - linear interpolation01:05:12: Table of waveform update rates using vectors01:10:41: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Waveform update rates @ 1ns/2ns/5ns/10ns01:12:48: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Waveform update rates @ 200ns/500ns/1us/2us/5us01:13:48: Comparison with Rigol DS2000 = Waveform intensity adjustment01:14:25: Intensity grading anomalies01:17:55: Final thoughts(Siglent FW: 1.1.1.35.1 - HW: 5.3 / Rigol FW: 3.0.1.3 - HW: 1.0.1.0.0)EDIT:Here's an expanded (and modified) version of the vector waveform update chart that appears in the video:EDIT:Here's a very quick table I made (there might be errors) of the Siglent's frame capturing speeds (when not displaying the waveform). They're quite impressive, especially when set to linear interpolation. The problem, as mentioned in the video, is that Siglent still hasn't created reasonable tools for (at a minimum) moving around and examining large amounts of recorded frames - or better still, pass/fail or some other kind of an analysis routine:

author: Ivan7enych
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 02:09:44 pm
content: Great review!It would be interesting to test and compare FFT function, frame rate, averaging options (if any).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 02:34:14 pm
content: Quote from: Ivan7enych on August 21, 2014, 02:09:44 pmThanks!I mention in the video that the FFT features seem completely identical to those of the Rigol - when I tested it I couldn't see any difference, so I left it out.I'm not quite sure what you mean precisely with frame rate and averaging options:Do you mean the rate that the Siglent can capture frames? If so, it will be faster than the waveform update rate at each timebase since the DSO doesn't display frames as they are captured (300k is the advertised fastest speed). It's possible that it's already been measured by someone else and posted, but if you give me an idea of what you'd like to know, I can check it.Do you mean averaging measurements (in statistics)?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 02:47:11 pm
content: Can you post a summary in text? Watching a >one hour video is a bit long for that.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 03:18:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 21, 2014, 02:47:11 pmThat's why there's a table of contents - you can just look at the portions that are of interest to you.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 05:14:35 pm
content: I lack the attention span for listening to everything so I probably skip over the part I'm interested inTry to cut that video down to 5 minutes.

author: Teneyes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 06:03:10 pm
content: Great review, and a fair unbiased discussion. I always learn new features to use from your Reviews.Thanks , I hope you get to used the Siglent a bit more.Interesting that Decoding of recorded segments is not included in the Siglent, almost looks like reverse engineering of the earlier Rigol firmware before the bugs were fixed.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 06:15:00 pm
content: waveform update ratesSDS2304(in this test FW version was 1.1.1.26.5 what is today totally obsolete)

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 06:25:25 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on August 21, 2014, 06:15:00 pmMy table is comparing the waveform update rates between the two DSOs while using vectors, not dots. Update rates while using dots are substantially higher at some timebases.

author: Ivan7enych
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 07:05:22 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 21, 2014, 02:34:14 pmI have FFT averaging in old TEC, it makes FFT noise floor much lower.Here is simple comparison, triangle signal 10mV peak-to-peak is passed via BNC-BNC cable from signal generator to one oscilloscope, than to another.TEC no averaging - 4-5 harmonics are visible above noiseTEC with 8x averaging - 8 harmonics are visibleRigol 2072 - 4-5 harmonics are visibleIf Rigol have at least 10240points FFT window (instead of 2048 regardless mem depth setting), it will have much better resolution and accuracy. But now it looks like a toy, not a useful feature. That's why I'm asking how it is going on Siglent.I mean FFT graph update framerate, in TEC it is 1-2 frames pes second, in rigol - 3-4 frames/s

author: W7NGA
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2014, 08:22:31 pm
content: marmad,after watching your insightful and in-depth review I felt compelled to say thank you and let you know it is greatly appreciated.daniel W7NGAMSEE, Stanford University

author: Siglent
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 02:02:56 am
content: marmad, thanks for the review! It is helpful.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 04:03:13 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 21, 2014, 02:47:11 pmWorth the watch though.@marmadMany questions revealed and answered.You should be congratulated for your impartial and honest review.Could we ask, how long did this review take? hours, days, weeks?

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 04:17:11 am
content: Quote from: marmad on August 21, 2014, 06:25:25 pmIn normal use and if want catch glitches, what is main reason for want fast waveform update rates, there is no any advantage for use lines. So, why select line connected dots instead of dots alone.Of course in this case, if hunting clitches or other fast random things, user use settings what give best reesult. Specially because dots connected fake lines do not give any markable displayed visual advantage. So, for test wfm update rate and compare, of course it need use settings what give best result. (also in Siglent table what I have is automatic measurements on and cursors).So, it is max ~110k / s (but this is not maximum peak value, peak value is more)About seqmented memory capturing. Here is Siglent table.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 04:23:30 am
content: Mark, thanks a lot for the review !

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 08:56:57 am
content: Quote from: Ivan7enych on August 21, 2014, 07:05:22 pmOk, Ivan, I understand now - I will make some tests today and post the results later.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 09:08:29 am
content: Quote from: W7NGA on August 21, 2014, 08:22:31 pmThanks for your kind words, Daniel!MarkQuote from: tautech on August 22, 2014, 04:03:13 amThank you, tautech.I did the unpacking at the end of July, but then work came up and I had to postpone testing for about 2 weeks. I then filmed the video in many pieces over 10 days (there is a lot of material I didn't use). I tried to only use natural light to minimize the effects of artificial lighting on the displays (there is only one shot in the video using artificial light), but the effect of this is that the brightness in the room varies a lot because of sun/shade/clouds/etc. Also, because of the way the camera adjusts for exposure, it makes the brightest areas on the Siglent hard to read - although they aren't that way in reality.I think the Siglent has a nicer display than the Rigol - but I wish I could turn the overall brightness down sometimes, just as I wish I could turn the overall brightness of the Rigol up sometimes. I'm not quite sure why the manufacturers don't include that function, but perhaps it has to do with possible inverter noise from adjustable supplies.Quote from: BravoV on August 22, 2014, 04:23:30 amYou're welcome, BravoV!

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 09:23:32 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on August 22, 2014, 04:17:11 amIt's true that if you're specifically hunting glitches, it would make sense to use the settings that give you the fastest waveform update rate. But sometimes when I'm just looking at signals, I see a glitch that I didn't know existed beforehand.I don't know how other people use their DSOs - I can only speak for myself - but as I mentioned in the video, normally when I'm looking at signals or doing some basic debugging, I'm using my Rigol with vectors ON 99% of the time - since I'm switching between slow and fast time bases and I want to see a full waveform, not a collection of sample points, without having to continually access the vectors/dots switch. But, yes, there are certain times I will specifically use dot mode.In dots mode, the Siglent is much faster than the Rigol at most timebases - except those <= 20ns in single channel mode - and <=5ns in dual channel mode (as long as you have interpolation set to linear, as you did when you made your waveform update table).As I tried to point out in the video, there is either a bug - or some strange manifestation of Siglent's implementation - that causes the following behavior: EVEN when in dots mode on the Siglent, if you have interpolation set to Sin(x)/x it drastically reduces the waveform update rates when at timebases <= 20ns:QuoteAs noted above, I made frame capturing measurements very quickly - 25MHz sine from the AWG, Sequence SINGLE capture, go to History List and count the microseconds - so it's quite possible I made a math error - my brain can certainly do thatBut in any case, the speeds are very impressive - it's a great idea by Siglent for very fast capture rates - I just think that the user should have the option to turn Display-When-Capturing ON/OFF for slow/fast occurring triggers; i.e. with slowly arriving triggers it would be good to have the frames displayed in-between captures.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 09:57:46 am
content: Quote from: marmad on August 22, 2014, 09:08:29 amJust as I thought, a massive job, well done.You have set a bench mark for others to follow.I have my SDS2304 on a shelf at eye level, at arms length and shaded by the shelf above and consequently the brightness is never a problem, or maybe I should remove the screen protector film. heheAs you used natural light, you may find as I have, in dark sites away from the bench, that the overall brightness need not be set quite so high, but great for my old eyes.I imagine this adjustment would need to be controlled in HW, so maybe a feature for future models.A couple of points that where raised in the Video: (no order just jotted down as seen)Button silkscreen: Mine is perfect after 9 mths hobby and loan use.Sequence menu: There is plenty to be improved, and I observe there are 3 unused buttons in the top menu that could be possibly dedicated to navigation functions.It is good to see Siglent acknowledge your comparison.They have a bit to do it seems.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 10:15:40 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 22, 2014, 09:57:46 amYes, one point I mis-stated in the video was when I said the Siglent, like the Rigol, is a bench-top scope - not a shelf scope. But of course, as long as the shelf is around eye-level, it works perfectly that way.QuoteYes - but I think, in general, I prefer the slightly too-bright display of the Siglent to the slightly too-dim display of the Rigol.QuoteTo be fair, I used a borrowed DSO from my dealer (i.e. not a brand new model straight from the factory), so it's possible that one little piece of silkscreen got damaged somehow after the fact. Since I've done a lot of silk-screening myself over the years, I can see that the quality of the silkscreen is not quite as good on the Siglent than the Rigol - but it's a small difference and not a big deal. Unfortunately, I can't really show it adequately because I don't have a lens for shooting extreme close-ups.QuoteSince I use the frame (segment) capture feature of my Rigol quite a lot, this is the one area of operation that's of primary concern to me. All of the other differences between the two DSOs, in terms of features and performance, are negligible, IMO, compared to this one area. If Siglent can improve the operation and tools of the Sequence function to something more similar to the Rigol (obviously they don't have the Navigation knob of the Rigol, but other firmware tools can be added), I think it would be a much more compelling competitor (for people that only need 2 analog channels).

