GDS-2000A series New economic oscilloscope by GW Instek comes to market

[marmad]

The GDS-2000A has even the color gradation, is it useful? It surely is a not common feature among middle class scopes...

I hate to keep pestering your posts with mine yet again, Hydrawerk     but I just thought I'd point out (once again  ) that you can do color-gradations on the Rigol UltraVision scopes using my add-on software. You can't do it real-time - like with the GDS-2000A - but you can do it with any group of captured waveforms - and you can use any color-lookup-table or gradient that you want - and do it in 2D or 3D.

O.k. - that's it! I promise I won't needle you again 

[Hydrawerk]

OK.  It looks nice.

[Hydrawerk]

I expect that ITTSB will publish more videos. https://www.youtube.com/user/ITTSBEurope
Here is forum topic: http://www.ittsb.eu/forum/index.php?topic=449.0

[mzzj]

This brings up one of the things that bothers me about DSO manufacturers - a way they can 'juke' the stats. They mention the screen size in pixels - but they don't bother to mention what portion of screen real-estate the waveform is actually mapped to. The Agilent X2000 series is 10x8 (non-square) divisions mapped to only 640x400 pixels of screen space. I'm happy that the Rigol UltraVision series at least increased that to 700x400 (with 14x8 square divisions).

Screen fonts are another thing, I prefer  the OWON 7102 display over DS2202  Rigol as Owon has better resolution and 14x10 divisions.
(I have both scopes)

[marmad]

Screen fonts are another thing, I prefer  the OWON 7102 display over DS2202  Rigol as Owon has better resolution and 14x10 divisions.

Owon is actually 15x10 (7.5/7.5) divisions mapped to 750x500, using 50 pixel squares. I like that they used a square graticule and so much of the screen area - both I prefer the overall look (fonts, menus, screen colors, etc) of the Rigol - which I think has a distinctive modern look to their interface. Plus I think Rigol put a lot of thought into their ergonomics - and got much of the physical design and layout exactly right on the UltraVision series - better than the Agilent Xs in many regards (although the Agilent's can kick their asses in some areas of functionality).

[Hydrawerk]

Agilent DSOX2000 is better for hunting random glitches, but how many people need it? On Rigol I don't like the fact that the cool multifunction knob is used probably only for records and for maybe nothing else. Am I right? And I am looking forward to the new firmware... 

[marmad]

Agilent DSOX2000 is better for hunting random glitches, but how many people need it? On Rigol I don't like the fact that the cool multifunction knob is used probably only for records and for maybe nothing else. Am I right? And I am looking forward to the new firmware... 

No, Hydrawerk, you're not aware of one of the many nice ergonomic features of the Rigol - you use the navigation knob a lot. Watch the video starting from 15:15 and you'll see what I mean. 

[Hydrawerk]

OK, I see. http://youtu.be/gAY1GQEjrfc?t=15m15s Thanks.

[grego]

I exchanged some email with Instek USA about the unit and they are apparently working on the CAN/LIN decode as well as a firmware update (yay) for their LA module.  They also already support RS485 in their RS232 decode which is also nice.  Additionally they provided a comparison between the Agilent 2000X and the GDS.  Yes, it's not apples-apples and the memory and decode option change things on the 2000 side but it's still interesting (attached).

-G

[marmad]

Additionally they provided a comparison between the Agilent 2000X and the GDS.  Yes, it's not apples-apples and the memory and decode option change things on the 2000 side but it's still interesting (attached).

It's interesting they're not comparing it to the Rigol UltraVision series, which seems closer in price and features than the Agilent. But maybe that's because the Agilent's are the marker leaders - or maybe because the Rigol's match or surpass it in a couple of the comparison categories.

[grego]

Additionally they provided a comparison between the Agilent 2000X and the GDS.  Yes, it's not apples-apples and the memory and decode option change things on the 2000 side but it's still interesting (attached).

It's interesting they're not comparing it to the Rigol UltraVision series, which seems closer in price and features than the Agilent. But maybe that's because the Agilent's are the marker leaders - or maybe because the Rigol's match or surpass it in a couple of the comparison categories.

It's more because I said I was also looking at the Agilent 2000X than anything else.  Don't read too much into it.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS-2000A has (?) 80 000 waveforms per second... But for what setting?? In is not specified anywhere in the manual. And I was unable to prove it when measuring the Trig Out signal. Even Rigol says clearly, when the scope reaches 50 000 waveforms/sec. The GDS-2000A has quite poor signal generator, only 3MHz, but there is no closer info.
Until someone proves it, I don't believe the 80 000 waveforms per second. 

[marmad]

GDS-2000A has (?) 80 000 waveforms per second... But for what setting?? In is not specified anywhere in the manual. And I was unable to prove it when measuring the Trig Out signal. Even Rigol says clearly, when the scope reaches 50 000 waveforms/sec. The GDS-2000A has quite poor signal generator, only 3MHz, but there is no closer info.
Until someone proves it, I don't believe the 80 000 waveforms per second. 

