Siglent SDS2000, A Short Video Review  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 03:51:47 am
content: Thank you for the video.

author: uboot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 07:39:34 am
content: Even if it's short, I won't call it a 'review'. More like a short 'product demo ad'.With such a head line, you're creating lots of expectations in us forum members - you'd better start meeting them now, doing more testing videos, or all you'll get back is disappointed ranting

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 02:10:19 pm
content: Quote from: uboot on December 05, 2013, 07:39:34 amThe DSO definitely looks like an interesting product - but, yes, I agree with uboot: please, for clarity's sake: you (and the person who made the video) clearly work for Siglent. I understand English is not your native language, but a "review" implies "To examine with an eye to criticism". This is not a review - it's a demo.

author: zaoka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 02:22:13 pm
content: Pricing info?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 02:53:37 pm
content: Quote from: zaoka on December 05, 2013, 02:22:13 pmSome estimated prices in Euros posted in another thread.

author: BeerCannon
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 03:43:08 pm
content: Where did you buy it, and how much?Not sure why we needed to see the SDG 5000 Series waveform generator, especially if the scope has one built-in.These scopes are really tall.. too tall for my workbench, but perhaps a bonus when viewing 4 traces.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 03:45:56 pm
content: Quote from: BeerCannon on December 05, 2013, 03:43:08 pmReally? You think the YouTube poster bought it?

author: BeerCannon
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 03:47:03 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 03:45:56 pmNo, I don't. But I thought I'd give him a chance to convince me otherwise.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 03:48:31 pm
content: Quote from: BeerCannon on December 05, 2013, 03:47:03 pmI particularly like the empty room with a bare table that is his workspace/bench.You can see more of it in his one other posted YouTube clip:Edit:Ha, ha... yeah, both of us looking at YouTube simultaneously.

author: BeerCannon
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 03:51:17 pm
content: The same YouTube account has a video of an SDS2304 (4-channel) version with it's external trigger connected to what looks like an SDS1102CML to count the waveform capture rate. Much like the video someone did of the DS1000Z series scope connected to a DS1000E series scope. There's no audio on the video right now.. perhaps waiting for an English overdub (and/or a script)?Edit: we must have cross posted about the other video.. haha.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 04:00:00 pm
content: The DSO definitely maintains nice capture speeds with 2, 3, and 4 channels on simultaneously.I've never seen any owners of a DS4000 posting wfrm/s rates with multiple channels on, but judging by the DS2000/DS1000Z rates, I doubt Rigol's DS4000 can match those percentages.

author: uboot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 04:15:20 pm
content: The video proofs nothing. It's the same with the Uni-Trend UTD2xxxCM-Series claiming 150k waveforms /s capture rate.Even if the scope manages to trigger and capture at high speed, the captured waveform has to be processed / transferred to some persistence / dpo-like display bufferat the very same speed.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 04:28:04 pm
content: Quote from: uboot on December 05, 2013, 04:15:20 pmWell, no, it's not the same as the Uni-T.First, ithasa Trigger Out - which, by convention, are the captured Triggered Ins - so at least it can be measured (the Unit-T has no Trigger Out). Of course, this doesn't guarantee that they process every single waveform connected to those Triggers - but the same can be said forEVERYDSO that has a high waveform capture rate - including, among others, the Agilent X-3000's 1 million wfrm/s.Second, ithasa database buffer and intensity-grading - so it has a process whereby to display the high capture rate. The Uni-T does NOT have intensity grading - so no process.So, IMO, there is no comparison between the two scopes - one is a DPO, the other is a DSO.Also, we have yet to see a picture of the inside of a UNI-T UTD2102CM, but trust me, it will never look anything like this:

author: uboot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 04:50:40 pm
content: Trigger out proves as much as the hardware trigger frequency counter used by Uni-T I'm afraid...And intensity grading... well... it actually needs _more_ processing than a simple persistence mode as used within low-cost scopes, so this is no indication as well.I think we need to make a clear distinction between waveform _capture_ rate and waveform _processing_ rate.Glitch benchmarks needed.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 05:01:44 pm
content: Quote from: uboot on December 05, 2013, 04:50:40 pmI'm not sure what you're talking about... you mean the frequency counter on the Uni-T? This has nothing to do with triggers (only the input signal itself) and is nothing like a Trigger Output.QuoteYes!! That's the point - a oscilloscope with intensity-grading has more processing power than one without.Did you look at the PCB of the Siglent? Do you know what DPO (and fast waveform capture) architecture looks like?This is definitely a fast DPO - no doubt about that. I'm more curious to see how nicely the UI works - and how well things like segmented memory are implemented.