author: Teneyes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 02:13:48 pm
content: A Bit expanded topic, Mark, did you think of testing the Siglent to PC interface?What changes would it take for RUU to be SUU and captures frames from the SDS2000.

author: Carrington
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 03:14:22 pm
content: Finally, a detailed comparison, great!As I said long ago, Marmad is the ideal candidate to do that.Many people were expecting for something like that.Now to see if Siglent takes note and improves/modifies the firmware...Thanks Mark.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 05:52:18 pm
content: Quote from: Ivan7enych on August 21, 2014, 07:05:22 pmIvan,First of all, I'm not sure if you're aware of the following, but you can use the Rigol's (or any DSO that has it) Average acquisition mode to the same effect as the Average setting in Math on your Tek - see the first image - I'm using Averaging of 128, and there 9 harmonics visible.Also, Rigol has the anti-aliasing function available inside of FFT, and although they never explain exactly what it's doing in the manual, I think it's some kind of averaging (perhaps both sample AND waveform) - see the second image.The updating of the FFT overlay seems about the same speed on the Siglent as on the Rigol.Go to this post.Next, I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I can't get the Siglent to give me images with the harmonics - perhaps someone with more experience with it can help out?The third image shows first trying with the same 10mVpp Triangle wave as used on the Rigol (I tried using Normal acquire as well as Average-128 - both looked the same).The fourth image shows trying with a larger 3Vpp Triangle wave and Average-128.Can any Siglent users/dealers help out?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 06:02:40 pm
content: Quote from: Teneyes on August 22, 2014, 02:13:48 pmI haven't looked at the PC interface, Teneyes; perhaps I'll do it over this weekend. It's a little early to know about the possibility of modifying RUU to work with it - we're still waiting for Siglent to publish the SCPI documentation.Quote from: Carrington on August 22, 2014, 03:14:22 pmMy pleasure, Carrington.

author: Ivan7enych
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2014, 10:53:46 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 22, 2014, 05:52:18 pmThank you!Average-16 acquisition mode really helps to see more details. Also I've found that HiRes mode helps as well, but if I turn on antialiasing in acquire menu - it produces many false spikes on FFT. It looks like FFT gets points after aliasing processing.On Siglent images there is much different FFT scale (100MHz per division), thats why it shows nothing with 2.5KHz signal. May be Siglent samples data with 2Gs/sec and sends to FFT only first 2048 points from the captured 14Mpoints frame, while Rigol get 2048 points uniformly distributed in the sampled frame (14Mpoints).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 12:43:59 am
content: Quote from: Ivan7enych on August 22, 2014, 10:53:46 pmI just noticed you wrote, "...in acquire menu". but I didn't mean Antialiasing in Acquire menu, I meant Antialiasing in Math->FFT menu - it has a much different result, as you can see in the two images made with no Averaging. Is that what you meant as well?

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 12:47:29 am
content: Thanks Marmad. I have to watch this review.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 06:26:37 am
content: Quote from: Ivan7enych on August 22, 2014, 10:53:46 pmI can not now test - far away from lab with urgent works - but yes, this is also my opinion, releted to what I remember what I have tested. It do not collect 2048 sample points from whole captured memory using low virtual samplerate. Samplerate in image is 2GSa/s and so Nyquist limit is 1GHz.It produce 0-1GHz FFT from these 2048 points. So resolution is around 1MHz. Of course this can not use for audio.For 0-100kHz FFT there need be 200kSa/s sampling speed. With this resolution can be 1kHz.FFT zoom do not add resolution but 2x or 5x give better visibility due to display resolutin vs FFT resolution.This means you can not look nice 1kHz triangle wave in upper window and then look same time example some lowest harmonics. Because upper window can not zoom so that only FFT used samples are on the window. Siglent do not separately "down sample" sampling buffer for FFT.If there read example 2GSa/s samplerate, it is also FFT samplerate as far as I can remember my tests.Also FFT settings / Oscilloscope settings may need some exercise to find how to set it.I hope some later FW make things better for splitted window FFT useability.Later after I have some enough long time slice for this I can make some FFT tests and show pictures and so on. This have been in waiting queye long time. (it was originally pushed to waiting queye due to very early FW and lack of functions)There is also other problem if I want do some performance tests, specially related to vertical. It is because my SDS2304 is early preliminary version and it looks that it have some very early HW problems).

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 08:50:31 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on August 23, 2014, 06:26:37 amMark, the latest HW is 5.3, would you list your HW version in the OP please.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 01:19:31 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 23, 2014, 08:50:31 amDone.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 02:16:02 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on August 23, 2014, 06:26:37 amGot it; thanks for the clarification.Yes, I was used to seeing the separate FFT sample rate that changes with every timebase on the Rigol - so was stupidly wondering why the sample rate wasn't shifting when changing the timebase - while having memory length set to 14M!Anyway, here are the tests again, with better results; I leave FFT zoom on 2x. It seems 10mVpp might be a bit low for the Siglent, but I made images using 50mVpp, 100mVpp, and 500mVpp, all of them using Average-128 acquire mode.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 07:01:10 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 21, 2014, 05:14:35 pmThat sounds like an unfortunate handicap.QuoteWell, that's easily solved. Just download the video, and play it back at 16X. Voila! 5 minute runtime.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 07:52:25 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 21, 2014, 10:11:01 amMark,thanks a lot for the extremely well done review. I've been waiting for some time to see the new Siglent in operation, as I am sure many other folks have as well. I was happy to see that you didn't fall into the trap, as many others might have, of simply finding and enumerating the small bugs in operation of the current firmware. Naturally it will have those, as all new units will, but those are the things most easily rectified, and thus most quickly made irrelevant in a review.Instead, you focused on a functional evaluation, and put it in the context of another well-known, and high-quality, scope. I think that helped a lot, and not just for comparing two specific units. You also managed to maintain a fair perspective, which isn't always easy for those already owning a different option. I found your balanced criticisms of both units, as well as comments on their relative strong points, to be especially valuable. And providing an Index into the video will be especially helpful for anyone wanting to go back and review any specific aspect.As for the unit itself, it looks like it has a lot of good capabilities. As well as some disappointing limitations. Some smaller examples would be it's lack of Advanced Operations in Math. On the Rigol, that enables things like defining CH1*CH1/8, which permits direct examination of amplifier power output (V-sqrd/loadR). And the inability to run Decodes on segmented acquisitions is a huge fail, in my book. However, assuming Siglent is committed to this product line (and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise), I doubt it will take them 2 years to correct that, as it did Rigol on the DS2000 (and still haven't, on their DS4000). This is the type of thing that boggles my mind.But most disappointing to me was the lack of any meaningful ability to navigate the huge sample sets that the unit is capable of capturing. Whether in Frame mode or History mode, it can collect more data than you could ever do anything useful with. Which is a real shame, since it basically negates a very powerful feature. It's bad enough that there is no quick access mechanism, just slow knob twiddling, but that's compounded by the inability to even vary the Playback speed. I wonder if Siglent is ready for the barrage of Carpal-Tunnel lawsuits that will follow.[And guys, I'm only half kidding!][I sense a product opportunity though... a small motor with a knob gripper. Just press a a FWD or REV button, and let the motor churn away for a few minutes.]OTOH, the hardware seems very sound, both in design and implementation. Which means Siglent has a strong base to work from. Features can always be added, and rough spots in software smoothed out. But hardware issues are a much larger problem. So kudos to Siglent's hardware group for their accomplishment there, on this next generation of hardware capabilities for them.Let's hope that their firmware team is hard at work improving things, and is being supplied with user experiences and concerns from the field. Once their embedded software catches up to their hardware, they'll have a very competitive product.And for those concerned about the length of the review, I can't think of any way one could get a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses, or capabilities and limitations, than the video Mark has put together. Someone could take the time to write down a text summarization... but that would then be nothing more than a set of claims/opinions. The video let's you see things with your own eyes, so you can form your own conclusions. This isn't a verbose, hem-haw puff piece, as many amateur YT presentations often are. It's a solid set of visual demonstrations, combined with intelligent, informed commentary. Well worth investing 80-minutes of time, for anyone seriously considering purchasing a scope in this price/performance category.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 09:32:38 pm
content: Quote from: Mark_O on August 23, 2014, 07:52:25 pmYou're welcome, Mark - and thank you for your thoughtful and kind response.I wish I could have tested the Digital option of the MSO, but alas, no connectors. I have to say, I think the AWG option seems quite nicely implemented and seems to work well (although I never figured out how to stop the DSO from forgetting all of my settings in the AWG every time I turned the scope on and off - but perhaps that's because it's on trial, and not a purchased option) - but I didn't include anything about the AWG in the review since I don't have the S version of the DS2000 to compare against. But it's implementation might be a good sign for Siglent's implementation of the MSO features.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 10:09:28 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 23, 2014, 09:32:38 pmI have an AWG enabled model.I can confirm that AWG does forget settings on reboot. Returns to default setup.Strange, considering there is a Default setup softkey in the AWG menu.No doubt an easy fix in firmware, I will point Siglent to this bug.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2014, 10:33:33 pm
content: If all goes well I will receive my SDS2204 with MSO option on monday (finally; DHL lost it for a while). I'll try to do a short review on the MSO bit and some other things.About the AWG (I didn't buy that option): My SDG1010 from Siglent also goes back to default after power on. It does have an option to save settings. IIRC my Lecroy AWG420 did the same: start with it's defaults. OTOH the ESG4400 series RF generator I have seems to start with the last settings (which could mean output a signal). The choice wether to keep the last settings or not at power up can be food for a long debate. Sometimes it's handy sometime it's not. Either way I'd expect an AWG to be able to save it's settings and restore them later.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 07:33:58 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 23, 2014, 10:33:33 pmSo would I, as a "Default" button is provided in the AWG menu, one would reasonably expect any settings should be retained and then use that Default button as needed.The DSO itself retains other user settings and if Default settings are needed, they are then selected.This is what one would consider normal/logical behavior, is it not?It would be nice to see all test equipment that has menu driven settings adopt these simple user expectations.Otherwise have a main menu option to boot all to default or save all last settings.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 08:25:19 am
content: Hi Marmad, I would also like to add my thanks for your video review.I especially like the contents index, as this can also be used as check-list for future firmware updatesI have been waiting to see what develops with this scope as the last time I looked at it there was some confusion (may be there still is) with the MSO availability.Seeing some of the issues with the decoding it appears to me the firmware for it is still a ways off.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 08:51:04 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 23, 2014, 10:33:33 pmNot want steal this thread for this.Only just simple sidenote.If need more then other thread.Just tested SDG1010If selected in system menu PowerOn:Last it remember last state (exept that after new power on outputs are off.) But I have not tested what is time interval how often it store current stateö. (some seconds perhaps)Utility: menu side 1. Go to system menu side 2 and slect PowerOn:Last, then go to system menu side 1 and push Done.After then it remember last state. If after settings change very fast shut off, then erhaps last change is not yet stored.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 09:47:08 am
content: have you tried waveform update rate with 1&3 vs 1&2?

