new Oscilloscope choice - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2021, 06:57:11 pm
content: Hello,I am sure this topic has been covered before but their seems to be so much information and of course with technology moving and prices changing I wanted a fresh look at this.Basically I need to replace two very old oscilloscopes (Phillips Dual time base scopes, late 80's) with something a bit more up to date and modern.The model I have been looking is a Keysight DSOX1202G or maybe a Keysight DSOX2002A.I only want this for general purpose use, and do not really need any protocol analysis as I have other logic tools (Saleae).Most of my projects are digital based with embeded MCU's and a multitude of inputs from sensors etc, mainly passing through ADC's and DAC's and filters etc with some op-amp stuff for signal conditioning and the like.So my questions is really, what scope would you recommend? Added maths and other functions would be nice. Two channels is all I need but 4 would be a bonus, maybe 70Mhz would be ok but higher the better for future projects.I was also looking for something with as big a screen as I can get for that sort of money.ThanksJohn

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2021, 07:33:31 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 20, 2021, 06:57:11 pmI'd say 4 channels is important for that sort of work. In theory you can do anything with just 2 channels but 4 channels really reduces the amount of probe movements.A DSOX1204G costs less than a DSOX2002A, so... I say go for 4 channels.

author: Jeff C
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 20, 2021, 07:36:24 pm
content: What's your budget? Since you listed the DSOX2002A I would assume its around $1500 USD.That being said, for that price you could also look at the Rigol MSO 5000 for around $1000 USD or the Siglent SDS2104x Plus for around $1400 USD. Both scopes are 4 channels, have an MSO option, and there are threads on the form on how to make DIY Logic analyzer probes.I personally own the SDS2104x Plus. The hack was very simple and it unlocks all the options. I've read that the Rigol can be kind of tricky because you have to edit some configuration file in the linux OS to hack it, but with the siglent there is a simple python script. The siglent also has an auto probe interface, 50 ohm termination, and 200 MPts of storage. There are a lot more specs to both scopes, so do some research on the internet and on the threads I've linked belowThread for Siglent SDS2000X Plus:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/Thread for Rigol MSO 5000:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/Thread comparing Siglent SDS2104x Plus and Rigol MSO 5000https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/best-350mhz-scope-in-a-hackable-world-(siglent-sds2104x-plus-or-rigol-mso5072)/Siglent Hack:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-hack/Rigol Hack:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-mso5000-series-oscilloscopes/DIY Siglent Logic Analyser Probes:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/diy-logic-analyzer-probe-and-pods-for-siglent-scopes/DIY Rigol Probes:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/ms05000-budget-logic-analyzer-probe-set-design/edit: added more links

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2021, 07:37:53 pm
content: For your purpose I'd get a 4 channel scope all day long. The screen on the MicSig STO1000 series is pretty big and it has very little noise which is nice for dealing with analog circuits. This model also has signal filtering which is nice to have when dealing with signal processing circuits; you can check on the oscilloscope whether filtering is going to improve a signal or you can filter out unwanted high or low frequency spurs.And don't underestimate the power of having decoding on an oscilloscope. With a logic analyser you can only see the digital domain while problems are often only visible in the analog domain. Many years ago I was involved in a project in which another engineer spend 2 or 3 weeks trying to fix a communication problem on an RS485 bus. In the end I went over to see what the problem was. He was using the digital channels on his oscilloscope so the first thing I did was using the analog channels and the cause of the problem was right in front of us immediately. It took less than half an hour to fix the problem from there.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2021, 08:10:31 pm
content: First: don't buy DSOX2002A. That is worst scope for the money in the world. For same money you can get DSOX1204G from Keysight that is better scope, and has Siggen. That is if it has to be Keysight.There are many other choices, many with interesting advantages to said Keysights.Take a look at scopes Jeff C and NctNico mentioned. As Nico said, don't dismiss mixed signal scopes, they can be life savers.Decoding on the scope is not important for long sequences of decoding communication software level. They are useful for correlation of messages with analog world.For instance correlating I2C frame with wrong message to sag on power line. With logic analyser decoding you only see errored frame not the cause.Big screen? Micsig is interesting little thing with screen bigger than Keysights, both Rigol MSO5000 (9") and Siglent SDS2104X+ (10") have bigger screen, touch and are level up in anything Keysight has less than MSOX3000T series.I would do a bit of research before making decision.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2021, 08:20:47 pm
content: The Rigol is powerful but a bit noisy so I assume it wouldn't fit the "signal conditioning" requirement.A Micsig is half the cost of a Keysight and it's what I use. It's got a big screen and the user interface is awesome. There's not many Micsig dealers if you're in the USA though.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 08:55:44 am
content: Hi,Thank you so much to everyone who has replied. All with valid and interesting comments.I don't need to stick to Keysight, just thought they were a good brand and one to go for.Some very interesting comments that made me think. I will now add 4 channels and also decoding to my list of must have features.I have never heard of MicSig, I am not sure were they are but I am in the UK and not seen them before now. Will have a look at these and read the reviews.The filter feature sounds really interesting and would be helpful I think.Anyway, there I was almost ready to checkout with a Keysight, but now its back to the drawing board and to have a serious think of what I need and how much to spend. In work we have two very high end Yokogawa scopes, I think around 50K in money which are excellent. Don't think they do a low cost or entry level version though for around £1200?Thanks again, I will post back here if I have any further questions or need any more advice.John

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 10:22:34 am
content: The R&S RTB2004 series is also worth considering if you can stretch the budget.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 11:54:04 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 21, 2021, 08:55:44 amI got mine here:https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Micsig-STO1104C.html

author: modoran
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 03:50:29 pm
content: Where does the "plus" in name means ?Why not buy cheaper from here ?https://www.banggood.com/Micsig-STO1104C-Digital-Smart-Oscilloscope-100MHz-4CH-Handheld-Oscilloscope-Automotive-Scopemeter-Oscilloscope-p-1618226.html?cur_warehouse=CZ&ID=6285165

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 04:10:25 pm
content: Quote from: modoran on April 21, 2021, 03:50:29 pmThat is a price that is same as Batronix in Germany, and from Germany you don't pay import and dues for that, and you get 3 year warranty...

author: modoran
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 04:16:09 pm
content: Banggood delivers from Czech Republic, also without import taxes and extremely fast delivery time.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 04:37:46 pm
content: I would never buy anything worth 500 USD without warranty... And new rules of taxing mean even if they are 1 USD only it might be applied.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 04:51:09 pm
content: Quote from: modoran on April 21, 2021, 04:16:09 pmWe don't actually know where 'hobbyelectronics' lives.Imainlyposted Batronix as a price reference (ie. it's half the price of the 4-channel Keysight...)The Micsig is very different to use, the Keysights are probably very similar to the old 'scopes being replaced. It doesn't hurt to learn new things thoughand the Micsigs are many times faster to setup things like (eg.) triggering with all parameters on a single touch-sensitive page instead of working your way through half a dozen individual submenus with a twisty knob.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 06:59:02 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on April 21, 2021, 04:37:46 pmIt seems Aliexpress is getting round that by shipping from within the EU.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 07:57:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 21, 2021, 06:59:02 pmThey might cheat tax, but you will still have no warranty... And since you didn't buy from authorized source, you don't know if you even going to get good one. It might be rejects, or with a defect.If it is who are you going to return to... That is jut too much risk for little price difference compared to authorised distributors...And tax evasion is suspicious, if it ships from EU, then you must pay entity in EU and pay VAT. If you don't, that is basically smuggled goods...You pay to someone in China, and that entity smuggles it into EU without importing it legally and ships it to you by post..Or someone did import it in EU and paid all duties, and than absorbed all cost. In which case you need to get a invoice that clearly shows VAT...I'm not saying it is 100% bad option, but is just too shady for my taste on many level and benefit is minimal. I, personally, would gladly pay few € more not to have to deal with it.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 08:01:16 pm
content: I've bought lots of things for more than $500 that had no warranty, but they were used items and a new one with a warranty would have cost many times more.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 08:13:47 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on April 21, 2021, 07:57:39 pmIf you're VAT registered in the EU* then Batronix will ship it to you without TAX applied and you declare it in your own country.(*) Or know somebody who is.https://www.batronix.com/shop/shopping/vat-information.html

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2021, 11:14:02 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on April 21, 2021, 07:57:39 pmThat is just pure speculation. Aliexpress will take the cheapest route for sure but given the huge volume of packets you can rest assured that every customs department in the EU is on top of them.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 06:56:13 am
content: Hi,As I already mentioned above, I am in the UK. I would prefer to buy from a UK authorised dealer if possible and also avoid import duty and high postage costs if I can.I don't mind buying from the EU or anywhere else but only if I know that the benefits out way the added costs and potential warranty issues.Also, this would be a business purchase so I would need to ensure I have an official VAT receipt and some sort of proper warranty.For this purchase I wouldnotconsider BangGood or AliExpress, if I have to pay extra for UK or a EU / USA distributor then so be it.I would also consider second hand maybe if it means I get a better scope for the same money, as long as I get proof of purchase.My main questions are really about the spec / quality of a scope rather the where to buy and who from.Picking a brand and model is my dilemma.Thanks for all your replies, of which all are interesting and useful in making a final choice.John

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 07:05:30 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 21, 2021, 11:14:02 pmIt is not a speculation, it is explanation that someone must pay tax and import duties, importer or final customer. If nobody did, it is not really legally imported in EU. Period.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 07:18:13 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 22, 2021, 06:56:13 amJohn,I don't know how complicated is to import things from EU after Brexit, but Batronix and Baterfly are good source in EU. Also I know that in UK Telonic sells Micsig.Micsig scopes are cute little buggers, there is a version that is touch screen only, and one with buttons and touch screen.They are good quality, work well, very little bugs, not very sophisticated devices (no advanced analysis options and such), but what is there works well..Also they are very compact, battery powered, and portable. They work well on desk and out in the field.There are some demonstrations and reviews out there. If you have specific question, there are many users here so maybe we can answer. Also, if you looking to buy, asking questions to a distributor is a good way to test how responsive they are to your requests.Good luck!

author: goaty
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 07:56:24 am
content: I can recommend a Mixed-Signal approach.One hardly needs 4 channels, if either a Mixed-Signal Scope with one or more 8-bit PODs is presend or a separate cheap logicanalyzer like Dreamsource.I can watch signal fidelity with a single probe and decode the bus with the LA either builtin or separate.I love the external LA, as the sigrok/pulseview has so powerful decoders.Also the builtin LA in scope is useful, but has not so many decoders and is harder to set up with knobs of scope.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 10:37:16 am
content: Ah, yes, that's very true. I have a Saleae LA which I think is fantastic and as helped solve many complex problems.As also pointed out have a scope decode the signals in a analogue way can also find signal problems that a pure LA would not always be able to see.All though 4 channels would be nice, I have always had 2 channels scopes and never (So far) needed 4 channels at the same time. But I can of course see that their could be times when that may be needed.I don't need the scope to be portable and prefer a'proper'bench unit.Math functions and the like would also be really good, but I don't need a function generator or DCM built in so just a really good 2 (or 4) channel MSO would be what I am looking for I think??with a big clear screen (Phosphor maybe?).My budget is really not much more than around £1200 + VAT .The R&S scopes also look really good with software upgrades available for the future maybe.Would be great to loan one and play with it for a few weeks but I think those days are gone unless you are spending massive amounts of cash on one.ThanksJohn

author: goaty
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 10:50:03 am
content: I got the 1054Z since I started again hobby electronics and repair and it´s been a good friend, but the FFT and decode ist not optimal.The FFT is slow and the decode does not work if segmented memory which is a shame.Now I got opportunity to try RTC1002 and RTB2004.Love the extremely small form of the RTC but the operation without touch is slow (text entry, bus setup). It´s probably one of the best scopeswith 2ch if you get the COM2 package. 300MHz and all options.But the bigger screen and touch is a huge timesaver on the RTB. If you have twice the money for the RTC and the space on the bench.Also Bode-Plot and 16bits LA is nice. Great also is the ARB Gen when you can copy a signal from probe directly into arb and replay the signal.Don´t get me wrong, I´d look at the Siglent, Rigol etc at any time, they are great scopes.

author: RBBVNL9
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 11:26:32 am
content: John / Hobbyelectronics,Your Philips scopes seem to have supported you very long, which is great. I would suggest you ask yourself the question which of the current scopes you could buy, you would still happily be using in - say - 20 years from now.I came from a HAMEG HM203-5, which I bought from my savings while still at high school, and served me for 30+ years. Later complemented that with a Tek 2465A, which I got for free and repaired/renovated.Last year I wanted to upgrade my bench and bought an R&S RTB2004 (COM2) as well as quite a bit of other gear from R&S, Keysight, Keithley, Picoscope, Siglent, and Rigol. Of all of these instruments, it is the RTB oscilloscope I think I will be still be very happy with even 20 years from now. Such a time frame brings the total cost of ownership down a lot, even if the initial purchase price might be higher than other options.Also, consider how 'mature' a device is. While 'perfect' devices do not seem to exist (anymore), as for the RTB, the various firmware upgrades addressed almost all of the known issues, and recent upgrades even brought useful new features, such as programmable low pass filters.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 11:42:55 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 22, 2021, 10:37:16 amGo with the Siglent SDS2104X Plus. No brainer.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 11:50:05 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 22, 2021, 10:37:16 amMicsigs can sit on benches, too.Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 22, 2021, 10:37:16 amMath is one place the Micsigs really shine. You can type in just about any formula to operate on the four input channels:

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 11:53:49 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 22, 2021, 11:50:05 amLooks like they reused code from a calculator app... Love a 4/3 * Pi * ch1 exp 3 !

author: goaty
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 02:21:58 pm
content: I wonder what _real_ applications are for complex formula. I can understand calculating things like power (U*I), but much more than that seems just gimmick to me.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 02:30:32 pm
content: Quote from: tv84 on April 22, 2021, 11:53:49 amYou can actually use it as a calculator. Type in something like12*sin(sqrt(2))then look at the voltage display for the answer.

author: tatel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 02:51:22 pm
content: QuoteI myself have been looking for a MSO 'scope in the past weeks. I finally gave up about having MSO capabilities. Bought a cheap 4 channel GW Instek 'scope and DSLogic Plus instead. You have to be careful with any of the cheaper MSOs. You could buy a less-satisfactory-than-expected device. Please read carefully the user manual then ask on the forum for owner experiences before buying. Also, LA probes usually aren't included in the listed prices and aren't that cheap.In your price range you have both Rigol 5000 and Siglent 2xxxX Plus. Both seem to be quite satisfactory. I have been on the brink of buying Siglent SDS2104X Plus. I think you'll find it more of an oscilloscope. Both seem to have working DIY LA pods now. Sorry, but both have AWG included, IIRC. Rigol's is said to be noisier than Siglent's, so you should think about it. Siglent memory management doesn't seem to be universally loved so you should check if you feel OK about this, too.You'll be quite probably better buying it in the UK. Aside from what has been already said, which is correct BTW, right now I'm getting some unrelated stuff from an UK company and the courier is more of a pirate than Captain Kidd. They could ask you for a really unreasonable customs-paperwork-processing fee. Maybe you could say that you want to take care of it yourself, then the courier could do really unsatisfactory things with your shipment, like no giving the necessary customs documentation to you, and delay your parcel delivery under any excuse. Both happened to me. I have heard that this courier isn't the only one that practices "piracy"Good luck

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2021, 04:10:38 pm
content: Quote from: goaty on April 22, 2021, 02:21:58 pmReal world applications are, for instance, linearization and translation of signals from sensor.All math related things are not really used much if you only use scope for servicing and general "scoping" (let's see what do we have here... hmmm...).They are useful when designing and reverse engineering circuits and systems, so you can "simulate" parts of the circuit (their transfer function, their behaviour) to test hypothesis.

author: hgjdwx
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 02:24:27 am
content: If you don't need 4 channels, you can buy the new Micsig STO2302C, with 300M bandwidth, 2G sampling rate and 280M storage depth