author: uboot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 06:14:33 pm
content: I'm just afraid that the termwaveform update ratehas become a new marketing buzz word for scope manufacturers, omitting the fact that the truewaveform processing rate, i.e. the rate at which the scope manages to transfer samples from fast FIFO buffer to DPO buffer, is way more important.Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 05:01:44 pmAccording to the manual it is a hardware frequency counter that counts trigger frequency.Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 05:01:44 pmYou're right, but I'd like to distinguish between processing power and processing complexity.Intensity grading is more complex than simply persistent mode.To achieve the same waveform processing rate with intensity grading, more processing power is needed.But a scope featuring intensity grading does not automatically have more processing power. Of course it should, but for simple marketing purposes you can implement intensity grading which is just a software feature and keep your hardware as (cheap) as it was.Also, you can't tell from the screen update rate, how fast waveform processing is because youreye trigger(aka shutter speed) is almost saturated at 50 frames per second.Just give priority to the UI, e.g. with a dedicated snappy ARM SoC, and the scope feels flashy.We're talking about 2000....50,000....150,000 waveforms per second. No way that you can verify this by screen refresh rate.You need some glitch generator - periodic signal + spurious glitches like Dave uses in his reviews - and then watch if the glitch becomes visible at some time or if the scope misses the glitch.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 06:50:18 pm
content: QuoteBut this is almost certainly, without a doubt, another of the MANY English and translation mistakes they make in the manual. This would make no sense - and be unlike every other DSO on the market. Virtually every DSO has a "built-in 6-bit hardware frequency measuring meter" (which is what they call it on the 11th page of the manual) for measuring the frequency of the INPUT signal - NOT the trigger.QuoteThat would be very difficult to do. It only takes about one minute of using a DSO with intensity-grading to feel that it is WAY different (and way faster) than persistence mode. They are not alike at all - except in the fact that they can use similar shades of color. This involves significant differences in the design of the PCB and FW implementation.QuoteNobody said you could. But having used a DSO with intensity-grading for the last year, I can tell you that it's obvious via the intensities when you increase the capture rate by a factor of 10x; in other words, when you increase from 100 to 1k wfrm/s - or from 1k to 10k wfrms/s, etc - it's clear as a bell. The Siglent is clearly capturing and processing many many waveforms per second - but I couldn't say the same thing about the Uni-T.QuoteThis is a cumbersome method which involves running the same test many times over to find the correct answer: it's an average (law of probabilities). In a nutshell (although this might seem identical, it isn't): you can't prove how fast a DSO is - only how slow it ISN'T.

author: uboot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 07:50:48 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 06:50:18 pmFor me it doesn't make a difference if it's a typo / mistranslation. Don't wanna argue here. This 'typo' just gave me a hint on how they may have calculated their waveform capture rate: 1GSa/s divided by 6K sample buffer = 166,666 "waveforms per second"Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 06:50:18 pmOne minute of _which_ intensity-graded DSOs?Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 06:50:18 pmSure - intensity grading was introduced first on more expensive DSOs whose trustworthy (?) manufacturers definitely (? I hope so) assured that there is enough processing power behind.I just don't wanna get tricked by eye candy and snappy GUI - which is _very_ easy, just put a decent ARM SoC into the scope and let it do some intensity grading - this will still look fast if it is done with only 100 waveforms per second...We need more reliable demos on real waveform processing rates / glitch visualization abilities. A simple sine wave as shown in the video isn't enough. That's why I called for a 'real-world example' aka glitch generator like the oneDave used in his review of the 200MHz hackable Tekway/Hantek.Cumbersome? Maybe.... Alternatives? I only know of this one:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/a-simple-technique-to-measure-waveform-update-rates-on-dsos-with-no-trigger-out/