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 10:08:17 am
content: Quote from: Fsck on August 24, 2014, 09:47:08 amThey are all here

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 10:13:39 am
content: @rf-loop, epic thanks.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 10:15:18 am
content: Quote from: marmad on August 23, 2014, 02:16:02 pmHere 2kHz triangle, 10mVpp

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 10:59:14 am
content: In general: When using the FFT function on an oscilloscope it is best to set the volt/div so the signal fills the entire height of the screen. That will give maximum FFT resolution. For low frequency work it also helps to turn on the high resolution mode (if the oscilloscope has that).

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 11:46:23 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 24, 2014, 10:59:14 amYes. Totally agree.Example in my last image signal is around 10dB from max. It was just for demomstrate so that windowed zoom together with FFT give picture where FFT do not overlay so much zoomed YT signal. It was not at all adjusted for thinking maximum vertical resolution for continuous uniform waveform.If want absolutely best, signal maximum level is ~10div (it is ADC full scale). (Siglent vertical display screen range is 8div) Good "thumb rule" is: keep signal max peaks so that it just fills vertical area. Exept if signal is so small that can not. If use maximum 10div signal it need carefully check that any part or signal do not clip. If signal is clipped or go other way badly unlinear area result is garbage due to high amount of harmonics.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 02:13:00 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 24, 2014, 10:59:14 amSince the Siglent only goes to 2mV/div, a 10mVpp signal is only going to fill 5 divs maximum. As I showed in my previous image - and here, replicated again using rf-loops timebase settings - the DSO clips the FFT graph at the bottom when filling the screen as much as possible using 2mV/div.

author: wpwrak
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 03:02:33 pm
content: marmad, thanks for the great review ! Seems that segment mode could enormously benefit from having a knob to change that factor of 20 in overlay mode, much like one changes the time base for moving around in a long recording.One thing you didn't mention was overall responsiveness of basic operations. Especially with deep memory some scopes can get painfully slow when doing simple things like changing the horizontal/vertical position of a waveform. How do the two compare in that regard ?All those bugs make me wonder how long it'll be until we'll see a company be courageous enough to make a scope with state of the art hardware, designed for Open Source firmware. Even if the original firmware is very simple, it would allow the user community to pick things up from there, add features (like more advanced protocol decoders, sigrok-style). Also, the sort of glaring issues you mentioned (and the many more oddities others have found) would hardly be a concern since there would be a lot of people out there who could fix them.- Werner

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 04:03:42 pm
content: So I have watched the youtube review of SDS2000. It is a typical Chinese product. Good price and hardware but many small or bigger problems with usability. Front panel design was clearly inspired by Agilent DSOX2000 and knobs were copied from LeCroy scopes.Somehow I like that Rigol makes their very own design not similar to Agilent, Tektronix or LeCroy.I hope that all the bugs in SDS2000 firmware will be fixed in next years. But remember that this scope is not so much new, it was released in November 2013 according to their website.http://www.siglent.com/en/news/detail.aspx?id=100000065214624&nodecode=119002004Still is much better than that funny GW Instek GDS2000A scope.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 04:06:20 pm
content: Here are some videos made by Siglant staff.https://www.youtube.com/user/SiglentVideo/videosMore can be found athttps://www.youtube.com/user/SiglentVideo/videosI think that there is no fine horizontal setting at SDS2000. That is not good.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 04:47:45 pm
content: Quote from: wpwrak on August 24, 2014, 03:02:33 pmYes. I also wish that Siglent change this (and some other things also in segment mode and history search)1 segment to max 20 segment overlay is now selectable and this max need be much more. Also there need be one selection for overlay all frames. (with intensity grading of course), just one button, "overlay all segments". Perhaps maximum 20 segment is ok for waterfall display mode due to fact that it is 800x480 TFT. But limit max 20 is not good for overlay mode.Good tools for watch, analyse and search captured segments is important. Also analyzing need include timestamps related analyzing.

author: wpwrak
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 05:50:08 pm
content: rf-loop, I was thinking of something like this: show N segments overlaid (with intensity grading, hardware allowing), one knob moves by +N/-N, other knob doubles/halves N. (Or pick a slightly larger factor if you like.) That way, one could very quickly search those thousands of segments for rare events. You don't even need an "overlay all" button, just spin the "zoom" knob some 16-17 stops in the "zoom out direction" and you're at the maximum N.The history could be a lot more flexible if one could select what gets incremented/decremented. E.g., default to the least significant digit of the segment number, but have a knob/button(s) to select a different digit or a digit of the capture time instead. Then you could move by 10/100/etc. segments, by microseconds, whatever. It wouldn't necessarily show what happens between the jumps but one could at least navigate quickly to a specific segment or time and also see trends in the waveform.Disclaimer: all I know about the SDS2000 is from eevblog, so I can't really tell whether those ideas fit with the user interface design, whether the scope would be responsive enough, etc.- Werner

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 10:15:07 pm
content: Quote from: Fsck on August 24, 2014, 09:47:08 am@Fsck: I've enlarged the table in thefirst postto include vector waveform update rates for channels 1 & 3 plus all channels simultaneously (1 & 2 & 3 & 4) .

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2014, 11:55:12 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on August 24, 2014, 04:47:45 pmYes! This alone would increase the usefulness greatly - making checking for glitches or hunting anomalies much faster. I also thought a bit about how, if a glitch is found, you might locate that frame. One way that might work (and would be a fairly easy UI implementation), is to make the Universal knob move a selection box across all the divisions, top to bottom, left to right. When you stop over a division and click, the DSO jumps to the first frame (forwards or backwards depending on settings) that contains a waveform that enters that division - as in the following image with overlaid glitch frames:For History mode, it's pretty easy to make it much more useful (assuming the hardware supports it): better acceleration parameters when using the Universal knob for manual selection of frame. And for Automatic play, replace the Reverse play, Pause, and Forward play buttons with Interval (from fastest play possible to 10 seconds), Operate, and Mode - as in the following image:

