Siglent SDS2000X Plus

[Martin72]

Yep,

In dot mode the update-rate will be max. 125000 or 500000 (sequential).
in vector mode the max. waveform-update will be max. 25000 (non sequntial).
Signal itself appears "unstable", it varies permantly.

[TK]

Can you please clarify what you mean by sequential and non sequential?

[Martin72]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2047141/#msg2047141

Rigol mso5074....
Doing here the same, 25Mhz sinewave, same timebase of 5ns : 23000Wfs/s vektor, 135000wfs/s dot mode, memory"depth" 100pts..
Further timebases ( vektor mode):

500ps 25100Wfs/s
1ns    22000Wfs/s
2ns    21700Wfs/s
10ns  19300Wfs/s
20ns  16900Wfs/s
And so on, at 500ns there will be 2150wfs/s left.

[0xdeadbeef]

Depending on how usable the point mode really is, this behavior could be one of the biggest issues with the new Siglents (SDS5000X as well). As long as there are more samples than pixels, this might be a non-issue. But at the very small time scales, this could very well be a showstopper.

[Martin72]

Can you please clarify what you mean by sequential and non sequential?

Acquisition mode, normal or sequential, see pic below.

[Martin72]

this behavior could be one of the biggest issues with the new Siglents (SDS5000X as well)

Maybe it´s a bug, in the manual they proudly disclaim:

Acq.- Mode: "Fast" is the default setting. The SDS2000Xplus provides a very high waveform update rate in fast mode

Plus the 120,000 named in the specs...it must be a bug.

[0xdeadbeef]

From the SDS5000X discussion, my understanding was that the slowdown of update rate in vector/sinc mode was an architectural decision.

[Martin72]

So they should be honest in the specs and disclaim the 120,000 in dot mode only.

[TK]

No manufacturer will disclose the worst case figures in the marketing datasheet.  Technically they are not lying with the 120Kwfm/s specification.

[Martin72]

I did a request to siglent eu, let´s see if they´re as cooperative as the rigol eu support...

Below two pages of the manual, what the display modes vector and dots concerns.
And again, they "speak" of the high waveform update rate.

[nctnico]

It just proves once more Wfm/s is largely marketing wank. And I also wonder how the automatic memory length is affecting the number of waveforms/s. I just did a test on the RTM3004. If I use the automatic memory setting then looking at a sine of 100kHz at 5us/div (*12 division = 60us in total) uses a length of 300kpts resulting in an update rate of 1000 waveforms/s. If I set the memory length to 5000 pts the update rate increases to 12000 waveforms/s which is close to the theoretical limit of 1/60us= 16.7kHz. BTW choosing between dots or sin x/x makes no difference in update rate at 5000 points which is an added bonus.

[maginnovision]

Honestly it's not surprising, it's a mostly ridiculous spec that requires all the right circumstances.  Not an issue, and no matter what the specified number is, I don't care.

[Martin72]

And I also wonder how the automatic memory length is affecting the number of waveforms/s.

At the siglent you can "choose manually" the max amount of memory, but relatively soon the siglent takes control about it.
In fact, there is still a automatic memory length which can´t be change.
I like to have it always in my own hands, like I could do it on my former rigol 5074.

It just proves once more Wfm/s is largely marketing wank.

I don´t like this behaviour.
They claimed 120000 wfs/s, so I expect to have 120000 Wfs/s.
They claimed 200mpts, so I expect to have 200mpts.
When that was not further elaborated, like they do actually, I expect to have this in nearly every case.
I won´t to be misunderstood, still it´s a great value for it´s price and leave e.g. rigol far away in some cases.
But rigol disclaimed wfs/s up to 500000 and it was proved without any tricks.
So I expect it from siglent too.

[rf-loop]

But rigol disclaimed wfs/s up to 500000 and it was proved without any tricks.

You never measured Rigol wfms/s using different settings?

At the siglent you can "choose manually" the max amount of memory, but relatively soon the siglent takes control about it.
In fact, there is still a automatic memory length which can´t be change.
I like to have it always in my own hands, like I could do it on my former rigol 5074.

Next simplification etc is not directed to you, it is common.

With Siglent it is still in your hands. And it need do with your hands. User is master.
I recommend to learn use zoom mode more often than perhaps usual practice have been after other or other noname scopes.

Next I use simplified imagined numbers.