It says it right in the instructions you posted here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/msg205355/#msg205355

500ns/div, single channel, short record length = 80k wfrm/s

[Hydrawerk]

ANd GDS-2000A has no fine vertical scale setting. Why?? And even no pushable rotating encoders. But it's still an interesting scope. As seen in the datasheet: It has a three year warranty - but excluding the lcd panel. Oh why?

[Hydrawerk]

OK, marmad, but it is not an official datasheet... And then the 80000 wfrms/s is a peak value, nobody knows, what it is like at 20ns or so...

[grego]

ANd GDS-2000A has no fine vertical scale setting. Why?? And even no pushable rotating encoders. But it's still an interesting scope. As seen in the datasheet: It has a three year warranty - but excluding the lcd panel. Oh why?

The pushable encoders isn't really a big deal.  Pretty minor actually.  The warranty is slightly more annoying on the LCD - and I have a question out to their US sales team asking why this scope isn't limited lifetime like their other gear.

The lack of fine scale vertical is more annoying however.  Still, you can get a 2204A for about $1765 here in the US which is a fair amount of scope for the price.  The 16 port LA seems to cost about ~$800 and I believe it comes with all the decode options as part of it.  So base it's about $500 less than the Rigol 4014.  Not apples-apples again (Rigol has way more memory, faster sample rate, faster wfm/s published, etc) but the Instek has the built in LA function.  One other thing though that caught my eye is no 50 ohm option on the Instek, it's 1M only.

As usual it all kind of depends on what your application is to determine which scope.  If the Rigol 4000 had a published upgrade to add the LA option to the existing family of scopes it'd be almost a no-brainer but they don't, so it isn't.

I will say that the Instek response has been decent - sales response took a day or two but I did get a response as I noted.  Admittedly this is in the US so YMMV based on your location.

[marmad]

And then the 80000 wfrms/s is a peak value, nobody knows, what it is like at 20ns or so...

Publishing the peak value is what DSO manufacturers do - it's always 'up to XX wfrm/s' because all DSOs have much slower wfrm/s rates due to timebase and memory barriers. The rates always follow a curve.

For example, when you set the Rigol DS2000 series to 56MPt sample length, it does approximately 35 wfrm/s at every timebase setting <= 50us. Why? Because at 2 GSa/s (the fastest sample rate of the Rigol) it takes 28ms to fill 56MB of memory. 28ms * 35 wfrm/s = .98 seconds (2% blind time).

[grego]

It seems that GDS-2000A has no fine vertical resolution setting, no "Vernier".

I'm not 100% sure this is true.  The manual says the vertical is 1mV ~ 10V, but mentions 1 - 2 - 5 increments.  Could it be momentum based?  No clue.  But there is definitely no direct mention of fine vertical setting.

[Hydrawerk]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

[grego]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

Right but the mention of the increment may mean the encoder has acceleration. In other words as you turn it faster the increments grow larger.  Kind of like how an iPod scrolls with the wheel.

[grenert]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

Right but the mention of the increment may mean the encoder has acceleration. In other words as you turn it faster the increments grow larger.  Kind of like how an iPod scrolls with the wheel.

No, the 1-2-5 refers to the standard pattern of oscilloscope vertical amplification settings that have been around forever.
For example: 1V, 2V, 5V, 10V, etc. with each click of the dial.

[grego]

There is no mention of the fine (=Vernier) vertical scale setting. Check the menu tree in the user manual. The GDS-3000 is the same, look into the manual, too.

Right but the mention of the increment may mean the encoder has acceleration. In other words as you turn it faster the increments grow larger.  Kind of like how an iPod scrolls with the wheel.

No, the 1-2-5 refers to the standard pattern of oscilloscope vertical amplification settings that have been around forever.
For example: 1V, 2V, 5V, 10V, etc. with each click of the dial.

Ah. I'm used to USB scopes so have no point of reference.  Thanks for the clarification.

[icon]

I've been trying to think of an instance on a DSO where a lack of uncalibrated vertical control would be a show-stopper. On an analogue scope you might use it for making rise-time measurements, but this DSO will just tell you.

What am I missing? I'm trying to think of reasons to remove this scope from my shopping list!

Cheers
John

[grenert]

Vertical vernier is nice to maximize the size of the trace on the screen.  You might have a waveform that is just a little over half the height of the screen, but when you go to the next higher amplification to get a better look, it becomes too big and clips off at the extremes.  The vernier allows you to shrink it back down to fit in the screen.

[marmad]

Vertical vernier is nice to maximize the size of the trace on the screen.  You might have a waveform that is just a little over half the height of the screen, but when you go to the next higher amplification to get a better look, it becomes too big and clips off at the extremes.  The vernier allows you to shrink it back down to fit in the screen.

It's interesting to note that of the two lower-cost scopes with large screens that use the most vertical screen real-estate for waveform display - this one, with 480 vertical pixels (8x60 pixels), and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels (10x50 pixels) - neither has vertical vernier controls. It makes me wonder if it's somehow connected to the extrapolation of the ADC values to the larger number of display pixels.