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 12:23:45 am
content: Quote from: wpwrak on August 24, 2014, 03:02:33 pmYou're welcome, wprak - it was enjoyable to do.QuoteThey felt quite similar to me - I think they're both decently responsive most of the time. There are some times when the Siglent is a bit more responsive (perhaps due to the fact that the underlying hardware might be faster) - and some times when the Rigol is more responsive (perhaps due to more mature firmware).For example, when the DSOs are running in Normal mode while using deep memory (e.g. 14M), it's a bit quicker moving the waveform around on the Siglent - but this might be due to the fact that the Siglent is doing less (or no) intensity grading compared to the Rigol. Hard to know for sure until Siglent improves the intensity grading at the slower time bases (which apparently they're working on). When the DSOs are stopped with a 14M waveform, the Rigol is slightly quicker moving around within the waveform.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 04:34:20 am
content: Quote from: marmad on August 24, 2014, 10:15:07 pm@Fsck: I've enlarged the table in thefirst postto include vector waveform update rates for channels 1 & 3 plus all channels simultaneously (1 & 2 & 3 & 4) .There is Siglent sin(x)x and Sin(x) off. But then Rigol is not both. Is it so that Rigol have same speed with both settings.Then I ask agen why comparison is made so that Siglent is set for display connected dots.Is it so that Siglent is too good vs Rigol if also it is adjusted for its best waveform update speed.Is Rigol speed same with Sin(x)/x on and off? If not, then for fair compare it is good also show it.Is Rigol speed same if display mode is select dots or line connected dots?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 05:07:14 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on August 25, 2014, 04:34:20 amAs mentioned in the video, there is no manual switch on the Rigol DS2000 - it is always sin(x)/x with sample speeds >= 1GSa/s and linear with sample speeds <= 500MSa/s.QuoteAs mentioned in the video - andthe last time I answered you- I, personally, use my DSO with vectors turned on most of the time. That is myreal world usage, so that's what I'm interested in: i.e. performance, intensity grading, etc, with vectors ON. Perhaps it's different for other people - I couldn't say (you could perhaps start a poll thread to ask what percentage of time people use their DSOs with vectors off and on).Also, you had already posted in other threads your very detailed table of the waveform update rates using dots on the Siglent - but no one had measured and posted one using vectors (sin(x)/x).QuoteAgain, I postedthe Rigol's waveform update rate with dotsin the last post answering you. If you compare tables, you can see that the Rigol, unlike the Siglent, has fairly similar speeds regardless of whether it's in dots or vectors mode (although, obviously, a bit faster with dots) - except for 20ns/div with 1 channel.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 06:07:11 am
content: Quote from: marmad on August 25, 2014, 05:07:14 amTnx, this limit in Rigol I did not know. Perhaps they repair it in later FW:s.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 07:19:44 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on August 24, 2014, 04:03:42 pmThe release date is often wrongly quoted and/or misinterpreted.Yes, selected recipients received the SDS2000 in Nov and Dec 2013. HW 3.3In no way was it ready formarket releaseat that time as was indicated to us by Siglent.The first firmware updates were sent to us early in the new year.I have received 4 to date.The latest, 35.1 finally enabled all HW options and signaled the full product ready for release.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent's-new-product-msosds2000-series/msg482629/#msg482629QuoteThe Horizontal position adjustment resolution is scaled to suit the timebase selected.Eg. 1 nS/div timebase horizontal adjustment is in 20pS increments, that is 50 steps/div.@ 1uS/div the resolution is 20nS.Adjusted quickly, a 1 div change is less than 1 turn, and slowly several turns.The response of adjustments have dramatically improved from the early firmware.Marmadused this adjustment frequently in the video and I don't remember him mentioning any deficiencies.Is a finer Horizontal position resolution required?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 01:10:28 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 25, 2014, 07:19:44 amI believe he's referring to a vernier (fine) adjust for the Horizontal scale (timebase), which is missing on the Siglent. But to be honest, it's something I rarely use on the Rigol, so I don't think it matters all that much.Fine adjustment for the Vertical scale (which the Siglent DOES have) is more important, IMO, since the Vertical scale is normally limited to ~12 or so coarse settings. The Horizontal scale, OTOH, normally has at least 24 coarse settings - and has a total of 32 on the Siglent.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 08:07:31 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 25, 2014, 01:10:28 pmYes, I am.-------Is it possible to use cursors in XY mode? It is not clear from the manual.-------What do you think about the AWG? According to the user manual it looks nice.-------What is the Trigger Output peak-peak voltage at SDS2000? At DSOX2000 it is 5V, at Rigol DS2000 it is OK (I do not remember...), at GW Instek GDS-2000A it was strangely low, about 150mV.http://youtu.be/-yS5YLWqf_Y?t=5m2s

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 09:11:54 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on August 25, 2014, 08:07:31 pmNo.QuoteIt seems good for a built-in one - although it's the first I've ever used inside a DSO.QuoteVisible here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOjLNyzxkTQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1h2m13s

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2014, 09:16:41 pm
content: They will probably add the cursors to XY mode later in the firmware. Even the Tek TDS2000 series do not have this feature.So the Trig Out level is about 2.5Vpp. That's OK.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 12:10:42 am
content: Does this digital trigger work as promised?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 10:06:16 am
content: Quote from: marmad on August 22, 2014, 10:15:40 amHow much longer will you have the borrowed SDS2304?QuoteThe SCPI manual and command set is soon to be released.Siglent sent me a pre-release copy today.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 11:15:48 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 26, 2014, 10:06:16 amI can keep it for another couple of weeks if necessary. I'm just making another short video today about the beautiful intensity grading of the Siglent - which I didn't due justice to in the original comparison. I'm trying different exposures to try to record the screen as accurately as possible.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 11:27:29 am
content: Marmard: I'm wondering what the -3dB bandwidth is on the scope you have.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 12:26:40 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 26, 2014, 11:27:29 amI wish I could check but I don't have an RF generator, avalanche pulse generator, etc. Perhaps rf-loop has done it (although maybe his hardware is an older version).

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 12:33:01 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 26, 2014, 12:26:40 pmIt is buried deep in the "Siglents New Product" thread and IIRC was ~320 MHz.My client checked mine as very similar, however as you correctly state, ours are older HW.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 01:16:13 pm
content: I check the other channels on my 200MHz oscilloscope and the bandwidth of the channels varies from 310MHz to 340MHz.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2014, 03:01:17 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 26, 2014, 12:26:40 pmit is very early version manufactured November 2013.Quote

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2014, 02:29:07 pm
content: @tautech and rf-loop:Doing some more testing with the Siglent, and I can't seem to see any evidence that High Res mode is working. Can either of you confirm with Siglent if it's supposed to be a functional feature yet?I can't find any info in the datasheet about which timebases it's active on, but if you look at the attached chart from the Rigol you'll see that 200us is about in the middle of it's High Res effective range, with a bandwidth at that timebase of between ~138kHz - 172 kHz. So at that setting, a 10MHz sine wave is very much low-pass filtered, as seen in the attached image. But I don't see any effect on the Siglent (at that timebase - or any other).It's not a big deal - but I'm curious if it's functional or some setting I have turned on that's interfering with it's implementation.

author: Teneyes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2014, 03:57:24 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 27, 2014, 02:29:07 pmDoes the Siglent detect the 10 MHz from counter and auto shutoff the High Res??Maybe need different test input , sinewave with a glitch pulse?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2014, 04:01:18 pm
content: Quote from: Teneyes on August 27, 2014, 03:57:24 pmI'm not sure what the purpose would be to have the DSO decide what should be averaged or not - I just used the 10MHz waveform as an obvious example. But I can't see any effect on any kind of waveform I use.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2014, 05:29:04 pm
content: Same here. I expect the high-res mode to produce a much thinner line but that doesn't happen.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2014, 08:12:49 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 27, 2014, 02:29:07 pmFrom the manual:QuoteI too, do not have the expected result.We will ask Siglent if High Res is fully functional.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2014, 08:36:15 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 27, 2014, 08:12:49 pmYes, it's just successive sample averaging - and the by-product is basically a low-pass comb filter.

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2014, 12:05:55 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 27, 2014, 08:12:49 pmSince 2GSamp/s at 200uS/div * 14 div = memory depth (5.6Mpt), maybe it doesn't high res?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2014, 12:31:56 am
content: Quote from: Galaxyrise on August 28, 2014, 12:05:55 amThe 200us image was just an example. It doesn't do successive sample averaging (high res) at ANY timebase - or any memory setting; I've tried all of them.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2014, 03:38:09 pm
content: Well, since I've finished my first video, I've had much more time to run various tests on the Siglent. And one thing I have to say is that I get more and more impressed with the sampling/processing engine of the Siglent. Not only is it very fast, it actually TRULY does 256 levels of intensity grading (when wfrm/s are high enough, as noted below) - unlike the Rigol which, as I've pointed out before in the past, only seems to do 64 level grading (even though they advertise it as 256). The intensity grading of the Siglent is often very nice - so I'm making a new short video to try to demonstrate how good it can look when running. As far as I know, it's the only DSO doingreal256 level grading that costs less than several thousand bucks.The only problems with the SDS2000's engine at the moment are it's drop-off in speeds at the faster timebases (1ns, 2ns, etc), and perhaps the need for a slightly more elegant (or switchable) method of dealing with large sample lengths with low wfrm/s - which is what I wanted to clarify here before posting the second video; i.e. the way that the intensity grading differs from the intensity grading that the Rigol is doing:The Rigol seems to do intensity grading BEFORE downsampling (at least at slower timebases with large memory depths), the Siglent does it after. That means, on the Rigol, the sample memory length can affect the intensity grading - on the Siglent it does not. The Siglent grading is based purely on wfrm/s, with a ratio of something similar to the following table (this is not precise since I haven't tested the exact boundaries - just an indication):>= 1024 wfrms/s = 256 levels / 128 color temp.1023 - 512 wfrm/s = 192 levels / 64 color temp.512 - 256 wfrm/s = 32 levels / 32 color temp.255 - 128 wfrm/s = 16 levels / 16 color temp.127 - 64 wfrm/s = 8 levels / 8 color temp.<= 63 wfrm/s = 4 levels / 4 color temp.Each method has it's advantages at slower timebases (Rigol = more grading information with larger sample sizes but less wfrm/s / Siglent = more wfrm/s) so I'm not proposing one way is necessarily better than the other - it's just interesting to note the difference. Of course, the best would be to have the ability to use EITHER method as desired.First, two examples of the same waveform at 50ns - with the difference in grading levels noted - show the Siglent with more than 3x more levels:Second:And here, demonstrating the difference made by grading before downsampling at 2ms - note that with memory length set to 140k on the Rigol, the waveform image is similar to the 28M length on the Siglent (but not quite as detailed), but when the Rigol is set to 14M, the grading changes to reflect the downsampled data from the larger memory depth waveform:Siglent intensity-grading demonstration video to follow in the next day or so....