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 07:13:24 am
content: Hi,So much helpful information, that's really great, thanksThis might seem like a silly comment and maybe a bit old fashioned, but whenever I used my old scopes or any CRT based scopes I get the feeling of a true analogue display, which of course it is (pretty much).Over the years I have used a few modern 'digital' scopes (as in not CRT) and the displays have always disappointed me and looked very digital with traces that look a bit sort of pixelated as if it was a low res old EGA or VGA display from the 80's.I have never been wowed by the displays. That said, the only non CRT scope I have used in the last 5+ years is a Yokogawa high end very expensive oscilloscope which has an excellent display, but all previous non CRT scopes I have used, say in the last 10+ years have always felt a bit under developed and not really matured yet, from a display point of view.It looks like the modern digital oscilloscopes have come a long way in the last few years, so hopefully something like a Siglent SDS2104X PLUS should be ok.On the TELONIC site they have a Siglent SDS2104X PLUS ex demo in mint condition for £945 plus VAT.To me that seems like a lot you get a lot for the money, and ticks a lot of boxes, but I also like the the R&S offerings as well.It is difficult because unlike the old days, you could wonder into a shop and try these things, to get a feel for them.I remember my brother saving up for months and months and I went with him to Edgeware road (London) to buy a scope from one of the many electronics shops that had them on display and you could try them on the bench.He came out with an Hitachi oscilloscope, which served him very well for many years and he still uses it today.Its seems that Keysight haven't really had a look in on this discussion and I get the feeling they the are not really thought much of on here for some reason?My main use is for designing circuits from scratch rather than a servicing point of view, so a lot of the time some things are experimental and perhaps just to use the scope to prove a part of the circuit if doing what is expected rather fault finding non functioning boards from elsewhere.ThanksJohn

author: goaty
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 07:22:17 am
content: Due to the different processing principle and complexity of DSO, one must be always very careful to interpret results correctly.I´m having big problems just now with segmented memory on RTB2000, because you think it will record whatever you throw at it,But it does not tell you the re-arm time, which must be less than the frequency of your triggers expected.This for example makes operation more challenging.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 08:27:56 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 23, 2021, 07:13:24 amWith everything you said so far, I am confident now to give you direct recommendation. Go with that SDS2104X PLUS. That is good price, and that scope is great value for money already at retail price. It has some stuff that R&S doesn't, and vice versa, but is still being actively developed by Siglent, so it'll only get better. It can also be, ahem, "liberated" to 500MHz max bandwidth... It has many advanced features.Ideally you should try it out, of course...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 08:37:59 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 23, 2021, 07:13:24 amIt really is analog, there's no "pretty much" about it.Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 23, 2021, 07:13:24 am...which of course they are.The ADCs inside them are only 8 bits (256 different values) so there's not much point in having "retina" displays.

author: mawyatt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 01:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 23, 2021, 07:13:24 amI retired a couple years ago from a career that allowed me to use just about every Tektronix analog scope made. Later I didn't get much time in the lab since my time was considered more valuable (read making more $) sitting in front of a Cadence screen leveraging advanced IC technology rather than working in the lab, so I never got any real quality time with a DSO or MSO. What time I did get with these digital devices wasn't impressive and liked the old analog display from Tek much better. So soon after retiring I got a couple old Tek 2465 analog scopes which I repaired and now have fully functional, but wondered about the MSO and decided look into these. After a few months sifting thru all the BS and quality posts about MSOs, and beginning to "see" the individuals behind the posts, many of which are trashing devices they never even owned or spent significant time evaluating, decided on the Siglent SDS2XXXX Plus. Even had the misfortune of completely disassembling the MSO soon after arrival (long story), which gave a clear view of what's inside.Bottom line is this MSO has delivered much more than expected, including the display, and the PCB and overall build quality is superb. Since I'm still involved in doing electronics research and development (consulting), so the features that some don't find useful I find every useful. Things like the nice FFT implementation, Bode plots with built-in AWG, resolution enhancement, and low noise front end all have proved very useful. Also the touch screen (especially used with a mouse) and remote access is nice, and I never cared for touch screens.Lots of choices out there but agree with 2N3055 recommendation above.Best,

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 01:32:28 pm
content: Quote from: mawyatt on April 23, 2021, 01:06:02 pmI don't thinkanybodywould disagree that the old analog 'scopes look beautiful and feel awesome compared to DSOs.The DSOs can do sooooo much more though, despite the low res graphics and nasty non-tactile knobs.* They provide much more information about the signal* Things like serial decoding* You can get 4 channel versions and MSOs (are there any 4 channel CROs?)

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 01:39:41 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 20, 2021, 07:33:31 pmNote: I keep forgetting that the 2-channel Keysights are actually 2+1 channelMSOs, ie. 2 Analog channels and 1 digital channel. You can do all the serial decoding, look at Arduino pins, etc., on the digital channel. That really reduces the need for four channels.The Keysights are also the closest in 'feel' to the old analog scopes. They have very responsive controls, fast screen updates, etc. If that's your thing then don't discount them.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 01:55:04 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 23, 2021, 01:32:28 pmPlenty of 4 channel CROs around. I think I've owned 3 different models myself.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 02:42:29 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on April 23, 2021, 01:32:28 pmI do not know name for this humor category. What it is.

author: Jeff C
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 02:48:36 pm
content: >Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 23, 2021, 07:13:24 am

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 23, 2021, 04:43:39 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 23, 2021, 07:13:24 amAdding to what Jeff said:For your price target there is nothing from Keysight that beats the Siglent SDS2104X+. If you increase your budget tenfold, I think there won't be any Siglent fanboy here that wouldn't prefer a Keysight. But since we are talking about our own money...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2021, 06:55:58 pm
content: Quote from: Jeff C on April 23, 2021, 02:48:36 pmBang/buck ratio isn't as high in numerical terms but lots of people seem to prefer the 'analog feel' of the Keysights (including EEVBLOG's Dave). I guess that's hard to judge though.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 07:18:36 am
content: Hello,OK, after a lot of consideration, I think I have narrowed it down to two models that I might consider.R&S RTB2000 Series (ETB2002 as the 04 is much more expensive)R&S RTB2002EDU (EDU Version on offer with lots of extras at 1,190 Euros, see herehttps://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rohde-Schwarz-RTB2002EDU.html)Siglent SDS2104X PLUSI now need to find specific reviews or comparisons by normal users to compare the two of them. Spec sheets are all ok, but real reviews are valuable.I like the large screens on both, not over fussed if its touch screen or not. Also, I like the higher res and the 10 bit ADC on the R&S but it seems the screen is very reflective from what I have read, which would bug me every time I use it if its as bad as what some have said.Both seem to be very good scopes and with lots of powerful features. Its just a case of deciding which one to purchase. The Siglent is a better deal money wise with more going for it feature wise maybe and the possible option to upgrade!!So, does anyone on here have experience with both of these or can give any further info either way?Although its not all about looks and how big the screen, build quality etc but the R&S seems to be drawing me in just a bit more but I don't want to miss out on the extras that may be available on the Siglent.Thanks to everyone's views and opinions, every little bit of info helps. Maybe R&S or Siglent can send me one to have a play with to compare!, but that's not going to happen.RegardsJohn

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 07:35:16 am
content: Don't worry about the glossy screen. I have an RTM3004 here with the same screen and it is not a problem.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 08:11:46 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 04, 2021, 07:18:36 amIn the first post here there are links to 3 videos for the SDS2000X Plus:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/Where are you as in some regions the free options promotion is still running ?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 08:35:12 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on April 20, 2021, 06:57:11 pmIn most cases two channels is enough to debug digital stuff like MCU and sensors.The more important things are memory depth, sample rate and input bandwidth.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 08:54:32 am
content: Hi tautech,I am in the UK. I could maybe push to get the RTB2004 instead (Or RTB2004EDU maybe).Problem is with the basic 2002 / 4 its only 70MHz. All though I have never yet needed more than this, whereas the Siglent as options to 'Upgrade' to a higher bandwidth.I am not sure why but I get the feeling that the R&S is a better quality scope overall. I am not saying the Siglent is no good, I would be very happy with either but just need to pick one!I think the RTB2004 is priced at 1790 Euros, about £1550 which is a lot of money but I thing maybe a good investment.I am not sure what features the R&S has over the Siglent which would close the deal as such. Just need to think hard and make a decision.ThanksJohn

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 09:01:28 am
content: Hi Peter, Thanks for that review about the reflective screen. I don't want to make a big thing about nothing but it would bug me so much spending that sort of money and have an annoying reflection. But what you and other have said sounds like its not a major concern. I can always move my bench away from the window!Do you know what the upgrade options are like for the R&S, compared to the Siglent. Everyone likes a free upgrade!!ThanksJohn

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 09:07:15 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 04, 2021, 08:54:32 amSDS2104X Plus although rated/sold as 100 MHz has a proven BW of some 185 MHz....I didn't believe this when I got one but it was triple checked with 3 yes 3 HF signal sources.Yes you can hack them however most would find that 180 MHz capability is plenty.I really like them (of course I would) and as I get to handle all models from Siglent their SDS2104X Plus stands head and shoulders above anything else currently they offer except for bandwidth.I've just ordered a pile of them as they keep selling out here in NZ.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 09:44:03 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 04, 2021, 09:01:28 amMaybe it's just me but I really,reallydon't understand why anybody would want a reflective screen, ever.Reflective screens ARE a big thing, it's not just about them reflecting light sources directly, it's about them reflecting a pretty image of whatever room they're being used in. eg. When I look at something I want to see what's on the screen, not a reflection of my own face.Bottom line: If there's even a single person on the internet who once commented "the screen's abitreflective..." then I want to either see the device in person or get a full money-back garantee before parting with any money. I've been there, been burned by that. There's nothing worse than spending a lot of money on something that youhateusing.Watch the first 30 seconds of this video before proceeding:Is that a piece of test gear or a mirror?This video shows what Iimagineit will be like in real life (nb. I've never seen one in person):Like I said though, maybe it's just me. The shops are full of shiny screens and there's a world full of people who seem toprefertheir screens that way.(or they only ever use them in dark places where it's much less of a problem...)nb. You can get matte screen protectors for devices and theydowork, eg. My micsig 'scope is much too shiny for me as-is but all Micsigs come with a matte screen protector in the box so I can choose shiny/not. I'm perfectly happy with the screen protector in place.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 10:06:42 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 04, 2021, 09:44:03 amThe thing is that your eyes get rid of the reflection. It is basic optics; whatever is not in focus gets blurred away. Look at the screen; not the reflection.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 10:15:27 am
content: Hi Fungus,Thanks. I totally agree with you. I do not understand why anyone would design a product with a reflective screen, unless it was for a specifice requirment of course. I don't even understand why manufacturers make the screens in the firts place when matte or semi matte screens are a proven technology.I recently purchased a 4K and a 2K PC monitor. I sent both back due to how reflective they were. I then bought a Samsung screen which has a nice semi matte finish with no reflections and no haze, which you sometimes see with matte coatings.Although the video shows the screen has a very reflective (deal breaker really), I would like to see one in real life, lit up in a normal workshop. To see what its really like. I suppose with todays online buying laws etc it can always be sent back as not fit for purpose if its that bad.Things like this just make it harder to decide...Urrgghhh almost forget the spec of the scope what's the screen like and go from there.ThanksJohn

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 10:16:29 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 04, 2021, 10:06:42 amMaybe that's the explanation: My eyes don't do that.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 10:17:55 am
content: Hi nctnico,Ah, I don't agree I am afraid. I kept one of the monitors for 28 days used it everyday, and never could get used to it. Not even in the slightest. If anything it just seemed to get worse as my brain did not get used to it.John

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 10:19:37 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 04, 2021, 10:15:27 amThat's the way I purchase all monitors/laptops.Even shiny bezels on monitors are a deal breaker for me - why would I want a ring of reflected lights around my screen?(and I know there's non-shiny ones out there so why would I...?)

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 10:25:44 am
content: So true, me too, even a shinny bezel stops me in my tracks! This might sound a bit strange to some people but that's exactly how I am. Sorry.Problem is with a scope the choices are limited for the budget you decide and the must have basic specs like 4 Channels or 100MHz etc it really does limit the choice and it becomes a bit of a compromise.John

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 11:55:19 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 04, 2021, 08:54:32 amQuality is how reliable equipment is and how often it gets broken. Don't confuse fancy looking with quality.RTB2000 is good equipment, but reliability is no better than new models of Rigol or Siglent.And shiny screen is bothersome to me. At any time something in the room will reflect, depending where light is and where your head is...RTB2000 gold plated BNC look cool. But, R&S more expensive equipment uses plain looking (but very good quality) and not gold plated BNCs.They don't because RTB2000 is targeted at entry level market where customers get fooled by those tricks.If you buy RTB2000 with 70MHz BW it will stay that way. No hacks there and upgrades to 300MHz cost more than whole Siglent SDS2104X+ or almost two Rigol MSO5000 with 70MHz BW. Ruminate on that.Also RTB2000 has 10x less memory.Despite good 10 bit A/D, it doesn't have less noise than SDS2104X+, so some gain from that, but not much and not everywhere.RTB2000 is nice device. No doubt. But expensive, and you pay for brand and fancy look in addition to specs. They do have nice GUI. That does have value, how much it depends on how you like it.But SDS2104X+ is great scope for the money. And ultimately more powerful. There is no substitute for long memory (that helps keep sample rate in a sweet spot), there is no substitute for bandwidth, there is no substitute for low noise front end and there is no substitute for channels.So I stand on my previous recommendation for that SDS2104X+ for that special price they offered you is your best deal..

author: goaty
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 12:03:04 pm
content: And the strange waveform update rate / trigger rate at start as seen herehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-killer-scope-a-true-game-changer-from-rs-rtb2002-rtb2004/msg3559529/#msg3559529is also something I hope the Siglent doesn´t have.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 12:26:08 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 04, 2021, 11:55:19 amIt's just a pity that Siglents can't use all that memory to zoom out on a captured signal.(or pan/left right on it - same problem really)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 12:38:05 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 04, 2021, 11:55:19 amBut that is only from comparing specs on paper, not from hands-on use. In the end it highly depends on what you need / value. Last week I had to pull my GW Instek scope from a different test setup because I needed band-pass filtering to look at the details of a certain signal.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 12:42:47 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 04, 2021, 12:38:05 pmNo not for specs. For actual use...

