Siglent's new product- MSO/SDS2000 Series

[Carrington]

They are similar or only I feel so.   
I would love to see the other side of both board. And would be interesting too compare their block diagrams.
I tried to scale them to match in size.

[marmad]

Phew... talk about a load! 

Do you have ANY actual evidence that any of the following three propositions are verifiably true?

...RuiFeng MXTxxxx ADCs used by Rigol

Do you have confirmation from an unimpeachable source that they are, in fact, using these ADCs?

...(and Owon before Rigol bought all that RuiFeng can produce).

Do you have confirmation from an unimpeachable source that this is, in fact, what has happened? Or is this just speculation on your part?

Why do you think that RuiFeng ADCs are crap?

i trust more National/TI than RuiFeng and even without any test (on paper) RuiFeng is worse than National/TI.
Simply check datasheet (and think bit about who needs here more to make numbers bit better than they really are):

Even assuming that these ADCs ARE used by Rigol, this is the silliest thing you've written. Anybody who has done ANY high-speed digital design knows that you can start with the highest quality ADC and end up with a crappy circuit - or vice-versa. The slight difference in specs don't mean a thing in the larger picture of circuit design and layout - so PLEASE, show me some ACTUAL MEASURED DATA from the DSOs in question to back up your preposterous claims. Sorry, but these comments by you seem as if coming from a disgruntled owner;  I remember you being quite favorable about the RuiFeng chips when they were discovered in the Owon DSOs - I could post your messages about them to refresh your memory, if you like   

Personally, if the specs of the DSO (NOT just the ADC) in question are good - as a long-term owner, I'd prefer to have the one WITHOUT the overclocked ADCs.

But why do you think Rigol give a shit about anything else than money?

Well, because, unlike other Chinese companies like Hantek, they've actually produced some quality, decently-documented, and reasonably well-supported goods.

[Hydrawerk]

And there's a reason why I finally said "heck with it" and spent the money on an Agilent 3000X instead.  I got worn down by trying to figure out which is "best".

Are you happy with your new DSOX3000? These scopes are quite expensive...  The good thing is that they are produced since about January 2011, so there cannot be any problems with early batches today. If there were some problems in the beginning of production, they are eliminated now.
Never buy a scope that is a very new model produced for one month or so...

[grego]

And there's a reason why I finally said "heck with it" and spent the money on an Agilent 3000X instead.  I got worn down by trying to figure out which is "best".

Are you happy with your new DSOX3000? These scopes are quite expensive...  The good thing is that they are produced since about January 2011, so there cannot be any problems with early batches today. If there were some problems in the beginning of production, they are eliminated now.
Never buy a scope that is a very new model produced for one month or so...

Quite happy.  And the deal I got on it ($3200 USD for the DSOX3024A) was pretty amazing so no complaints!

It's a 2 year calibration cycle on them which is even better.  Plus the warranty.  Etc.  So quite quite happy.  And with the 3000 I get decodes (with the MSO option) on the digital channels and 4Mpt of memory so no real complaints there either.

I can see why people like these things so much - they just work.

[tinhead]

... they've actually produced some quality, decently-documented, and reasonably well-supported goods.

i'm sure they did, like DP832?

The slight difference in specs

slight? that's 7dB difference, and hell, this is what one-hung-low wrote on their datasheet, who knows how they perform in real.

I remember you being quite favorable about the RuiFeng chips when they were discovered in the Owon DSOs - I could post your messages about them to refresh your memory, if you like   

sure, do it, if you have nothing else to do. The fact that a cheap single-chip ADC (with embedded interleaving) is better than 8-10pcs external inerleaved and overclocked ADCs - at same price - didn't make anything bad in my statement. But when you compare these RuiFeng to others in same design class, then you will see how much worse they are. At the time as Owon started to use them, i've even ordered samples from RuiFeng (and finally got nothing because nobody was able to deliver only few ICs, i'm not an idiot to buy 100pcs to run a test with few^^).

Do you have confirmation from an unimpeachable source that this is, in fact, what has happened?

unimpeachable source? sure, I told you already here how to confirm that:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-360-rigol-ds2000-oscilloscope-teardown/msg252800/#msg252800

Personally, if the specs of the DSO (NOT just the ADC) in question are good

These specs you talking about are piece of marketing paper, i'm talking about controlled specs of one-of-the major DSO parts.
I simply do trust National/TI more than Rui-Feng.