Noname scope run with "full window zoomed mode" where memory is (depending timebase) lot or more than lot over displayed window size. Hidden so that runtime user can not see. (I can imagine where from this method have started and then others nearly all have copycatted) After stop you can then pan/zoom these for look whole memory lenght.

Lets take extremely simple example. There is noname scope 1GSa/s, 10M memory and 10ns/div TB and window width is 10 div. You have 100ns long trace visible and 99999900 ns out from display, unvisible.

With Siglent you can also run in long memory even up to max memory. You select wanted memory length 10M using main timebase t/div 1ms/div (in this example 1GSa/s) (and memory limit setting if need). You see now full display where whole 10M used memory length without any hidden overlap.

Now with this main timebase for your wanted memory length (you are master, you control and command) you turn zoom on. Set this 2nd timebase 10ns/div.
Now you see both in display. Full memory length capture without out of display parts and this small time slice from whole length.

Now lets emulate this noname scope.
Take piece of black carton and place it over main timebase window. Now you see what you see using this noname oscilloscope.  Who think it is now better.  Take this black carton away, is it now poor. Scope what can not do this in runtime, least I do not buy anymore. And remember I talk now running scope, not stopped. All can pan and zoom and window zoom in stopped mode for whole memory visible or zoom in for details.

In case your work is some time so that you want long memory but want use fast timebase. Just teach your muscle memory to open scope already for zoomed mode. In moments you do not want see whole memory fix some paper over main timebase window if it feels better. 
Only real disadvantage is that displaying both there is less vertical room. All can not get, disadvantage there and advantage there... endless, as long as we need do compromises for reduce prices etc.

What is now different between scopes what run in "full window zoom mode".
Difference is that you are forced see both, full capture lengtht and then your selected zoomed part. You can not look only zoomed part in runtime.

It need also note that it is extremely useful to be well familiarized with waveform FIFO buffer. How many sequential last acquisitions this FIFO is, depends selected/used memory length and some other settings.

And extra note. If do not like trigger reference position is middle of acquisition memory then just move and fix it to other memory position what is wanted, example to (near) beginning of acquisition memory so it works like analog scope. Most of analog scopes have delay line so you see tiny bit before trigger.

[Serg65536]

Hi,

I take a scope at home, so I can measure the waveformupdates.
Triggeroutput to a channel of the other scope.
What else must I obay, because the update-ratings are far away from the disclaimed 120,000....

As far as I know, sds2000x+ has hardware accelerated pass/fail mask testing mode, but rigol mso5000 does it with a rate of few frames/second.
But siglent sds2000x (no plus) could not use zone triggering in the sequence mode. And what about "plus" models?

[thinkfat]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2047141/#msg2047141

Rigol mso5074....
Doing here the same, 25Mhz sinewave, same timebase of 5ns : 23000Wfs/s vektor, 135000wfs/s dot mode, memory"depth" 100pts..
Further timebases ( vektor mode):

500ps 25100Wfs/s
1ns    22000Wfs/s
2ns    21700Wfs/s
10ns  19300Wfs/s
20ns  16900Wfs/s
And so on, at 500ns there will be 2150wfs/s left.

Could you add how many points were sampled, at which sample rate, for each of the timebase settings?

EDIT: also, would be interesting if the trigger setup has an influence on the update rate, too. Edge trigger is easy, but how about runts or other, more complex setups?

[nctnico]

Only real disadvantage is that displaying both there is less vertical room. All can not get, disadvantage there and advantage there... endless, as long as we need do compromises for reduce prices etc.

So what you are saying is: you can use the entire screen without zoom or use the entire memory with zoom but not both 
Besides that you'd need to setup the zoom window exactly so it uses the entire memory at maximum sample rate. That is yet another unnecessary step. Just stop trying to defend what is broken by design; it is a foolish excersize because there are no upsides to using zoom mode just to force a certain memory depth. What if you want to use zoom at a different time/div?  That results in just more knob pushing / turning.

I'm 100% sure Siglent can easely add a mode where you can select a certain memory length (from a few kpts to full memory). This is a simple software fix so this doesn't change anything to the price.

[rf-loop]

Only real disadvantage is that displaying both there is less vertical room. All can not get, disadvantage there and advantage there... endless, as long as we need do compromises for reduce prices etc.

