Siglent SDS3000X HD and upgraded SDS1000X HD

[core]

So it does NOT always render traces 2 pixels high. Only when noisy and values are "in between".
It does best with resolution it has.

I'm guessing that 1000xHD does the same.

A direct comparison 1000x vs 2000x display traces can be very useful for some of us.

Since the resolution is "only" 1024x600, on a 10 inch screen, it is possible to see some "imperfections" of the traces.
Perhaps a 1280x800 resolution (like Rigol's DHO) would have been a better decision, as the signal processing from Siglent is quite good.
But it probably would have involved other compromises related to display speed and price.

Given that I already have a "nice display" with not so good advanced signal processing quality from the DHO, I still lean towards the Siglent route ...

[Veteran68]

The 1099 Euro price for the SDS1104X HD is not translating to the USD price, which Siglent is showing as $1399 MSRP. Today's exchange rate is around 1.08, with 1099 Euro coming in at ~$1189 USD, so not sure why the substantial difference.

Given that extra cost and the limited screen resolution issue (as I've also said before, I'm also disappointed in Siglent's direction here for the bigger 10" screen res), I'm not sure I'll be trading my upgraded DHO1074 after all. The screen is simply beautiful to look at, and at the end of the day, I'm just a hobbyist who is less likely to run up against the feature shortcomings in the DHO line. Considering that I'm less than $600 invested (BF deal) into a scope currently configured as a $1850 MSRP scope, I'm not sure the extra functionality at 2x+ the price I paid while giving up the display resolution on a 10" screen, is worth it for me. And especially if the resale value of the DHO line plunges soon.

I really was looking forward to this Siglent release, too. Maybe I'll consider the 800 series, again as I don't NEED anything more than that (or even that), but I'm already spoiled by the DHO display and it will feel like a downgrade in UX even if it has other benefits.

[KungFuJosh]

No. They all looks the same. Look carefully.

Not sure where your screenshot came from and which model was used. I looked at this post, for example, and I can clearly see the single-pixel steps:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-missing-features-and-bugs/msg4606060/#msg4606060
(Attachment Link)

That's B.S. You can't zoom a raster image and expect to see perfect accuracy. You need vector graphics for that.

[KungFuJosh]

That's B.S. You can't zoom a raster image and expect to see perfect accuracy. You need vector graphics for that.

I did not expect the lines to become smooth. This was done to demonstrate that the underlying SDS2000X HD image can actually use individual pixels (rather than groups of two) when displaying traces. I deliberately disabled all interpolation in the bitmap editor, such that each individual pixel got scaled up to a 4x4 block, to make those pixels visible.

When I said "I can clearly see the single-pixel steps", that is a good thing -- better than seeing double-pixel steps.

Was the B.S. accusation really necessary?

I was just saying that zooming a raster image is pointless (not directed at you, directed at the image 😉). If you really want to compare, use my other suggestion of taking a CSV export from the scope and viewing it in Excel as a plot.

[Martin72]

https://www.batronix.com/versand/oszilloskope/Siglent-SDS3034X-hd.html

Soon...soon....

[egonotto]

Hello,

A table of ERES bandwidths for the SDS3000X HD

Best regards
egonotto

[Martin72]

12+4bits, that was only available from the 6000 pro H12 until now, I say the 3000 could be a slimmed down version and that would be very good.
I had a quick look at the manual earlier.
There is a "new" function called gate analysis, you can define a gate and decode in this defined gate, for example... Awesome.
The 3000 seems to have a bit more horsepower than the 2000.

[BreakingOhmsLaw]

Siglents product strategy certainly is a bit strange. The 1000HD is competing hard with the 2000HD. For two and a half times the price, you're really not getting that much more. The upgraded bandwidth is hardly useful at 4Gs/s. 350MHz is already pushing it if you want more than 1 useful channel. And the "500MHz" makes Harry Nyquist chuckle in his grave.
If I'd bought a 2000HD recently, i'd feel ripped off.

[maralb]

Siglents product strategy certainly is a bit strange. The 1000HD is competing hard with the 2000HD. For two and a half times the price, you're really not getting that much more. The upgraded bandwidth is hardly useful at 4Gs/s. 350MHz is already pushing it if you want more than 1 useful channel. And the "500MHz" makes Harry Nyquist chuckle in his grave.
If I'd bought a 2000HD recently, i'd feel ripped off.

And what about the position of the SDS2000X plus? Will it be declared EOL by Siglent soon? Where to position it in their product range now? I was about to buy a 2000X Plus but I am surely hestitating now. Waiting for the first 1000HD reviews and user experiences. And also what the V1.6 update for the 2000X Plus will bring.

