Siglent SDS2000X Plus

[casterle]

There are indeed some problems with knobs (not keys!) responsiveness and it is serious. Those who worked with Keysight, Rohde&Schwartz and Tektronix scopes and tried SDS2000X+ know what this is about. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future, because this is the most annoying moment when working with a scope.

I haven't noticed this (and hope I don't, but probably will now that it's been pointed out).

[casterle]

The problems are not with the knobs and encoders, but with the slow reaction of the scope to their rotation. Try to quickly turn the vertical gain or timebase knob for 5-6 clicks.

Now that I understand what you meant, I've seen it too. Where it's most painful for me is when I'm trying for some acceleration while changing numeric values. It's been less of a bother (for me) for other uses, but a fix would be welcome.

[tautech]

Where it's most painful for me is when I'm trying for some acceleration while changing numeric values. It's been less of a bother (for me) for other uses, but a fix would be welcome.

Yes I've noticed this also and it might appear Siglent haven't paid as much attention to encoder acceleration algorithms as they had in earlier DSO's that didn't have a touch display like 2kX Plus or 5kX both have.

IMHO it is better they focused on fixing other stuff initially as with the pop up keyboard and especially when used in conjunction with a mouse makes it easy to change numeric values should they be needed by large amounts. Otherwise the encoders work just fine for small increments in values.

[kcbrown]

IMHO it is better they focused on fixing other stuff initially as with the pop up keyboard and especially when used in conjunction with a mouse makes it easy to change numeric values should they be needed by large amounts. Otherwise the encoders work just fine for small increments in values.

Most certainly the bugs and other issues should be properly prioritized.  But that said, the better and more issue-free they can make the user interface (which clearly includes the knobs), the closer they'll get the scope to the big name offerings.  It'll make Siglent's scopes that much more compelling.  One should not underestimate the market value of a refined and reliable user experience, particularly in market segments where the competition's primary edge is that their offerings "just work".

I should probably expound on why that is.  Functional bugs and limitations are problems when those bugs are encountered, but encountering them requires that you use the functionality in question.  The further away from the most common functionality you get, the less likely someone is to run into any problems or limitations there.   But the user interface?   That is used by everyone.  Which means that everyone sees problems with it.  And that means that when there are user interface problems present, everyone who is comparing scopes side by side might easily go with a "big name" scope despite the higher price, precisely because the user experience is more solid.

And that logically means that the proper objective prioritization of fixes and improvements should go to the UI first, most especially those aspects of the UI that are more or less universal, like the use of the rotary encoders.

[jemangedeslolos]

I am sure I don't understand all the downsides encountered by software engineers with an Oscillsocope.
But it is difficult to understand such a lag on the encoders for people like me, who is a very bad coder by the way, who work on µC between 16 and 200 Mhz and who manage to obtain an almost perfect reactivity.

[nctnico]

I should probably expound on why that is.  Functional bugs and limitations are problems when those bugs are encountered, but encountering them requires that you use the functionality in question.  The further away from the most common functionality you get, the less likely someone is to run into any problems or limitations there.   But the user interface?   That is used by everyone.  Which means that everyone sees problems with it.  And that means that when there are user interface problems present, everyone who is comparing scopes side by side might easily go with a "big name" scope despite the higher price, precisely because the user experience is more solid.

This is getting slightly off-topic but I do want to comment: I rather have a (slightly) lesser user interface than the primary functions not working 100%. The user interface is something you can get used to. A function not working when you need it most is a bigger problem because that simply stops your work.

[kcbrown]

I should probably expound on why that is.  Functional bugs and limitations are problems when those bugs are encountered, but encountering them requires that you use the functionality in question.  The further away from the most common functionality you get, the less likely someone is to run into any problems or limitations there.   But the user interface?   That is used by everyone.  Which means that everyone sees problems with it.  And that means that when there are user interface problems present, everyone who is comparing scopes side by side might easily go with a "big name" scope despite the higher price, precisely because the user experience is more solid.

This is getting slightly off-topic but I do want to comment: I rather have a (slightly) lesser user interface than the primary functions not working 100%. The user interface is something you can get used to. A function not working when you need it most is a bigger problem because that simply stops your work.