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 12:44:39 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 04, 2021, 12:26:08 pm

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 04, 2021, 12:52:48 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 04, 2021, 11:55:19 amI assume the shiny screen was added for the same reason.

author: Zlotnik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 12:49:36 am
content: Horses for courses.I have an RTB2k myself and I:- am not bothered at all by the glossy screen. There's no bright objects behind me when I work on the scope, so no reflections I notice. On the contrary, since the glossy screen doesn't scatter diffuse light my way, contrast is higher and it's easier to read. YMMV.- find the 10bit ADC surprisingly useful. The front-end is quite low-noise, and would be wasted on a lower bit ADC. The Siglent eg is limited by quantisation, unless you go in hires mode, which limits BW and anyway can also be done with the RTB- have not really been limited by it's memory in my applications. IMHO it's a huge memory, even if the Siglent has an even huger memory.. This might be more of a problem if I needed veeeery deep FFTs, or exceedingly long protocol decoding records. I was happy with the >100 packets I capture in my applications. More does not make sense on the scope for me, I'd use a PC based decoder for that.- find the history function and zoom features super useful and very natural. I never had to think about it, for me it just worked. Having the history available post facto by default is super useful, but I retain control. Not to pour oil on a dumpster fire, but personally I'm not a fan of the Siglent/LeCroy implementation. YMMV.- am quite impressed with the many little well thought out UI touches of the RTB. It doesn't get in my way, but I feel it actively helps me do what I need. It's the first touchscreen scope I don't hate! Little things like the "bits" display and dynamical scaling in the protocol decoder are brilliant, and I did not find this anywhere else. This kind of thing doesn't turn up on datasheets though, so some manufacturers focus less on this and rather include more headline features. This was the deciding factor for me in the end, and I'm still happy with my decision: My free time is too valuable for me to be frustrated with my tools, but again: YMMVMy recommendation:- If you can't or don't want to afford the RTB, it's a no-brainer: Siglent SDS2k+! Don't even compare too much, just hope you love it, and learn to love it if you don't. It probably really is the best by far currently in that price bracket - for many it's even the best one price class above.- Seems you get a sweet edu deal for the RTB so price may be less of a differentiator? The RTB has no option hack (yet?), but there's some good package deals. When comparing prices don't blindly go for maximum hacked-BW for comparison purposes, but spec what you actually need. Don't skimp on decoders and memory management options though! IMHO those are much more critical in most applications than maximum BW - if BW is critical you'll need >1GHz anyway, these days.- Do try to hands-on test-drive all options! It's difficult to get access though as private buyer (unless you're fine screwing a shop over by just buying two, sending one back). A good distributor will help. Speaking of good distributors, ask for a discount, even as private buyer. They often can do something.- Failing comparative test-drive access, at the very least get significant scope time on very different models so you get a feel for how different scopes can feel, and how your mate's super-great expensive all time favourite scope can drive you up the wall and make simple things a chore _for you_. Work, uni, friends, makerspaces etc.- After that, watch as many videos of all options as possible. Ignore the reviewers' rants, teardowns and other antics, just watch how the scope behaves in as many real world scenarios as possible, and imagine yourself driving the scope. Watching so many scope videos of widely varying quality may make you angry - but are you angry at the scope or the reviewer? That will tell you a lot!- Ignore eevblog forum users peddling their favourite scopes. Including me/2¢

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 01:14:17 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 04, 2021, 12:26:08 pmIt's beating a dead horse a bit, but just so that the OP isn't persuaded by your claim...It used to be that there was something to this, because the only way you could get some sort of comparable capability is to use zoom mode, and in prior models that mode would be incapable of doing some things that were possible with normal mode. But not on the SDS2104X+, at least that I've found. Even mask testing works in zoom mode. And while you give up some screen real estate for that, this scope has enough that it can get away with it (it's more of a problem on scopes with smaller screens).The normal operating paradigm of the current Siglent scopes is "what you see is all you get". This affects memory usage, sampling rate, waveform update rate, etc. The disadvantage is that if you're just using normal mode, you have to do some planning in advance to ensure that you're capturing everything. The advantage is that you instantly see everything that's relevant. Because "what you see is all you get", youknowthat the time coverage of the capture is going to be what's on the unzoomed screen, no more and no less. No guessing required, and no calculation required.If you're used to other scopes that don't behave this way, Siglent's approach might take some getting used to. But the OP here is coming directly from analog scopes that don't haveanyzoom out capability in the first place. The way the Siglent operates might easily be more intuitive to him as a result.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 05:54:04 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 01:14:17 amUhuh.Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 01:14:17 amNo 'scope is perfect but it takes extra steps to achieve something that other devices simplydothen that's the opposite of "intuitive".

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 06:40:25 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 01:14:17 amVery nicely explained!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 12:45:29 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 05, 2021, 05:54:04 amIndeed. If you are into embedded software development then having an oscilloscope which can zoom out is extremely handy.Just two weeks ago I had to debug a problem with a chip (64 pin QFN so not the easiest to probe) not wanting to work and I wanted to check whether it was getting SPI messages for it's configuration. I used a Tektronix TBS2000 scope set to full memory length. The SPI messages just come in one burst during startup so capturing an entire sequence isn't easy. I set the scope up but with Linux and a whole bunch of other software layers on top the timing of the SPI messages isn't very predictable. Instead of the expected burst I only got one SPI message so the time between the SPI messages was longer than expected. By twisting the time scale knob (zooming out) I got the rest on screen too. So I didn't need to count to the right pin, push the probe onto a tiny pad and restart the software again in order make a new measurement. I don't get why people still want to insist being able to zoom-out isn't useful!

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 02:25:47 pm
content: What trigger did you use? What was captured sample rate and total captured length?TBS2000B has 5 Mpts of memory total. It has no serial decodes, no serial triggers..If you took SDS2000X+ or Rigol MSO5000 you could have captured 25 times more time at same sample rate.And be certain to capture whole sequence. You could have used serial triggers, or plenty other ways to make it more predictable.For what you gave an example here, it wasn't useful in any way, in a sense that same thing couldn't have been accomplished in a different way, easier and more reliably.There might be some scenarios where manual memory length might be a way to accomplish a goal, but sorry, that ain't one..It is an example that some stuff can be achieved even if you have extremely limited equipment that is not meant for the task, if operator has imagination and skill.. It shows you can do things even with limited resources. Makes you clever, but that is not what you want to do if you have choice to buy proper equipment that can do it better..

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 03:15:52 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 05, 2021, 02:25:47 pmNo. TBS2000 (no B) has 20Mpts per channel and it was the best scope I had around for the job. You can ofcourse try to setup all kinds of fancy triggers but if all you need to capture is a bunch of messages which only occur once then edge trigger is fine. Don't make things more complicated then they have to be. Actually using serial triggers / sequence mode could mess up a measurement like this due to missing/ignoring spikes etc. Having a single, long record with the entire message sequence is the best way to verify software is behaving as it should.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 04:03:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 05, 2021, 03:15:52 pmOk sorry, 20MPoints, so other scopes have 5x more memory.And you can just set edge trigger too, and let it rip. And then look around. Like you did.All without manual memory control. Easy, peasy..There might be occasions where it might be useful, but for this example not really..

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 06:18:44 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 05, 2021, 05:54:04 am"Intuitive" is dependent at least in part on one's experience, and that's the point here. If all you've used is analog scopes and you start to use a digital scope, you're already used to "what you see is all you get", becausethatis how analog scopes work. The Siglent's approach will match your expectations in that case, and you won't be surprised when elongating the timebase when the scope is stopped doesn't show you more of the waveform.But if you've used most digital scopes, then your expectations will be that you can zoom out, and a scope like the Siglent will be unintuitive to you as a consequence.Honestly, each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and which dominates is quite obviously arguable (hence the continuous arguments). Nothing in principle prevents any scope manufacturer from implementing both strategies and allowing the user to select his preferred approach. They don't do that because they don't believe they'll get enough additional sales from it to make it worth the effort, and they're almost certainly right about that.In any case, it should be clear that the disadvantages to Siglent's approach, such as they are, aren't nearly enough to impact their sales enough to matter. If they were, Siglent would almost certainly have changed their approach in response.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 06:31:31 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 05, 2021, 12:45:29 pmHow well would it have worked out if you had set up the scope to trigger on SPI messages and used segmented memory to capture batches of them? It sounds like you had the scope configured to look at something else, or to trigger on something else. (But maybe the TBS2000 doesn't have segmented memory, and if that's the case then your example here is really an example of how one feature can compensate for the absence of another).There's no question that being able to zoom out after the fact is a very handy thing, and adds flexibility, but it's pure luck as to whether or not what the scope manages to capture is enough. It's better than WYSIAYG for that, of course, but it's still luck all the same.

author: Zlotnik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 06:32:21 pm
content: Guys.Please.Let it rest!You're polluting another thread with endless repetitions of the same arguments. Signal to noise is dropping fast! Again.I think you all got the point across to the thread starter that the Siglent memory management implementation is controversial, but some like it a lot - in particular considering the price point and feature set of the SDS2k+. And I say that as a not-fan of the Siglent implementation, and a big fan of subtle UI goodness over headline features: The SDS2k+ is great bang-per-buck and not everybody is bothered by its idiosyncrasies.To the thread starter:It really is horses for courses. Take a look at my post half a gazillion memory/zoom arguments earlier.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 06:37:49 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 06:18:44 pmYou've nailed it with the analog evolution comparison.But, I don't totally agree with you on this quote. I recon that it's pretty easy for Keysight to limit it's capture to "what you see" (with a couple of instructions). I don't think itwould be easyfor Siglent to do the opposite. I guess it would be a huge modification (Siglent, you can always prove me wrong...).Maybe as more people get started to scopes in the digital world, Siglent's way starts to look as more "limited"...

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 06:45:03 pm
content: Quote from: Zlotnik on May 05, 2021, 06:32:21 pmI agree BUT extruding the mem management part, this whole thread is also "polluting another thread with endless repetitions of the same arguments" for the same scope choices. All because of the OP's endlessly repeated question.Totally agree on the advantages of the SDS2k+.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 07:48:55 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 06:31:31 pmThat would have been way overkill for a simple measurement like I needed. Also, triggering/recording specific parts of a signal might skip important clues on what might be going wrong. A simple, single trace showing the number of messages (10 or so in total), idle state and the spacing in between is good enough for a measurement like this. Anything else you throw at it is just a waste of effort.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:03:21 pm
content: Quote from: tv84 on May 05, 2021, 06:37:49 pmIt's a pretty picture but I don't believe for a minute that that's the reason Siglent did it. Other 'scopes have been doing it for a long time before the Siglent appeared.Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 06:18:44 pmI fail to see any advantages at all in the Siglent way.Quote from: Zlotnik on May 05, 2021, 06:32:21 pmThe other thread is already finished.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:09:58 pm
content: Quote from: tv84 on May 05, 2021, 06:37:49 pmYeah, it might or might not be easy to do depending on how the firmware is architected, what assumptions were made when designing the FPGA internal setup, etc. Even the memory interface design might have some assumptions built into it with respect to the capture implementation.With respect to Siglent appearing to be "limited" in the digital world, I dunno. The main advantage to Siglent's approach (and note that this advantage isn't dependent upon WYSIAYG) is that segmented memory is always active. If you're doing digital work and are triggering on bus messages, the end result is that you'll see the beginning of each individual message in each segment (whether you capture the whole message or not depends on your timebase relative to the amount of time between message start and message end).The way I see it, scopes like the Instek and others that use the user-specified amount of memory per capture should *also* automatically divide the total memory into segments of that configured capture size. This would get you the advantages of being able to zoom out while also getting you the primary advantage of Siglent's "always on" segment implementation. It would also maximize the chance that every feature of the scope would work with segments, something that isn't necessarily the case for scopes that implement segmented memory as an afterthought (the Instek GDS-1054B I have, for instance, will not show the FFT on a per-segment basis when displaying the segments, while the Siglent obviously does).

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:14:13 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 09:09:58 pmWhat's the maximimum number of segments?

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:22:30 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 05, 2021, 09:03:21 pmEven Siglent's earlier scopes, such as the SDS1000CML series, used the traditional approach.I can't say what reason Siglent had for changing their approach, but I have a suspicion that it wasn't their idea, but rather LeCroy's.QuoteThe primary advantage to WYSIAYG is obviousness. You know just by looking what you're going to get. There's no guessing or computation needed to understand how much time a given capture is going to represent. It's right there in front of you.Standard implementations require that you know the sample rate, know the amount of memory per capture, and divide the former into the latter in order to derive the capture time. If there are scopes that will show you the total capture time, I don't know of them (but my experience is limited to Siglent, Rigol, and Instek, though I've seen plenty of videos in which Tektronix and Keysight scopes were used, and never noticed such a thing on any of them).Now, maybe it's important to know how much time is being captured and maybe it's not. But obviously that's going to depend on the specific use case.You asked for an advantage to the Siglent approach, and there it is. Such as it is.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:36:04 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 05, 2021, 09:14:13 pmIt's dependent on the scope. For the 2104X+, it appears to be 90K. That's with a 1K segment size, which requires that you set your timebase to 50 ns/div if your channel configuration is getting you 2GS/s, and a single channel active. It seems that Siglent has two separate banks of acquisition memory, each of which gets two channels.Setting the timebase smaller than that doesn't get you any more segments. Weirdly, it seems doing that candecreasethem, which I don't understand at all.I can understand why the maximum number of segments on the Siglent would not be just the amount of memory divided by the capture size, since each segment is going to have some storage overhead associated with it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:37:21 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 09:22:30 pmI think so too. And owning a Lecroy Wavepro 7000 series myself I also have an idea why: Lecroy scopes are geared towards signal analysis. However, the more memory you have to go through, the longer it takes to process and the lower the update rate. Even with a beefy Pentium 4 processor the Wavepro scope slows down to a crawl with some stacked math functions enabled. So by limiting the acquisition length to what is minimally needed to fill the screen Lecroy makes sure to give the user the best performance possible from the scope when using it for signal analysis. Siglent seemed to have blindly copied it (mainting Chinese tradition) without considering all the use cases.And having history mode always enabled isn't an advantage of the Siglent approach. Yokogawa and R&S also have history mode while allowing to set a fixed memory length. AFAIK Lecroy doesn't have history mode on the Wavepro 7000 series. You really need to seperate various aspects of oscilloscope memory management.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:51:15 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 05, 2021, 09:37:21 pmSeeing how Siglent is an OEM for LeCroy, even if they considered the use cases, they might easily have decided that it was more economical in the long run to stick with the LeCroy approach and to refine that. There's probably no way to really know without having an insider view of things.QuoteMost certainly, the "always on" history segment capability isn't dependent upon WYSIAYG, and I did note that. But it is a part of Siglent's approach to things, and I think it's a good choice because, firstly, it ensures that memory is always used to its fullest even if the user configures a smaller capture size, and secondly, it makes segments a first-class mechanism in the system, something that will be accounted for in every other operation that's implemented.I can't remember the specifics now, but Instek's segment implementation (as an example) has some arbitrary limitations, and conflicts with some of the other features the scope makes available. And that almost certainly wouldn't be the case if segments were a first-class object in the implementation, instead of an afterthought.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 05, 2021, 09:55:46 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 09:22:30 pmAgree. Conceptually, I find it much easier to implement.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 03:57:21 am
content: There is idea about optionally curtains for peoples who do not like to see whole capture length as need also look with WICIWYS principle.Here first displayed standard model out from factory.After stop user can zoom in and out. And also look interesting details what he in this case know they exist. Because he see whole acq. all time.Of course, if there is a sequential performance model of the brain, it can be difficult to detect both windows. No need worry and feel bad with scope. There is solution. That is why curtains are available as a DIY option.Here with optional retrofit curtains. All available from many kind of needlework DIY shops.I will recommend this Option for peoples who really do not want see whole length in runtime.After stop user can zoom in and out. And also look IF there is some interesting details.Legal notice: Anyone is free to use the revolutionary invention presented here for their own private or commercial purposes without any restriction or royalties.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 07:23:52 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on May 06, 2021, 03:57:21 amYou should patent this. You'll make a fortune!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 07:47:58 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 09:51:15 pmHow is that any different than configuring the DSO to use full memory size and using it as a single acquisition? At one end you reason you want to see what you get but on the other end you find a variable (!) number off-screen acquisitions in history mode good to have. Why is having multiple individual acquisitions off-screen in memory good while having off-screen data from a single acquisition is not good?QuoteYou need to seperate two things here: user interface and acquisition engine.For the acquisition engine segmented recording is nothing more than cycling the acquisition position counter between a lower and higher boundry (start & end point). In fact most (if not all DSOs) have segmented recording at the base of the operation of the acquisition engine in order to have double buffering (*). Once the acquisition is done the acquisition position counter and trigger point are stored and the acquisition is handed over to the rendering engine. This is not rocket science to implement (been there, done that).It depends on the user interface on how the segments are displayed & handled. There is a wild variety of ways and depending on what you need one DSO may be better suited than the other but this doesn't mean segmented recording as a base has been added as an afterthought. Displaying segments is not GW Instek's strong suit but they have a rather unique feature which allows to do statistic analysis on the recorded segments.* If you dig deeper into the user manual of an oscilloscope you can spot the tell-tale signs of double buffering. On Keysight scopes you get double the memory in single mode and on the recent GW Instek scopes segmented recording mode can use twice the size of the specified memory length.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 07:49:00 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 09:09:58 pmSegmented mode can be useful but I'd like to be able to turn it off and just use all the memory. I'm sure zooming out is the more useful of the two modes.The real problem with the Siglent is thatyou don't have the optionto do it. Even in Segmented mode you could still capture a bit more on either side (the trigger point can be in the center of the screen so that'snotwhere it starts capturing). Wouldn't it be nice to set an "overcapture" value to be able to capture three or four more screens worth...?Dave's video shows an example where the Siglent captures only 10 samples. That's ridiculous.Quote from: kcbrown on May 05, 2021, 09:22:30 pmI've never felt I needed to knowexactlyhow much more there is to left/right of the screen. It's just nice to havesomething(anything!).FWIW my Micsig has a little indicator at the top to give you an idea how much extra there is at any given time. The area inside the brackets [...] is what's currently visible on screen. In this image the memory depth is set to "Auto" and there's a couple more screenfuls on either side.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:13:03 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 06, 2021, 07:49:00 amThis is exactly how all the hunting accidents happen... Shooting in the dark in random direction, hoping you hit something. Even your fellow huntsman is fine, as long you shot something, anything...Simply, deliberately scope wider and then inspect... Or you would like scope to be smarter than you..?And every scope that has same sample rate captures 10 samples at that timebase. It is what YOUorderedscope to do. If you need more, order more.Or, when you order coffee, a waiter brings coffee and water, whiskey, a steak and desert, because, you know, you might want those too...If I want steak, I'll order a steak and get exactly that, instead of ordering coffee and hope waiter will telepathically recognize I'm hungry too...With coffee, you'll get glass of water, and maybe one of those little cookies... That is reasonable. Everything else.. neeeh..