[Antonio90]

Siglents product strategy certainly is a bit strange. The 1000HD is competing hard with the 2000HD. For two and a half times the price, you're really not getting that much more. The upgraded bandwidth is hardly useful at 4Gs/s. 350MHz is already pushing it if you want more than 1 useful channel. And the "500MHz" makes Harry Nyquist chuckle in his grave.
If I'd bought a 2000HD recently, i'd feel ripped off.

Not sure about it being a ripoff honestly. With the price reduction and the options bundle you can get a really good 12-bit MSO with AWG and LA for  around €2000 plus taxes, which is less than twice, not twice and a half. I don't think there is any competition at that price point.

[Martin72]

Siglents product strategy certainly is a bit strange. The 1000HD is competing hard with the 2000HD.

I would think about it again.

[2N3055]

Siglents product strategy certainly is a bit strange. The 1000HD is competing hard with the 2000HD. For two and a half times the price, you're really not getting that much more. The upgraded bandwidth is hardly useful at 4Gs/s. 350MHz is already pushing it if you want more than 1 useful channel. And the "500MHz" makes Harry Nyquist chuckle in his grave.
If I'd bought a 2000HD recently, i'd feel ripped off.

Very firm opinions based on incomplete and/or wrong set of data it seems....

And if you have just bought a new car a month before new generation was released you would have same situation... Why would that be cheating?
It wasn't like it was a secret..

If you need something explained, please, ask away...

[BreakingOhmsLaw]

You might see that differently, and that opinion may be affected by what you look for in a scope. But where are the USP für the 2000?
Same sample rate. Both 12 bit. Same screen resolution. Both have MSO capability. The 1000 includes all decoding, where as it's an option in the 2000. Both don't support active probes (that would justify
 a major price difference for me). Both have gate test included. Feel free to tell me the €2600 feature I'm missing.
Unless you're in automotive and meddle in FlexRay and flex rate CAN, I fail to see how a 1000 would make my work significantly harder.

[tv84]

If I'd bought a 2000HD recently, i'd feel ripped off.

That's why I didn't buy one.  I'll wait for a 4000HD so that I don't get that ripoff feeling with the 1000HD...

[tautech]

Same sample rate. Both 12 bit.

Configured very differently.
2000X HD uses 2x 2GSa/s ADC's to maintain 1 GSa/s when all channels are active.
This meets Nyquist for 350 MHz capability with 4 active channels and in fact if the 500 MHz option is installed it is BW limited to 350 MHz.

Double the mem depth also with each ADC provided with 200 Mpts vs 100 Mpts in SDS1000X HD that gets divided down by the # of channels in use.
Add MSO and AWG HW that is already in SDS2000X HD and cost differences become apparent.

Oh and I forgot the dual Zone triggers.

[skander36]

You might see that differently, and that opinion may be affected by what you look for in a scope. But where are the USP für the 2000?
Same sample rate. Both 12 bit. Same screen resolution. Both have MSO capability. The 1000 includes all decoding, where as it's an option in the 2000. Both don't support active probes (that would justify
 a major price difference for me). Both have gate test included. Feel free to tell me the €2600 feature I'm missing.
Unless you're in automotive and meddle in FlexRay and flex rate CAN, I fail to see how a 1000 would make my work significantly harder.

They slimmed down the 1000X-HD by chopping the sample rate when using 2 channels to 1 GSa/s and 500 MSa's with 3/4 channels. Only 100 Mpts. No internal AWG and Logic but you can use their external Logic anl.
Personally I was choose 1000X-HD even if I the 2000X-HD was offered to a difference of 800E. I had a discussion with 2N3055 which made me a detailed comparison of both models at specification level and I have choose.
1000X-hd is a good choice if you already have others scopes that have what is missing in it.
If this will be your only scope I think that the best choice between 1000X-HD and 2000X- HD is the last : 2000X-HD. Is pretty complete in itself .

[skander36]

2000X HD uses 2x 2GSa/s ADC's to maintain 1 GSa/s when all channels are active.

1000X-HD also have the same 2x 2GSa/s ADC's ... but not using in the same configuration to preserve distance from 2000X-HD.

[tautech]

2000X HD uses 2x 2GSa/s ADC's to maintain 1 GSa/s when all channels are active.

1000X-HD also have the same 2x 2GSa/s ADC's ... but not using in the same configuration to preserve distance from 2000X-HD.

I did say:

Configured very differently.

And those that have SDS2000X HD will know how very quiet it is.

[skander36]

2000X HD uses 2x 2GSa/s ADC's to maintain 1 GSa/s when all channels are active.

1000X-HD also have the same 2x 2GSa/s ADC's ... but not using in the same configuration to preserve distance from 2000X-HD.

I did say:

Configured very differently.

And those that have SDS2000X HD will know how very quiet it is.

yeah, just to mention this config ... stupid if you ask me ...
I don't know how silent is 2kHD but as the users compared with RTB2K, then yes 1KHD is not so silent but is pretty good as a noise level(less than half of Rigol 1KHD).