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 08:43:46 pm
content: Quote from: uboot on December 05, 2013, 07:50:48 pmIf you send a constantly changing signal (e.g. AM signal) to a DPO having 64/256 levels of grading - you can see INSTANTLY the difference between 500 wfrm/s, 5000 wfrm/s, and 50k wfrm/s (as I can see on my Rigol). Sorry, but you can't "fake" a much faster update rate with 100 wfrm/s when it has intensity grading. The Siglent, as shown in these videos and the ones at the other thread, has a fast update rate - no doubt about it.This is the reason no one is bothering to do precise glitch tests on DSOs with intensity-grading (and just trusting the Trigger Out readings) - because it's easy to tell the difference between slow, fast, and very fast waveform update rates with these DSOs. The intensity levels * the refresh rate of the LCD = thousands of bits of information per pixel possible per second.QuoteI love Dave's videos - but glitch tests only make sense when run for long periods of time - otherwise they are worthless; it's about probabilities. A DSO that does 10 wfrm/s can capture a glitch that occurs once every 10,000 cycles in the very first second it tries; but the question is: how many times can it do it over a longer period of time?QuoteWell, thanks for posting the link to the method I developed, but unfortunately it only works on a small subset of DSOs with an Every (as opposed to Alternate) Rising and Falling Edge trigger - and even then, it has to be done very carefully to find the very first blind-time gap (as opposed to wfrm/s frequency multiples).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 09:37:22 pm
content: Quote from: uboot on December 05, 2013, 06:14:33 pmBTW, I agree with this previous statement of yours. IMO, if you want to buy a DSO to last you for a few good years into the future (and feel satisfied with it), it's really only important that it have intensity/color grading and a reasonably high waveform capture rate at the smaller time bases; anything around ~10k wfrm/s is fine.

author: uboot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 09:48:07 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 08:43:46 pmI also thought about that, e.g. white noise should quickly turn into a red bar. But I'm still not convinced how update speed of the intensity view translates into thousands of waveforms processed per second.Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 08:43:46 pmThe question for me is: at which _rate_ is intensity computed?Even if intensity grading is applied only to the visible screen area and imagine we have a visible waveform of 512 8bit samples and 64 (6bit) intensity levels => we still need 512x256x6bit=96KBytes for the intensity buffer. Persistence buffer would require only 512x256bits=16KBytes.For 50k waveforms per second, this means: 50k x 96KB = 4,5GB throughput per second.Now, the SoC used for the GUI may read from the intensity buffer with slow speed and take ages to scale the date to the screen size, doesn't matter - all necessary info has been already captured and processed. Even 10fps screen refresh won't hurt here.On the other hand, for 50 frames per second screen refresh rate, a mere 96KBx50 = 5MB of throughput is needed for the intensity view. Instead of using expensive memory for intensity buffer + dedicated ASIC/FPGA for intensity computation, the SoC could do intensity grading by itself by grabbing just a potion of the sample buffer every now and then (modern SoCs have dual or quad cpu cores, with a multi-threaded GUI, enough resources are left for fast response to user interaction) - with a Sine wave and rotating the frequency knob on the function generator, no-one would notice a difference.Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 08:43:46 pmackQuote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 08:43:46 pmYou're welcomeI very much like that idea and I wish there was a workaround for scopes with different triggering.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2013, 10:31:18 pm
content: Quote from: uboot on December 05, 2013, 09:48:07 pmLook at Dave's video review of theGW-Instek GDS-2000A series. It appears from the video (and Dave's subsequent teardown) that Instek might have used the SoC for doing the meager 16 levels of intensity - instead of a dedicated ASIC/FPGA. And what occurs is a stuttering and freezing of the display updating on occasion.I suspect if your idea was feasible (and I'm sure it's been tested by DSO manufacturers trying to cut production costs), it would have already surfaced in a product.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2013, 12:31:26 am
content: The memory was set to 14kpoints, as seen in 0:19. And the scope has LeCroy-like rotary knobs!

author: uboot
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2013, 07:33:49 am
content: Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 10:31:18 pmDrop in a faster multi-core SoC + multithreaded GUI and you are done in the first place.Quote from: marmad on December 05, 2013, 10:31:18 pmFeasibility in terms of performance or sales?I suspect DSO manufacturers will notice that intensity grading eye candy and snappy GUI is an important selling point which can be had almost for free just by a SoC replacement and some software engineering, so sooner or later it will be introduced to their low end lines. Doing it in hardware with high throughput will still be reserved for high end.Now, slowly getting back to the topic - the mainboard of the Siglent above indeed looks interesting

