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

[icon]

this one, with 480 vertical pixels, and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels -

Or is it 600 pixels? http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349 Not trying to be an arse, just trying to establish whether we're talking about the same thing.

[marmad]

this one, with 480 vertical pixels, and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels -

Or is it 600 pixels? http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349 Not trying to be an arse, just trying to establish whether we're talking about the same thing.

Nope, it's 480 - I'm talking about the waveform display area, not the LCD size. Why would text info/icon/menu sizes or placement have an affect on ADC extrapolation/vertical vernier? The GW-Instek has 8 vertical divisions of 60 pixels = 480 pixels.

[icon]

this one, with 480 vertical pixels, and the Owon SDS line, which uses 500 vertical pixels -

Or is it 600 pixels? http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349 Not trying to be an arse, just trying to establish whether we're talking about the same thing.

Nope, it's 480 - I'm talking about the waveform display area, not the LCD size. Why would text info/icon/menu sizes or placement have an affect on ADC extrapolation/vertical vernier? The GW-Instek has 8 vertical divisions of 60 pixels = 480 pixels.

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

[marmad]

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

No problem  - I'll go back and edit the original post for clarification.

[grego]

I think I will be getting this scope.  I am waiting for a response to another email to their sales team here in the US and based on that I will make a final decision.  As a complement to my picoscope and for my needs this one looks good and it will finally allow for some active time with this scope so I can provide some detail on its usage.  Could I spend a bit more for a "better" scope?  Sure with the Rigol 4014 but there are trade offs there and the price difference can be used for other needed equipment.  Instek has a solid reputation here in the USA so I don't think I'm going to get burned.

The key is their responses to my email.  It seems to be about a 2 day lag on the response so I should hopefully hear back by Mon/Tue.

[marmad]

I think I will be getting this scope.  I am waiting for a response to another email to their sales team here in the US and based on that I will make a final decision.  As a complement to my picoscope and for my needs this one looks good and it will finally allow for some active time with this scope so I can provide some detail on its usage.  Could I spend a bit more for a "better" scope?  Sure with the Rigol 4014 but there are trade offs there and the price difference can be used for other needed equipment.  Instek has a solid reputation here in the USA so I don't think I'm going to get burned.

So presumably this means you're thinking of getting the 4-channel version? Which BW - 200MHz?

[grego]

I think I will be getting this scope.  I am waiting for a response to another email to their sales team here in the US and based on that I will make a final decision.  As a complement to my picoscope and for my needs this one looks good and it will finally allow for some active time with this scope so I can provide some detail on its usage.  Could I spend a bit more for a "better" scope?  Sure with the Rigol 4014 but there are trade offs there and the price difference can be used for other needed equipment.  Instek has a solid reputation here in the USA so I don't think I'm going to get burned.

So presumably this means you're thinking of getting the 4-channel version? Which BW - 200MHz?

Correct. The 2204A is what I am thinking.

[marmad]

Correct. The 2204A is what I am thinking.

Yes, at this point in time, the GW-Instek GDS2204A is quite a bit cheaper than the Rigol DS4024 - although I suspect Rigol may drop their prices in the not-too-distant future (just as Agilent has quickly introduced new 'options' for the X2000 series in response to Instek).

The main difference between the Instek and the Rigol (aside from VGA output and other non-essential things) appears to be the memory size - and the desirability of that in the work that you do. I do a lot of data-stream logging and analysis, so a large amount of memory for segmenting is fantastic and I couldn't bear to live without the 56MB in my Rigol - I've gotten so used to it  - but for most DSO users it's irrelevant.

BTW, one other thing you might consider: in the current firmware of the DS2000 series, it's very easy to 'keep' all of the expensive 'trial' options (triggering, decoding, etc) indefinitely. I don't know if that's true for the DS4000 series, but if I was considering getting a 4-channel scope, I'd try to find out from a current owner. That's quite a lot of money later down the line.

[marmad]

@Hydrawerk: I just looked at your video again and spotted why you were getting an erratic image and measurements in your attempt to count the wfrm/s of the Instek: you had the timebase on the Hameg set to 1ms! That means, for example, if you wanted to see one trigger pulse per screen division on the Hameg - the waveform capture rate coming from the Instek would have had to be 83Hz. Whoops!    That's way too slow for counting the Instek's rate at the 10ns/div setting - which I imagine is >10kHz.