So what you are saying is: you can use the entire screen without zoom or use the entire memory with zoom but not both 
Besides that you'd need to setup the zoom window exactly so it uses the entire memory at maximum sample rate. That is yet another unnecessary step. Just stop trying to defend what is broken by design; it is a foolish excersize because there are no upsides to using zoom mode just to force a certain memory depth. What if you want to use zoom at a different time/div?  That results in just more knob pushing / turning.

I'm 100% sure Siglent can easely add a mode where you can select a certain memory length (from a few kpts to full memory). This is a simple software fix so this doesn't change anything to the price.

Tens of years ago I was young man. I find my situation when I try explain milk color to born blind... now I feel bit same.  Then when I was young I finally find that I really do not need explain milk color to him and still we can talk other things... . I think this old solution was ok and can still use.

[thinkfat]

Only real disadvantage is that displaying both there is less vertical room. All can not get, disadvantage there and advantage there... endless, as long as we need do compromises for reduce prices etc.

So what you are saying is: you can use the entire screen without zoom or use the entire memory with zoom but not both 
Besides that you'd need to setup the zoom window exactly so it uses the entire memory at maximum sample rate. That is yet another unnecessary step. Just stop trying to defend what is broken by design; it is a foolish excersize because there are no upsides to using zoom mode just to force a certain memory depth. What if you want to use zoom at a different time/div?  That results in just more knob pushing / turning.

I'm 100% sure Siglent can easely add a mode where you can select a certain memory length (from a few kpts to full memory). This is a simple software fix so this doesn't change anything to the price.

Would be interesting to understand, if, using Zoom, you can actually get the highest sample rate together with the highest memory depth?

[nctnico]

Tens of years ago I was young man.

If you are that old you should know tools should do the work for you. You shouldn't have to work the tools. That is something I learned in the tens of years since I was a young man.

[Wuerstchenhund]

But there's a reason why LeCroy has been and still is the number one when it comes to analysis scopes, and there is a solid demand for scopes which go beyond what other scopes offer. Siglent has obviously decided it makes sense to try to offer some similar capabilities in its new upper entry level scope instead of copying what everyone else is doing, which I find laudable. And even though the SDS2000X+ isn't a class of scope we normally buy, I can immediately think of a range of people I know which would love functionality like this and who don't need the large bandwidths (or the price tag) of a LeCroy scope.

Still this would target a niche market. Not sure if that is the right target for Siglent right now.

I wouldn't call (non-EE) engineering and science/research exactly a niche market.

Many non-EE parts of engineering use scopes, for example mechanical engineering, nuclear engineering (or pretty much anything which deals with radiation of some kind), medical engineering, chemistry and so on.

Then there is science, where scopes are used in a wide range of application from particle physics to astronomy.

I know this is an electronics forum, so most people here come with some kind of EE background, but don't let this fool you to think that scopes are pretty much just an EE's tool. Because they aren't.

The general purpose bench oscilloscope market is much more interesting if you can compete on price while offering the same features.

The general purpose bench scope market is pretty boring and crowded. Leaving LeCroy and Siglent aside for the moment, right now you can get a typical general purpose bench scope (say something in the 200-500MHz range) from Keysight, Rohde & Schwarz, Tektronix, Rigol, Iwatsu, Yokogawa, Hantek, GW Instek and Owon. That's nine vendors right there which all have different models in that category.

Now, if you take away the traditional big brands which are pretty expensive, there are still four B-brand vendors which serve the price conscious segment (i.e. hobbyists) - Rigol, Hantek, GWI and Owon.

That's quite some competition.

Now let's look at the vendors that specifically target the non-EE market with analysis scopes: LeCroy.

So there's that. In addition, LeCroy's analysis scopes (i.e. scopes which are not a simple rebadge of a standard scope from another manufacturer) start with the WaveSurfer Series, of which the WS3000z marks the bottom end. And being an X-Stream Lite scope, it may be cheap for what you get (and even more so when compared with other big brand scopes in the same class), but the smallest model (200Mhz 4ch) still starts at around $4.5k.

Most application outside the EE field require only modest bandwidths, so there definitely is room for a scope like the SDS2k+ with some advanced features.

Siglent has improved a lot over the last couple of years but IMHO they need to look beyond Lecroy's features (and limitations!) and have at least the same basic feature set the competition offers (simple things like allowing to use all the memory without needing to jump through hoops for example). Otherwise Rigol may catch up in a couple of years.

What features should that be that Siglent needs to add in your opinion, considering that Peak Detect and HiRes acquisition modes are apparently already offered in the SDS2kX+?