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 09:21:17 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 27, 2014, 08:12:49 pmWell it seems we have a High Res button that is waiting for the next firmware release.And before you ask when that might be, we should ponder on other fixes that could be included in the next firmware package.Lets not redesign Siglent's SDS2000, but get the features that are "not quite right", to work as we expect.We don't want to slow the UI to a crawl with a mass of extra functionality, but I hear you all re Segmented waveform navigation, it is required.marmad, nctnico, don, can we summarize the required fixes?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 10:18:19 am
content: Bugs:- MSO signals on wrong timescale with decode enabled. IMHO digital signals should be visible with decode enabled.- 'Peak detect' is not 'peak detect'.but envelope mode- Signals display wrong (out of phase) when turning timescale or horizontal position knob quickly in 'stop' mode.- When averaging is enabled the averaged signals are no longer visible in 'stop' mode (*).- High resolution mode does nothing- Finite persistance time setting does not seem to change persistance period.- MSO signals are out of sync with analog channels when zooming in. Sometimes too early sometimes behind.- Cursors (X / vertical) not working in MSO mode without analog channels active- Decode doesn't work in single trigger mode- Serial decoding doesn't always decode (shows empty red balloon) if the timing of the serial data is slightly off.Improvements:- Use partial FFT with higher frequency resolution when FFT is zoomed in- Use averaging on FFT result (on my TDS744A I usually use 10 to 20 averages)- Allow digital signals for decode- Make 'intensity adjust' button less sensitive to rotation when selecting something from a menu list- Make clear that decode and measurement statistics cannot be enabled simultaneously- Allow decode and measurements to be used simultaneously.(*) Yesterday I was doing some measurements with the cursors on a very noisy unstable signal. To clean the signal up I enabled averaging. But when I pressed the 'run/stop' button to stop the acquisition the noisy signal is displayed instead of the averaged signal.edit: added finite persistance bug.edit2: removed envelope modeedit3: Added MSO signals out of sync with analog channelsedit4: Cursors not working in MSO modeedit5: Decode doesn't work in single trigger mode, serial decode bug

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 01:24:18 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2014, 10:18:19 amI'm not sure why you think the DSO is doing Envelope mode (which is just a combination of separate Peak Detect acquisitions). Any DSO I've used that's had that mode allowed you to set the number of Peak Detect acquisitions to combine (just like with Average).Instead, it seems to me that the problem is that (at some/all longer memory lengths and/or slower timebases) the Siglent doesn't do Peak Detect on the sample memory before down-sampling, thus making it possible to miss peaks that existed. And it seems that this might be a general problem with the Siglent in a few areas; i.e. in service of speed (fast throughput) they are doing certain (or all?) things post-decimation.In my previous post, I pointed out that the Siglent does intensity grading post-decimation, and one could argue that this might be the best way to do it (at least for speed) - but doing Acquisition modes post-decimation can cause problems (or at least unusual behavior). This is perhaps why High Res mode has not been implemented yet; i.e. it's not possible to do it post-decimation.Even the Average mode seems to be affected - look at the two attached images using identical settings on an AM waveform @ 10us/div, 1200 wfrm/s and Average mode (32).

author: WVL_KsZeN
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 01:25:11 pm
content: this one is really strange. When you're looking at noise, how come some traces are brighter (over the complete width) then others? This looks more like some sort of persistence (last captured trace being the brightest)? How can this be?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 01:43:19 pm
content: Quote from: WVL_KsZeN on August 29, 2014, 01:25:11 pmThere are different ways to implement digital phosphor (intensity grading), but usually this entails some type of 'persistence'; i.e. emulating chemical phosphorescence by controlling the rate of decay of the overlaid rasterized waveforms.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 02:00:04 pm
content: I've used an sds2074 and also thought the grading looked more like a persistence mode and also didn't see anywhere near 256 levels. If have a tek tds754d which only has 16 levels but I saw more brightness variation on that scope for whatever reason. Read somewhere in this thread that Siglent grading levels varies with timebase for some odd reason (its just building a histogram, why does it vary?). The timebase variation has waveform capture rate implications makes me think they are not handling grading correctly. You should keep track of waveform hits at each pixel and vary the intesisty based on the relative number of hits.The other odd thing is their grading does not have any compression capability. Meaning if you have a 14Mpts record shown on the display, the entire signal will be the same brightness. They should be compressing the data such that one pixel reflects the slice of time the pixel represents so you can visualize a large record. Seems they just rail it at min / max.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 02:15:39 pm
content: Quote from: don on August 29, 2014, 02:00:04 pmThis is discussed in detail 7 posts above this one. The Siglent certainly does do 256 levels (given a minimum number of wfrm/s) - I've analyzed many images from the scope. But, as mentioned in the above post, the levels are tied to the waveform update rate and drop dramatically below ~430 wfrm/s.QuoteIt's slightly more complicated than that. Your Tek TDS754D does 'decay' (persistence) of the pixels hit by the waveforms as well.QuoteYes, they are doing intensity grading post-decimation.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 02:21:01 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 29, 2014, 01:24:18 pmAgain: there is a very distinct difference between envelope mode and peak detect:- Peak detect lets the acquisition hardware (ADC) run at full speed, do peak detect and decimate the result from the peak detectors.- Envelope mode lets the acquisition hardware run at a slower speed or do decimation first and then apply peak detection to the decimated result.Both modes have their advantages:- Envelope mode shows less HF noise; basically because the lower sample rate acts as a filter but you could get spurious hits.- Peak-detect catches any glitch as long as it's frequency is below the bandwidth of the oscilloscope.The SDS2000 only does envelope mode so Siglent should rename it to envelope mode or implement peak detect properly.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 02:28:18 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2014, 02:21:01 pmWhere are you getting this particular definition of Envelope mode from? I've never heard of it. Can you post a source?Here is Tektronix's definition of Envelope mode:

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 03:00:20 pm
content: It seems most seem to agree with Tektronix regarding with the definition of envelope mode but I've seen other definitions as well. For argument's sake: the way Siglent does peak-detect is wrong (and useless) so they shouldn't call it peak detect.This also offers a short overview of various acquisition modes:http://www.lanl.gov/conferences/biw10/preprints/MOVNB01_preprint.pdf

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 03:27:03 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2014, 03:00:20 pmYes, sending it 10ns pulses, I can see anomalies at timebases >= 5ms/div - or when the sample rate drops to <= 400MSa/s - but not at higher timebases/sample rates.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 06:27:32 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2014, 02:21:01 pmAll modes let ADC run full speed.But it is clear that there is something wrong in peak detect mode in Siglent this model.Hi-Lo detector need be in full speed ADC stream of course is in use. But of course it need only if displayed samples rate is below ADC maximum.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 06:46:11 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 29, 2014, 02:15:39 pmYes, and this is not expected. Intensity grading should not depend on wfrm/s. Its displaying accumulated data and the wfrm/s dependency should be how long it took to acquire. As data is acquired, grading is dynamically adjusted but levels do not depend in any way on wfrm/s. Theoretically you could have data coming in slower and grading should look the same as faster wfrms/s long as number of captured events are the same .QuoteBy decay, I assume you just mean the way tek accumulates and constantly adjust grading based on new max /min hits. You can select shallow or deep accumulator (32bit or 64). But persistence is not part of tek intensity grading. All data is kept and displayed with intensity grading.QuoteWhatever they are doing unfortunatley means no intensity grading on single event captures.Overall its a pretty basic/partial implementation of intensity grading . given price not sure what to expect though. Lowest cost agilent or tek probably what to compare to. Rigol is a little goofy as well. At least for compression of long captures.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 07:18:06 pm
content: IMHO intensity grading is sort of related to persistance with a finite (short time). I'm not quite sure if 1000 levels of intensity grading make any difference than 10 levels of intensity grading when looking at a signal. Your eyes can only process a limited amount of information anyway. More is just nice for the marketing department so they can print a large number in the specification.From what I understand there are 2 kinds of intensity grading:- one where the most recent signal is the brightest- one where the brightest places on the screen are where the signal spends most of it's time.It seems the SDS2000 is doing a combination of both. And I think I have found another bug: I see no difference between the finite persistance set to 1 second or 30 seconds (and anything in between). I'll add the bug to my list.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 07:22:15 pm
content: Quote from: don on August 29, 2014, 06:46:11 pmBy decay I mean precisely what Tektronix means when they describe their implementation of Digital Phosphor, as in the TDS3000B User Manual:"A Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope can clearly display intensity modulation in your signals. The oscilloscope automatically overlays subsequent acquisitions and then decays them to simulate the writing and decay of the phosphor in an analog oscilloscope CRT."This sounds to me exactly like persistence - but of course, at a much faster rate than normal 'persistence' settings on DSOs.QuoteI'm not really sure there is one method of doing intensity grading that Tektronix, Agilent, etc. all agree is thedefinitiveimplementation. Siglent is using a method that is fast, but contains less information than Rigol's implementation at lower timebases with larger sample depths - it's that simple.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 07:38:38 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2014, 07:18:06 pmWell, I don't know what your eyes are like, but mine can tell the difference between 10 and 100 levels quite readily. Between 64 and 256 is much more tricky - then it really depends on the signal you're looking at and the overall brightness of the display - it's possible some times, but not always.QuoteAs well as using / not using a data-density histogram binned from the vertical values occurring in the full waveform memory - which the Rigol DS2000 does - but the Siglent SDS2000 does not.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2014, 08:01:49 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on August 29, 2014, 07:38:38 pmI know but your brain also needs to process that visual information into a meaningful conclusion (is the signal as expected or not; what needs further adjusting).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2014, 12:00:20 am
content: Added a small video tothe first post in this threadlooking more closely at the intensity grading on the Siglent SDS2000.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 03:48:19 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 29, 2014, 09:21:17 amIMO, the most immediate necessary additions/changes for the DSO portion (aside from obvious bug fixes) would be:1) Get the main Acquisition modes working properly (i.e. High Res mode and Peak Detect BEFORE downsampling).2) Add some functions to make Sequence mode usable as a tool: adjustable speeds for playback, 'Overlay All', etc.3) Remove the code which disables the selected item for the Universal knob when the Trigger knob is turned (or bumped). This would immediately stop the very annoying behavior of 'losing' what you're adjusting when turning the Universal knob by accidentally nudging the too-close Trigger Level knob (which happens to me regularly).On a more fundamental level, I don't like Siglent's implementation of slower timebases in Y-T mode (at least, when combined with the way the DSO behaves while waiting for triggers). What this means is that when you're working at a slow timebase, the DSO draws nothing on the display until the entire acquisition is finished (regardless of trigger position - e.g. 7 seconds at 500ms/div) - during which, changing certain settings (e.g. trigger position, channel scale, etc) keeps resetting the trigger (so, of course, re-starting the acquisition), but doesn't change the display of the last captured waveform on the screen.So you can be adjusting settings for a long time at slower timebases - with no visual feedback of either the last acquired waveform moving onscreen - or seeing a newly acquired waveform appearing past the trigger point. It makes working at slower timebases in Y-T mode quite frustrating.Later:1) I think Siglent needs to think of a more elegant solution for doing intensity grading at lower wfrm/s.2) Add measurements for Math waveforms.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 07:59:17 pm
content: I added some other bugs to my previous posting as well:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/review-siglent-sds2304-a-comparison-of-features-with-rigol-ds2000-series/msg503859/#msg503859