Personally, if the specs of the DSO (NOT just the ADC) in question are good - as a long-term owner, I'd prefer to have the one WITHOUT the overclocked ADCs.

as a typical long-term-oriented owner i started years ago collective order to be prepared for replacement of "all these broken AD9288 in the future". Finally, after 4 years only few failed (on all who used them, sp Instek, Tekway and Rigol). Later i've recognized that one can perfectly overlock newer batches of AD9288-40 to AD9288-125 with almost no performance loss (i've tested with older non-rohs ICs and was not able to overlock that stable and that high as with new rohs chips). Actually Instek was the first company who used overclocking on these ADC, so i'm sure they know what they did to ADC08D500 on their latest DSOs. Now depends on how long one wish to use a particular DSO, when only max 3 years, then gosh, who cares about bit more heat and bit bigger fan? But for sure, when one wish to have stable gear, for maybe more than 3yrs, then for sure don't buy Instek. In regards of ADC08D500 vs. ADC08D1020, only National/TI knows if there is real difference, from their app notes and datasheets (not fixed since months and lot of emails, it seems that nobody cares on nobody knows really what inside these ADCs) i would say Instek know what they doing. I prefer however a gear that could run "forever".

But for now we can only speculate what ADC Siglent is really using, looking on price it is perfectly possible to get ADC08D1020.

They are similar or only I feel so.   

of course they similar, once one chinese manufacturer recognized that "this can be done cheap" all copying the idea. However, Rigol designed already years ago similar thing - the DS1000CA series (two FPGAs, fast single IC ADC, "high" wfms rate), but the high price was show-stopper for many users. The DS1000E was in principle step backwards to satisfy management. ATTEN copied of course that "dual-FPGA" design as well, but shortly after release stopped sales of that model due no-revenue as well. There is nothing new, others (e.g. Tektronix) using similar designs since 15years, it was only question of time until low-end manufacturers would be able to use that technology as well in <1k USD gears.

This is billion of dollar market (in china only), so one have to be competitive all the time. These new designs are absolutely "need", you can't (sorry Hantek, but you guys are really saving money on wrong side with MSO5074FG) simply add 2 extra channels and signal generator/LA and hope to "make still money". When other can do xxxxx wfms/s, you have to do as well, and same for other features. Sure, Rigol shot competitors with DS2000 series (not that DS4/6 are bad, but that's different price sector), but as we can see UNI-T, Instek and now Siglent managed to design good DSO/MSOs as well (as far one can tell from paper, i still didn't saw any real performance test of UNI-T, about Instek we knows that it does perfrom sufficient to be in same class as Rigol). Now it is not only "billions" of wfms/s, but as well other features are important. For us, endusers, it is of course good to see all the new gears.
When checkin the history it was clear that Sgilent will compile good set of features, Rigol DS2k - intensity grading and high wfms UNI-T higher wfms, Instek color grading, Siglent 256 level color intensity grading. Same for other features, more and more for same money. I only hope things like on DP832 will not be copied by others as well, i don't mind to pay few bucks more and get stable gear.

[tinhead]

I just got the main board picture of SDS2000

where you got that picture? any chance to get better resolution and/or more pictures?

[marmad]

... they've actually produced some quality, decently-documented, and reasonably well-supported goods.

i'm sure they did, like DP832?

What does this prove? I never said they didn't produce some flawed products too (just like virtually every manufacturer in the world).

unimpeachable source? sure, I told you already here how to confirm that:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-360-rigol-ds2000-oscilloscope-teardown/msg252800/#msg252800

I don't particularly feel like opening my DSO to prove something I don't really care about - but I'd be happy to hear any data someone else discovers.

Sorry, but these comments by you seem as if coming from a disgruntled owner

no problem, don't sorry, simply stop being Rigol fanboy 

  That's a funny ad hominem! I'm more than happy to call Rigol on their s**t, as evidenced by the dozens (if not hundreds) of posts in this forum doing exactly that.

Personally, if the specs of the DSO (NOT just the ADC) in question are good

you must be apple fanboy as well, are you? These specs you talking about are piece of marketing paper, i'm talking about controlled specs of one-of-the major DSO parts.

As mentioned already (and ignored by you), other design choices in the DSO can affect those specs as well. Before running around calling something 'crap', perhaps you should provide real-world data testing a DSO with the RuiFeng ADCs vs. an equivalent one without. Otherwise, all of your ranting is just conjecture and, frankly, irrelevant.

[tinhead]

marmad, i don't have to test anything, this has been done by both manufacturers and they wrote down the values into their datasheets. This is why datasheets are there, they not for marketing things only. There is however difference, one of them was not able to deliver any ICs, the other have QC process in place and even with worst case scenarion its data is better by far as from the other. This is why i'm glad that Siglent is not using these crap ADCs (at least not any known from RuiFeng).