Not sure what you mean with "Rigol catching up" with Siglent. Rigol is much further, they have had high BW scopes for a long time (>5 yrs), they have had RF generators up to 6GHz for a few years, and for some time now are offering real-time spectrum analyzers up to 8GHz for a couple of years, based on their in-house developed ASIC.

Siglent just came out with its first 1Ghz scope and 3.2Ghz RF generator a year ago, it's spectrum analyzers are all standard type swept SAs with a BW up to 3.2GHz, and it uses COTS components in its products (no own ASIC).

So considering the facts, where exactly would Rigol be able to "catch up" to Siglent?

Besides, and without going into too much detail, a lot of Siglent's problems have actually been caused by their focus on being a better Rigol. It appears the co-operation with leCroy has given Siglent a better focus, and clearly Siglent's current products show the benefit of this co-operation.

Some of the engineers I have spoken to agree that Lecroy has some unique analysis features but if the competition would provide something similar they'd swap the Lecroy scopes in a heartbeat.

For what reason?

Also, the fact that, apparently, they still hang on to LeCroy because they offer functionality which clearly is important to them and which can't be found on other manufacturers' scopes, suggests that LeCroy is the one who does something right.

That is not a good position to be in as a manufacturer.

To be the only vendor for a functionality or feature your customers require is not a good position to be in? Seriously???

Recently I acquired a Lecroy Wavepro 7200A 7300A with tons of options but I wouldn't want to use this as a general purpose bench scope. It has so many features and options that it is getting cumbersome to setup for simple tasks. For example filtering; in some cases the filter doesn't even result in a filtered signal because the settings make the filter unstable. It really is geared towards analysis applications (besides showing a wiggly line). But maybe the new UI has been improved; I have not tried that.

News flash: WavePros aren't "general purpose scopes", they never were. These are special purpose deep analysis scopes which cost a truck-load of money and only make sense in applications which demand that kind of performance.

Size, noise and the limited trigger system alone make them a bad choice as general purpose scopes.

If you want a LeCroy scope which is suitable for general purpose use while offering advanced functionality then go for a WaveSurfer or WaveRunner, or a HDO.

And just to be clear, the poor suitability of the WavePro for general purpose work isn't specific to LeCroy, but applies to it's competitors as well. The Agilent DSO80k Series for example is equally horrible for standard tasks, and has some really annoying limitations in its sampling subsystem. The same is true for the DSO90k Series.

We got some Keysight UXR scopes recently, and while they are absolutely stunning scopes they are useless for your mundane poke-in-a-circuit stuff you'd use a bench scope for.

Looks like you bought the wrong scope for your needs.

[Sighound36]

But there's a reason why LeCroy has been and still is the number one when it comes to analysis scopes, and there is a solid demand for scopes which go beyond what other scopes offer. Siglent has obviously decided it makes sense to try to offer some similar capabilities in its new upper entry level scope instead of copying what everyone else is doing, which I find laudable. And even though the SDS2000X+ isn't a class of scope we normally buy, I can immediately think of a range of people I know which would love functionality like this and who don't need the large bandwidths (or the price tag) of a LeCroy scope.

Still this would target a niche market. Not sure if that is the right target for Siglent right now.

I wouldn't call (non-EE) engineering and science/research exactly a niche market.

Many non-EE parts of engineering use scopes, for example mechanical engineering, nuclear engineering (or pretty much anything which deals with radiation of some kind), medical engineering, chemistry and so on.

Then there is science, where scopes are used in a wide range of application from particle physics to astronomy.

I know this is an electronics forum, so most people here come with some kind of EE background, but don't let this fool you to think that scopes are pretty much just an EE's tool. Because they aren't.

The general purpose bench oscilloscope market is much more interesting if you can compete on price while offering the same features.

The general purpose bench scope market is pretty boring and crowded. Leaving LeCroy and Siglent aside for the moment, right now you can get a typical general purpose bench scope (say something in the 200-500MHz range) from Keysight, Rohde & Schwarz, Tektronix, Rigol, Iwatsu, Yokogawa, Hantek, GW Instek and Owon. That's nine vendors right there which all have different models in that category.

Now, if you take away the traditional big brands which are pretty expensive, there are still four B-brand vendors which serve the price conscious segment (i.e. hobbyists) - Rigol, Hantek, GWI and Owon.