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2014, 10:41:11 pm
content: Well, remember that this is the first digital phosphor scope of this kind ever made by Siglent. It is not like that beloved Rigol DS2000 releasedafterDS6000 and DS4000.

author: Siglent
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2014, 09:24:19 am
content: Quote from: marmad on August 31, 2014, 03:48:19 pmAll the questions you mentioned have been reported to the R&D department, thank you for helping us to improve the product.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2014, 03:14:00 pm
content: Quote from: Siglent on September 05, 2014, 09:24:19 amThanks for the response.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2014, 11:49:45 pm
content: BTW, I forgot to mention another nice little feature I appreciated that the Siglent has (that's lacking on the Rigol DS2000) and that's the settings for the Trigger Holdoff. You can set a Holdoff time, (which will be saved), and then just turn Holdoff ON / OFF, without losing or changing that time - while the Rigol requires you setting the time back to the minimum (100ns) to disable the Holdoff.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 12:30:49 am
content: Here are some images illustrating one of the SDS2000's problems with it's Peak Detect acquisition mode.A pair of 10ns pulses are sent to both scopes @ 50ms/div while in zoom mode. Both DSOs are triggered by the pulses, but only the Rigol displays the pulses correctly - even at the magnified view of 200ns/div.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 12:54:28 am
content: Strange.Mark, can I make some observations that will lead to a question?Both scopes have trigger set for a rising edge.The images indicate differing vertical attenuation in DSO settings.Both scopes show the Trig level outside the amplitude of the pulse.If these details are corrected, is there any difference in the displayed result?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 01:38:23 am
content: Quote from: tautech on September 11, 2014, 12:54:28 amNo, the trigger level is within the amplitude of the actual pulse, as seen on the Rigol. Although you can't see the orange trigger indicator (hidden because of the side menu), you can see the trigger line in the upper window on the Rigol.QuoteThe Rigol always displays the pulses virtually the same - but it varies on the Siglent, sometimes showing it as it appears on the Rigol - sometimes displaying it as seen in the image - and other variations in-between. But the trigger level doesn't affect the display.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2014, 01:48:09 am
content: Thanks Mark, just wanted to expand on your demonstration of the bug for Siglent to see.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 09:54:31 am
content: Some thoughts on the EasyScopeX control software / SCPI implementation on the Siglent SDS2000 series:I quite liked the EasyScopeX software - simple and effective - it did what it was supposed to do, and was a reasonably fast and bug-free control interface. Thumbs up - and kudos to Siglent for providing some simple control software which is sorely lacking on the Rigol UltraVision scopes.Using SCPI commands was a different story. From reading the programming manual, I have to say that their SCPI implementation seems more powerful (and likely faster) than Rigol's. For example, when setting up a waveform transfer, they allow you to specify the relative address of the frame (segment) number to transfer - whereas on the Rigol, you have to command the DSO to move to each frame before transferring the memory. And there are other features which are accessible via SCPI commands which are completely inaccessible on the Rigol DS2000.But in practice, when testing out various commands, I found it very easy to either lock-up the DSO, requiring a re-boot - or screw-up the SCPI link, requiring re-starting the SCPI software. The Rigol implementation, although less powerful (and still lacking some features / having some bugs as late as in FW v.#3), is much more robust and difficult to hang - even when sending incorrect / inappropriate commands.So I commend Siglent on their commitment to a broad and powerful SCPI set - but they need to do more debugging and testing to insure a graceful recovery from errors and SCPI command/typing mistakes.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 10:54:40 am
content: Quote from: marmad on September 16, 2014, 09:54:31 amCurious if they use what's known as definite length command protocol where as part of the parameters you get or send a number represienting the length of the number describing the number of data bytes, followed by the dataQuoteIf it is the type of command i described, they easily stuff things up if the data block is not exactly the same size as set in the params, due mainly to the text parser kicking in and trying to translate random data, which if you are really unlucky can do some damage

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 12:33:22 pm
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on September 16, 2014, 10:54:40 amWell, the programming manual is not officially published yet, but I was lent a copy from a friendly source. I can't release it, but perhaps I can post a small bit here. The parameters for waveform transfer setup for are as follows:Sparsing (SP): The sparsing parameter defines the interval between data points. For example: SP = 0 sends all data points SP = 1 sends all data points SP = 4 sends every 4th data pointNumber of points (NP): The number of points parameter indicates how many points should be transmitted. For example: NP = 0 sends all data points NP = 1 sends 1 data point NP = 50 sends a maximum of 50 data points NP = 1001 sends a maximum of 1001 data pointsFirst point (FP): The first point parameter specifies the address of the first data point to be sent. For waveforms acquired in sequence mode, this refers to the relative address in the given segment. For example: FP = 0 corresponds to the first data point FP = 1 corresponds to the second data point FP = 5000 corresponds to data point 5001QuoteWell, I was able to cause problems without trying any complicated parameter settings / data transfers. Just sending a simple command at the wrong moment - or making a typo - could sometimes gum up the works.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2014, 11:51:12 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on September 16, 2014, 12:33:22 pmIt's not entirely clear from that text wether SP, NP and FP are single commands or arguments to one. If it's the former it's a fairly typical way to set up the data prior to sending or receiving it, usually followed by another command that executes the transferQuoteThis may or may not be the problem. When you start receiving the data (assuming some sort of IEEE-488 compliance) there is usually a preamble of info that defines the data block length. Here's a quote from a tek scope manual. The format is the same on a lecroy scopeQuoteSo if you only read 100 bytes but the <yyy> field equalled 200 then the scope is still in data send mode until all 200 bytes are read by the PC. What the scope does with commands whilst in this "data mode" is most likely undefined. Worst still, if you are sending the scope data and for some reason it's only expecting 100 bytes but you have attempted to send it 200, after the initial 100 bytes are read in as data the scope's command parser would kick in and try to "understand" the data as commands potentially causing havoc

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2014, 12:14:05 am
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on September 16, 2014, 11:51:12 pmThey are arguments to the waveform setup command (or setup query).QuoteYes, I know how to use SCPI commands for control of DSOs fairly well. I've posted a few pieces of software in this forum written specifically for that purpose -such as this one.But the problems I was seeing were not things which you would expect to screw things up - like me botching a data transfer (either intentionally or not) - they were things like the DSO all of a sudden refusing to respond to further commands for no apparent reason - or locking-up due to a typo on a simple query. The SCPI implementation in the current FW version of the Siglent feels not quite stable yet and prone to some problems.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2014, 07:04:48 am
content: Quote from: marmad on September 17, 2014, 12:14:05 amMy apologies Mark and thanks for this detailed thread, it has peaked my interest in this scope and patiently await to see how and what siglent address in upcoming firmware updates. Cheers

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2014, 01:06:51 pm
content: Quote from: AlfBaz on September 17, 2014, 07:04:48 amNo apologies necessary; I just wanted to let you know that I've had some experience with SCPIUnfortunately, I didn't have enough time to really test the SCPI commands in-depth and make a detailed bug list. As with the rest of Siglent's firmware, there is a lot of potential in their implementation - it just seems to need more work at the moment.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 12:13:49 am
content: Any news?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2014, 01:00:20 am
content: Nope. Still waiting for Siglent to get the firmware sorted.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2014, 07:08:42 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 31, 2014, 01:00:20 amJust been to Siglent China while abroad and expressed the urgency of this update to get the SDS2000 to an acceptable level of functionality.A date that had been indicated has now passed and I like others await this eagerly for my own unit plus if sorted properly should re-awaken interest in a well spec'ed DSO.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 09:08:36 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 03, 2014, 07:08:42 amHow did they respond to that? Did they provide any explanation for the lack of progress, on critical updates to a shipping product? Any realistic time-frame to expect this functionality to eventually be delivered? Do they understand how neglecting a basically solid product, that has real advantages over the competition, is shooting themselves in the foot?Have all their top engineers been busy getting the new SDS2500 prototype (or whatever they're calling it) ready for the Trade Show? Seriously, I know how Development works, and you don't stall all work/progress on an existing product unless someone decided to temporarily reallocate and reprioritize limited resources elsewhere.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 09:52:45 pm
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 27, 2014, 09:08:36 pmMark, I agree wholeheartedly with you comments, it is a frustrating delay waiting for the new firmware particulary as I have a deal or two that might progress should it be completed.It seems only continued posting on these threads for Siglent to see our frustration and the ongoing emails from we dealers is needed for progress to occur.There was a good number of problems to rectify and this as I understand has taken time.However I believe its release is imminent and not before time IMO.If other Siglent agents have further news on this matter....please share.