I agree with you as regards primary functions.  Fundamental functions have to work.  But those functions tend to be the functions that most users will use as well, so they rank right up there with the UI.

But the more obscure the function, the fewer the number of people who will rely on it.  Admittedly, those people will be stopped cold by a fundamental bug in that functionality that has no viable workaround, and one could make an argument that such bugs should be prioritized above the UI.  That's a tougher call, though, precisely because the UI is used by everyone.  I suppose such bugs should be prioritized above UI issues when the UI issues aren't themselves major impediments to operating the scope.  But then again, the market benefit of prioritizing the UI above such bugs might well result in the scope being a bigger draw than would prioritizing bugs in more obscure (lesser used) functions.

If you had to choose between a scope that had a brilliantly polished and smooth user interface, but which had an occasional bug in relatively obscure functionality, versus a scope that had a barely functional UI but no bugs in even relatively obscure functionality, which one would you choose?  What if the obscure functionality in question was functionality you had no intention of using?   Be honest now.   

[maxspb69]

Are you going to buy a car that is comfortable and can go very fast, BUT that has slow responsive steering and braking?   

[Martin72]

When you don´t like your new car, return it back and buy another. 

[maxspb69]

That's just the point that I like this scope! May be fixed later (although this should never be expected)
In addition, there are no alternatives for this money.

[nctnico]

I should probably expound on why that is.  Functional bugs and limitations are problems when those bugs are encountered, but encountering them requires that you use the functionality in question.  The further away from the most common functionality you get, the less likely someone is to run into any problems or limitations there.   But the user interface?   That is used by everyone.  Which means that everyone sees problems with it.  And that means that when there are user interface problems present, everyone who is comparing scopes side by side might easily go with a "big name" scope despite the higher price, precisely because the user experience is more solid.

This is getting slightly off-topic but I do want to comment: I rather have a (slightly) lesser user interface than the primary functions not working 100%. The user interface is something you can get used to. A function not working when you need it most is a bigger problem because that simply stops your work.

If you had to choose between a scope that had a brilliantly polished and smooth user interface, but which had an occasional bug in relatively obscure functionality, versus a scope that had a barely functional UI but no bugs in even relatively obscure functionality, which one would you choose?  What if the obscure functionality in question was functionality you had no intention of using?   Be honest now.   

There are many gradations of how bad a UI can be. In the end an unworkable UI won't do you much good. Examples of equipment with a less than stellar UI I have are a Lecroy Wavepro 7300A (oscilloscope) and a Tektronix AFG31022 (arbitrary function generator). But the primary functionality is rock solid on both due to the decades of experience the manufacturers have with making this kind of equipment. You can be sure even an obscure feature works as intended the day you need it. Siglent equipment OTOH has stopped me dead in my tracks several times already with no viable workaround for relatively simple tasks.

[2N3055]

Are you going to buy a car that is comfortable and can go very fast, BUT that has slow responsive steering and braking?   

That might be bad comparison, more like you bought the car that has automatic gearbox with paddle shifters, that doesn't react instantly but sometimes wait for engine to downshift.
It might be annoying at first, than you realize you would have to wait anyways even if it were manual...

[kcbrown]

There are many gradations of how bad a UI can be.

Of course.  That's why I said "barely functional UI", to make it clear that what you would be up against is a UI that would cause you to pull your hair out.

In the end an unworkable UI won't do you much good. Examples of equipment with a less than stellar UI I have are a Lecroy Wavepro 7300A (oscilloscope) and a Tektronix AFG31022 (arbitrary function generator). But the primary functionality is rock solid on both due to the decades of experience the manufacturers have with making this kind of equipment. You can be sure even an obscure feature works as intended the day you need it. Siglent equipment OTOH has stopped me dead in my tracks several times already with no viable workaround for relatively simple tasks.

What's the most recent piece of Siglent equipment that behaved like that?  They seem to have improved their game a bit in the last year or two.

