...
You asked and got your answer. It is superior in it's capabilities, having many functions that were until few years ago only in mid range scopes, some that even DHO4000 does not have (at least at the moment)....
Please read carefully what I have said. I didn't ask. I have made an observation. I am not agree with that expression " Everyithing else", because the scope is basically in the same configuration (I said why) as HDO 1K, plus some whistles, and minus others ...
I don't want to argue or offend you but you are not correct. I read it and it is you who underestimates.
In addition to what DHO1000 has, SDS1000X HD will additionally have (just most important facts):
- 50Ω inputs
- 0,5% DC accuracy (5mV/div and up)
- much larger offset range. Very useful in power electronics work.
-4 full math channels. That means arbitrary formula math.
- Layout of measurements where you can have 5 measurements with full stats and histograms for all the measurements at the same time. That alone is worth buying it. You should try and you would understand.
- Trend plots
- Track plot
- 2Mpoint FFT with full parameter control
- Bode Plot II with multiple channels.
- MSO capability (1 GS/s speed)
- Power analysis suite...
- Segmented mode with full functionality (measurements, math, decode etc)
- History mode with full functionality (measurements, math, decode etc)
- I won't compare decoding because that is moving target and both will have more than enough. But it will have CAN FD and FlexRay at release.
In analytic features SDS1000X HD is closer (and even better in many parameters) to LeCroy WaveSurfer 4000HD.
Saying it "basically the same" as a barebone simple scope with just basic analytic capabilities, because it also has 12 bit converters, similar amount of memory and similar 10" screen is simply not true.
That doesn't devalue or attempts to show Rigol DHO1000 as being bad. I think it is a great little scope for the money, an affordable way to get decent 12 bit performance (I'm trusting here to published data, unless someone proves different. I didn't verify it myself.) . But limited it is, and that is not my fault. Don't shoot the messenger. Rigol decided to make it simpler to keep the price low. I don't imply that Rigol as manufacturer is somehow inferior and couldn't make a more capable scope. Of course they could, they are serious company. It was deliberate conscious decision on their part to target that part of market, lover cost part. They obviously have a calculation that it will sell in numbers they will be happy with in this config.
For the more demanding use, they will bet on DHO4000 and probably develop that one more with time. They might even release DHO2000 that will be something in the middle. Who knows...
But historically Rigol didn't try to emulate LeCroy type of analytic scopes, but where more Keysight type (given their history, not surprising).
In this new series they actually emulate R&S in some regards. Math channels config is modeled after RTB2000. Graphical channel setup resembles some R&S solutions. They dropped very high WFMS/s from previous generation and now have more slow refresh rates (in normal acquisition mode). And UltraAcq is a copy of FastAcq from Tektronix that had very limited capabilities, and unfortunately they copied that too.
OTOH, Siglent makes scopes similar in philosophy to LeCroy. That are pretty much best
analytic scopes. Which also means some people don't like them (they are not meant to be analog CRT scope replacement) or know how to use them. Too complicated, too
mathy....Many people just want to see some squiggles on the screen, do some measurements, cursors etc. To be able to stop acquisition, move around, decode some protocols every now and then. That is very fine. Good for them. But fact that I have no use for something does not make it useless.
In that case proper thing to say would be : I have no use for these advanced features this product has. This other product simpler, but has all the features I need and better price. To me it provides better value and in practical terms, because of my limited use, it will provide me with equivalent service, because although this other product is more capable I would never use those advanced features so it is same to me.
And you would make a good decision in that case.