Siglent SDS3000X HD and upgraded SDS1000X HD

[Performa01]

what device did you use to generate these signals ?

It was an SDG6052X using the wave combine feature.

[pasha]

Hi everyone, is the hardware of SDS1000X HD and SDS3000X HD the same? thanks.
adc and main FPGA different?

[2N3055]

Hi everyone, is the hardware of SDS1000X HD and SDS3000X HD the same? thanks.

Very different actually.

[pasha]

Actually, they reduced the hardware of SDS1000x HD a lot, I didn't like it very much.

[ebastler]

Actually, they reduced the hardware of SDS1000x HD a lot, I didn't like it very much.

The price difference might have tipped you off. 

[2N3055]

Actually, they reduced the hardware of SDS1000x HD a lot, I didn't like it very much.

I don't understand correlation of your two posts...

[skander36]

Actually, they reduced the hardware of SDS1000x HD a lot, I didn't like it very much.

Reduced from what ? 

[Martin72]

Actually, they reduced the hardware of SDS1000x HD a lot, I didn't like it very much.

Unfortunately, this is the wrong approach.
The 1000X series was previously the entry series with good but limited models that reached up to 1Gsa/s and 14Mpts memory.
Now the 1000X HD has come onto the market.
It is so improved that it is no longer comparable to the predecessors of the 1000 series.
50Ohm inputs, autosense probes, 100Mpt memory, touchscreen, 10" display, more decoders, 4 channels of math, digital filters, etc, etc.
The 1000X HD is not reduced, it is the best 1000X model.
To compare it with the 3000X HD is simply not correct.

[pasha]

@Martin72, you are right about the unfairness of the comparison. Actually, I will order sds3000x hd and I am afraid that it will be the same hardware as sds1000x hd, thanks.

[tautech]

@Martin72, you are right about the unfairness of the comparison. Actually, I will order sds3000x hd and I am afraid that it will be the same hardware as sds1000x hd, thanks.

Nothing like the same !
C'mon study the datasheets.

[Martin72]

Hi,

I will order sds3000x hd and I am afraid that it will be the same hardware as sds1000x hd

400Mpt maximum memory, 4GSa/s maximum sample rate (at least 2GSa/s), 350Mhz-1Ghz bandwidth, active probe interface, 1GBit LAN, USB3.0, integrated LA, 200000/890000wfms/s updaterate rate, more decoder, etc, etc...
No, the worry is unfounded.

[le_yum]

Oh well...
You don't have to enlarge anything and/or put it in stop mode.
It is enough to change the vertical resolution from 100mV/div to 500mV/div.
Note also the frequency counter.

hello,
is the display of 1000HD same as 800HD?

[tautech]

hello,
is the display of 1000HD same as 800HD?

No, 1k is 10", 800 is 7"

[le_yum]

hello,
is the display of 1000HD same as 800HD?

No, 1k is 10", 800 is 7"

thanks, my question was about the pixelation:

OK, now I have understood it and have two sections (each 300% enlarged), left 800, right 3000.

[tautech]

thanks, my question was about the pixelation:

OK, now I have understood it and have two sections (each 300% enlarged), left 800, right 3000.

It's something you can see if you go looking for it.
However in real use it's hardly ever a problem.

You could try a SDS802X HD @ just $339 then flick it if you can't work with it.

[ebastler]

It's something you can see if you go looking for it.
However in real use it's hardly ever a problem.

It does become quite noticeable for signals with flattish slopes. As shown in Martin72's post which directly followed the one mentioned above:

Oh well...
You don't have to enlarge anything and/or put it in stop mode.
It is enough to change the vertical resolution from 100mV/div to 500mV/div.

It's an acceptable limitation for the 7" SDS800X HD. But if I had paid more than twice the money for an SDS1000X HD to get the 10" screen (plus 50 Ohm inputs), only to be shown those stair steps more clearly, I would probably be disappointed.

[le_yum]

It's something you can see if you go looking for it.
However in real use it's hardly ever a problem.

It does become quite noticeable for signals with flattish slopes. As shown in Martin72's post which directly followed the one mentioned above:

Oh well...
You don't have to enlarge anything and/or put it in stop mode.
It is enough to change the vertical resolution from 100mV/div to 500mV/div.