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2013, 07:21:11 pm
content: Is there any Waveform inspector or similar feature for long long record management at SDS2000? At least there areno dedicated buttonsas on Rigol DS2000 / DS4000, GW Instek GDS-2000A or Agilent DSOX2000.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2013, 10:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on December 07, 2013, 07:21:11 pmThere are few clues on this matter in the Datasheet.However a timebase range of 1nS/div to 50S/div and their statement " The 2GSa/s, 28Mpts configuration provides the ability to capture a fast transient or alongacquisition" and a Delay Trigger spec of 10S to 1,000,000,000S provide a few clues.Hopefully release is soon and many questions can be answered.

author: Farrari
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 11, 2013, 09:41:53 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on December 07, 2013, 07:21:11 pmSDS2000 has sequence mode,it is similar to Segmented memory. quote what Herman explained herehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent's-new-product-msosds2000-series/msg320784/#msg320784

author: swallowtail333
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 11:46:22 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on December 06, 2013, 12:31:26 amHi This doesn't have the logic port connector.Siglent can replace to the new hardware?I am wondering.looking at this video.I am afraid now whether I can get new hardware SDS2000series.And I worry about the support.From time to time,no reply from Siglent China.How about another location?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 12:22:20 pm
content: The MSO series is being sent out for appraisal and evaluation. Some forum members will get them. Keep watching for their findings.Siglent has announced they have put extra staff on customer support and to contact them directly.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2014, 01:51:16 pm
content: Quote from: swallowtail333 on March 17, 2014, 11:46:22 amThat was a pre-production, prototype unit. All released products (since March 1st) will have the LA connector.QuoteNo need for hardware replacement, or factory upgrades. I'm guessing you missed Siglent's announcementherethat:"there will be no MSO2000 series... all the SDS2000 series oscilloscope will be equipped 8 bit MSO channel since March 1st. You just need to purchase a MSO license to activate the MSO function when you need it later. Of course, you need a MSO probe to work in with it."So there's nothing to be worried about on that front, since field upgrades will be simple on all units.

author: ot1
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2014, 06:47:43 am
content: Is the waveform generator also going to be a software option? Are bandwidths software options as well? What were the missing chips for on the Siglent PCB?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2014, 10:22:04 am
content: All options will be enabled ex factory for 30 power cycles. Options can be purchased with scope or as an extra later and enabled with a code. AWG option is US$188 RRP plus any taxes.BW is set by model ex factory 70,100,200 or 300 MHz and 2 or 4 channels.(eg SDS2304= 300MHz 4 ch)The PCB image in this thread (Page 1) is of a 2 channel model so the missing chips are the omitted 4 channel hardware.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2014, 11:21:55 am
content: Quote from: tautech on March 18, 2014, 10:22:04 amRight. And I was thinking that also missing on that early PCB was the FPGA for the logic analyzer section. But looking again, I'd say those 4 main chips below are all for Chan3/4 (one dual ADC, one FPGA, two RAM chips). There is one other unpopulated RAM spot up above, probably for the LA memory.That's really quite a sophisticated board.

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2014, 04:31:21 pm
content: Quote from: uboot on December 06, 2013, 07:33:49 amThe point is that an FPGA or ASIC specifically designed for the purpose will almostalwaysbe faster. let's take Bitcoin mining for an example. We started out with general purpose CPUs. Then we moved up to more horsepower GPUs that could use there thousands of cores to perform many calculations at a time. Finally FPGAs and then ASICS. Icoulduse 100 computers loaded with ATI 7970, but that would be significantly more expensive and there would be no point to it.

author: swallowtail333
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 20, 2014, 02:45:48 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on March 17, 2014, 12:22:20 pmThanks for info.It sounds nice,many staff follow up new SDS2000 series.And also another concerns about EasyScopeX.I hope everybody uses it easily.

author: swallowtail333
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 20, 2014, 02:56:08 pm
content: Quote from: Mark_O on March 17, 2014, 01:51:16 pmThanks for info.Now I came to know that it was pre-production.I see,somebody demonstrated the prototype.Ver apprecated.and I hope strongly Siglent China staff always reply and provide the firmware and so on.Anyway,very appreciated.If anybody gets SDS2000 series,plz report about EasyScopeX .