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

[grego]

Metrics of wfm/s.  Please note that this was done via my Picoscope and I'm not 100% happy with how it was reading some of the lower timebases so take it with a SLIGHT grain of salt.

Thanks, Greg, for finally (after the whole Kiriakos thing) doing this correctly    Respectable numbers across all ranges. I'm curious why 500ns is the sweet spot for the Instek - I wish I knew more about modern DSO design to comprehend what that reveals about the nitty-gritty of the circuit/firmware choices.

I'm going to redo this when I have time to sit down.  I kind of winged it and need to better optimize the pico and such but these numbers, at least down to about 50ns, I feel pretty good about.  I'll do the entire range when I re-run it.  I also will run some additional testing once my func gen decides to get here (its apparently on a slow-boat from Taiwan) and get some better pictures/video of the persistance, signal acquisition, etc.  I'm really not set up for video so trying to figure out how to stealth buy an entry level HD camera without my wife going bezerk on me.

The change from a USB scope to a bench scope is huge.  I never realized how much easier it actually is with knobs than menus.

Overall I'm very impressed so far with the Instek.  I hope that all this data helps others in the same situation I was in trying to decide which way they want to go.  The build quality and response on the Instek seems to be top-notch and the price is competitive -- it basically fits in between the Rigol 2000 and 4000 (minus the memory depth, but adds in the MSO option) in features and price which is a good place to be if you ask me.

[marmad]

I'm really not set up for video so trying to figure out how to stealth buy an entry level HD camera without my wife going bezerk on me.

  "It will be perfect for vacation!"

[Hydrawerk]

Metrics of wfm/s.  Please note that this was done via my Picoscope and I'm not 100% happy with how it was reading some of the lower timebases so take it with a SLIGHT grain of salt.

All measurements taken with a 500kHz sine wave.  All results are in 1000s of wfm/s.  Scope set to short memory depth.                  
                  
Timebase     Min     Max     Avg     Notes      
10us         6.85    8.4     7.88         
5us          7.81    15.79   14.19         
2us          19.23   34.25   22.81         
1us          38.46   53.81   40.7         
500ns        35.71   83.33   77.23         
200ns        28.17   83.34   57.16         
100ns        23.15   83.34   47.08         
50ns         28.02   83.34   58.79         
20ns         18.72   48.9    27.48   Picoscope started having problems calculating here      
10ns         13.97   53.66   25.39   Picoscope started having problems calculating here      

So you say that the Trig out frequency is unstable and changes a lot? This is strange. Trig Out should be stable. Check Marmad's  video. http://youtu.be/gAY1GQEjrfc?t=2m49s

[grego]

So you say that the Trig out frequency is unstable and changes a lot? This is strange. Trig Out should be stable. Check Marmad's  video. http://youtu.be/gAY1GQEjrfc?t=2m49s

No, trig out is perfectly stable.  See the screenshot from my picoscope a couple of posts back.  The problem was me futzing with my picoscope so it was starting to have trouble at the lower timebases.

The previous information about trig out being unstable is completely wrong - at least as far as I can see with my picoscope.  It's solid, consistent and about 1.2V.

[JimmyMz]

Those pictures  . Are you sure the lens is clean? I think maybe you might not want certain information visible, quite possibly? I don't know, but I really wanted to see which GSI chips it has hooked up to the FGPA. I read great write-ups regarding their quickness, but they have about 8 or so different classes (I don't mean MHz). I appreciate your effort, so please don't feel that I don't  . I'm considering this scope also, as I found the Rigol DS1102E to be less than I wanted. Greg have you ever had/used a Rigol oscilloscope? If not, have you ever owned/used a oscilloscope, other than the Picoscope, like in college maybe?
Why am I asking? I want to know if you have a reference for build quality, with an oscilloscope that I'm also familiar, so you could tell me just how solid the scope truly is. I thought the Rigol was pretty nice in the build department, minus the toy looking 'front-end/display panel' (not the screen, but that was an issue too). I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel. Good Will is retarded for that one! Plus that name, aghhh; I can see it now
"I bought a GoodWill scope."
Really, someone threw one out?
No, it cost me $830 dollars.
What?
Yeah, I bought it online from ....fill in the blank.
Oh! I thought you got it from the GoodWill store.
  Aghh!
Unlikely around people who know electrical measurement equipment brands, but with all others, this conversation could very likely happen. I can't say that I'd like to have it, and I know I still couldn't stop myself from talking about the new scope I just bought with other people. LOL
Anyways, what do you think about the build quality, such as: plastic density of the paneling, knob quality (would you trust me to step on it, knowing it wouldn't break?), screen quality (is the real estate squandered?), operating system usability (is it friendly?). I know it's hard to knock something you just bought, for numerous reasons, but could you be objective? Thanks grego! 

