Is the Rigol DS1054Z still the best entry level digital scope for the price?

[ebclr]

" Are there fake Siglent and Rigol"

For sure not, is Rigol and Siglent the ones who backed those online suppliers, They can't refuse orders, this is not acceptable in China. China way of thinking is more free, they really don't care about this artificially created protection for certain groups  even on the front they claim to support, but on the back, they sell to anybody who has a nice order. Same applies to theyr supplyer, China is a communist country with the strongest jungle capitalism.

[james_s]

The manufacturers didn't want a 'gray market' in their products.  This is actually pretty common and a huge problem in the SCUBA industry where regulators are available in foreign countries (relative to US) for considerably less money.  The customers in the US are getting ripped and will often order from foreign sources but the manufacturer claims you won't get a warranty and your local retailer may no perform the usual maintenance.  Sometimes retailers order from these sources in bulk and sell the products for less than MSRP.  Not the kind of thing the manufacturer wants to see as they try to protect their authorized resellers.

But how is a used item gray market? I've never heard of anyone being challenged about selling used equipment.

[TNorthover]

You must be aware Rigol tried this on too, or have you conveniently forgotten ?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/ds1052e-removed-from-ebay/

So your defence of this practice is "they do it too"? Surely you see that's inadequate for anyone trying to represent Siglent's interests?

[EEVblog]

Before I buy one I would like to know a few things:
1. My budget really can't stretch much more than £350ish inc vat+p&p (~$450) so is the DS1054Z still the best value (as of April 2017) assuming it can still be unlocked to 100Mhz with the protocol decoders? Or is there something better for a similar price with similar features i.e 4 channels, decoders, etc  ?

For 4 channel, no, nothing else can touch the DS1054Z.
For 2 channels, or absolutel minimum cost outlay, there are arguably better choices.

A lot of people have asked for a Keysight/Rigol/Siglent/GWinstek shootout, but it's just not fair to compare 2CH and 4CH scopes.

[tautech]

You must be aware Rigol tried this on too, or have you conveniently forgotten ?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/ds1052e-removed-from-ebay/

So your defence of this practice is "they do it too"? Surely you see that's inadequate for anyone trying to represent Siglent's interests?

There are members here that just can't let things be and periodically throw muck. The are often fanbois of competing brands to Siglent (in this case) and need be reminded that their favourite brand is not as squeaky clean and virginal as they might think. 

If you want/need to research this issue further I'd advise you to watch one of Dave's vids where he interviews the CEO of Siglent and asks him about this matter. His reply reflects/confirms the private internal communications at that time that I was party to.
https://www.eevblog.com/2015/12/03/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/

[Electro Detective]

fwiw as a diehard analogue oscilloscope user, I chose the Siglent SDS1104CFL at a competitive 'entry level' price mainly because I wanted 4 channels with dedicated controls above each input, and of course the digital capture and single shot stuff etc.
Another plus was the separate trigger input on the front panel after the 4 channels, and USB features. 

The -last minute- Rigol DS1054z deal breaker for me was the shared controls for the 4 channels (too much thinking on a job = kiss), otherwise I would have pulled the trigger on the Rigol based on EEV reviews.

Not sure (or lose sleep) which is the 'better' DSO overall  comparing a 100mhz fully pimped out Rigol DS1054z vs Siglent SDS1104CFL (4ch 100mhz model)

but I got one I know I will use more often, without trying to remember what knob does what, and searching user PDFs for that elusive menu selection location,
or why I can't get out of some snap frozen bonus freebie mode etc   

[BravoV]

I watched both of the reviews as well and also didn't get why you can't use the ext trigger for the CS but I do like the idea of the display table, but that in its self isn't really enough to go for it over the rigol. The biggest draw for me for the sig over the rigol is the 200Mhz bandwidth but I don't know how useful that extra bandwidth will be to me as I'm not looking at doing any RF stuff, and my gut feeling is the ability to see more at the same time with the extra 2 channels is going to be more useful to me than the higher bandwidth but I don't know enough about scopes to fully understand the implications about the bandwidth.

It may sounds trivial , but just want to remind you, as an enthusiast my self, and experienced probing results on 2 channels scope like you do now, made me remember when the time I was curious and really eager to see other probing points, while not wanting to touch the existing two points that were attached to the scope.

Once I have a 4 ch scope, that was really an eyes opener, learned and experienced a lot from the extra channels.

Believed most hobbyist/enthusiast or even experienced EE, must had this kind of moment when probing, for hobbyist like us, the extra 3rd and 4th channels do bring more learning value, at least for me.