That's quite some competition.

Now let's look at the vendors that specifically target the non-EE market with analysis scopes: LeCroy.

So there's that. In addition, LeCroy's analysis scopes (i.e. scopes which are not a simple rebadge of a standard scope from another manufacturer) start with the WaveSurfer Series, of which the WS3000z marks the bottom end. And being an X-Stream Lite scope, it may be cheap for what you get (and even more so when compared with other big brand scopes in the same class), but the smallest model (200Mhz 4ch) still starts at around $4.5k.

Most application outside the EE field require only modest bandwidths, so there definitely is room for a scope like the SDS2k+ with some advanced features.

Siglent has improved a lot over the last couple of years but IMHO they need to look beyond Lecroy's features (and limitations!) and have at least the same basic feature set the competition offers (simple things like allowing to use all the memory without needing to jump through hoops for example). Otherwise Rigol may catch up in a couple of years.

What features should that be that Siglent needs to add in your opinion, considering that Peak Detect and HiRes acquisition modes are apparently already offered in the SDS2kX+?

Not sure what you mean with "Rigol catching up" with Siglent. Rigol is much further, they have had high BW scopes for a long time (>5 yrs), they have had RF generators up to 6GHz for a few years, and for some time now are offering real-time spectrum analyzers up to 8GHz for a couple of years, based on their in-house developed ASIC.

Siglent just came out with its first 1Ghz scope and 3.2Ghz RF generator a year ago, it's spectrum analyzers are all standard type swept SAs with a BW up to 3.2GHz, and it uses COTS components in its products (no own ASIC).

So considering the facts, where exactly would Rigol be able to "catch up" to Siglent?

Besides, and without going into too much detail, a lot of Siglent's problems have actually been caused by their focus on being a better Rigol. It appears the co-operation with leCroy has given Siglent a better focus, and clearly Siglent's current products show the benefit of this co-operation.

Some of the engineers I have spoken to agree that Lecroy has some unique analysis features but if the competition would provide something similar they'd swap the Lecroy scopes in a heartbeat.

For what reason?

Also, the fact that, apparently, they still hang on to LeCroy because they offer functionality which clearly is important to them and which can't be found on other manufacturers' scopes, suggests that LeCroy is the one who does something right.

That is not a good position to be in as a manufacturer.

To be the only vendor for a functionality or feature your customers require is not a good position to be in? Seriously???

Recently I acquired a Lecroy Wavepro 7200A 7300A with tons of options but I wouldn't want to use this as a general purpose bench scope. It has so many features and options that it is getting cumbersome to setup for simple tasks. For example filtering; in some cases the filter doesn't even result in a filtered signal because the settings make the filter unstable. It really is geared towards analysis applications (besides showing a wiggly line). But maybe the new UI has been improved; I have not tried that.

News flash: WavePros aren't "general purpose scopes", they never were. These are special purpose deep analysis scopes which cost a truck-load of money and only make sense in applications which demand that kind of performance.

Size, noise and the limited trigger system alone make them a bad choice as general purpose scopes.

If you want a LeCroy scope which is suitable for general purpose use while offering advanced functionality then go for a WaveSurfer or WaveRunner, or a HDO.

And just to be clear, the poor suitability of the WavePro for general purpose work isn't specific to LeCroy, but applies to it's competitors as well. The Agilent DSO80k Series for example is equally horrible for standard tasks, and has some really annoying limitations in its sampling subsystem. The same is true for the DSO90k Series.

We got some Keysight UXR scopes recently, and while they are absolutely stunning scopes they are useless for your mundane poke-in-a-circuit stuff you'd use a bench scope for.

Looks like you bought the wrong scope for your needs.

Some very good observations there sir 

This has been my point entirely all along, if you are designing general EE equipment then a good decent everyday scope is very useful, if you have the luxury of an R & D scope then that a big added bonus. But a general day to day scope of around 500Mhz is suited to ourselves, although not in the the £1m+ per scope league our R&D is Tek 6 series. It is used purely for R&D, the every day stuff is a mix of Rigol/Keysight and  Rhode. We also have Siglent and R&S VNA's  as well.

[nctnico]

Siglent has improved a lot over the last couple of years but IMHO they need to look beyond Lecroy's features (and limitations!) and have at least the same basic feature set the competition offers (simple things like allowing to use all the memory without needing to jump through hoops for example). Otherwise Rigol may catch up in a couple of years.