There's a reason I worded the question as I did.  I most certainly recognize that basic functionality has to work, and that it's more important to fix bugs in that than it is to polish the UI.  Here, we're talking about how you'd prioritize between a scope that has an excellent UI and some broken functionality that you know going into it that you're highly unlikely to ever use, versus a scope that has a barely functional UI (bad enough that you'd want to throw the thing through the window) but in which all the functions work.

In any case, I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. 

[nctnico]

Most recent Siglent equipment that failed on me is the SDG2000X+#@$! (whatever) series. Modulation doesn't work quite right. Regarding your question: it is too black & white. No manufacturer will put out a piece of equipment which has a user interface which is borderline unusable.

[kcbrown]

Most recent Siglent equipment that failed on me is the SDG2000X+#@$! (whatever) series. Modulation doesn't work quite right.

I presume that's this?  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-siglent-sdg2042x-thread/msg2893004/#msg2893004

Interesting bug.  What was your use case for that?  I'm just curious -- I didn't see it explained in that thread.

Regarding your question: it is too black & white. No manufacturer will put out a piece of equipment which has a user interface which is borderline unusable.

You could be right.  I've seen software that was barely usable (it's been years, though), but a piece of equipment takes a larger R&D investment, and that alone is probably sufficient to ensure that the UI is at least somewhat usable.


Despite its problems, the SDS2000X+ UI is certainly usable.  Given that, perhaps it would be best for Siglent to concentrate their efforts on fixing functionality before turning their attention to the UI.  That said, it sure would be nice if they somehow made the scope significantly more responsive and consistent with respect to the knobs.

[Martin72]

Interesting bug.  What was your use case for that?  I'm just curious -- I didn't see it explained in that thread.

Better he´ll answer that in the suitable thread.

[nctnico]

Most recent Siglent equipment that failed on me is the SDG2000X+#@$! (whatever) series. Modulation doesn't work quite right.

I presume that's this?  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-siglent-sdg2042x-thread/msg2893004/#msg2893004

Interesting bug.  What was your use case for that?  I'm just curious -- I didn't see it explained in that thread.

As Martin72 noted this gets wildly off-topic (but in the other thread nobody cared either) so I'll keep it short: The use case is to simulate an oscillator wandering up  & down slowly but this has to happen symetrically otherwise the generator introduces a frequency offset as well.

[Martin72]

Hi,

Dave´s AM-Mod Signal for intensity check, does anybody know the settings ?

[tubularnut]

I believe as below.

[thinkfat]

Hi,

Dave´s AM-Mod Signal for intensity check, does anybody know the settings ?

Not sure, but try 1MHz carrier, 1kHz modulation with 100% AM.

[Martin72]

Thank you both, will try it later 

[maxspb69]

Watching videoreviews and comparing it with the screen of my scope, it seems to me that the intensity gradng rendering was slightly "broken" in the latest firmware. In the  Defpom's review https://youtu.be/QHH4H8Q7IWg?t=1388 you can see clearly distinguishable gradations of brightness when displaying AM signal, even at 100% brightness intensity. In the latest firmware, this does not look so reliable anymore. To see noticeable gradation, you need to reduce the intensity to 0%. At the standard 50%, gradations are subtle. And at 100% intensity, gradations are very small..
Probably due to the addition of the function of arbitrary change of channel colors.

I wonder if it is possible to install an earlier firmware version and compare. And what will happen to all the new options installed (SENT and Manchester decoding) which are not in the old firmware?

[tv84]

I wonder if it is possible to install an earlier firmware version and compare. And what will happen to all the new options installed (SENT and Manchester decoding) which are not in the old firmware?

I think they'll remain with no problems. Of course, if they should ever disappear you can always reinsert them.

[Elasia]

I wonder if it is possible to install an earlier firmware version and compare. And what will happen to all the new options installed (SENT and Manchester decoding) which are not in the old firmware?

I think they'll remain with no problems. Of course, if they should ever disappear you can always reinsert them.

Same.. shouldnt touch the license files less you blow out their folder.. the older firmware will just ignore the codes

[Martin72]

Watching videoreviews and comparing it with the screen of my scope

You should make a video from your scope screen and then compare to other videos...

Ambient light, what cam are used, what adjustments were taken....it could be different what you see at video and in real.