It's an acceptable limitation for the 7" SDS800X HD. But if I had paid more than twice the money for an SDS1000X HD to get the 10" screen (plus 50 Ohm inputs), only to be shown those stair steps more clearly, I would probably be disappointed.

thank you, that answered my question.
i also find the related discussion around page 11

[tautech]

It's something you can see if you go looking for it.
However in real use it's hardly ever a problem.

It does become quite noticeable for signals with flattish slopes. As shown in Martin72's post which directly followed the one mentioned above:

Oh well...
You don't have to enlarge anything and/or put it in stop mode.
It is enough to change the vertical resolution from 100mV/div to 500mV/div.

It's an acceptable limitation for the 7" SDS800X HD. But if I had paid more than twice the money for an SDS1000X HD to get the 10" screen (plus 50 Ohm inputs), only to be shown those stair steps more clearly, I would probably be disappointed.

One need also consider with the prevalence of DDS signal generators today vs the analog of old, these DSO's are capable of showing modern equipment signal generation artifacts.

This might be a good test to do.......

[ebastler]

One need also consider with the prevalence of DDS signal generators today vs the analog of old, these DSO's are capable of showing modern equipment signal generation artifacts.

This might be a good test to do.......

You mean, those stair steps shown by Martin might be real signal components caused by a digital signal generator? No way. (a) The step height on the SDS800X HD screen corresponds to approx. 8 bit resolution only -- the SDG2042X is "slightly" better than that. (b) The SDS3000X HD, which uses its full screen resolution, shows a smooth slope as expected.

[tautech]

Yeah well from Siglent's own website blurb, 14 vs 16bit = SDG1000X vs SDG2000X
Everyone pull out their old linear FG's and compare.




I wonder if my old HP still works. 
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hp-8654b-10-520-mhz-sig-gen-light-teardown/

[ebastler]

Yeah well from Siglent's own website blurb, 14 vs 16bit = SDG1000X vs SDG2000X

Sure. But that's a red herring in the context of the cut-in-half vertical resolution for trace rendering in the SDS800 and 1000X HD scopes. The steps which are visible on-screen, especially notable for traces with flat slopes, have nothing to do with the actual signal but are a limitation of these scopes.

[skander36]

Yeah well from Siglent's own website blurb, 14 vs 16bit = SDG1000X vs SDG2000X

Sure. But that's a red herring in the context of the cut-in-half vertical resolution for trace rendering in the SDS800 and 1000X HD scopes. The steps which are visible on-screen, especially notable for traces with flat slopes, have nothing to do with the actual signal but are a limitation of these scopes.

This is not a limitation, it's just an aesthetic issue. I'm using the scope very well. It's not good looking but from usability perspective the scope main function is not affected in any way. You should stay with Rigol if this is important for you.
As a parenthesis I am keeping Rigol DHO1000HD.

[ebastler]

This is not a limitation, it's just an aesthetic issue. I'm using the scope very well.

Of course it is a (technical) limitation: The scope is not able to make full use of its screen resolution when rendering traces.

Whether you feel that it is affecting your use of the scope is another matter. As I have said before, I personally find it acceptable on the SDS800X HD -- but consider it a poor design tradeoff for the SDS1000X HD, where Siglent charges a heavy markup for the larger screen (and 50 Ohm intputs).

[skander36]

... As I have said before, I personally find it acceptable on the SDS800X HD -- but consider it a poor design tradeoff for the SDS1000X HD, where Siglent charges a heavy markup for the larger screen (and 50 Ohm intputs).

For me a 7" scope is a no go for this days. Adding that 800X-HD has an ugly and old design made me to choose 1000X-HD over 800X-HD despite the higher price.
At that moment I've could buy 800X-HD, and also 2000X-HD but my choose was 1000X-HD and I didn't find any reason to regret, but on the contrary.

Regards

[le_yum]

This is not a limitation, it's just an aesthetic issue. I'm using the scope very well.

Of course it is a (technical) limitation: The scope is not able to make full use of its screen resolution when rendering traces.

Whether you feel that it is affecting your use of the scope is another matter. As I have said before, I personally find it acceptable on the SDS800X HD -- but consider it a poor design tradeoff for the SDS1000X HD, where Siglent charges a heavy markup for the larger screen (and 50 Ohm intputs).

i wanted to pay an extra if the 1000hd had not the blobby pixels. 2000hd is too expensive & not justified for my usage.
maybe i can live with the 512x300 resolution... my old tektronix is 320x240
does it have the same double pixel behavior in fft mode?