My 1/4 watt resistor worth of advice.

[dimkasta]

I am in the same position, trying to control myself from pulling the trigger too fast on something to replace or compliment my ds1052e.

For me, the biggest deal breaker with the Rigol is the lame FFT.
I do not really have much use for 4 channels (referenced on the same ground level). I do mostly analog stuff anyway.
Plus, I am getting a feeling that Rigol will probably respond to Siglent's new entry level scope with something new. This could render 1054 kinda obsolete and could possibly beat the new Siglent.
And could further reduce the price on 1054, or create a wave of more nicely priced used ones

I would also not dismiss the good old ds1052e if you can find one used. Awesome for the price. You will probably just have to replace the encoders for a few dollars and it will be like new.

For now, the new Siglent seems to have a much nicer FFT, and the biggest bw is always nice. I need to see some deeper reviews though.

Another one I am considering is the Micsig tbook 1072 or 1074 which seem to be very nice. And they seem very active in firmware development as well.

[tautech]

I am in the same position, trying to control myself from pulling the trigger too fast on something to replace or compliment my ds1052e.

For me, the biggest deal breaker with the Rigol is the lame FFT.
I do not really have much use for 4 channels (referenced on the same ground level). I do mostly analog stuff anyway.
Plus, I am getting a feeling that Rigol will probably respond to Siglent's new entry level scope with something new. This could render 1054 kinda obsolete and could possibly beat the new Siglent.
And could further reduce the price on 1054, or create a wave of more nicely priced used ones

I would also not dismiss the good old ds1052e if you can find one used. Awesome for the price. You will probably just have to replace the encoders for a few dollars and it will be like new.

For now, the new Siglent seems to have a much nicer FFT, and the biggest bw is always nice. I need to see some deeper reviews though.

Another one I am considering is the Micsig tbook 1072 or 1074 which seem to be very nice. And they seem very active in firmware development as well.

Wise comments but you've overlooked some other possibilities. Can't say more. 

[medical-nerd]

Hiya

I've just bought a DS1054Z, one of the attractions was that in Dave's review he said that the options were available for a limited time (36hours?) and the time was only used if the option was used, not just while the scope was turned on.

I have a use for the options e.g. serial decoding in the future, but would only be for a few hours at most since nearly all I do is analogue - enabling me to take advantage of these and getting used to them while still being in warranty at least for the first year - then I could consider the 'hack'.

Unfortunately I noticed this morning that the option time on my scope is being reduced by its on time.
So I will only have these for a couple of weeks without the 'hack'

So I'm not very happy.

Firmware:  00.04.04

Cheers

[dimkasta]

Wise comments but you've overlooked some other possibilities. Can't say more. 

At the same price point with similar community "acceptance" levels?
Please do say more On pm if you have reasons to not do it publicly

[ebclr]

You can still buy the license, if you don't want to hack

[Karel]

I have a use for the options e.g. serial decoding in the future, but would only be for a few hours at most since nearly all I do is analogue - enabling me to take advantage of these and getting used to them while still being in warranty at least for the first year - then I could consider the 'hack'.

Unfortunately I noticed this morning that the option time on my scope is being reduced by its on time.
So I will only have these for a couple of weeks without the 'hack'

There's no need to be unhappy. Just perform the hack. In the rare case you need to send it back for
service under warranty, you uninstall the options as described here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope/msg1149554/#msg1149554

The changes that your scope will end up completely dead, preventing you from uninstalling the options, look pretty slim to me.
Personally, it didn't withhold me from performing the hack, but it's your scope and you have to decide ofcourse.

[madires]

Yes, if you're looking for a 4-ch DSO. For a 2-ch scope there are alternatives, but it all boils down to WYSIWYG. So don't expect any firmware updates or good support. Don't overvalue fancy features like FFT, unless you already know what you need. As the hobby develops you'll know later on if the DSO's simple FFT is fine for you or if you should get a Spectrum Analyzer, for example.

[cowana]

For most beginners tinkering with arduino type stuff, you really can't beat having the four channels - being able to see exactly what is happening across a set of IO pins, or through multiple stages of an analogue filter is invaluable.

I don't see the 100MHz bandwidth as much of a limit - typically I2C runs at 400kHz, and SPI at a few MHz (when used to talk to sensors on an 8-bit arduino or other simple micro).

I often end up enabling the 20MHz bandwidth limit to clean up some noise on signals.

[ebastler]

I don't see the 100MHz bandwidth as much of a limit - typically I2C runs at 400kHz, and SPI at a few MHz (when used to talk to sensors on an 8-bit arduino or other simple micro).