[BreakingOhmsLaw]

Add MSO and AWG HW that is already in SDS2000X HD and cost differences become apparent.

Both are options that need to be purchased separately, so I don't see how that explains the price difference.
https://www.siglent.eu/product/7586846/sds2000x-hd-mso-digital-activation-license-spl2016-license-and-hardware
https://www.siglent.eu/product/7567963/sds2000hd-fg-25mhz-built-in-function-generator-option

[tautech]

Add MSO and AWG HW that is already in SDS2000X HD and cost differences become apparent.

Both are options that need to be purchased separately, so I don't see how that explains the price difference.
https://www.siglent.eu/product/7586846/sds2000x-hd-mso-digital-activation-license-spl2016-license-and-hardware
https://www.siglent.eu/product/7567963/sds2000hd-fg-25mhz-built-in-function-generator-option

For SDS1000X HD both the external HW and licenses are needed. Only licenses and the much better SPL2016 for SDS2000X HD and it's 2k and up siblings plus there is a promotional bundle active for 2kX Plus, HD and all the higher 8 bit models.

[BreakingOhmsLaw]

For SDS1000X HD both the external HW and licenses are needed. [...]

Well, the internal AWG is nice if you want to save bench space, but if I didn't own an SDG2k already, and given the choice between the internal AWG and an SDG1032 (which has two channels and 5Mhz more range), for some €50 more, I don't think the offer could convince me. The value proposition is a bit weak.
Siglent promises us interaction between the SDG and SDS, which I'm expecting will be just somewhat less comfortable than using the internal AWG.

The SPL2016 admittedly is a lot nicer, but it's not like the SLA1016 is bad.

[tautech]

For SDS1000X HD both the external HW and licenses are needed. [...]

Well, the internal AWG is nice if you want to save bench space, but if I didn't own an SDG2k already, and given the choice between the internal AWG and an SDG1032 (which has two channels and 5Mhz more range), for some €50 more, I don't think the offer could convince me. The value proposition is a bit weak.

Standalone AWG is always better offering 2 channels and considerably more functionality and output drive.

Siglent promises us interaction between the SDG and SDS, which I'm expecting will be just somewhat less comfortable than using the internal AWG.

Some prefer the simple USB connection, others that might have their AWG further away, the LAN connectivity for Bode plot.
Either way, inbuilt or external it's painless as the scope takes charge of the AWG to do the frequency sweeps.

The SPL2016 admittedly is a lot nicer, but it's not like the SLA1016 is bad.

Not in the same class and our sales records are evidence of such.
I know which I much prefer. 

[2N3055]

For SDS1000X HD both the external HW and licenses are needed. [...]

Well, the internal AWG is nice if you want to save bench space, but if I didn't own an SDG2k already, and given the choice between the internal AWG and an SDG1032 (which has two channels and 5Mhz more range), for some €50 more, I don't think the offer could convince me. The value proposition is a bit weak.
Siglent promises us interaction between the SDG and SDS, which I'm expecting will be just somewhat less comfortable than using the internal AWG.

The SPL2016 admittedly is a lot nicer, but it's not like the SLA1016 is bad.

Let us not confuse fact that SDS1000xHD is amazing scope for the price and good fit for you with stating there is no difference between the 1000/2000..

SDS2000xHD has additional:
- BW up to 500MHz.
- 2x2GS 4x1GS ADC converters
- many more decodes/triggers
- MSO is built in and fully integrated into triggering (including mixed digital/analog)triggers. SLA1016 has very nice sampling rate, but there are some limitations by it being external sampling hardware. Performa01 made very good (amazing work, in fact) review of 800xHD in which he, among many other things, addresses working with SLA1016  and details about it. I highly suggest reading it.
- additional acquisitions modes.

Those are just of top of my head. There is more but those are obvious. 2000xHD is definitely class up.

If none of that is important to you , then SDS1000xHD is great choice and SDS2000xHD in not needed for you....
If you only need subset of features of SDS2000xHD that is covered in SDS1000xHD, there is no need to pay more for stuff you won't use..
That is good logic, and reason why Siglent decided to make 800xHD,1000xHD and 3000xHD...

[roy_eedreku]

There were some mentions of disadvantages of external logic analyzer SoC as well as opposed to internal like the 2kHD has

"
The external subsystem approach has a few disadvantages:

•   Since it incorporates a complete SOC and local memory, it cannot be cheap even though the probe head and the grabbers leave a cheap impression.
•   Mixed analog / digital pattern trigger is not possible.
•   Zoom mode cannot be used as soon as digital channels are enabled.
•   History doesn’t work either when digital channels are activated.
"
Reply #7 - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5293765/#msg5293765