[grego]

Correct. The 2204A is what I am thinking.

Yes, at this point in time, the GW-Instek GDS2204A is quite a bit cheaper than the Rigol DS4024 - although I suspect Rigol may drop their prices in the not-too-distant future (just as Agilent has quickly introduced new 'options' for the X2000 series in response to Instek).

The main difference between the Instek and the Rigol (aside from VGA output and other non-essential things) appears to be the memory size - and the desirability of that in the work that you do. I do a lot of data-stream logging and analysis, so a large amount of memory for segmenting is fantastic and I couldn't bear to live without the 56MB in my Rigol - I've gotten so used to it  - but for most DSO users it's irrelevant.

BTW, one other thing you might consider: in the current firmware of the DS2000 series, it's very easy to 'keep' all of the expensive 'trial' options (triggering, decoding, etc) indefinitely. I don't know if that's true for the DS4000 series, but if I was considering getting a 4-channel scope, I'd try to find out from a current owner. That's quite a lot of money later down the line.

For my applications the MSO decode and triggering with the digital channels has value.  I work with RS485 and CAN so being able to handle that on top of signal acquisition is useful.  Which is why I've been so interested in this scope.  The Agilent 2000X as well but this seems to be more bang for the buck with a decent reputation (no its not near Agilent).

If Rigol puts out something about a 4000 series with MSO capabilities I might change my mind but it'll have to be soon.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, even the guys who presented the GDS-2000A could not make it better. I still think that there was an internal problem in the GW Instek scope. I have written an email to http://www.trinstruments.cz/stolni-osciloskopy They answered that they still don't know what was wrong with the scope. They probably didn't manage to find the problem yet.

[marmad]

Well, even the guys who presented the GDS-2000A could not make it better. I still think that there was an internal problem in the GW Instek scope. I have written an email to http://www.trinstruments.cz/stolni-osciloskopy They answered that they still don't know what was wrong with the scope. They probably didn't manage to find the problem yet.

Well, I don't know what else was tried since I wasn't there, but all I can tell you is that the settings of the Hameg in your video are not good for the measurement you were trying to perform. Look at the attached image from my Rigol, using the same settings of the Hameg - and an input square wave of 50kHz with a 5% duty cycle. This is with a sample rate of 1MSa/s - I can't get the Rigol to go down to the 500kSa/s rate of the Hameg:

[Christopher]

We have a couple of these at work. Not really touched em as they look very cheap and crappy compared to Tek scopes.

Still the software seems good for a chinky scope. One design engineer at work swears by them.

[grego]

We have a couple of these at work. Not really touched em as they look very cheap and crappy compared to Tek scopes.

Still the software seems good for a chinky scope. One design engineer at work swears by them.

You sure it's a 2000A and not the older 2000?  The 2000a series just came out in the last couple of months.

[grego]

Looks like Instek is taking the question of wfm/s seriously.  They posted a video about it:

[marmad]

Looks like Instek is taking the question of wfm/s seriously.  They posted a video about it:

Ha, ha... these GW-Instek videos crack me up. Brand X! I haven't heard that terminology used since TV commercials of my childhood 

But, Greg, have you been doubting that the DSO could actually do 80k wfrm/s? GW-Instek is a reputable company producing quality goods - I never thought they would advertise a spec they couldn't meet. But you noticed how he specifically mentioned setting the timebase to 500ns - and specifically mentioned setting the record length to short? Single channel, smallest sample size, 500ns timebase = fastest update rate. But the question is, what is it at other settings? So far, only the Agilent (with it's MegaZoom ASIC) has managed to reach a high rate and maintain it over several timebase settings.

[dr.diesel]

I sure wish Dave had one to teardown, for the price these will be hard to beat if they'll last.