I would agree -- for the hobby applications I am interested in, there seems to be a bit of a no-man's land above 100 MHz (or even less than that). Microcontroller clocks and the "pedestrian" serial busses are easily accessible with <= 100 MHz bandwidth. And the level requires much more bandwidth -- e.g. HDMI, USB, PC processors.

I have personally not come across an application where 200 MHz would have enabled me to do something which was not accessible at 100 MHz. But I'm sure someone will point out valid examples any moment! 

[medical-nerd]

You can still buy the license, if you don't want to hack

I realise that - however one of the selling points for me was the possibility of trying out the options in the relatively near future, 36 hours of which would have lasted me for months.
This 'cheap' scope is a major outlay for me, the ability to have these options available, with myself carefully using the time available, decided this was for me rather than a 2-channel scope.

Cheers

[rstofer]

The manufacturers didn't want a 'gray market' in their products.  This is actually pretty common and a huge problem in the SCUBA industry where regulators are available in foreign countries (relative to US) for considerably less money.  The customers in the US are getting ripped and will often order from foreign sources but the manufacturer claims you won't get a warranty and your local retailer may no perform the usual maintenance.  Sometimes retailers order from these sources in bulk and sell the products for less than MSRP.  Not the kind of thing the manufacturer wants to see as they try to protect their authorized resellers.

But how is a used item gray market? I've never heard of anyone being challenged about selling used equipment.

Yes, I have a problem with the idea I can't sell my used equipment as well.  But this is old news, it isn't a current issue and, yet, it keeps getting dredged up.  Over and over...  Old news...  Just look at eBay for alternative facts.

The other issue that was mentioned a few posts above is the lack of firmware updates (I suspect aimed at Rigol) where there have been quite a few updates in the 2+ years the scope has been on the market.  I have done two official updates in the several months I have had mine.

If you watch the inventory levels at a place like Tequipment, you get the idea that they sell about 1000 DS1054Zs per week.  And they're just one supplier!  This scope must be the best selling model of all time.

Adding features to a DSO like decoding or FFT increases a manufacturer's NRE costs.  But it's a one time deal spread over the sale of tens of thousands of scopes.  I can see Rigol supporting the DS1054Z for quite a while if some new scope doesn't come along and unseat the absolute ruler of the low end scope market.

Until I bought the DS1054Z, I worked around the 2 channel versus 4 channel thing for decades.  I bought the scope specifically for the 4 channels and decoding.  If I need bandwidth, I'll drag out my Tektronix 485 350 MHz scope.  But I also bought the DS1054Z because it is inexpensive.  If I had to pay, say, $800, I wouldn't have bought it.  But for $400, no problem!  Sign me up!

[alsetalokin4017]

I am constantly growing more and more appreciative of the z-box. It has its frustrating "features" and bugs that haven't been adequately fixed, but I really like its display features especially much. Recently I've been looking at screenshots from other scopes like Siglent and Atten and even Tektronix, and the Rigol manages to display more information in a "prettier" form than some of those others. And I don't find the user interface difficult at all, but then I have a lot of practice using it.

Now, the reliability of the information it is telling me is another issue altogether, and certainly more important than the "cosmetics" above. Mostly I think it can be trusted but I have come across several instances when certain measurements seem unreliable. I'm not talking about the RMS issue, which does seem to have been resolved in the last-but-one firmware update. Phase angle between two channel signals is one such problematic area for the automatic measurements. I wish the cursors would report phase angle, but they only report time and voltage positions and differences.
I just figured out how to get phase angle from the cursors! Using the "Units > Degrees" and the "Set Range" buttons deep in the Cursors menu!   

I  particularly like the utility and appearance of this display of all the available single-channel measurements:

[janoc]

Yes, if you're looking for a 4-ch DSO. For a 2-ch scope there are alternatives, but it all boils down to WYSIWYG. So don't expect any firmware updates or good support. Don't overvalue fancy features like FFT, unless you already know what you need. As the hobby develops you'll know later on if the DSO's simple FFT is fine for you or if you should get a Spectrum Analyzer, for example.

Another thing is that you can always pull the data from the scope - the Rigol has both USB and Ethernet, USB stick is also an option - and do a full analysis on a PC. It is both faster and more accurate than what the scope alone can manage. There is plenty of free software for doing this and the exported data format is easy to work with.

So unless one uses something like FFT every day or needs to do complex serial decoding (where the Rigol arguably does suck), there are ways around those issues.