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:17:27 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 06, 2021, 09:13:03 amIf only all the real-world signals were predictable, too.What was that? You captured an infrequent glitch and wanted to zoom out to see what came before/after? Oh, dear.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:22:54 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 06, 2021, 09:13:03 amHaving the possibility to refill is always a nice-to-have even if we end up not using it. Refill would be the zooming out...

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:33:37 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 06, 2021, 07:49:00 amFalse.Look my last message bottom image with curtains option. It can use just as you like. There is most part of acquisition length now not visible (49ms in this image, left side and right side.). After you stop you can zoom out etc.

author: ROMUZ
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:50:03 am
content: Hello!Sorry for entering to this topic, but could you advise please - is the Tonghui TDO3102B enough for ripple measurements of low voltage DC power supplies?It is quite old model, but I've got it almost for free as "NOS".Thanks!

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:52:42 am
content: Quote from: tv84 on May 06, 2021, 09:22:54 amWith espresso you don't get refills.. Just good coffee...

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:59:04 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 06, 2021, 09:17:27 amSignals might not be ( they actually are, most of the time, that is why it is called engineering and not witchcraft...) all the time, but area of interest is.By looking at the DUT, you can (and have to, to have some starting point) guesstimate order of magnitude where interesting stuff will happen.Everything inside that window is interesting at first... So you grab that, stop (or single in a first place), grab a coffee, lean back and start digging...As you investigate, you will notice some points of interest and dig in more...

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 10:06:25 am
content: Quote from: ROMUZ on May 06, 2021, 09:50:03 amIt seems like a simple basic scope that will be good enough for general work. If you got it for almost free, congratulations. It is going to be useful. Working scope is a working scope.As for ripple, it all depends on what PSU we are talking about. For general purpose switchers with 10s of mV P-P ripple or more, sure, you'll be able to see useful things..For low noise switchers and linear PSU, you won't be able to verify specifications exactly, but for servicing purposes, you will be able to spot obviously broken PSU with too high noise... So again, better than nothing.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 10:18:20 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 06, 2021, 07:47:58 amBecause multiple individual acquisitions represent multiple trigger events (each one corresponds to a trigger event), while a single large-memory capture represents a single trigger event. Sure, the capturemightcontain additional trigger events but, of course, you have to explicitly search for them. The same is true even with segments, of course, because the amount of time you captured in a single segment could contain multiple trigger events. But the presence of multiple captured segmentsguaranteesthat you'll see multiple trigger events irrespective of your timebase and other capture settings, assuming they happened and the scope noticed them. That, of course, is true of all segment systems.The Siglent approach allows for both a single full memory capture and a multi-segment capture, simply by changing the timebase and memory depth appropriately. It allows you to use all of the memory in a single acquisition if you like, and it's not like it's hard to set that up: set your memory depth to the maximum, set your timebase large enough that the scope shows all of your memory being used, and you're done. But if youexplicitlytell it to use less than full memory depth, just as you can with the other scopes, it will use the remaining memory for additional segments automatically (as long as your capture is using less than half of the memory, of course), while the other scopesdon't use the additional memory for anything at all(at least that I've seen).Now, of course, you can generally get all scopes that do segments to do roughly the same thing. Roughly. But how much work you have to do in order to achieve it varies. With the Instek, for instance, I have to enable segments, then I have to specify my memory depth, then I have to specify the number of segments I want (the maximum the scope allows me to set this to is dependent on the memory depth, which is why I had to do that first), and then if I care about the time duration of a capture (if, for instance, I'm looking to maximize the capture rate while capturing enough time per capture to see the problem), I have to configure my timebase such that the scope's sample rate divided into the memory depth gets me a time duration that meets my requirements.With the Siglent, you set the timebase so the screen covers the capture length you want,optionallyset the memory depth to act as the upper bound on the capture size (e.g., if you know you'll want some minimum number of segments), and you're done.Thatis the difference between segments being an afterthought and segments being first-class objects that are baked into the system from the start.QuoteIt might even be more complicated than that. There's also the processing that happens in between, which from the point of view of the UI might happen in the background or the foreground but would still (more likely than not) have to care about segments all the same.QuoteOf course. The difference is that additional segments over and above the one used for double buffering aren't necessarily accounted for throughout the firmware, but theywouldbe if the segmenting system itself is a first-class mechanism in the firmware. If you doeverythingthrough the segmenting system, as Siglent seems to, then everything you do will automatically account for it because the standard way of getting at the data will be through the segmenting system.QuoteRight. But the one example I can think of off the top of my head with respect to the Instek is the FFT. It willnotdisplay the FFT as processed for each segment. It will display only a single FFT trace regardless of what the segment contains.Maybe that's a bug, but in a way, that's the point: the segments aren't first-class objects that are always used, so the notion of the "current segment" wasn't considered for the FFT. I'd wager that in Instek's firmware architecture, you have to go out of your way to get the data from the current segment. But that's just a wild guess on my part.I could swear there's another feature that conflicts with the segment system on the Instek (maybe the pass/fail mask test? I'll have to experiment to find it again).So how useful are segments anyway? Obviously useful enough that most of the scope manufacturers have implemented it. But I find Siglent's "always on" approach to be the preferred one. You don't have to use it if you don't want to, but it's always there anyway, just in case you do. That's sort of like the "zoom out" capability you like: it's always there in case you need it. The difference is that the "zoom out" capability hinges on the time length of your buffer being larger than your screen's time width, but even on scopes like the Instek that is something that isnotguaranteed! But I expect that for most scenarios, it'll be there for you. The same could theoretically be said of the Siglent, but there's only one situation in which it won't be there: when you've told it to use the full capture buffer *and* your timebase is long enough to result in the scope having to use more than 50% of the available sample memory for the capture.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 10:58:00 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 06, 2021, 07:49:00 amIf you don't find zooming out to be a difficult thing, then you can do that in order to use all the memory.QuoteI'd certainly like to see them do this for those cases where the number of segments has already been maxed out. At that point you may as well use the remaining memory for buffer on either side,butdoing so would extend the capturedurationand would thus (potentially) reduce the waveform rate. And, of course, it would increase the amount of per-frame data that has to be processed to perform measurements and such, though at such small timebases I hardly see how that would make any difference whatsoever. So it may or may not be what you really want, depending on the situation. For most situations, sure, I could see it being desirable, most especially if it's an option you can toggle.But as for setting a deliberate "overcapture" value, that's arguably what you get when you use zoom mode.Zoom mode isn't a substitute on scopes where zoom mode has limits that standard mode doesn't. But on the 2104X+, at least, I know of no such limits. About the only thing I'd like to see that Siglent hasn't done with that is to make it possible to reduce the "full capture" portion of the screen to the small representation that you see on other scopes like the Instek and Micsig. The end result would basically beexactlywhat you're looking for.QuoteOdd usability corner cases exist in most things, so it's not exactly a surprise to see one here.QuoteWell, the problem with that approach is that it then becomes hit or miss as to whether you get what you need. Yeah, you can readjust as needed, but that's true of the Siglent as well. But the main advantage with the Siglent is that you caneasilyknowthat you're capturing what you need. If you know anything about the characteristics of the thing you're examining then you can easily set up the Siglent so that it'sguaranteedto capture what you're after. And if that doesn't end up working then you can readjust just like you would with any other scope.It's not so much knowingexactlyhow much more there is to the left or right of the screen, so much as knowing that what you're capturing is enough.QuoteYeah, that's handy, and it's a good way to get an intuitive idea of how much time you're capturing. Other scopes have that too (including the Instek).I don't regard the Siglent/LeCroy approach to this as being massively different, honestly. It just requires a slightly different way of thinking about things. It admittedly could be nice if Siglent allowed you to define an overcapture size. It could then always capture on that basis. Then again, zoom mode really makes that unnecessary, at least in the 2104X+.My one major criticism of Siglent is that they didn't make zoom mode a first-class citizen in their scopes from the start. And given how their scopes operate, they should have.

author: ROMUZ
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:03:41 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 06, 2021, 10:06:25 am2N3055Thank you for your reply!It is about standard PC ATX PSUs.I am asking about this because I can't get figures closer to reviewers can get.For example, there are 2 identical PSUs on my hands, and reviewer's figure on the same PSU model on 12V is around 10mV while my scope shows at least 2-3 times higher under the same load on these 2 PSUs.My scope is connected to the active load by BNC-BNC cable, AC coupling, BW 20MHz on, averaging off, 50mV/d, 5ms/d. Also the scope is powered through isolation transformer.So the question, am I doing something wrong, or my scope is not good for such measurements? Unfortunately I can't get another scope for comparison.Sorry for bothering and many thanks for your help!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:33:45 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 10:58:00 amThere you go. That could be the answer that fits in with the current design and keepseverybodyhappy, including the Siglent bosses.(Who said this discussion was useless?)

author: tunk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:42:19 am
content: QuoteNo expert on this, but you could try maybe 10uS/div to get a better view of the wave form.And the review could be RMS, and you're seeing peak values.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:52:56 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 06, 2021, 11:33:45 amFor sure. This theme started long ago BUT, in the last year or so, due to several relapses, it evolved and clarified a lot with the contribution of many members.It hasn't changed my mind/opinion () but it surely has been a learning process.

author: Caliaxy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 12:16:37 pm
content: Quote from: ROMUZ on May 06, 2021, 11:03:41 amDo you have a 50 ohm termination?

author: ROMUZ
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 12:30:24 pm
content: Quote from: Caliaxy on May 06, 2021, 12:16:37 pmI don't have.The manufacturer of active load said just connect the bundled BNC-BNC cables to my oscilloscope and that's all.Quote from: tunk on May 06, 2021, 11:42:19 amIntel ATX guide says about peak to peak values, so if reviewers use RMS values, it is not correct for readers IMHO.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 12:34:17 pm
content: Quote from: ROMUZ on May 06, 2021, 11:03:41 amNo problem, if I can help my pleasure..Beware that load can inject noise too, and can be unstable, so it would oscillate and that would show as additional ripple. Good practice is to have few powerful resistors you can use to check loading with, to make sure how PSU behaves with purely (or mostly) resistive load. You use that if you suspect there is interaction between PSU and active load. In a pinch, a halogen car headlight light bulb is a good load. Smaller car lamps to. you can even combine them to get certain value. They drop current as they heat up, so they are good test for impulse load. Use your imagination...Like Tunk said, usually ripple is expressed in RMS. P-P values can be sometimes quite high and consist of fast pulses.I found manual for the scope, and it does seem to have RMS measurement. I always measure RMS and P-P to get a feeling of the signal.Difference between RMS and P-P will highly depend on the waveform.Also like Tunk said, you need to measure at few different timebases.That scope actually have FFT too, so you might want to play with it a bit. You can see harmonic content on output of PSU. That you can use to maybe make filters and check if there are improvements.Also PSU with bad capacitors will have different waveform and peak more... You can take one PSU that works well, and desolder output capacitors and replace them with smaller ones. Note the waveform before and after..

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 12:46:07 pm
content: Quote from: ROMUZ on May 06, 2021, 12:30:24 pmIntel PSU design guide recommends measurement with load in paralel with 0.1uF ceramic and 10uF tantal... some 120mV P-P is allowed on 12V..Make note that PC motherboards have massive capacitor banks on it's own power busses, and many local regulators that regulate voltages locally.Therefore PSU that is measured out of circuit might look much worse than with motherboard..Yeah reviewers can use whatever.. Just make sure to compare same type of figures...

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 06:58:23 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 06, 2021, 11:33:45 amI have a suspicion itstillwouldn't make nctnico happy. At least, not unless one of the options for that setting was "use all the memory for the capture".

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 07:36:26 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 06:58:23 pmIf the overcapture size can be set to full memory it is OK indeed. For a significant number of the measurements I do there is no use for having segmented recording or history. What would end up in history relates to the previous version of the software and is totally irrelevant. There is just one single acquisition record I'm interested in and the longer it can be, the better with as much information on screen as possible and the freedom to use the zoom function at will (and not to force the acquisition length). Search is an excellent tool to look for specific anomalies in a long record and contrary to triggering you can change the search condition to look for different aspects without needing to make a new measurement. From using logic analysers I have learned that taking long captures and analyse afterwards is an efficient workflow for some type of measurements. More efficient & easier compared to trying to stitch together a whole bunch of individual measurements (which might not reflect the same circumstances as well which is another source of measurement uncertainty) to form a picture of what is going on. The aim is to reduce the number of iterations you have to go through in order to finish a measurement.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 08:24:17 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 06, 2021, 07:36:26 pmYep. That's the probelem right there.Segmented memory is useful for some percentage of the time but I'd say "overcapture" useful for more of the time.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 08:51:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 06, 2021, 07:36:26 pmSo this being the case, what would you do if, say, you had 5 minutes worth of capture memory at full sample rate? Or an hour?I'm curious if there's some sort of upper limit on the amount of time you want your capture to cover, for your typical use case. Obviously there might be some cases where even an hour's worth of capture time might be just the ticket. But here, I'm talking about your typical use case, where some long duration might simply be too long for you.QuoteYep. And I am rather underwhelmed with the search capabilities of the Siglent (not with respect to segments, but rather with respect to the available search conditions). It's a weakness that I think needs to be addressed. The Instek is better in that regard.Remember how I was talking about how segments are an afterthought in the Instek? Well, it turns out that the search capability on the Instek is agreatexample of how that's the case. It's not availableat allwith segments turned on.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:02:13 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 08:51:06 pmThere is not really a typical use case. The problems I need to solve vary wildly because I'm involved in many different areas of technology. Being able to capture at full samplerate for an hour is definitely in the area of diminishing returns (let's set the physical limitations of memory access speed / bandwidth aside for a moment) but every now and then I do have problems that are best solved using long captures that span significant parts of an hour. Not so long ago I used roll mode set to 20s / div (or even slower) to catch an elusive problem which only occured about every half hour and didn't want to show up using trigger conditions. Having more memory can do such acquisitions with more detail so the chance of needing to redo the measurement to get more detail using a specific trigger condition becomes lower (and thus saving half an hour of time).