What features should that be that Siglent needs to add in your opinion, considering that Peak Detect and HiRes acquisition modes are apparently already offered in the SDS2kX+?

As I wrote before; two simple things: User selectable memory length settings and full memory decoding. Adding these (industry standard features) would make their oscilloscopes much easier & quicker to operate which translates in better productivity (instead of needing to use work-arounds).

Not sure what you mean with "Rigol catching up" with Siglent. Rigol is much further, they have had high BW scopes for a long time (>5 yrs), they have had RF generators up to 6GHz for a few years, and for some time now are offering real-time spectrum analyzers up to 8GHz for a couple of years, based on their in-house developed ASIC.

Siglent just came out with its first 1Ghz scope and 3.2Ghz RF generator a year ago, it's spectrum analyzers are all standard type swept SAs with a BW up to 3.2GHz, and it uses COTS components in its products (no own ASIC).

The problem with Rigol is that it takes them years to get the firmware up to acceptable levels.This is an area where Siglent has made a huge improvement. After all:  having great specs on paper means nothing if the equipment has firmware issues. A couple of EEVblog forum members seem to have sold their Rigol MSO5000 already because the firmware doesn't get fixed.

Besides, and without going into too much detail, a lot of Siglent's problems have actually been caused by their focus on being a better Rigol. It appears the co-operation with leCroy has given Siglent a better focus, and clearly Siglent's current products show the benefit of this co-operation.

I have noticed that too. In the beginning Siglent looked mostly at Rigol and they made a bad copy from a bad copy.

Some of the engineers I have spoken to agree that Lecroy has some unique analysis features but if the competition would provide something similar they'd swap the Lecroy scopes in a heartbeat. That is not a good position to be in as a manufacturer.

To be the only vendor for a functionality or feature your customers require is not a good position to be in? Seriously???

Because there is no customer loyalty. You have to agree that you'd like your customers to go to your shop first instead of being the last shop they visit because they have to? That is the point I'm making here. Make sure to be the first shop your customers go to.

To me it seems that Lecroy has been working hard to offer a complete range of test equipment (by rebadging Siglent and GW Instek gear) so they can offer one-stop shopping to cater the EE market and not just the scientific market. And you also forgot one major player in the scientific market: National Instruments. They have a very solid combination with their hardware and software which is way more flexible compared to what is -in the end- an oscilloscope.

Recently I acquired a Lecroy Wavepro 7200A 7300A with tons of options but I wouldn't want to use this as a general purpose bench scope. It has so many features and options that it is getting cumbersome to setup for simple tasks. For example filtering; in some cases the filter doesn't even result in a filtered signal because the settings make the filter unstable. It really is geared towards analysis applications (besides showing a wiggly line). But maybe the new UI has been improved; I have not tried that.

Looks like you bought the wrong scope for your needs.

No, I didn't. I bought it for high frequency and low trigger jitter measurements. I couldn't resist for $400 and after shipping ($350), fixing and fan upgrades I have around 850 euro in it. It was a deal I could not let pass by me.

[Wuerstchenhund]

This has been my point entirely all along, if you are designing general EE equipment then a good decent everyday scope is very useful, if you have the luxury of an R & D scope then that a big added bonus.

Indeed, and which is why places which have something like a WavePro or WaveMaster also normally have a standard bench scope.

But a general day to day scope of around 500Mhz is suited to ourselves, although not in the the £1m+ per scope league our R&D is Tek 6 series.

Not surprising, the Tek MSO6 is in the same class as the LeCroy WaveRunner Series.

It is used purely for R&D, the every day stuff is a mix of Rigol/Keysight and  Rhode. We also have Siglent and R&S VNA's  as well.

We mostly buy LeCroy (scopes) and Keysight (scopes, some SAs and VNAs) and R&S (SAs and VNAs). We have a few Tek AWGs but other than that wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, and everytime we invite them for evaluation their kit just misses the mark 

[Wuerstchenhund]

What features should that be that Siglent needs to add in your opinion, considering that Peak Detect and HiRes acquisition modes are apparently already offered in the SDS2kX+?

As I wrote before; two simple things: User selectable memory length settings and full memory decoding.

Reading this thread suggests that both is already implemented.

Adding these (industry standard features) would make their oscilloscopes much easier & quicker to operate which translates in better productivity (instead of needing to use work-arounds).