author: AlfBaz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 06:31:24 am
content: I have been waiting patiently to see what the new firmware version brings to this unit. Others may not be so patient, taking into account the considerable competition there is at this price point.Further, the more time I wait the more expectation I have that the firmware update is more comprehensive. Should the next update a minor or insignificant update I will most likely buy something else as this would indicate to me, a lack of commitment to their products

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 03:39:42 pm
content: I'm at the point where I check for a new firmware version every dayIt would be nice if Siglent releases a new version soon. Lots of companies and people buy equipment in December.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 04:15:05 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 28, 2014, 03:39:42 pmI've learned that expecting companies to eventually fix bugs or add features is a mistake. If the product you're buying doesn't do what you need it to do right from the start, it's better to look elsewhere.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 04:54:37 pm
content: True but I'm willing to give Siglent some slack because the SDS2000 is clearly in it's infancy stage. If they abandon it now they can close their company. My original plan was to buy an SDS2000 around Christmas this year so I hope they get the firmware sorted in the next couple of weeks. Besides that Siglent still adds new features to the SDG1000 firmware.

author: gms
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 01, 2014, 12:25:17 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 28, 2014, 04:15:05 pmHello! I am very bad understand English and use Google Translate. Google translated so that I nothing do not understand :-). Please explain what you mean by writing this message?The fact that I paid for the SDS2202 and i hope that soon he will come to me ...You claim that the firmware update will not? And Siglent will not fix bugs?

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 01:42:38 am
content: Quote from: gms on December 01, 2014, 12:25:17 pmSiglent will of course fix some bugs. It may be soon, or it may be late. Some bugs you may be waiting a long time for fixes, and a few mayneverget fixed, if they're not deemed important enough to affect sales. Or a new model comes out that supercedes your model.So Marmad meant what he said: if you will be unhappy that some bug that may be important to you may never get fixed, don't pay your money ahead of time. The only thing you're guaranteed to get is whatever happens to be implemented in the unit when you get it. Anything beyond that is nice, but may never happen.Ask Siglent (or, Rigol, etc. for that matter), if they will sign an official document guaranteeing that bugs important to you will be fixed. Or that important features or usability fixes that are critical to you will eventually be implemented. They won't do it. Ask them if they will sell it to you for a part of the cost... with the rest to be paid after they eventually get all their claimed features working. They won't do that either.Marmad was warning folks not to buy based on what theyhopeit will some day do... but instead only onwhat it does now(bugs and all). Otherwise you may wind up learning the hard way (as some of us old-timers already have).None of the products are perfect, and all have at least some minor issues that owners have to get used to. That's a fact of life. But not all have the SAME bugs and limitations. If the bugs/limitations of a specific unit are things you CAN accept, and use the instrument in spite of, then you won't have a major problem. But if not, you could be very unhappy indeed, when something you were so sure would get fixed, never does. After you had patiently waited for it for a year or more.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 04:07:23 am
content: Quote from: gms on December 01, 2014, 12:25:17 pmWell, Mark_O answered your question perfectly - I couldn't have said it any better myself.One question for you: can I ask why you bought a Siglent SDS 2002?While I certainly think the SDS2004 is the only contender in it's price class/feature set for 4-channels at the moment - as I stated in the video at the beginning this thread, for just 2-channels I think the Rigol DS2000 beats the Siglent SDS2002 in both features and overall value - and even more so if you consider the hacks available for the DS2000.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 05:30:45 am
content: Excellent review.

author: gms
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 09:30:11 am
content: Mark_O, Thank you very much for such a detailed response!QuoteYou are of course absolutely right!For me very important only the one bug - doesn't work the peak detector. With other disadvantages i can probably be able to reconciled.Quotemarmad, the thing is that when I paid for this oscilloscope, I have not read this wonderful forum! My choice was based on the advertising promises. Obviously, I did a very foolish and short-sighted. But, as my mother said - clever people learn to others' mistakes and stupid from their mistakes O0. I'm upset.I very-very hope that Siglent decent manufacturer of oscilloscopes and that he wants eventually making a competitive product. But I'm very-very concerned about their long silence...Friends, I very much hope that Google Translate translated my answer correctly to you and that you have properly understood the essence of my response.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 12:52:49 pm
content: Quote from: gms on December 03, 2014, 09:30:11 amPeak detect is working.(exeptions:Bug1 and bug2)Alsoprevious claims that it use after ADC decimated data is totally wrong. It works just normally using full speed undecimated ADC data.I hope Siglent repair some Peak Detect mode bug(s) asap in some future FW.Peak detect bug1: peak detect do not work at all if user have selected highest possible memory in menu but with other memory selections it worksstarting from 50ms/div and more fast horizontal speeds.Peak detect bug2:Do not work with low horizontal speeds. It need work also in 100ms/div to 50s/div speed range.It works50ms/div and faster speeds.But of course if go to horizontal speed (dependent of selected memory depth) where sampling speed is full, it do not workand also there it do not need workbecause it can there full peak detection naturally. Example in image 2 there is 10kSa/s decimated sampling speed. One sample in every 100000ns. Pulse width 12ns. Of course this 12ns wide pulse is easy piece of cake to detect. If it works after decimation this test fails totally.Of course it can detect more short pulses what is used in these imaqes. Here I just use 12ns pulses from SDG5082 because pulse generator what can produce more short pulses was not available for this quick run for these images.Here some examples.In last two images pulse period is 10us.In other pictures pulse period is same as horizontal time/divIn SDS00009 there can see that some pulses produce "alias" and are semirandomly displayed.. but traces are quite dim... due to rare hits. (btw, if look image there can see used pulses shape alias...)EDIT:bug 2 need study more.= It works with all speeds down to 50s/div.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent's-new-product-msosds2000-series/msg609695/#msg609695

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 10:03:14 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on December 03, 2014, 12:52:49 pmFunny - is that similar to: my car is working - I just can't push the accelerator all the way to the floor or drive slower than 50km per hour?QuoteYour images certainly don't disprove anything I wrote (notice the word "longer"):Quote from: marmad on August 29, 2014, 01:24:18 pm1) I would hope that the Siglent could do Peak Detect correctly with only a 7k sample size to display.2) I never "claimed" anything - I was only speculating - but based on evidence that it misses peaks with long memory setting(s).

author: gms
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 12:54:59 pm
content: Thank you very much,rf-loop! Your comment could probably serve as for me a consolation, but I need a fully functional peak detector over the entire range.Therefore, it remains for me now only wait and hope that Siglent finalize this feature.Tell me please, can I ask you a tactless question (I apologize in advance) - You bought Siglent sds2000 or just use them (eg at work)?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 06:17:50 pm
content: Quote from: gms on December 04, 2014, 12:54:59 pmPlease see post:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent's-new-product-msosds2000-series/msg562665/#msg562665If you examinerf-loop's profile you will find the answer you seek.

author: gms
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 10:03:36 am
content: Quote from: tautech on December 04, 2014, 06:17:50 pmThank you,tautech! This information is reassuring.QuoteYes, thank you, I have guessed.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2014, 05:49:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 29, 2014, 10:18:19 amIt seems the new firmware became available. It is version 1.1.37.1. I would have expected something like 1.2.x which indicates a major version jump. So far very little seems to be fixed:Fixed:- I have not been able to reproduce the digital + analog out of sync bug- Cursors work in MSO mode- Variable persistence settings workImproved:- The select knob seems less sensitive- Peak detect works in slow time/div settings but not in roll mode- In slow time/div settings a red bar is shown to tell what the scope is doingNew bugs:- FFT is broken. I can't get a spectrum of the 1kHz probe adjust signal. But then again the FFT wasn't useful to begin with.- Zoom doesn't work with analog + digital channelsSome cosmetic things have been changed but the fundamental problems remain. The new firmware version doesn't show where more than 4 months of work went into. At this rate we'll never see firmware on the SDS2000 which can live up to the promisses Siglent made.All in all I think I can stick with my earlier conclusion:DON'T BUY!My new year's resolution is to get an Agilent/Keysight oscilloscope in 2015!