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:14:20 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 06, 2021, 08:24:17 pmOK, so a serious question, then: save for the extra setup (which as I note below is minimal), what's the issue with using zoom mode to accomplish this? You could just set up the scope's default settings so that you're using all of capture memory and have the main timebase set to fill the whole thing up, and the setup itself would save all of that. Seems that whether or not zoom mode is enabled isn't something that's saved as part of the settings, but there's a button to enable it and you're off to the races. So you turn the scope on, enable zoom mode, and you're ready to go. Now you get exactly what you're after, with little difference between that and the ideal you seem to be after.One advantage that zoom mode gives you is that you can move the zoomed section anywhere within the capturedirectly. You just drag it to where you want it. You don't have to screw with the timebase and offset values to accomplish that.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:18:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 06, 2021, 09:02:13 pmIf there's a lot of variation in the problems you have to solve then the nature of the capture will vary a lot, too. I was under the impression that you essentially alwaysneededto use the entirety of memory, so my question is really: how would you set things up by default if you hadtoo muchmemory to otherwise use?There's no such thing as too much memory, just like there's no such thing as too much horsepower.But thereissuch a thing as more memory than you need for a specific task, and so my question relates to the typical tasks you use an oscilloscope for, and what your default configuration would be if you really did have more memory than you knew what to do with.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 09:59:52 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 09:14:20 pmAnd now you reached where I was a year ago.There is no issue with zoom. Except he simply doesn't like to use it. And insists that what he does is simpler and easier. Which it is not, to the point that once I literally counted number of steps to accomplish things, his way and zoom way. Zoom was less operations, counted on fingers. But, no, he refused to admit the facts as they were. No, to him those were evil lies by Siglent agents and he refuses them as they stand.Most of the time it feels like a discussion between atheist and a priest. Going nowhere.So I gave up explaining to him the errors in his logic, and occasionally, when I have time and strength, simply try to point to everybody else the facts so it goes on the record. As a sort of balance in opinions.. And people can decide by themselves what is more logical, easier way...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 10:23:09 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 09:18:26 pmI typically set a scope to use the maximum memory length by default and only set the record length shorter if that is necessary to improve update rate / processing speed. Most of the measurements I do don't need high update rates (>10 updates/s) though.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:17:33 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 06, 2021, 09:59:52 pmWell, this isn't, or at leastwasn't, strictly true. It used to be that zoom mode had some serious limitations. For instance, on the SDS1000X-E series, you can't use the mask test function in zoom mode, so you can't use it to test some specific portion of the waveform that is a consistent distance from the trigger point, and then have much more in the way of capture to examine when a fault is detected. And on that same scope, zoom mode uses a significant portion of the screen for the unzoomed section, and the zoomed section as a result isn't using as much screen real estate as you'd want if that was where your primary focus was (which it generally will be when you're using zoom mode).But the 2000X+ series fixes all of this. If there's something you can't do with zoom mode on that scope, I don't know what it is.It's really a shame it's taken Siglent this long to get to this point, though. It suggests that Siglent didn't really understand the various ways that people will want to use the scope.And Instek is guilty of the same thing. Their segmented memory implementation is quite clearly an afterthought, andnota first-class characteristic of the scope.So there just doesn't seem to be a perfect scope out there. They all have seem to have flaws of one kind or another, at least until you get into the $10K+ range, at which point the instruments seem to become more special-purpose.Guess that describes pretty much any kind of product offering you can think of, doesn't it?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:27:48 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 09:14:20 pmZoom mode returns at boot if it was used prior to shutdown and can also be set as a User Default....or you can use rf-loops custom curtain option and stay blind to waveforms that are not on the display.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on May 06, 2021, 11:27:48 pmIt's odd that you can set it as a user default, but it's omitted from the settings that you can save to the internal slots. By "user default" I presume you mean what you get when you save the settings to the default button?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2021, 11:52:31 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 11:45:54 pmInternal slots ?QuoteYes.Wisest method is to use Factory default first then set the scope exactly as you want then in the Save menu apply the settings to User Default. At anytime later you can change default behaviour or return to Factory default settings.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 12:50:39 am
content: Quote from: tautech on May 06, 2021, 11:52:31 pmYeah. On the 2104X+, when you save settings, you can choose internal or external. External requires a USB stick be present. Internal lets you select from 10 possible "slots" to save to. I couldn't think of a better term for it.QuoteMakes sense. I tend to leave the default button alone because it's set up to restore to factory default settings by, er, default, and this way I have something I can use as an emergency measure to restore the scope back to sanity, e.g. if the UI isn't responding properly or something. If there's a separate procedure for doing that at power on then I obviously could just use that. I don't see any such procedure documented in the user manual, though.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 05:52:21 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 07, 2021, 12:50:39 amOK instrument Setups is what these are and yes 10 are possible however you need go into Save/Recall to load them which is a little more hassle than hitting Default once you have set the one you like.Quote from: kcbrownQuote from: tautech on May 06, 2021, 11:52:31 pmQuote from: kcbrown on May 07, 2021, 12:50:39 amI don't know of one either but that's not to say there isn't some hidden method.In these you expressly have 2 types of default in the factory one if you chose to leave it unchanged or the User Default which is a feature that was first released in the little X-E you have.With the X Plus and its greater feature set such as the ability to change trace colors some might to set the Default so to have those rather than the factory setup and you may have noticed rf-loop prefers an orange trace that I guess takes him back decades to some early CRO's with orange phosphors.Anyways you need play with the User Default in the Save/Recall menu to really see now useful and powerful it is but as I mentioned before Factory Default the scope first to get rid of any underlying settings before you set a User Default and while you're in there having a play learn how to return the factory Default setting.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 07:01:03 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 11:17:33 pmI was discussing only new touch screen Siglent platform. Smaller and older scopes have also smaller screens and that makes it all more critical, I agree...And I wouldn't say "it took them long to understand". By that same token, Keysight doesn't understand Infiniivision scopes have very little memory and they think it is not a problem. Believe me, they do.But you cannot simply change platform. Once you commit to certain architecture, you have limited manoeuvring space, unless something was planned from the beginning, or is simple by happenstance..You are so correct about "perfect scope", or any kind of product, really. There is no perfect general purpose scope, regardless of the price. And as you go up the food chain, things get more specialized, true.But If you have scope that has low noise front end, big screen, sufficient bandwidth for general purpose work (200-500MHz does 90% of all work, or more depending on what you do), enough channels and MSO, enough memory, some advanced measurements and analysis options, you get pretty close to machine that will do the job for you pretty much for everything.Keysight MSOX2024A is 4500€ with VAT in EU. With NO serial decode/trigger and siggen options enabled. You need to buy those separately. And that is non touch, small screen scope with 1 MPts per ch (max) and limited math and 8ch MSO option with limitations..That kind of money buys you SDS5000X with 500 MHz bandwidth, all options. And LeCroy like memory architecture, and many advanced analysis options.I know which one I would choose...

author: Caliaxy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 11:53:48 am
content: Quote from: ROMUZ on May 06, 2021, 12:30:24 pmReally? I'm far from being an expert, but a BNC-BNC cable is a 50 ohm transmission line, which has to be terminated properly - either at the oscilloscope end (with a 50 Ohm resistor to the ground) or (better) at the source end (with a 50 ohm resistor in series). Failing to do so will result in reflections not being attenuated and erroneous readings. Unless the provided BNC-BNC cable includes termination (which should be clearly marked on the cable), or the electronic load has a source 50 ohm terminated BNC output for oscilloscope (which might very well be the case), you need to add one.Sorry if I'm telling you things you already know.

author: Caliaxy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 12:02:57 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 07, 2021, 07:01:03 amIn the spirit of fairness let's add that Keysight MSOX2K (as well as 3K and 4K) can be "liberated", too, to full specs for free (for personal educational purposes, of course). There is a whole thread on this forum about this.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 12:12:04 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on May 07, 2021, 05:52:21 amAbsolutely wrong.I do not remember I have used more any oscilloscope in my history what have amber/orange trace color. Perhaps some short random case. But this is not reason at all. In some old computer monitor it have been far before anybody have even heard linux or windows. Btw it was Windows 1.0 what was my first touch with Windows. And this time I remember there was also some amber screen portable computers and also tabletops, perhaps still more green. If I hardly try think it is possible there was some Yokogava scope what perhaps have amber screen, digital scope, but really I am not sure about my memory.--------Amber/ Orange IS good instrument display color if backround is dark. There is many reasons. With older eyes there may be also more advantages. Bit...There is two things what I ... sorry... totally hate in instruments... PINK color is one and other is blue LED. In my house here is not any blue Led aand never come. If they want enter to my home I have some good defense equipment and armaments for to defend, repel or completely destroy this kind of intruding enemies.Everyone know Tektronix, HP, Solartron etc old analog oscilloscopes trace colors and also old HP digital monochrome CRT scopes colors. Old times are really not reason. But eyes fatigue etc things are if you look 8/24/7 just scope screen. So reason is not nostalgic things but just eyes and some part also color taste what match or least is not color conflict with my environment.This time was nice... amber screen and no eyes fatigue even if work 12h every day.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 12:32:27 pm
content: Quote from: Caliaxy on May 07, 2021, 12:02:57 pmI wasn't comparing it to "liberated" one, but to a full legally unlocked device that is 2 classes up the food chain...If you want a hacked one, 1400€ (with tax) SDS2104X+ will have up to 500 MHz bandwidth (200MHz max on 4ch Keysight MSOX2204A).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 08:19:22 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 07, 2021, 07:01:03 amNow you make it sound that a Siglent scope is just as good as an A-brand scope 3 times the price. It just isn't in real life. Read the latest addition to the SDS200X+ thread (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-bugs-missing-features-feature-requests/msg3564889/#msg3564889) for another example of 'rough edges'. If Siglent gets full memory acquisiton implemented in time, I'm contemplating to evaluate it to see if it makes sense to propose it as a candidate oscilloscope to buy for a customer. But these rough edges make me wonder how many other issues my rigorous oscilloscope test plan is going to turn up and whether it is actually worth my time. Sending an engineer on a wild goose chase due to an issue in a piece of relatively cheap test equipment quickly diminishes the money saved. In a commercial setting it is the ROI that counts and not the initial investment.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 09:52:28 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 07, 2021, 08:19:22 pmDo your homework. That A brand scope 3x the price doesn't even decode from his 8 bit MSO options. And decodes are not even there for that price, you need to pay for fourth SDS2104X+ just get decodes. When there are bugs, they will get fixed. But scope deliberately made to be limited won't...ROI exists only if device can do the job in the first place..

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 10:19:14 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 07, 2021, 09:52:28 pmBut that is something you know upfront from the spec sheet so no surprises. And the choice isn't limited to Keysight. R&S decodes just fine from the digital channels for example and then are Tektronix & Yokogawa as well.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2021, 10:49:30 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 07, 2021, 08:19:22 pmRough edges aren't the same as functional bugs.And the decoding issue that post talks about isn't a bug, but is a configuration error on the user's part. It's something that bit me as well, until I understood what "include R/W bit" in the protocol decode config meant.

author: technogeeky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 04:34:41 am
content: The comments in this thread combined with the comments on the zoom thread makes me think two things.First, there are two races going on in the oscilloscope industry:* a race to the straight up to the top, with the highest-end and most sophisticated features locked up behind paid options codes (Keysight, R&S, etc)* an oscillating race to up and down from the bottom, with a few manufacturers more or less banking on the fact that the word-of-mouth and cottage industry around options hacking will drive salesThe former category of oscilloscope will always be driven by business, education, and industry: a collection of customers who will pay the price for the options because there is a budget for it; they will work with the manufacturer for support to get any *real* bugs; and people put up with rough edges and annoyances because they have to, it's for work.The latter category, however, is driven by the hobbyists and self-selectors; the people whomight not be participating at allif it weren't for the huge value presented by the hacks (and the hacks, we have to admit, at this point are a marketing strategy and not a technical oversight...). The hacks were first on the cheapest entry item (the Rigol 1054z), then some Siglent scopes, then more expensive Siglent scopes; then back to the newer, cheaper Rigol scopes...Second, this race will be won by whichever manufacturer has the courage to just embraceopen-sourceand stop pretending.The hivemind of people in this community would have easily answered if there is a system limitation about the zoom; if there is a real limitation (e.g. the Keysight ASIC really does things in a superior way) they could easily have hacked in a workaround that would manage memory settings and depths and present a similar picture -- if only to shut other people up about it. The vaunted Micsig formula entry options would be ported over. People would implement the parts of RTB scopes they like... and on and on and on.I know it's not quite this easy, and they do depend on people paying for the options and buying the higher entry scopes; but come on. If one scope manufacturer just took the last step and really opened up the firmware/software they would dominate the future of that market segment. And I suspect it's also the fastest growing market segment (the Rigol 1054z is surely the most sold scope of all time...). Seems like such a no brainer.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 am
content: Quote from: technogeeky on May 08, 2021, 04:34:41 amIn your world there are only Boing, Lockheed Martin and looser hobby users, and nothing in between.Education buyers who buy overpriced scopes for education are asses, because they buy 2 scopes instead of 20 with budged they have.Same with companies. Not every company is military contractor, with unlimited budget (coming from taxpayers pocket and nobody can ask why, because you know ...).And that is super rich USA. Now enter rest of the 6,5e9 people on the world.Siglent and Rigol scopes are good value even at retail prices, with no hacks, especially when they run specials that give you thousands of USD worth of options for free.And open source works backward of what you said. I know open something agenda tells you different but it isn't so.It took Linux 20 years and 10s of thousands of patches and additions to basic OS kernel and API by likes of IBM, Novell, Microsoft (yes Microsoft) etc, to make it a good, usable, operating system it is today. Open sourcing it didn't do a thing. It was free (no money) that did it.You cannot open source scope of any significance that easy. Hardware manufacturing margins are so low that all the profit comes from analysis software sitting on top of it. Why would a company do that for practically free so somebody else can make money on it. Or not, for free..It's funny how you leap from "capitalism good" A companies "deserve" to charge huge amounts of money for their scopes, to "other" companies should give it for practically free..Write a letter to Keysight and ask them why they don't release opens source scope... If feel a bit of double standards there..Hive mind did answer it. We have one user that insists on specific thing, one that trolls every discussion on everything, many who think all is fine as it is, and many that don't care, because the simply use any device the way it says in a book, do the job and move on to another project. After Dave made video on it, where he mudded situation even more by talking about similar but slightly different issue, even then, nobody cared enough to make a poll. Nobody cares, it's just few loud ones that make this visible... LeCroy users like it well enough, and even on those scopes that have optional manual control, people use it in AUTO all the time...So yeah, potential users need to know different scopes have some idiosyncrasies in a way they work, and that is it.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 07:51:52 am
content: Hello,I am still unsure as to what scope to purchase, after following all the replies, both the R&S RTB2004 and the Siglent SDS2104X+ both seem to be fantastic pieces of test equipment for the money.I fully understand that with the SDS, the value for money is so much more because of the added features that are included and the possible extra features that can be 'upgraded' if needed.Putting features to one side, I feel that the R&S is possibly a higher quality piece of kit, but that does not mean its better for the intended purpose. I have always purchased anything based on the fact I buy the best I can afford, but in this case both of these scopes are good and both have advantages over the other. I just don't want to buy one and later think I should have bought the other, which may be the case no matter what way I decide!If the R&S was as 'upgradable' like the Siglent, I think that would be my choice, but at the moment I think the Siglent will give me more usable features once its been doctored. Although I do like the fact that the R&S has a 10 ADC and a higher res screen (I know that that's not the only or most important consideration but its part of the decision making process along with the annoying shiny screen!), but then its also nice to have the full decoding etc and other benefits of the Siglent when it actually comes to using it in real life.Although I have a Saleae logic analyser, it would also be really nice to have features where I can trigger on a particular digital signal and actually see data side by side with analogue traces to see what's actually going on when developing MCU based designs with a few analogue sensors and signal conditioning circuits thrown in and maybe a few active filters etc.I think now its just a case seeing what way I decide when its comes to ordering one. I suppose the opinions of which is better suited could be discussed forever and perhaps a lot of this is just based on personal choices.Anyway, thanks again for everyone's inputs and opinions, it has been a great help, but as also thrown up more things for me to consider which I had not even thought about before, which is really good and what forums are all about.If I have any more specific questions I will post them here, but will also continue to read any further posts as they have all been valuable.Have a good weekend.ThanksJohn