[marmad]

I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel.

IMO, from all I can tell from the specs, if you are only going for 2 channels, the Rigol DS2000 series still offers the best bang for the buck (better than the Instek GDS-2000A 2 channel or Agilent DSOX-2000). Since they all have very similar waveform update rates (you won't be able to tell the difference between 30k - 80k wfrm/s in daily use), you have to look at the other features to decide. OTOH, if you are going for 4-channels, the GDS-2000A definitely seems to be the new leader in best value for money.

[grego]

Those pictures  . Are you sure the lens is clean? I think maybe you might not want certain information visible, quite possibly? I don't know, but I really wanted to see which GSI chips it has hooked up to the FGPA. I read great write-ups regarding their quickness, but they have about 8 or so different classes (I don't mean MHz). I appreciate your effort, so please don't feel that I don't  . I'm considering this scope also, as I found the Rigol DS1102E to be less than I wanted. Greg have you ever had/used a Rigol oscilloscope? If not, have you ever owned/used a oscilloscope, other than the Picoscope, like in college maybe?
Why am I asking? I want to know if you have a reference for build quality, with an oscilloscope that I'm also familiar, so you could tell me just how solid the scope truly is. I thought the Rigol was pretty nice in the build department, minus the toy looking 'front-end/display panel' (not the screen, but that was an issue too). I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel. Good Will is retarded for that one! Plus that name, aghhh; I can see it now
"I bought a GoodWill scope."
Really, someone threw one out?
No, it cost me $830 dollars.
What?
Yeah, I bought it online from ....fill in the blank.
Oh! I thought you got it from the GoodWill store.
  Aghh!
Unlikely around people who know electrical measurement equipment brands, but with all others, this conversation could very likely happen. I can't say that I'd like to have it, and I know I still couldn't stop myself from talking about the new scope I just bought with other people. LOL
Anyways, what do you think about the build quality, such as: plastic density of the paneling, knob quality (would you trust me to step on it, knowing it wouldn't break?), screen quality (is the real estate squandered?), operating system usability (is it friendly?). I know it's hard to knock something you just bought, for numerous reasons, but could you be objective? Thanks grego!

For the GSI chips the first pic I posted has them nice and clear (and yes, my Nikon is older and needs a good cleaning I admit!).
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/msg217179/#msg217179

[grego]

I'm slightly worried though, because I don't have  4-channel-$$ this rip, and the two channel has a gaudy looking empty space on the front panel.

IMO, from all I can tell from the specs, if you are only going for 2 channels, the Rigol DS2000 series still offers the best bang for the buck (better than the Instek GDS-2000A 2 channel or Agilent DSOX-2000). Since they all have very similar waveform update rates (you won't be able to tell the difference between 30k - 80k wfrm/s in daily use), you have to look at the other features to decide. OTOH, if you are going for 4-channels, the GDS-2000A definitely seems to be the new leader in best value for money.

I would tend to agree with Marmad on this -- if you're only going to splurge for a 2-channel the Rigol series probably provides the best bang/buck unless you need the MSO functionality.  4 Channel I'd say unless you need the crazy memory depth and/or 4GS/s of a Rigol 4000 that the Instek is a clear winner (so far) in that category.  And if you need MSO then it's even easier.

Build quality is solid.  None of the buttons are the "gel" type - they are all firm and respond well to touches.  Knobs are the same way - a good solid feel to them.  Some have detents (vertical for example) some don't (horizontal offset) but the "feel" of the knob is the same regardless.  It's solid, feels good in the fingers and turns easily.  To be honest while I wish I had "push to center" I enjoy the fact that I don't have "push to select" since I always end up changing the option.

One thing which may just be cultural is that, to me, the variable knob (the one that selects menu options) rotates "backwards".  You go clockwise to go up, counter-clockwise to go down.  I sort of get it because the left side of the knob which is closest to the menu is going up or down but I'm used to CW means "down" and CCW means "up".  I'm going to mention it to Instek as I write everything up.  It's pretty minor, like the display bug but its one of those "Hmmmm..." things.