[grego]

Ha, ha... these GW-Instek videos crack me up. Brand X! I haven't heard that terminology used since TV commercials of my childhood 

But, Greg, have you been doubting that the DSO could actually do 80k wfrm/s? GW-Instek is a reputable company producing quality goods - I never thought they would advertise a spec they couldn't meet. But you noticed how he specifically mentioned setting the timebase to 500ns - and specifically mentioned setting the record length to short? Single channel, smallest sample size, 500ns timebase = fastest update rate. But the question is, what is it at other settings? So far, only the Agilent (with it's MegaZoom ASIC) has managed to reach a high rate and maintain it over several timebase settings.

I agree - I saw that and it kind of cracked me up too.  Really - "Brand X"?  With a little piece of paper over the manufacturer name?  Hah!

No, I wasn't really doubting it at all - I'm sure it hits the numbers they specify but as you said it's really performance under less than ideal conditions that will be more interesting.  For my needs I think this is the way I will be going as I said, just waiting for the response from their US sales guy to my follow-up questions before I pull the trigger on it.  I could get a 2024 Agilent for about $400 more, and I'm still thinking about that, but then have to add a few $$ for the additional memory, segmented memory, LAN and any decodes I want - so realistically it's more like $3100 in the end.  Meh.  I hate decisions like this.

[marmad]

I sure wish Dave had one to teardown, for the price these will be hard to beat if they'll last.

You might have to be the first who tears one down, Doctor    But honestly, Instek has been producing quality products longer than Rigol. The prices on these new 2000As is very aggressive - they've priced the 2-channel versions precisely the same as Rigol's DS2000 line - so it really comes down to features and firmware - but the 4-channel versions are well under the Rigol DS4000s - so if I was in the market for a 4-channel scope, I might be willing to be the first to take the plunge 

Meh.  I hate decisions like this.

Will possible downtime of your DSO lose your money? If so, choose the Agilent. Will you be extensively using third-party analysis software (MatLAB, LabView, etc) or needing full remote control capability of the DSO? If so, choose the Agilent. Other than that, save yourself some money - and get an Instek or Rigol - which will do most other jobs just as well - or better.

[grego]

Meh.  I hate decisions like this.

Will possible downtime of your DSO lose your money? If so, choose the Agilent. Will you be extensively using third-party analysis software (MatLAB, LabView, etc) or needing full remote control capability of the DSO? If so, choose the Agilent. Other than that, save yourself some money - and get an Instek or Rigol - which will do most other jobs just as well - or better.

I will.  I'm exceptionally good at hand-wringing.   And no, downtime won't affect me other than piss me off.  This is a hobby, not a job.

[dr.diesel]

You might have to be the first who tears one down, Doctor 

Perhaps, I've emailed them to see what OS the scope runs on.  I do happen to be in the market for an item in this range.

And of course, if I end up with it, it will come apart that day!

[Hydrawerk]

It maybe seems that this scope GDS-2000A is the same case as Tektronix DPO2000 series. The update rate is quite good (6200 waveforms/s) up to 100ns/div, and then at 20ns/div it drops dramatically down to only 160 waveforms/s.

[Hydrawerk]

GDS-2000A might still be a good cheaper scope for those who don't care about waveform update rate and rather need color gradation, long 2MB memory with marks and search and need eight automatic measurements while still using cursors. Agilent DSOX2000 doesn't give you that... But it has the lovely WAVEGEN 20MHz generator. 

[grego]

It seems that this scope GDS-2000A is the same case as Tektronix DPO2000 series. The update rate is quite good (6200 waveforms/s) up to 100ns/div, and then at 20ns/div it drops dramatically down to only 160 waveforms/s.

How are you drawing that conclusion?  We don't have any numbers other than their "ideal" at this point.

[Hydrawerk]

Why is the Tektronix label hidden with a piece of paper?? Everyone knows the TDS2000... And it's a crazy idea to use about 12 years old scope for comparison... Other companies compare their products withoud hidding the other's scope name... http://youtu.be/7j9-0jKP_O0 http://youtu.be/fTI8fp-z4y0
Then checking a 200MHz scope GDS-2000A with 1MHz signal? Why? It would be very interesting to use a 40MHz test signal, or so.

Anyway, this is how a scope should be tested. Testing a 100MHz scope with variable 70...100MHz test signal. This will tell you about the scope's real capabilities.