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 09:50:53 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 08, 2021, 07:51:52 amJohn, to make things (un)clearer for you: the RTB is as "doctorable" as the SDS.If you can get away with the RS capabilities and its price you wont loose with any of them (RTB or SDS).In last resort, toss a coin. You can always blame luck afterwards. If you think you might not get the best deal with tossing a coin then it's because you already have a preference for one of them. In that case, go for it.Nobody in this forum will be able to make that decision for you. Only YOU can do it. You seem to have all the input you need. Ask the wife to choose by the looks...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 09:56:31 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 08, 2021, 07:51:52 amCorrect^It's not all about paper specs or lists of features. The R&S software is full of little details and on-screen thingys that make them a pleasure to use. See internet videos for details.Normally I'd say "go for it!", but ... that shiny screen.Some people love those screens, some people hate them. Me? I couldn't live with it.Quote from: tv84 on May 08, 2021, 09:50:53 amYep.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 10:54:33 am
content: Quote from: technogeeky on May 08, 2021, 04:34:41 amThe "hacks" are not a marketing strategy on theirselves. Most of the time, what people here call "hacks", are no more no less than taking advantage of the licensing mechanism that the manufacturer developed for adding features after sale.Once the mechanism becomes known, the manufacturer could try to change the mechanism and we've seen it done many times. That decision to change or not the licensing mechanism is the decision that could be called in the "marketing strategy". Although, changing a licensing mechanism can present HUGE costs and technical difficulties that are hard to deal (as backward/forward compatibilities, etc.)Bear in mind that practically ALL scopes that have licenseable options can be (or is it "have been"...) upgraded by others besides the vendor. The fact that only the more common and lower-priced (B and C) scopes have their methods in the public's eye doesn't mean that all A-brands haven't had their methods known under the counter in more private forums.So, is that a "marketing strategy"? I call it a "feature" of the licenseable options world.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 11:09:46 am
content: Ah, that's the one thig that niggles me. The shiny screen. I think that's the only thing that's stopping me ordering today.Its really would bug me so much if every time I worked with it I could see myself staring back!I think the Siglent has many other benefits but I think I would bite the bullet on the R&S if the shiny screen wasn't an issue, which it may not be in real life (Like some have suggested), but I cannot tell unless I have one in front of me.Maybe I will ring R&S and ask if I can return it if its an issue I can't live with....I have about another week or so before I really need to buy one, so I am sure I will go round it circles and just see what takes my fancy on the day.....All seems so silly really, not being able to make a decision. All the data / specs are there in front of me with many reviews, videos, opinions etc. Think I am cracking up. Blame it on the lockdown.thanks

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 11:17:31 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 08, 2021, 11:09:46 amAnti-glare filters exist (and they work!).When you're on the phone you could ask R&S why they don't include one in the box, like Micsig does.

author: Zlotnik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 11:20:27 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 08, 2021, 11:09:46 amIf it really boils down to this, the decision is easy!Place an iPad where the scope would go. Is it annoying?No: order the RTBYes: order the RTB and a matte screen protector.Seriously, it might not be an issue at all. And if it is, google around! Back when I was researching the exact same trade-off, I did not find a single report of a user that was annoyed by the glossy screen, tried a matte screen protector, and was still unhappy with the screen.If you're still unhappy, you're a consumer, you can still just send it back!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 11:20:36 am
content: Quote from: tv84 on May 08, 2021, 10:54:33 amI'm pretty sure they are, there's no other explanation why it's so easy or why manufacturers do nothing about itIt helps hobbyists buy the 'scopes while keeping the prices high for business/education who are afraid of their warranties.

author: Zlotnik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 11:36:25 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 08, 2021, 09:56:31 amThis.Specs and headline features aren't everything. Once the tool does the job, it's about ROI for professional use or enjoyment for hobby use. How much that is worth and what works well is so specific to the user, that actual recommendations quickly become useless.Try for yourself if you can, otherwise look out for gripes and raves, and imagine you were in the reporter's shoes.

author: Zlotnik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 11:44:54 am
content: Quote from: tv84 on May 08, 2021, 09:50:53 amReally?I thought some had started and dumped the firmware, but no real progress had been made, as most RTB users got a full-spec bundle at one of the sales.I've got the COM4 bundle too so it's "too late" for me, but could you link to the thread where they've cracked that nut?

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 11:52:29 am
content: The glossy screen looks always nicer.BUT when our brain gets "in the zone" and our eyes only see our reflex... there's little we can do to distract from it...As Fungus says, plenty of screen filters. Don't know about their "touch" feeling.BTW all my monitors are matte.

author: goaty
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 12:01:09 pm
content: I cut down a cheap screen protector for laptop to fit the RTB2k screen. Rather difficult to apply without dust particles behind. Touch works fine, little bit rougher, so a bit more gliding resistance.But image looks less vivid and crisp. Ok for me. Doesn't reflect anymore.Film can be removed anytime without residue.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 12:47:58 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 07, 2021, 10:49:30 pmThat kind of makes my point. For example R&S doesn't have this option. An I2C address is 7 bit or 10 bit (through a protocol extension I have not seen being used in the wild). Not 8 bit so why the option to display the I2C address as 8 bit? It doesn't make sense.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2021, 02:56:27 pm
content: Quote from: goaty on May 08, 2021, 12:01:09 pmThat's just technique.You need to cover the entire screen with masking tape. Peel it off just before you apply the protector.Put little bit of masking tape on the corners of the screen to make it easy to pull the protector off again if you're not happy. Use masking tape to pick up bits of dust from the protector.Remember that protectors can be be removed and put back as many time as you like but don't pick at the corners with your fingernails to get then off again, use a razor blade (or similar) to lift them then put a piece of masking tape underneath before using your finger to pull it off.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 10:14:14 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 08, 2021, 12:47:58 pmIt doesn't make sense unless you want to see the entire address byte as the byte that went over the wire, rather than as 7 bits + 1 bit.It's just a display option, nothing more. How is it any different from other display options that you might not have a use for, but that others might?Someonethought it would be useful. They wouldn't have bothered to add it otherwise, because that takes engineering time, QA time (don't laugh), etc.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 10:51:13 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 09, 2021, 10:14:14 amWhile I agree that I don't find 8Bit address (combined 7bit address and R/W bit) useful myself, fact is that Keysight 3000T (and all Infiniivision series) and Ikalogic logix software have a choice of 7/8 bit address.. So someone else thought it was necessary..

author: Performa01
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 07:52:52 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 09, 2021, 10:51:13 amWell - purely hypothetically - what would you do if you got a contemporary A-brand DSO once in your life, wouldn't you think this has finally to be THE reference?In a frantic attempt to bash a certain brand, especially if it's just for a feature you don't understand, it might turn out that this supposed reference has a few rough edges and is different from everything else - so much that it is the only one that has that deficit.I'm puzzled how a Tek fan wouldn't know any better:https://www.tek.com/support/faqs/how-do-i-set-i2c-bus-decodeQuote

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 08:07:27 pm
content: Quote from: Performa01 on May 09, 2021, 07:52:52 pmYou seem to fail to see that two people on this forum already got confused by this. I wouldn't be surprised Keysight will also adjust the trigger condition (7 bit / 8 bit) accordingly instead of allowing to trigger on a 7 bit I2C address and display an 8 bit number. Probably the UI is also a lot more clear. Thats why I wrote 'rough edges' and not 'bug'. Stuff that can send a less experienced engineer on a wild goose chase.And don't for a minute think the R&S is the only A-brand scope that went through my hands. If you'd paid attention you'd know it is just one scope in a very long list of scopes I own or have owned. So your frantic attempt to downplay my remark fails miserably.

author: Performa01
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 08:08:04 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 06, 2021, 08:51:06 pmWhile it's certainly true that there could be a lot more search conditions, the segment search is definitely there, at least on the touch screen instruments starting with the SDS2000X Plus.The following link, reply #275, shows a demonstration of how it works on an SDS5000X - it is exactly the same for the SDS2000X Plus:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/at-last-siglent_s-sds5054x-touchscreen/msg2471931/#msg2471931

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 08:24:09 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 09, 2021, 08:07:27 pmAnd yet you criticize Siglent, and not Keysight, for this display characteristic. Whether or not Keysight's trigger condition changes in response to this display option depends on how they've set up the configuration mechanism for it in the first place. For instance, if (as is likely) they allow you to independently specify the read/write bit value in the UI trigger specification, then they'd have to actively change the address match as well. And note that if you have "don't care" for the address butarespecifying a read/write bit value, then the display of the address would have to somehow reflect that. How do you display "don't care" for 7 bits and the specified read/write bit for the LSB when you're displaying hex?Point being that it gets to be a mess. It's simpler to just leave the address and the read/write bit as separate things in the trigger configuration, and to not do anything with respect to them in response to a change in how the read/write bit is displayed. Far better to simply have something on the trigger configuration that, when "include read/write bit" is set, alerts that displayed address values will include the read/write bit in the LSB, so that the user is keenly aware of what he'll see.I'm curious what the R&S RTB series does with this, since an excellent UI is one of its strong suits. If it has the option to incorporate the read/write bit in the address display, then it's likely they thought through how best to do i2c triggering with that setting in mind.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 08:30:01 pm
content: Quote from: Performa01 on May 09, 2021, 08:08:04 pmI think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I was complaining about how theInstekdoesn't have search when segments are enabled. I've modified my message to improve its clarity in this regard.The Siglent does, of course, have search with segments enabled because segments are a first-class citizen in the firmware, and are always on and always available, so any feature that Siglent implementsmustaccount for it. And that was really my point: Instek's segments are an afterthought, whilst Siglent's are not.My complaint about search on the Siglent is not with respect to the segment support, but rather that it is lacking in search conditions, particularly relative to triggering. You can trigger on amuchwider variety of things than you can search for, when the search capabilities shouldat a minimumbe the same as the trigger capabilities, if not a superset of them.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 08:30:24 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 09, 2021, 08:07:27 pmIt is clearly explained in the manual........ Very clearly..ConfigurationThere is only one item Include R/W Bit in the configuration of the I2Cdecode. When it is disabled, the address is represented separately fromthe R/W bit, and when it is enabled, the R/W bit is represented togetherwith the address.For example, the address 0x4E: Write: Ack, is displayed as "0x4E (W)"when the R/W bit is not included and is displayed as "0x9C"when the R/Wbit is included.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2021, 09:48:37 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 09, 2021, 08:24:09 pmIn answer to this, I went and examined the RTB2000 series user manual. And the answer is: they don't have the option of including the R/W bit in the displayed address.

author: technogeeky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 01:51:02 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 amOK, and do you or my arguments support wider access to better technologyQuote from: 2N3055 on May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 amI didn't say they aren't (tey are). The options that give you thousands of USD don't have that kind of expected value in a world with hackable scopes; or DIY devices. And then there's the issue of the entire ecosystem of things you could program a scope to do that aren't even thought of by existing vendors.Quote from: 2N3055 on May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 amI won't comment on the unsubstantiated claims; but yes that's exactly what I'm saying. It should be free *and* open source.Quote from: 2N3055 on May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 amThen charge a tiny bit more and let people actually fix and improve the scopes rather than locking them in to a set of issues for the next decade? The argument is that the expected value of the software isn't thousands of dollars because many many people are getting them for $0 through hacking and discounts. So charge the extra, on average, $55 on the hardware and let a community work on the software.Quote from: 2N3055 on May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 amI dispute this has anything to do with capitalism. They should not make a loss selling the hardware, and they should not spent time staying way behind on the software and let their end users make the experience they want themselves.Quote from: 2N3055 on May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 amYes!! I literally started my post by splitting these companies in two categories!! I don't think I could be clearer about that.They will tell me because they have absolutely enormous software development staff that works on these devices for years adding whole clusters of analysis options of different kinds.They wouldn't tell me, but it's clear that it's because so much of the expected value of their services are in the software options, and that open sourcing them would dilute this. Their cheap aren't so cheap that there is only a small jump, fully optioned, up to a more expensive ine.Quote from: 2N3055 on May 08, 2021, 07:28:12 amI don't care about that particular zoom issue. It's not the point. We had people here that moved heaven and earth to hack the 1054z to get rid of the phrase "Riglol' and they shouldn't have had to do so. There have been slight bugs and annoyances the whole time, and they don't have the staff to respond to the huge number of requests for fixes, customization, and feature addition that is required when your customer base is hobbyists (who aren't going to have the most focused bug reports) and freakin' huge.The ecosystem and innovation in the oscilloscope market would benefit if they would stop trying to act like they have the right tools to do all the software themselves and not let the people using the damn things work on it!

author: technogeeky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 01:59:29 am
content: Quote from: tv84 on May 08, 2021, 10:54:33 amI meant more or less exactly this - maybe for the 1054z it wasn't intentional. But surely, at this point it must be.And yes, tons of other devices get hacked but usually very late in life - because they don't make the sheer volume of devices, and because they spend the effort to try and secure the licensing system.This leads in to my overall point: the volume of devices fact combined the now-it's-a-marketing-strategy fact imply that they should just go the last step. Figure out what the EV of their options package is, go ahead and charge that little bit extra in the price of the hardware (this will surely NOT close the gap between the sub-1500 market and the rest upward), then let your darn users do the software.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 02:16:44 am
content: Quote from: technogeeky on May 10, 2021, 01:51:02 amLike what ?

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 02:48:14 am
content: Quote from: tautech on May 10, 2021, 02:16:44 amLike defining a stop condition that will stop the scope when it's been hit. You'd then use the trigger to define when a capture is to be taken and use the stop condition to tell the scope when to stop performing captures. You could then examine the segments (however many of them there might be -- depending on your timebase and the time delta between trigger event and stop event, there might be only one) to see everything in between.I didn't come up with this, actually. Someone named Tom Biskupic did in a comment in response to @mikeselectricstuff's video on the RTB2004's segmented memory system:

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 02:53:43 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 10, 2021, 02:48:14 amSingle ?

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 02:57:42 am
content: Quote from: tautech on May 10, 2021, 02:53:43 amNope. That just gets you one capture. The actual stop condition might occur after multiple trigger events, and the idea here is that you'd want to capture all such events (or, at least, the last N events, where N is the number of segments you can capture based on your settings) up until the stop condition occurs.

author: Caliaxy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 03:04:32 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 08, 2021, 07:51:52 amYou are the only one who can make this choice. If money is not an issue, hope you chose R&S - there is nothing like a 10 bit ADC.Siglent seems to be a great tool, too. In a few years they’ll very likely have a 10 bit scope as well. Either one of them would be a big leap forward.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 03:10:04 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 10, 2021, 02:57:42 amThere's a lot of this functionality already in X Plus and SDS5000X DSO's if you were to follow the link in Reply #158.Once Search parameters have been properly set you can define them to Trigger conditions and tune them further.

author: technogeeky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 03:35:01 am
content: Quote from: tautech on May 10, 2021, 02:16:44 amFrom my Rigol:* letting a user define an extra virtual channels they can use for math functions, offsets, etc (constants)* adding highlight frequency in ffts* adding the ability to anchor the trigger point left, center, or right - R&S has this* porting over the math functions like e.g. micsig has - arbitrary functions so you can normalize waveforms, etc* adding overrides, like adding 2.5x or 7.5x probe values so you can do tricky offsets (some other scopes have this in hardware)I mean, whichever scope has large sales and open source will very, very quickly have the best bus decoding features out there.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 03:36:14 am
content: Quote from: tautech on May 10, 2021, 03:10:04 amSure, but that's not the point. The point is that with an open source firmware implementation, it's possible to implement essentially anything you can think of, irrespective of what the manufacturer has implemented or has even thought of.You asked for an example of such a thing. Well, I think the example I came up with certainly qualifies, no?And as for the search parameters, on the SDS2k+ they're a small subset of the available trigger parameters. For instance, I can't search for a separate set of i2c data values within a given i2c capture. In fact, there's no protocol search capabilityat allthat I can find.Most certainly the SDS2k+ series scopes are immensely capable, but that's not the point. The point is that an open firmware scope would make it possible to do things that the scope otherwise wouldn't be able to do. And on top of that, it would make it possible to make improvements that the manufacturer otherwise might not make. For instance, as good as the SDS2k+ series is, its UI responsiveness (particularly to panel controls)doesleave something to be desired, particularly when the scope is stopped. There are other scopes that do quite a bit better, e.g. the Instek series, but they have their ownfirmware-basedproblems (such as the fact that segments are an afterthought and not a first-class fundamental mechanism like they are in the Siglent).