[marmad]

marmad, i don't have to test anything, this has been done by both manufacturers and they wrote down the values into their datasheets. This is why datasheets are there, they not for marketing things only.

Oh, I see.... so to determine the fidelity of a DSO's captures, we only need to check the datasheet of the ADC. Good to know - you should pass this knowledge around to the rest of the world - it will probably save a lot of people a lot of time and money.     

Anyway, I'm finished with this - it's fruitless. You can keep ranting about it - but I'll worry about my DSO IF I see real world data proving how an ADC with lower specs is causing my DSO to give me erroneous data - compared to an equivalently-priced DSO using an ADC with higher specs. In the meantime, I'll be happy as a clam I never held on to those time-wasting Owon or Hantek DSOs.

[Carrington]

I believe that is clear, see attached (I'm not 100% sure but almost).
But are pin to pin compatible, and the manufacturer can change from one to another. So who knows... 



http://www.ti.com/product/adc08d1000

[marmad]

I believe that is clear, see attached (I'm not 100% sure but almost).
But are pin to pin compatible, and the manufacturer can change from one to another. So who knows... 

According to this message from tinhead, you can check pin2 - which differs between each chip.

As I've mentioned, IMO it's irrelevant unless someone can produce tests versus a similarly-priced and featured DSO using a different ADC that show a marked improvement in signal fidelity. Otherwise we can argue about the "specs" of every single chip, passive component, and even firmware choices.

What matters are the final output - and I'm quite happy with the fidelity and noise levels on the Rigol (and it seems Dave is as well). And I'm not referring to Rigol's marketing hype - I'm talking about MY OWN perception of the DSO's fidelity versus my analog Tektronix scope (and other DSOs I've used/owned). Now if someone provides actual measured data showing the ADCs in the Rigol are causing perceptible errors, I'm willing to change my mind and start ranting about 'crap' ADCs in the Rigols.

[Carrington]

According to this message from tinhead, you can check pin2 - which differs between each chip.

I don't know but I don't see differences (see attached).
I think that tinhead was refers to other models.

As I've mentioned, IMO it's irrelevant unless someone can produce tests versus a similarly-priced and featured DSO using a different ADC that show a marked improvement in signal fidelity.

Both ADCs (ADC08D1000 and MTX2001) don't seem very different. 
The MTX2001 seems a little better that the ADC08D1010, for example.

[marmad]

Both ADCs (ADC08D1000 and MTX2001) don't seem very different. 
The MTX2001 seems a little better.

Oh boy - here we go again! 

[Carrington]

Sorry sorry sorry. I'm "eyeing" three datasheet (MTX2001, ADC08D1000 and ADC08D1010) and I'm making a mess. 
At the risk of being wrong, from best to worst: ADC08D1000, MTX2001 and ADC08D1010.  But the last two are almost equal.


My SDS8102V main board (yes is a ADC08D1010):

[Carrington]

I had not noticed that you edited your previous message.

As I've mentioned, IMO it's irrelevant unless someone can produce tests versus a similarly-priced and featured DSO using a different ADC that show a marked improvement in signal fidelity. Otherwise we can argue about the "specs" of every single chip, passive component, and even firmware choices.

Of course all this come into play. As example OWON, now uses TI/National ADCs, and I think that we all know as it are...

What matters are the final output - and I'm quite happy with the fidelity and noise levels on the Rigol (and it seems Dave is as well). And I'm not referring to Rigol's marketing hype - I'm talking about MY OWN perception of the DSO's fidelity versus my analog Tektronix scope (and other DSOs I've used/owned). Now if someone provides actual measured data showing the ADCs in the Rigol are causing perceptible errors, I'm willing to change my mind and start ranting about 'crap' ADCs in the Rigols.

I'm just saying that these ADCs (ADC08D1000, MTX2001 and ADC08D1010) are very similar, and only these, I don't talk about other.


By the way, these ADCs have to be pin to pin compatible, as example Owon again.

[tinhead]

By the way, these ADCs have to be pin to pin compatible, as example Owon again.

Just check the Rigol thread, the discussion was "is the ADC used by Rigol ADC08DL502 or RuiFeng". The point is, these are both 144pin LQFP. The picture from that Owon (what a mess btw^^, where they got obsolete chips? that was i hope intermediate solution until they got newer chips) tells nothing as Owon is using 128pin LQFP National/TI ADCs (and they can be ADC08D500, ADC08D1020 or ADC08D1520 - depends on DSO model).

