here I got a table of Siglent SDS2000 "PK" Rigol DS2000 and I'm not responsible for it.
While I'm 'honored' that Siglent has copied and pasted my Rigol waveform rate measurements, there are a few oddities/problems that should be pointed out about these "comparison" tables:
1) So Siglent is claiming that their DSO gets
faster when sampling and displaying two channels instead of one? This seems very strange to me since I've never come across an electronic device that speeds up when doing
more work. I'm not saying it's not in the realm of possibility - but it's rather bizarre.
2) It's rather silly for Siglent to stress (using
bold type) that it has more memory (for faster sampling rates). The Rigol DS2000 series has 56M built in - and since a key generator has been posted for the Rigol, currently ANY owner (or prospective owner) of the DS2000 can have 56M
for free. So a more accurate comparison of possible sampling speeds would be THIS table:
3) Lastly, the waveform speed comparisons at slower time base settings with large sample lengths seems dubious. With the Rigol, when you set the memory depth to 14M, you are, in fact, getting 14M with
every waveform capture (which you can see when capturing time-stamped segments). It's a trade-off of capture speed versus deeper memory which you can note when comparing the wfrm/s rates with different sample depths.
So, for example, @ the 500us time base setting:
Agilent 2000X = 170 wfrm/s (w/reduced sample size/sample rate)
Rigol DS2000 = 140 wfrm/s (w/14k sample size and reduced sample rate)
Rigol DS2000 = 39 wfrm/s (w/14M sample size and full rate)
Siglent SDS2000 = 135 wfrm/s (w/14M sample size and full rate)
??So I'm having a difficult time believing that the Siglent has a blind time of ~5% while capturing 14M 135 times a second. So I suspect they are limiting the actual sample size captured by the screen display (at least until the DSO is stopped).
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