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 04:05:01 am
content: Oh no....OT another OS DSO thread !Please take it elsewhere.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 04:30:52 am
content: Quote from: tautech on May 10, 2021, 04:05:01 amUh, it's a bit odd to be calling the answers to your own question "OT", don't you think?(true as the characterization may be ...)

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 04:35:01 am
content: Quote from: Zlotnik on May 08, 2021, 11:44:54 amI, too, am very curious about this. A link to the thread in which hacking the RTB is described would be appreciated, as it's likely to make for some interesting reading.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 04:42:04 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 10, 2021, 04:30:52 amMore to come about the "Like what ?" later as it was a leading question and not directed at you KC.technogeeky has given a partial reply but not mentioned the model of scope and should really take it up with the manufacturer or in one of the threads here like this one:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-bugs-missing-features-feature-requests/Input about opensource DSO's is best sent here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/a-high-performance-open-source-oscilloscope-development-log-future-ideas/

author: technogeeky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 04:53:42 am
content: Quote from: tautech on May 10, 2021, 04:05:01 amI wasn't aware of that topic (I have been gone for a while); but I specifically mean an existing manufacturer opening; not a new development. It doesn't matter.To the OP:Watch the whole mikeselectric video on the RTB. If money isn't a problem, the R&S scopes are awesome and the UI is amazing. I can't afford it myself.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 am
content: Quote from: technogeeky on May 10, 2021, 03:35:01 amBefore going even more off topic, I will repeat some things said before elsewhere:Scopes don't have unlimited memory and processing power. They rely on delicate interplay of hardware processing engine and software. Both will be limited and defined by actual chips used inside.Large parts of rendered waveforms will be done in hardware (ASIC or FPGA) and then given to CPU to render overlays. Some traces will come from hardware some from CPU and they are mixed on same screen and scaled to look and feel like they are equal. All of that makes real, working, embedded scope, and that cannot be open sourced. It could, but would gain nothing. Nobody would do anything useful with it, because it is out of capability of heard to write something useful there. There are dozens of scopes that got reverse engineered to the point that it was known what it does and how hardware looks like.None of them got nowhere. People managed to run Linux on it and play doom. None of them even got to the point acquire waveforms at all. None of them even got to point to even match functions that scopes got before they started "development".What could be done would be PC scope like the Picoscope, the basic acquisition engine that does nothing than just sample data and gives it to PC for all processing. Then all of the scope functionality IS in software, and that would be closer to what could be managed. And indeed, there is a very, very clever guy Andrew Zonenberg doing just that. He is developing both acquisition hardware and software for PC. And software can (and does) work with many scopes, including effort to make it work with Siglent scopes.Just to be clear, that is not classic scope though. It can manage few wfms/sec. As you go up the food chain, high end scopes are specialized for advanced analysis, not screen speed..That being said, most of the stuff you enumerated here, SDS2000X+ already have, and some are visual user preferences, that might, or might not be interesting to all users.But it is always nice to have (nice) discussion and hear clear examples and suggestions (instead of just "this bad..").You never know, if possible and idea is good it might even get implemented..To answer to you on RTB2000, I think it is a very confusing scope. It has some very nice features, but is limited (deliberately) in some very annoying ways. There is no search on any serial protocols except on CAN. Segmented memory is implemented as a "datasheet feature" it is not as powerful as it should be.It is basically an Apple of scopes: expensive,fancy and visually polished, with many good features but also limited in many ways that are not obvious at first glance. And then you realize you could have bought Xiaomi phone with Android for much, much less money and still accomplish same things with it. Call, and SMS and read mails etc etc..I really, really, would politely ask, if any of you want to discuss more on open source scopes, than a topic should be opened and we can discuss it there...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 08:02:30 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amThere have been many threads on this already.Short version:a) Trying to reverse engineer then write for an existing 'scope is insanity, plus they might stop manufacturing them at any time.b) Making usable open-source 'scope hardware is difficult.Here's the previous thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/a-high-performance-open-source-oscilloscope-development-log-future-ideas/

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 08:36:42 am
content: Quote from: technogeeky on May 10, 2021, 03:35:01 amAn assortment of screenshots covering most of those ^.All X-E models can do some of these tricks while 5kX and 2kX Plus have the Math on Math and generally better virtual keyboards.No signals were molested in these screenshots.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 09:34:46 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 10, 2021, 08:02:30 amRight. And what's being asked for here is neither. He's asking for amanufacturerto open sourceitsfirmware. Which means that the manufacturer will already have done all of the heavy lifting. The hardware design will already have been done (they're building a scope, after all) and the difficulties of making the firmware fast with respect to captures will also have already been done.Is there a thread that covers the case that technogeeky is specifically talking about?

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 09:51:20 am
content: In the absence of a better alternative thread for this (if you've got a good one in mind, please share the link to it and I'll happily move this message there), I thought I'd add a little fuel to the fire of the memory management question.So, you who support the automagic "use all the memory available" approach think it's more intuitive, eh? Well, then explain this:https://youtu.be/UTsbYqhZiSg?t=2937There, @mikeselectricstuff told the UART trigger to fire when it detects an FF byte, something that is present at the beginning of the 8k length packets he's capturing. He seems (but see below) surprised that when he zooms in, it will start to fire in the middle of his 8k packet as well.Did you spot the problem? I did. The packet's time duration is about 41ms. When zoomed in, the scope is sampling at 1.25Gs/s. And he's in "automatic" memory management mode. That yields a required memory length to capture the entire packet of 51.25 million samples. The scope has at most 20 million samples worth of memory. The trigger is re-arming and firing again in the middle of the packet because the end of the memory space is reached before the end of the packet is reached, the trigger is re-arming, and the re-arm time is fast enough that it's seeing an FF packet in the remaining data in the packet.With the Siglent and an understanding of the simple fact that what you see is all you get, the reason for this behavior would be obvious on its face. This is so because you wouldknowthat all it's capturing is what's on the screen andnothing more. But with a "use all the memory for a single capture" approach, it isn't obvious at all until you do the math. You won't get any visual indication at all of the problem because the scope will be using all of its available memory at 1.25GS/s, so it won't show you the capture size relative to the size of the packet because it doesn't know that it should, or even how.Like I said, the Siglent's approach has the advantage of obviousness. The lack of obviousness in the approach that some here (nctnico, Fungus) prefer isexactlywhy @mikeselectricstuff didn't seem to immediately realize why his scope was firing the trigger in the middle of the packet.EDIT: upon re-watching that section of the video, the real problem he seems to be concerned about is that he thinks that it's triggering off of data that differs from what he told it to trigger off of. But interestingly, the signal he shows it triggering against matches both what he told it to trigger againstandwhat the decoder claims it to be. I still wonder, though, if he was surprised that it was triggering in the middle of the packet. I can't tell anymore after having viewed this again.The obviousness argument still holds nonetheless. Sorry, @mikeselectricstuff, if I mischaracterized your understanding of the problem.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 10:11:41 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 10, 2021, 09:34:46 amOh, right.That's not gonna happen. It just isn't.(which is maybe why I missed the point - it'scompletelyunthinkable)Manufacturers need to keep control ofexactlywhat every model in the lineup can do. eg. They don't want 2000-series features being hacked into to their 1000-series devices, it's bad for profits.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 10:16:56 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on May 10, 2021, 10:11:41 amThere's certainly some validity to that. But keep in mind that lower end scopes also have lower end hardware, and hardware capabilities make a substantial difference in what can be done in firmware. So it's not like a manufacturer that did this wouldn't have the ability to differentiate their higher level offerings from their lower level ones, even if they were to open source their firmware.Honestly, I think it's not going to happen because of all of the proprietary techniques that would be revealed by doing so, ones that could easily give them an edge in the marketplace, most especially in the FPGA(s) (which is really where the deep magic lives).

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 10:31:43 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 10, 2021, 09:34:46 amThat exact question arises every now and then. And answer is what I said: You cannot decouple hardware and software development. So hardware manufacturer would need to make all the steps like they would to create full scope, design hardware according to expected specs and capabilities, and then practically abandon project two thirds of the way, and then document hardware in detail so someone can write their own software, and maybe also develop API and open source that too.. And then sell only scope hardware for nominal manufacturing cost + some small percentage.Why would anybody do that? Manufacturers are not social services...Like I said before, Linux came to existence over 25+ years. That was possible because it was made to run on Intel PC compatible platform, that existed and kept it's binary compatibility for all that time. And that was because Microsoft created reference platform and drove compatibility effort for 25 years....Linux rept benefits on the fact that whole (professional) PC industry of the world created single platform for them to exploit. And that was possible only because it was a huge market and it was good business. And also, millions of general purpose programmers writing general purpose code were available, so some were willing to contribute.If Linux survival depended on "Linux reference computing platform" to run it it would be stillborn.Scopes are different, in hardware, target market, application specific code with heavy DSP and advanced math.And few years in, hardware is obsolete...And there is no industry wide effort to make new one that keeps all previous effort....I hope you understand better now. I'm not against it. It's simply not going to happen. No company will spend millions to develop something they would give for free for "privilege" to sell cheap, low profit hardware that, by the way, would be copied in short time by many making cheap knockoff copies that would drive price point and quality into the ground...

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 10:38:08 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 10:31:43 amI agree, it's not going to happen. With respect to the efforts of making new ones that keep the previous efforts, the manufacturers already do that, since it's horribly uneconomical to throw away previous efforts without good reason. You get new hardware architectures and all that, but there are development techniques that can be brought to bear to minimize the amount of work you have to do to port your prior efforts to a new hardware platform. I fully expect that manufacturers makeextensiveuse of those techniques because the cost of developing everything needed to make the scope's hardware do what it does is very, very high.It's actually really remarkable just how inexpensive we're getting scopes for these days, given the sheer amount of man-hours that must have gone into their development. I can't see how they can possibly get them as inexpensive as they have without leveraging an enormous amount of prior development on previous generation scopes.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 11:12:34 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 10:31:43 amThat, too^They'd have to provide a whole lot of documentation, pass it through a legal department to make sure they aren't publishing something that might accidentally be patented, do a complete code review to make sure there's no rude comments, a whole bunch of expensive stuff.Would it let them make a lot more more money? I doubt it. The way to sell lots of hardware is to make it cheap (better bang:buck), not to do a whole bunch of extra stuff that will cause them headaches and only a small minority is interested in.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 11:38:23 am
content: Quote from: Zlotnik on May 08, 2021, 11:44:54 amAFAIK there is no thread in this forum. But the thread you mention is a nice start. So, that was precisely what I was trying to convey: there are plenty of A-brand "nut cracking" that isn't visible.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2021, 12:09:08 pm
content: Quote from: tv84 on May 10, 2021, 11:38:23 am

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 12:39:04 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 10:31:43 amWell, it's actually worse, or better, depending on your point of view.What's being asked for here is for the manufacturer to open source the firmware. That, of course, could happen at any time, including after the manufacturer has released the scope along with completed firmware.But it's hard to see what incentive the manufacturer would have to do so since doing so simply increases the chance of his older scope offering being more competitive with his new offering. His new offering would need to have a substantial hardware improvement to make it worth buying as a replacement for the older offering.The other issue is with respect to specialized techniques that the manufacturer may have developed in order to implement certain things in the firmware. By open sourcing his firmware, he'd be essentially releasing those techniques to the public.There are ways around these things, though. For instance, the manufacturer could include a binary bundle that contains the sensitive bits that he doesn't want disclosed, along with a very restrictive license for it. And the rest of the code could also have a restrictive license for it, e.g. it could be released with terms that stipulate that it is to be usedonlywith the scope models that he has released, and distributedonlyto other individuals who possess such scopes themselves.If the goal is to get the users involved in the development efforts so as to minimize the amount of time that bugs remain in the firmware, then there are ways to do that without open sourcing the firmware, and distribution of it could be limited strictly to people who own the hardware in question. But that would also require some effort and might not be worth it. The number of people who would simultaneously be interested in improving the firmwareandwould be capable of doing so is likely very small. In the end, these are special-purpose devices, and their market size is highly limited compared with other mass produced devices.One last thing to consider: someone who winds up with the source for the firmware and puts a substantial amount of development time into it will almost certainly bedissuadedfrom buying a later offering from that manufacturer, precisely because of his investment into the current scope that is far above and beyond what it would be if he were merely a purchaser of it. That obviously works against the manufacturer's interests.I'm repeating myself here, but quite frankly, I'm astonished that these scopes are as inexpensive as they are, considering the overall market size for them and the incredible amount of R&D that has gone into them.

author: technogeeky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 02:32:31 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amYes, and the software which runs on them...Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amOn what basis do you assert this?Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amOn what basis...Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amOn what basis!!?Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amIt's almost like without certain critical information they can't progress at all...Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amThis is good, but not what I'm asking for and it won't fix bugs, inconsistencies, or quirks, or errors in the scopei.Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amThere is plenty of space to make configurable software that lets users decide what is interesting to them. (I mean this in a compile space sense, but it may be true in a memory space sense).To be clear I think it's more important for people to try and implementbadideas because they are likely to be the most interesting ones! While I struggled to think of a few things that annoyed me with my current scope; but there are tons more things that I don't think would be useful for everyone but I would still want anyway.For instance, I would love an option to disable/unload as many features on the 1054z just to speed it up a few percent or even one percent so the screen shot capture and download (to make GIFs) would be as fast as possible. Does anyone else want that? Probably not. Is there a chance for the manufacturer to implement it? Zero.It feels like there's a bit of a failure of imagination about this. For instance, everyone who has made arguments against has had a tacit assumption in their argument that there is one master source code.e.g. The mindset is: is this feature wanted by most oscilloscope users? It may just make it in, if you're lucky - on the next update, which will be between 6 months and 2 years from now.It could be: Grab the list of plugins and see which one looks good. Oh, yeah, the one which draws some nice 18th century curtains over the top of my zoom window does just the trick. Oh crap, it's white fabric instead of red. Fork and change the color!Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amI will do just that. I would appreciate it someone with some credibility around here might consider seriously considering the pro argument through and through (or even if you think the argument is wrong, put your debate team hat on and argue for it anyway). Maybe there are people in a position to influence at e.g. Siglent or Rigol who are open to suggestion if not persuasion.

author: technogeeky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 02:34:40 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on May 11, 2021, 12:39:04 amI wish to reply here, but in the interest in cutting this off as has been repeatedly suggested I'll just take it elsewhere.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 02:42:31 am
content: Quote from: technogeeky on May 11, 2021, 02:34:40 amPlease supply the link to the resulting thread here once you create it. I've a keen interest in the subject myself.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 10:46:59 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 10, 2021, 06:13:31 amSee this thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/a-high-performance-open-source-oscilloscope-development-log-future-ideas/But as I wrote there the rendering on an open source scope needs to happen in software (or more precisely: using the GPU) so it is portable to other hardware. And this has been done before... by Lecroy. If you dig deeper into their Wavepro 7000 series you'll see that the acquisition hardware is incredibly simplistic. All the waveform rendering is GPU based, the processing is done by the CPU.QuoteWrong.https://sourceforge.net/projects/welecw2000a/files/

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 11:25:52 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 11, 2021, 10:46:59 amNone of the cheap embedded scopes are PC based.. Unless you think some of the manufacturers of high end 20000+USD scopes would be willing to donate platform for free. OP repeated few times that he doesn't want to make OS hardware, but would like for manufacturer to "donate" ready made product so open source crowd could "make it better".If you would want to make one, yes then that is the way, I agree. And that is what Andrew Zonenberg does...But OP didn't want that. He would like for Siglent, Rigol, Keysight, whatever, would "donate" scope to Open Source community. And I think that is not realistic because there is no benefits for manufacturer to do so.As for Welec (that our user Branadic was involved in) it was ONLY one that went somewhere. But that was very simple basic scope even 10 years ago. And it went nowhere when platform was discontinued. That proves my other points. I believe it was great learning experience, but didn't make significant impact.Since then, price performance of entry level scopes is much better to the point that it makes no sense to make when you can buy very good very cheaply..My point is that I would be ecstatic if someone would accomplish to make open source scope that would be similar to DS1000Z, not to mention better than that.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 11:54:09 am
content: Making a new DS1000Z is pointless. The bang per buck just isn't there for a low volume product. tom66 did a poll and it seems people are willing to pay way more for open source oscilloscope hardware then the price of a DS1000Z. If you want a DS1000Z then just buy one of those. And with embedded GPUs and processors being really powerfull you don't need a PC to have enough processing power.BTW: I'm still waiting for progress on people reverse engineering the LUA API inside the GW Instek scopes. This could be mighty interesting and -if the API can do useful things- a serious entry into making third party plugins.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 12:06:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 11, 2021, 11:54:09 amI'm not saying people should make an Open Source DS1000Z, but that even making DS1000Z would be mission almost impossible, not to mention LeCroy mid range scope. And, again, technogeeky didn't want to make hardware of any sort. He would like that some manufacturer donate platform to open source... So a better software would be made by open source community..Which brings us to fact that that RE of Lua on GW Instek is been going on for few years now... Proving my point it's not easy to do....