In the meantime TI managed to fix some errors in National ADC datasheets, but still not all :\ Anyway, now one can see ADC08DL502 does NOT have any mux at input, so no chance that these ADCs has been used by Rigol. To confirm that, assuming Rigol engineer knows what "??" and "GND" means (before DP832 i would say they know what they doing ), one have to measure these pins i mentioned in Rigol thread. That's all. The markers and process/facility used by RuiFeng might vary as they fabless manufacturer, so i would not bet on physical markers.

We should really continue that discussion in Rigol thread (if necessary), Siglent have for sure ADCs from National/TI.

[Carrington]

The picture from that Owon (what a mess btw^^, where they got obsolete chips?

No idea! 

Siglent have for sure ADCs from National/TI.

Yes, I also counted the number of pins per row.   

Owon is using 128pin LQFP National/TI ADCs (and they can be ADC08D500, ADC08D1020 or ADC08D1520 - depends on DSO model).

In the meantime TI managed to fix some errors in National ADC datasheets, but still not all : That's all. The markers and process/facility used by RuiFeng might vary as they fabless manufacturer, so i would not bet on physical markers.

I knew nothing about of this, thanks for the info. 

To confirm that, assuming Rigol engineer knows what "??" and "GND" means (before DP832 i would say they know what they doing ), one have to measure these pins i mentioned in Rigol thread.

We all make mistakes. Rigol at least assume their mistakes, and acts accordingly. As a counterexample Owon again (I speak from my experience with Owon).


At this point, Owon must hate me.
Sometimes I think someone put it out there to make us seems that all the others are great. 

[EEVblog]

Word is I'll be getting a 2000 series Siglent soon...

[Nermash]

Word is I'll be getting a 2000 series Siglent soon...

Woo hoo

After the silent treatment from Agilent dealer I am looking into this new Siglent as the most likely my next DSO.
Not to mention specs that match or excede those of my long lusting Agilent DSO 6034, except the XGA screen resolution.

[Siglent]

Siglent MSO/SDS2000 series oscilloscope are using the TI ADC08D1020 chip.
ADC08D1020: 8bit Dual 1GSa/s or Single 2GSa/s A/D Converter

[tautech]

Word is I'll be getting a 2000 series Siglent soon...

With or without options?

[tautech]

I am not sure, it has 2GS/s per each channe, those ADCs are still expensive. And no other scope at this category has 140MB memory. This powerful hardware cannot be cheap. It's not an entry level scope...

No, it do not have 2GS/s for all channels simultaneously.

There is 2 groups.
CH1 and CH2  2GSa/s for 1channel and 1GSa/s for both simultaneously.
CH3 and CH4  2GSa/s for 1channel and 1GSa/s for both simultaneously.
So, it can use 2GSa/s for 2 channels in use and 1GSa/s for all channels.
(I do not know if it can use 2Gsa/s + 1GSa/s + 1GSa/s (I hope it is)  but then 2GSa/s + 2GSa/s is possible, also 1GSa/s + 1GSa/s +1GSa/s + 1GSa/s )


My suspect is that they have used 2 pcs something like ADC08D1000  (or its later improved versions.)

Looks like you were on the money!
1G+1G+1G+1G for 4 ch models 

[rf-loop]

I am not sure, it has 2GS/s per each channe, those ADCs are still expensive. And no other scope at this category has 140MB memory. This powerful hardware cannot be cheap. It's not an entry level scope...

No, it do not have 2GS/s for all channels simultaneously.

There is 2 groups.
CH1 and CH2  2GSa/s for 1channel and 1GSa/s for both simultaneously.
CH3 and CH4  2GSa/s for 1channel and 1GSa/s for both simultaneously.
So, it can use 2GSa/s for 2 channels in use and 1GSa/s for all channels.
(I do not know if it can use 2Gsa/s + 1GSa/s + 1GSa/s (I hope it is)  but then 2GSa/s + 2GSa/s is possible, also 1GSa/s + 1GSa/s +1GSa/s + 1GSa/s )


My suspect is that they have used 2 pcs something like ADC08D1000  (or its later improved versions.)

Looks like you were on the money!
1G+1G+1G+1G for 4 ch models 

If experience is money, then yes.

[Carrington]

Siglent MSO/SDS2000 series oscilloscope are using the TI ADC08D1020 chip.
ADC08D1020: 8bit Dual 1GSa/s or Single 2GSa/s A/D Converter

That board looks good. 
As it should be, the manufacturer giving the face directly. I like it, I hope that the other manufacturers take note.

[Carrington]

Word is I'll be getting a 2000 series Siglent soon...

How wonderful! I look forward to the review.
Do you have a shelf for everyone at the lab? LOL...