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2014, 05:59:59 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2014, 05:49:26 pmThanks for the update. Unfortunately, I don't have an SDS2000 anymore to test with. Did they manage to get High Res mode working? And any change with the way that intensity-grading is handled (i.e. previously it was strictly based on wfrm/s and didn't include sample overlap results pre-decimation)?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2014, 06:09:37 pm
content: Selecting high res mode doesn't alter anything so I guess they didn't manage to implement that either.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2014, 06:31:32 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2014, 05:49:26 pmThat's very disappointing to hear.It must be even more disappointing to you, after the long wait. I can see how your patience would be exhausted. Thanks a lot for the update though.QuoteThat seems like sound advice. Once again, an excellent hardware design with lots of potential, let down by an inadequate firmware implementation.Vendors need to learn that simply shipping a "sort of working" product, and marketing it aggressively, is justnot good enough. The promise that "some day" the firmware and working features will match the hardware potential (maybe) isnot good enough. Being in a hurry to ship an unfinished product, just because you see market-share eroding to sales of competitor's products, isnot good enough.Frankly, this is unprofessional performance, and should be an embarrassment to Siglent. I feel bad for the hardware team there, who worked hard to get their share of the efforts done well, and provide the foundation for a significant competitive advantage. Only to be let down by the firmware team.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2014, 06:38:40 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2014, 05:49:26 pmDid you not get 1.1.1.37.2linked in Siglents post:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/msg573377/#msg573377

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2014, 06:50:19 pm
content: I'm using version 1.1.37.2. So many numbers....

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2014, 07:59:24 pm
content: Oh and the cursors got screwed up too. Before (version 35) pushing the select button iterated between cursor1, cursor2 and both but the cursors stayed in horizontal or vertical mode. Now it iterates between vertical cursor1, vertical cursor 2, vertical both, horizontal cursor1, horizontal cursor2, horizontal both.The old behaviour was already a dissaster; IMHO pushing the button should toggle between cursor 1 and cursors 2 and not include both.

author: Siglent
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 02:22:15 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2014, 05:49:26 pmDear nctnico,First the FFT function is not broken, you need to reduce the memory depth and sampling rate while testing the 1KHz probe adjust signal.The second problem is about the Zoom function, it is true, this version do not support zoom with analog + digital channels, we hope to add it in next firmware version, thanks!

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 12:37:14 pm
content: Using FW version 1.1.1.37.2FFT is not broken.Here some examples. Image names tell something.First images are levels using 1MHz (sine) signal. Highest level is +3dBm what is over TFT visible area but still not clipped and not so much distorted in front end (and inside ADC range) Images are: +3, -7. - 17, -27, -37, -47, -57dBm. (generator: one crap HP8657B, displayed level - level not checked!)Then some other pictures, just for fun.Then last image with 1kHz square, just for:Quote from: nctnicoFFT is not broken after FW upgrade.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 12:59:24 pm
content: It seems you are using the zoom function as a window to select the part of the signal you want to see with FFT. I have not tried that yet.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 01:22:25 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 25, 2014, 12:59:24 pmYes, mostly 2x zoom for better visibility.For other readers who do not know this model: YT display zoom do NOT affect FFT. But zoomed YT is displayed under FFT window.FFT have 1k sample points what give 0.5k resolution. (pity)FFT full scale is always 0Hz to samplefrequency/2So if want look example range 0 - 25kHz then user need set oscilloscope for 50kSa/s for best available resolution (~50Hz in this case) for this frequency range. FFT zoom 1x - 10x do not give more FFT resolution, is is only image horizontal stretch (zoom) horizontally.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 02:11:42 pm
content: I've been following this thread with some interest as I considered getting a SDS2000 as a tertiary scope, but quite frankly I think the state of the firmware at this stage is pathetic. They have shown that they can produce good hardware but Siglent is a prime example why the Chinese have a reputation for their software being crap.At this point in time the only Siglent scope I would consider buying is the SDS3000, and this only because the software is made by someone who actually knows what they're doing (LeCroy). I guess the ugly state of the SDS2000 firmware is the reason why LeCroy has again choosen some Iwatsu scope over the SDS2000 as their replacement for the WaveJet 300A, despite using Siglent for other products.This one-step-forward-and-two-steps back with the SDS2000 firmware just shows me that sticking with second hand scopes isn't such a bad idea after all.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 03:07:15 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 25, 2014, 02:11:42 pmSteps to forward are too short and slow, but what are these back steps?Back step is something that it have been ok previously and after update bad or broken.I have not seen any documents about back steps. (exept terrible situation wirh SDG1000 series LOG sweep total hassle after new FW but this was nearly immediately fixed)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 03:11:38 pm
content: The way the cursors work and no zoom in MSO mode in 'version 37' are definitely a step back. Besides that there are still many functions which are mutually exclusive like measurements and digital mode.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 03:15:54 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on December 25, 2014, 03:07:15 pmWhat about this:Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2014, 05:49:26 pmTake the zoom as an example.And I know you said that FFT isn't broken but the way it's described in this thread doesn't look like it's working as it should.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 03:37:58 pm
content: Regarding FFT I'm really missing my old Tektronix TDS744A. Albeit being very slow at least it allowed to choose the FFT length (and thus resolution) and clean up the FFT result using averaging.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2014, 07:45:23 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 25, 2014, 03:37:58 pmThe TDS744A's FFT wasn't that great but in my opinion the way FFT is implemented in modern low-end scopes (not just Siglent, Rigol isn't really much better) is absolutely atrocious.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2014, 06:33:52 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on December 25, 2014, 01:22:25 pmI agree that is unfortunate. Even the cheap(er) Rigols are 2k-sample FFTs, which is also fairly anemic. Siglent should consider increasing this, in a future update.I assume this is being done to maintain a decent refresh rate, but when the acquisition is stopped, it would provide an opportunity to do a lot more with the available sample set. Siglent should take advantage of that.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2014, 06:43:49 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 25, 2014, 07:45:23 pmI agree. And I suspect the reason it is that way is simply so they (all the lower-end guys, not picking on Siglent) can claim they have FFT, regardless of how poor it may be in practice. Just a box to check off on their Feature List.There's a big difference between things done right, and things just done. Many vendors these days are opting for quantity of features over quality. And considering that the ones they do have on their Feature Lists often don't even work (or work poorly), it's probably too much to ask that they do it "right". That will only come as things evolve (and competition forces it), and they can leverage off a core foundation of existing code, in their next-gen product lines. Rather than starting from scratch and re-inventing the wheel each new hardware/firmware cycle.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2014, 12:06:41 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on December 26, 2014, 06:33:52 pmIt is. What's even worse, though, is that for the DS4000 and DS6000 (both pretty expensive scopes) it's apparently only 700 points:http://beyondmeasure.rigoltech.com/acton/attachment/1579/f-00f2/0/-/-/-/-/file.pdfThis is pretty embarrassing. The listed 600pts for the old DS1000 Series looks great in comparison.QuoteThe reason is very likely the severe limitations in processing capabilities in these low-end scopes (which as a result will of course also affect the refresh rate). FFT is pretty heavy in CPU ressources, and I doubt the simple controllers in these scopes can deal with anything like say 10kpts at a somewhat reasonable speed.QuoteI fully agree, FFT seems to be merely a check-box exercise so that they can list it on the data sheet, no matter that at this stage it's borderline useless.QuoteIndeed. That's one reason why I rather buy a not too old second-hand scope than a new entry-level scope. The performance per buck in the low end class, while having increased dramatically in recent years, is for me still much better with a second hand scope.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2014, 09:32:47 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 27, 2014, 12:06:41 amI believe that document was from 2012. According to thisOct/2013 document,"The DS2000, DS4000, and DS6000 Scopes use 2048 data points from the waveform to calculate the FFT."That's where I obtained the 2k figure I mentioned previously.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 01:21:31 pm
content: Quote from: Mark_O on December 27, 2014, 09:32:47 amAh, ok. That's better of course but still abysmally low. And pretty pathetic for a scope at the price of the DS4k and DS6k.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:03:59 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 27, 2014, 12:06:41 amIMHO it depends on what you find important. Most second hand scopes don't have serial protocol decoding and digital inputs which is why I bought a new oscilloscope. It just sucks that in the low costs range you appearantly have to trade protocol decoding + digital for proper signal analyses functions.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:18:53 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 28, 2014, 01:21:31 pmI would agree that the higher-end Rigols should support something closer to the (up to) 64k FFTs on the Agilent MSO-X scopes. At least as an option, that could be disabled if it was too slow.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:52:03 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 28, 2014, 07:03:59 pmThat's true, serial decode severely limits the choice for 2nd hand scopes to a few newer scopes. The Agilent MSO6k comes to mind but these scopes are still pretty expensive. LeCroy X-Stream scopes (with the exception of the WaveSurfer 400) can do serial decode for a wide range of protocols (serial, CAN, USB, Firewire, Ethernet, ARINC/MIL-1553 and so on) as a software option, but unless the scope in question already comes with the required option it's hardly a financially viable way (the options are still available from LeCroy but aren't cheap).And if you need MSO capabilities (digital inputs) then it gets even worse.At the moment I can live with serial decode only (my WavePro has all the decode options) but should I need digital channels then I'll probably just get one of the USB logic analyzers.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 08:05:51 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 28, 2014, 07:52:03 pmReminding you the SDS2000 series until Feb15 2015 offer of buy 1 option, get 2 more free.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 08:17:49 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 28, 2014, 07:52:03 pmBut those are not convenient to use and usually have limited memory. The past few days I have been using my SDS2204 for debugging a CPLD design and scrolling through / magnifying the digital signals using rotary knobs is very handy.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 08:40:55 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on December 28, 2014, 08:05:51 pmAnd also reminding everyone (again) that it's not really a generalized Buy 1, Get 2 Free deal.It is specifically, buy the $299 8-channel LA option, and get the $188 FG function generator and $188 DC decoder options, for free. A $376 savings. The protocol decoder option was already a win over the Rigol options, because Rigol breaks them up into multiple pricey chunks. While Siglent bundles all the decoders into one affordable package. And, for a limited time, they're even cheaper. I.e., 55% off on that option bundle.