Lots of buzz words right there, but funny enough it appears that the most loved (for its easy and quick operation) scope Keysight DSO-X lacks at least the first one (user selectable memory), but still manages to be the most widely sold bench scope Series in its class (the DSOX3k is as abundant as Athlete's Foot).

The problem with Rigol is that it takes them years to get the firmware up to acceptable levels.This is an area where Siglent has made a huge improvement. After all:  having great specs on paper means nothing if the equipment has firmware issues. A couple of EEVblog forum members seem to have sold their Rigol MSO5000 already because the firmware doesn't get fixed.

The MSO5000 is on the market how long, maybe a bit over a year? And juding from Rigol's other products, they have also made lots of improvements regarding firmware quality, which seems to be a long way from 2014 or when the DS1000z came out. Problems with RTSA and MSO8000 were quickly sorted out.

As to Siglent, they did make a lot of progress since the days of the SDS2000. But that doesn't mean new products are released without bugs, because they still are. The SDS5kX has been released a year ago, and still has several bugs. The SDG6kX, released two years ago, also has several bugs. The difference between Siglent of old and today's Siglent is that the remaining bugs aren't complete showstoppers, and that some may only affect a limited number of users.

So there still are some trade-offs with Rigol and Siglent vs a big brand, although the difference is getting smaller and smaller.

Besides, and without going into too much detail, a lot of Siglent's problems have actually been caused by their focus on being a better Rigol. It appears the co-operation with leCroy has given Siglent a better focus, and clearly Siglent's current products show the benefit of this co-operation.

I have noticed that too. In the beginning Siglent looked mostly at Rigol and they made a bad copy from a bad copy.

Siglent didn't try to copy Rigol, they wanted to compete with them. Rigol was seen as where Siglent wanted to be, which admittedly wasn't a lot better than were they already were. Today Siglent is aiming at the big brands, which has helped to give them some much needed focus for their products.

Some of the engineers I have spoken to agree that Lecroy has some unique analysis features but if the competition would provide something similar they'd swap the Lecroy scopes in a heartbeat. That is not a good position to be in as a manufacturer.

To be the only vendor for a functionality or feature your customers require is not a good position to be in? Seriously???

Because there is no customer loyalty.

Customer loyalty doesn't exist, at least outside the hobbyist space. Any customer buys only from you as long as you deliver what he wants at a price he accepts. If he finds out he can get the same for a lower price from someone else then he'll drop you in a heartbeat.

That is reality.

And being the only vendor for a feature some customers need is in fact a very good position to be in. I can speak of experience here 

As to "Some of the engineers I have spoken to agree that Lecroy has some unique analysis features but if the competition would provide something similar they'd swap the Lecroy scopes in a heartbeat", you left out the part where I asked for the reason of why they would swap LeCroy scopes (which ones btw) "in a heartbeat", and I'd really like to hear why this is.

You have to agree that you'd like your customers to go to your shop first instead of being the last shop they visit because they have to? That is the point I'm making here. Make sure to be the first shop your customers go to.

Sure. And you can do that by offering something your competitors don't offer, not by offering the same with a different label.

Which is exactly what Siglent is doing.

To me it seems that Lecroy has been working hard to offer a complete range of test equipment (by rebadging Siglent and GW Instek gear) so they can offer one-stop shopping to cater the EE market and not just the scientific market.

You don't understand: Teledyne Test Tools (T3) isn't a LeCroy brand, it's a Teledyne brand (Teledyne also owns LeCroy). T3 is aimed at the economy segment, something LeCroy was never really interested in (hence the LeCroy rebadges of Iwatsu and Siglent scopes, which are now gone). T3 mostly aims at the EE market because that's where simple scopes mostly end up.

But that doesn't mean LeCroy is not aiming at the EE market, which it definitely is (and has been so for more than three decades). It just gets rid of the simple kit so it can focus on advanced scopes for debugging, research and development, in a wide range of markets.

And you also forgot one major player in the scientific market: National Instruments. They have a very solid combination with their hardware and software.

Since when does NI make bench scopes?

Looks like you bought the wrong scope for your needs.

No, I didn't. I bought it for high frequency and low trigger jitter measurements. I couldn't resist for $400 and after shipping ($350), fixing and fan upgrades I have around 850 euro in it. It was a deal I could not let pass by me.

Understandable, but being a good deal doesn't change what type of scope this is, nor should it have surprised you that it's not a good general purpose scope.