As for standing on it - I never thought about it.  I wouldn't be worried about the main board - that freaking shielding is thick.  The plastic frame is your normal injection-molded stuff - it could probably take a normal person's weight standing on it but it's not something I'm going to go try.

I've only used USB scopes until now so this is a whole new experience for me.  Gotta say though I'm relieved now that I've used this thing -- I was nervous being "first" as far as I could see of people on this forum and shelling out >$1700 is a decent chunk of change but so far my fears have been alleviated.  There are things I know they are adding in firmware (CAN decode), and things they are adding to their firmware roadmap (vertical vernier) and then things that I HOPE they add (hi-res mode) but overall I don't think you can argue with the bang for buck on this thing.

[marmad]

I would tend to agree with Marmad on this -- if you're only going to splurge for a 2-channel the Rigol series probably provides the best bang/buck unless you need the MSO functionality.  4 Channel I'd say unless you need the crazy memory depth and/or 4GS/s of a Rigol 4000 that the Instek is a clear winner (so far) in that category.  And if you need MSO then it's even easier.

I would add one more comment: if you're going to go with GW-Instek and spend >$1600, the choice between getting the GDS-2202A (200MHz / 2-channels / $1626) and the GDS-2104A (100MHz / 4-channels / $1694) seems a no-brainer. All of the models in each of these modern DSO series (Agilent X / Rigol UltraVision / GDS-2000A) are identical inside - so all of them can do every bandwidth in the range with simple firmware trickery. So there's always a chance that either a hack will be discovered - or, more likely, that as competition in the price range heats up, bandwidth upgrades will be sold. But adding 2 more channels is never going to be a option.

[grego]

I would add one more comment: if you're going to go with GW-Instek and spend >$1600, the choice between getting the GDS-2202A (200MHz / 2-channels / $1626) and the GDS-2104A (100MHz / 4-channels / $1694) seems a no-brainer. All of the models in each of these modern DSO series (Agilent X / Rigol UltraVision / GDS-2000A) are identical inside - so all of them can do every bandwidth in the range with simple firmware trickery. So there's always a chance that either a hack will be discovered - or, more likely, that as competition in the price range heats up, bandwidth upgrades will be sold. But adding 2 more channels is never going to be a option.

True - and with the pricing coming out of tequipment.net (I saved about 13% off list) the Instek has the edge there as well.

[Hydrawerk]

I like the big variable knob. On some scopes like Agilent or Rigol it is small. OK, but the Rigol has another large multi knob.

  There are things I know they are adding in firmware (CAN decode), and things they are adding to their firmware roadmap (vertical vernier) and then things that I HOPE they add (hi-res mode) but overall I don't think you can argue with the bang for buck on this thing.

Are you sure that you will be able to downoload a new firmware for GW Instek? It's not on their website! At Agilent it is very easy to download firmware from their website and there are even Release Notes (= changelog).

The GDS-2000A scope is nice, but I decided not to buy it because there is no GW Instek subsidiary in Europe... If you grego live in USA, you have a subsidiary there.

[grego]

According to the regional sales manager here in the US yes I will be able to download it once its available.  And I totally agree about having support. I wouldn't have bought this if there wasn't a US based sales and support team. I verified that all support for scopes here in the US is done by their local repair team in Chino, CA so it doesn't have to go out of the country.

[marmad]

I like the big variable knob. On some scopes like Agilent or Rigol it is small.

You're wrong. As I mentioned before (and in my review), the Rigol has 2x variable knobs. The giant spring-loaded navigation knob doubles as a variable-changing knob whenever you're changing any variable that has a wide range. In fact, IMO, in terms of screen and front-panel design and ergonomics, the Rigol UltraVision scopes beat either the Agilent X or GDS-2000A hands down.

[Hydrawerk]

If you look at the GDS-3000, it has no vernier (=fine vertical control). But it has hi-res mode. There seems to be no way to download firmware... http://www.gwinstek.com/en/download/downloadfilelist.aspx?id=1290
The GDS-3000 is quite expensive scope. It has never been popular among hobbyists due to high price and short memory only 25kpoints per channel.
I don't think they are going to implement vernier in GDS-2000A. But never mind, it is a good bang per buck anyway.    I don't know why there is no three-year warranty for the LCD display. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/?action=dlattach;attach=42473;image

[Hydrawerk]

Marmad Well, the GDS-2000A front panel looks somewhat oldschool and uninteresting. Like it was saying honestly: "OK, folks, I am a cheap scope and it's no secret."
On the other hand, Tektronix also uses almost no pushable knobs, do they think that pushable knobs are not reliable or what? Well, they are not very innovative at all. Although I like their Wave Inspector feature.