[rstofer]

I don't see the 100MHz bandwidth as much of a limit - typically I2C runs at 400kHz, and SPI at a few MHz (when used to talk to sensors on an 8-bit arduino or other simple micro).

I would agree -- for the hobby applications I am interested in, there seems to be a bit of a no-man's land above 100 MHz (or even less than that). Microcontroller clocks and the "pedestrian" serial busses are easily accessible with <= 100 MHz bandwidth. And the level requires much more bandwidth -- e.g. HDMI, USB, PC processors.

The reason for the gap is cost.  The nearest competitor to the DS1054Z costs around $1200 and getting even more bandwidth drives the cost well beyond the hobby level.

I have personally not come across an application where 200 MHz would have enabled me to do something which was not accessible at 100 MHz. But I'm sure someone will point out valid examples any moment! 

I think my FPGA projects would benefit from more bandwidth.  I usually run them at 50 MHz and the 200 MHz Siglent might allow me to display up to the 5th harmonic.  Not everything runs at 50 MHz and my logic analyzer will capture at 200 MHz so all is not lost by having just 100 MHz bandwidth.

It's the square waves that drive the bandwidth requirement.  You need a bunch of harmonics.

[ebastler]

The reason for the gap is cost.  The nearest competitor to the DS1054Z costs around $1200 and getting even more bandwidth drives the cost well beyond the hobby level.

Actually I meant a gap in relevant applications requiring that bandwidth, not in available TME. But the TME gap is very real too, for the reasons you mention. I wonder to what extent this is just pricing policy -- I don't think making a scope with twice the sampling rate and bandwidth would triple the cost.

I think my FPGA projects would benefit from more bandwidth.  I usually run them at 50 MHz and the 200 MHz Siglent might allow me to display up to the 5th harmonic.  Not everything runs at 50 MHz and my logic analyzer will capture at 200 MHz so all is not lost by having just 100 MHz bandwidth.

It's the square waves that drive the bandwidth requirement.  You need a bunch of harmonics.

But most of the signals live inside the FPGA anyway... In my FPGA tinkering so far, the signals I brought out were either much slower and hence easily accessible, or were way out of my DS1054Z's range (HDMI).

[ebclr]

200 Mhz at 1 Gs , isn't that different from the DS1054Z 100Mhz at 1 Gs/ especially if you consider that the Rigol frontend can go easily higher than 100 Mhz, 120 Mhz for sure, tested without no attenuation with my SDG2122X

The point is  price

SDS1202X-E 380 USD  for 2 channels 1G/s max , Analog front end 200 Mhz
DS1054Z      399 USD hacked  4 chanells  1G/s max,  , Analog front end 100 Mhz ( can go higher under specified)

Basically, you are trading 4ch to 2 ch for 19 USD, because with same sample rate the 200Mhz will be nothing. Don't expect Siglent to be  king of usability on firmware, same Chinese thinking

[rstofer]

200 Mhz at 1 Gs , isn't that different from the DS1054Z 100Mhz at 1 Gs/ especially if you consider that the Rigol frontend can go easily higher than 100 Mhz, 120 Mhz for sure, tested without no attenuation with my SDG2122X

In the video, the author pumped 400 MHz into the Siglent.  It wasn't pretty but 300 MHz looked pretty good.  Attenuated a bit but probably workable.

Basically, you are trading 4ch to 2 ch for 19 USD, because with same sample rate the 200Mhz will be nothing. Don't expect Siglent to be  king of usability on firmware, same Chinese thinking

With the Rigol, you split 1 GS/s over 4 channels at 100 MHz and get 250 MS/s or 2.5 times sampling at 100 MHz.
For the Siglent, you split 1 GS/s over 2 channels at 200 MHz and get 250 MS/s or 2.5 times sampling at 200 MHz.

It seems to me that the sample rate is about the same with all channels in use.

The Rigol has the advantage of 1 GS/s over 1 channel at 100 MHz or 10 times sampling versus the Siglent with 1 GS/s at 200 MHz or 5 times sampling.  Fair enough!  But it's 200 MHz, not 100 MHz and 2.5 sampling has been a standard in the industry for a very long time.  Nevertheless, more is better.

I would love to see a side-by-side shootout comparing all of the features.

Four channels is nice, it's why I bought the Rigol but bandwidth is also nice.  Given both models available at the time, I'm not sure which I would have chosen.

I'm not sure I won't just order the Siglent for giggles and compare them myself.  Not that I'm qualified...

[rstofer]

There's a thread over in Test Equipment that might be worth reading.  Apparently, the firmware might not be 'oopsie' free.