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2021, 01:17:25 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 11, 2021, 12:06:42 pmThat is more due to nobody really investing the time to figure it out (or someone has spend the time but hasn't published the results yet). There is root access and how to make new add-on apps is known. Figuring out which function exposed to the LUA engine does what is just grunt work. Not difficult but time consuming. But it has to start with a need for a specific feature. About a decade ago I created protocol decoding plugins for the Tektronix TLA700 series logic analysers based on some preliminary reverse engineering efforts from someone else. There was a need and thus motivation to spend the time. OTOH I woulnd't know what functionality to add to my GW Instek scope.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 07:23:47 am
content: Hi,Going back to the original topic about deciding on a particular scope and getting away from open source for a moment (Although an interesting discussion), what views do you have on the Siglent SDS5034X.Mainly, compared to the R&S 20004EDU with plenty of free upgrades, is the Siglent 5000x series far superior?https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rohde-Schwarz-RTB2004EDU.htmlhttps://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Siglent-SDS5034X.htmlAnyone got any thoughts on the 5000X series (Or anything priced similar) that would completely put it in a league of its own over the R&S2000 series.Also is the 5034X easily and freely upgradable.Any thoughts good or bad, would be good to hear.ThanksJohn

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 07:46:21 am
content: SDS5054X owner here.While the 5000X individual vertical controls provide for more intuitive use over SDS2000X Plus models Plus models do have a more polished front panel layout.An additional USB outlet is welcome too in SDS5000X for powering other devices along with a mouse and USB stick.10 MHz input too if you have time nut tendencies.No internal AWG in 5000X so you are limited to the external 25 MHz SAG1021I single isolated channel module.Active probe support for LeCroy, Tek (with adaptors) and Siglent active probes.Dual 5 GSa/s ADC's each with 250 Mpts mem depth.Otherwise it's virtually the same to use as the SDS2000X Plus.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 08:44:06 am
content: Hi tautech,ah, ok, that's interesting and useful coming from someone who actually has one.Although coming from old analogue scopes having individual vertical control is nice, its not essential and I suppose you get used to what you have.At the moment I feel if I could get a RTB2004 fully loaded at a good price I may be tempted but the Siglent certainly offers better value bang for buck.Back to having a long hard think......Thanks

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 09:00:29 am
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 08:44:06 amMost certainly prefer individual vertical controls however when you are forced to use shared controls it's something you get used to pretty quick. When I was given the privilege to beta SDS1104X-E it was the first shared control DSO I had used and some 20 mins later it was like I'd used them for years. LOLYes you do adapt fairly quickly and as few days go by when I'm not doing predelivery checks I'm often swapping back and forth between individual and shared controls and think little of it now when once it feared me with dread !

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 12:01:18 pm
content: R&S have a deal on the RTB2004 package at £2900 (3390 Euro)https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rohde-Schwarz-RTB2K-COM4-SP.htmlThis is fully loaded 4 channel, 300MHz with all options (MSO, Decode, Protocols etc), 4 probes, logic probes etc.Sounds like a pretty goo deal to me is it worth it?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 12:36:10 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 12:01:18 pmYes.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 12:38:00 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 12:01:18 pmThat is a good deal compared to retail price. That, OTOH, is arbitrarily pumped up by manufacturer, because they are big brand and they think they can.Look, nobody will take responsibility of choice from you.RTB2000 is not worse scope than SDS2104X+. Nobody will claim that.Is it better?I personally think it is a bit more polished at the time, if nothing else because it is longer on the market. God knows it was buggy mess when it came out. But, despite taking really long, they fixed most of the obvious stuff. Some things are still unsolved, but not obvious stuff.It is also mixed bag: Decoding is really nice on that scope. But you have only one decode. Wait, that is wrong there are 2.... Yeah, but those 2 are simplex. So you want to decode UART you can decode only 1 uart if you need RX and TX. On SDS2104X+ decoding doesn't look so nice (but does the job neverthless) but it has 2 full duplex decodes. R&S would try to sell you this as "we have 4 decodes". So If you do only simple stuf, and 2 simplex decodes are good enough for you , RTB2000 will do good job. If you need to look at 1 SPI and 1 UART bus at the same line both RX and TX, you cannot do that on RTB2000, but on Siglent it's no problem.Siglent has arbitrary math, 2ch and math chaining. It can do some stuff RTB2000 math cannot do, but RTB2000 math is already pretty good for average user.So depending on what are your priorities. When I'm in a situation that I need to decide but cannot make a simple clear choice, i literally open Excel, enumerate on the left points I find important, and in several columns I give grades from 0 to 10 for each options. I sum it up, and then usually becomes obvious. Put all the technical merits inside table, but don't forget other factors if they are important to you.For instance, for a educational videos maker, availability of ready made edu materials mith matter more than cutting edge performance. Or you have customers that care about if your lab looks either "old school" or "super modern and hip" (apple style)..Don't forget to give points for price... If in your comparison RTB2000 comes on top, fine, but also make sure that it is as much better for your needs as it is more expensive...For a small business owner, for instance , it would make more sense to get 2 SDS2104X+ than single RTB2000. Siglent is more than good enough (actually make that way more than good enough) to do the general purpose job, and I could have 2 engineers or technicians working at the same time, instead of waiting their turn.In the end, it is you who have to make a list of priorities and decide.

author: goaty
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 12:46:52 pm
content: Surprisingly the thing that annoys me most on the RTB2k is that horizontal and vertical is above each other and not beside. I find it takes long time to get used to it.

author: Caliaxy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 02:21:31 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on May 12, 2021, 12:38:00 pm... the screen in particularJoke aside, as 2N3055 says. If you do the point thingy, don't forget that if you decide to hack the Siglent to 350 MHz you also need to factor in at least four 300 MHz (~$200) or 350 MHz probes (2104X only comes with 200 MHz probes). Also, don't forget to add the logic probe for Siglent (~$350).I was offered a similar deal as yours, on top of witch I got an educational discount of ~20% ($800); the educational discount was only 5% ($70) for Siglent. Altogether, the final price for the official R&S was ~30% higher than the price for the similarly equipped (bandwidth and probes) hacked Siglent (with all the discounts). Then I had to decide if the 10 bit ADC (which lured me in the first place) was worth the difference...

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 03:04:14 pm
content: And was it, or did you go down the Siglent route? I need to re-read some of these posts, having trouble keeping up!!Although some things that are not really tech spec related sometimes push me over the edge either way, but some things we have no choice like the vertical knobs, just have to live with that and get used to it and then wonder what all the fuss was about in the first place.Of course the Siglent 5000 series has the extra knobs, but by then time you add logic probes, hacks or upgrades for all the MSO and other stuff. The RTB2K-COM4-SP package with everything now looks like what I am going to go for, all though way more than what I wanted to pay, but I think longer term it is a good investment.Where do you stop, looking at the R&S 3000 series, so much better again on some fronts but then the prices start to really rocket. If the They had the same deal as the COM4 but a 3000 series for just a couple of hundred more than maybe, but it really jumps a lot.If its like my last scopes (Phillips 2 channel, 50MHz Dual time base) x 2 stacked on top of each other, they lasted me for nearly 30 years so this shiny new R&S might well be the last scope I buy if it lasts that long.Of course, like what many have said, their is not really a bad choice here, but I think com4 package deal is the way forward for me. So, thanks to everyone comments because it these comments that have made me really think, maybe too much, and hopefully end up with a decent scope on my bench.......Then nest on the list at some point is to replace my bench PSU and other stuff, but that's not this year.....Thanks

author: Zlotnik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 03:34:52 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 08:44:06 amAfter checking the specs are compliant with what you need and the features you need are available, IMHO don't check only for feature-extras and specs exceeding your requirements (which is what the forum tends to focus on), but also factor in ease of use/annoying quirks into your cost-vs-benefit trade-off.The best way of course is to test drive all scopes in question!If this is not possible, watch as many videos as you can. Ignore the vlogger's comments, instead imagine yourself handling the scope. Do thata LOT, it doesn't work with only one or two videos. After some time I find one gets a feel for the device: I tend to begin to roll my eyes at reviewers "not getting it" for some devices, and roll my eyes about the device's design choices for others. For me I found this is a halfway good predictor of the chance I'll actually like using the device.You willNOTget this insight from reading forum posts! People on the forums tend to be too opinionated for this, and the issues one ends up hating and little touches one ends up loving vary too much from one person to the next.Onlythenstart doing your cost-vs-benefit trade-off. Onlyyoucan apply the correct trade-off weights between features, specs and ease-of use!You already know how most of us felt in the end, let us know which way you'll swing!

author: Zlotnik
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 03:38:06 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 03:04:14 pmOh, that one is easy. The best one for all needs ever is the HP/Agilent 6632B. :-PJust kidding...

author: normi
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 03:54:53 pm
content: @hobbyelectronicsOne point to note which no one seems to mention is that the sample rate of the SDS2000X + is max 2G/s which is only available on 2 channels. So for ideal measurements the scope with all the hacks would be Max 2 channels 500Mhz and all 4 channels 250Mhz, unless you do some sort of bandwidth limit. There is a 4 times sample rate required to overcome possible aliasing, some recommend five times. This is why the RBT2000 has a 1.25G/s sample rate for each channel at 300Mhz.There is a lot of information on the forum which is not often balanced, so please do your own research to confirm what is said.TekTronix recommends 5 times.See attached extract

author: Caliaxy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 06:46:53 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 03:04:14 pmWell, I chose R&S but that was just me under my circumstances (among others, I am not running a business to make profit).I second the suggestion to test drive one if you can – it's quite an expensive piece of equipment (some people's first cars are cheaper...)I did that with a lower end model from R&S (a fully equipped, 300 MHz RTC1K) and, despite being a very nice piece of equipment highly recommended by everybody who bothered to write about it, I found it awfully difficult to use. Being used with Tektronix and Keysight, nothing was intuitive to me on that little scope. Some feature were nice (like the two channel DMM or the pattern generator) but I had to scratch my head for simple things, like displaying and moving cursors or bringing back the trigger point to the middle of the screen. The layout of the front panel was totally strange to me (though everything was functional, once you figured it). I can’t tell you how many times I accidentally powered OFF the scope because the soft power button was right in the upper middle part of the faceplate, above the menu buttons (where the “Back” menu button is on the Keysight). Sure, I would have probably gotten used to it, but I decided it wasn’t for me…Never had this feeling about RTC2K (which also feels different, but it doesn't get in your way of doing your job)

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 06:57:55 pm
content: Ah, yes. I read a lot about this over the last few weeks. That's why I also took a fancy to the RTM3000 Series from R&S, but then where do you stop. Its has higher sample rate and memory.might be getting a re-mortgage at this rate just to buy my scope. That's why I thought if I could get a 3000 series bundled the same as the COM4 deal for not a lot more I would but the jump is just too much.Nice thought though....I think I will go for the RTB2004-COM Package deal. The reason for the R&S over the Siglent is exactly what you have said. I have watched hours and hours of videos, read pages and pages of forum posts and other online reviews along with video demos being used in real projects with people showing the quirks they hate and the ones they love and that's without the endless datasheets and spec sheets I have digested during the last month.I have to say that for the money and considering all aspects and trade offs etc I don't think I can loose either way, because compared what I have used for the last 30 years, anything new today will be just amazing.That said, and just like you said, I think with all the information and what I have seen, every time I seem to tip towards the R&S as the better feeling out of the two of them.Don't get me wrong I am not saying the the Siglent is no good (Not that I can say anyway) but the R&S just feels the right choice. I am sure if I had the Siglent, I would all be over the moon with it, but a choice has to be made. So its the RTB2004-COM4 and lets see what happens. Maybe I might be on here next week saying having a moan that I made the wrong choice but hopefully not.Time will tell. I have some real filter work to do next week on a board in development so hopefully it will be an asset and not something to tear my hair out over.Thanks

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 07:40:19 pm
content: Just on that note, I borrowed a Keysight yesterday from work to check something, which works but everything seemed really awkward to use and just not natural or very intuitive. but that was just one model and I only used it for a few hours so its a bit unfair really. Most other analogue older scopes I have used (When in work or borrowed over the years), its been just a case of turning them on and being up and running in a couple of minutes. But then that's unfair really because a modern DSO or MSO are a totally different piece of equipment these days and comparing them isn't really a real comparison as such.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 07:43:31 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 06:57:55 pmRight but have we discussed Bode plot/FRA capability ?

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 08:11:58 pm
content: no, but I have read a lot.....Why, what's your thoughts.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 08:29:42 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 08:11:58 pmHave a look at this answer to a question:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-bugs-missing-features-feature-requests/msg3522482/#msg3522482

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 08:41:30 pm
content: Quote from: Caliaxy on May 12, 2021, 02:21:31 pmNot necessarily. You may only really need the high bandwidth on one channel at a time, so get one high bandwidth probe for those occasions when you need it, and use the cheaper probes for everything else. You might not even need a high bandwidth probe at all, there are lots of applications where you could just connect a coax directly into the circuit you are wanting to monitor. It all depends on what you're trying to do and what your budget allows.

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 08:56:41 pm
content: The probes that come with the RTB2004-COM4 are the RT-ZP03 probes, which look like they are 10MHz at 1:1 and rated at 300MHz at 10:1So much to consider......

author: hobbyelectronics
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 09:01:35 pm
content: Also, going on what I have seen & read the bode plot function of the RTB2004 looks ok and would be useful.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 09:14:15 pm
content: Quote from: Caliaxy on May 12, 2021, 02:21:31 pmIf you check the measurements made by Performa01 in one of the Siglent SDS2000x threads you'll see that these probes have near identical performance when using the standarised probe test setup (25 Ohm source). In addition to that you should NOT try to use high-Z probes to make measurements that produce a somewhat accurate rendering of signals over 100MHz anyway. The probe tip capacitance will load the signal way too much. A 50 Ohm feedthrough or 50 Ohm mode + direct coax connection is a much better option (if needed combined with an active FET probe or passive, low-Z probe).

author: egonotto
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2021, 11:28:55 pm
content: Quote from: hobbyelectronics on May 12, 2021, 07:23:47 amHello,there is a long thread in german for compare RTB2004 and Siglent SDS5034X.https://www.mikrocontroller.net/topic/516056?page=1Best regardsegonotto