[grego]

If you look at the GDS-3000, it has no vernier (=fine vertical control). But it has hi-res mode. There seems to be no way to download firmware... http://www.gwinstek.com/en/download/downloadfilelist.aspx?id=1290
The GDS-3000 is quite expensive scope. It has never been popular among hobbyists due to high price and short memory only 25kpoints per channel.
I don't think they are going to implement vernier in GDS-2000A. But never mind, it is a good bang per buck anyway.    I don't know why there is no three-year warranty for the LCD display. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gds-2000a-new-economic-oscilloscope-by-gw-instek-comes-to-market/?action=dlattach;attach=42473;image

Vernier has been added to the firmware roadmap - e.g. it could come in a couple months or it could take a year - but at least it's on the map.

As for downloading - you have to register your scope (which I've done) by serial number so you get notifications and links to the new firmware.  Or so I've been told.  I registered so we'll see what happens.

No scope is going to be perfect - the other threads discussing the Agilent and Rigol highlight that.  They are all idiosyncratic in one way or another - you just have to make a determination on what will fit your needs at the time you go to buy one.  Service & support are huge and you can't go wrong with Agilent in that regard.  As I mentioned I wouldn't have bought the Instek if they didn't have a US-based service and support center which gave me peace-of-mind.  Couple that with the built-in MSO, the price, the 1mV vertical resolution (real resolution), etc, etc, etc and it all worked out.  That and Instek has been around quite some time with a good reputation here in the US.

My hope in all this is to provide anyone else looking for a scope all the information they need to be able to effectively evaluate the various options out there.  In my case I could have gone with the Agilent as easily as this one but it would have cost me $100 more out the gate, then about another $1200 for the decode options I want plus memory expansion, segmented memory and the LAN.  With the Instek I will end up paying about another $750 for the MSO option but that includes all the decodes so it's ~$2500 vs ~$3000+ which was kind of a no-brainer for me.  That $500 saved is going towards some additional gear that I need.

[grego]

Marmad Well, the GDS-2000A front panel looks somewhat oldschool and uninteresting. Like it was saying honestly: "OK, folks, I am a cheap scope and it's no secret."
On the other hand, Tektronix also uses almost no pushable knobs, do they think that pushable knobs are not reliable or what? Well, they are not very innovative at all. Although I like their Wave Inspector feature.

I thought that as well initially until I realized the reason why is the Agilent only has one set of soft keys (bottom) -- which means they HAD to put more buttons on the thing to make up for it so they could get all the functions in.

[Hydrawerk]

I hope you will be happy with your GDS-2000A, I was quite impressed at the trade fair, that I almost bought it. Anyway, a good 4-channel scope should have eight automatic measurements and not just four as on Agilent DSOX-2002A. 

[grego]

Firmware update released - my scope arrived with 1.08 and I received 1.13 -- waiting for release notes from Instek now.

[Hydrawerk]

How does the Measurement summary look like? Does it update constantly? At my DSOX-2002A it doesn't.  And it is even non-transparent.

[grego]

Yes it updates constantly.  See attached (still image, I know, but trust me the numbers are updating constantly).

My func gen is in sweep mode in this example.

-Greg

[Hydrawerk]

It looks very good. 

[grego]

Revision notes for the new firmware:

V1.13
- Enhanced maximum frequency module output to 5MHz
- Enhanced free run limit for Segment
- Fixed duty cycle setting error
V1.12
- Added remote command for option
- Added GPIB & FG
- Added GDB03 Demo Mode App
- Added DVM App
- Added FG Function
- Fixed self-calibration language error
- Fixed ATL Trigger level letting error
- Fixed vertical self-calibration progress missing line
- Fixed Segment State reading error
- Fixed cursor error under Segment
- Fixed roll mode error

[grego]

Well I shot a whole little video this morning on this beastie.  Then loaded it in my computer and realized I didn't zoom in close enough to the screen so while I'm demo'ing thigns all you can really clearly see if the waveform.  D'oh!  I'll reshoot shortly.

[marmad]

Then loaded it in my computer and realized I didn't zoom in close enough to the screen so while I'm demo'ing thigns all you can really clearly see if the waveform.  D'oh!  I'll reshoot shortly.

Still to come: light problems requiring reshoots; sound problems requiring reshoots or overdubbing; etc; etc.