Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E

[paul_ius]

I've noticed that when it comes to the use of all four channels, pretty much the only example is SPI debugging. Maybe it would be a better idea to buy a cheap-ass usb logic analyzer together with the Siglent, like http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-Logic-100MHz-16Ch-Logic-Analyzer-for-ARM-FPGA-/331912830928?hash=item4d478bdfd0:g:YgcAAOSwZVlXjgIc (just an example) instead of going for 4 analog channels?

Look at the primary & secondary voltage and current of a switching PSU. 4 channels...

This is actually a strong case, but I don't really see myself spending a lot of time working on power supplies, maybe here and there, but not much.

On the other hand, if budget is limited, I'd rather pay for speed than more channels, and I very much prefer individual channel controls than a system of multiplexed gain and position knobs. Anytime I have to use that I curse it the whole time.

So, you know, just pick one. Flip a coin if you have to!

Yeah, my budget is very limited as these scopes cost half of the average salary in my country, so I don't see myself buying a second scope anytime soon after the first one.
Flipping a coin sounds like something I would actually do.

I got a DS1054Z as my first scope, about 2 years ago and it's been great. I have needed the 4 channels once, and only once so far ( debugging corrupted SPI comms ). Generally I like Rigol, but have found it to be weak in a couple of areas. The ones that have really bothered me are the poor FFT and Maths Channel. Fortunately I was lucky enough to score a Picoscope MSO at a bargain price, so no longer need to use these features on the Rigol.

At least during my studies, the FFT wasn't very useful to me, but the Math functionality was something that I had to use from time to time.

Mechatrommer,
That's a very good example, I will definitely consider this.

[Fungus]

If you've got four channels you will figure out a use for them, especially if you work with microcontrollers. 

Sure.  And if you had six, or eight...  Why not hook them all up to something?

Yep!

Can you give an example from your usage where you needed all four channels, or even needed more?

It's not always need, as in "I couldn't have done that with only two channels" but it makes life easier.

Last week I was working with Ardunio+MSGEQ7 chip, that has two control signals and one pin for output of the result. Could I do it with two channels? Yes, but It's nice to see all three on screen at once.

I also use a scope a lot when writing software to make sure things like interrupts are happening in response to signals. In the interrupt routine I'll set a spare pin high at the start and low again at the end. You can watch it on the scope and make sure it happens.

If you've got four probes on your table you can always find things to connect them to when you're developing stuff. :-)

[rstofer]

Or you are messing about with Damped Harmonic Motion on an analog computer and you want to capture displacement, velocity and acceleration.  Sure, that's only 3 channels but, still, it's more than 2.

I'll concede that 2 channels are enough 99+% of the time.  After all, I have been using scopes for about 60 years and I just recently went to 4 channels.  I could easily have gotten along with 2 channels but the price of the DS1054Z, coupled with unlocking the options, made it compelling.

I have a 200 MHz logic analyzer so I didn't really NEED the scope for SPI.  But I did need it to check where CS' changed state relative to the clock coming out.  I have always done this with 2 channels, I just convinced myself that 4 channels was cool.  Besides, the DS1054Z was about the lowest priced, credible, DSO on the market.  The nearest scope to it, in terms of capability, was around 3 times the price!

Today I would probably opt for the Siglent for the bandwidth and included options plus a better UI.  I have gotten by with 2 channels for a very long time so if I could just buy one scope, today, it would probably be the Siglent.  After they fix some bugs.  If they take too long, my short attention span would kick in and I'd buy the Rigol.  After all, I'd be in the market to buy a scope because I want to use a scope, not just read about it!

[boggis the cat]

Last week I was working with Ardunio+MSGEQ7 chip, that has two control signals and one pin for output of the result. Could I do it with two channels? Yes, but It's nice to see all three on screen at once.

I also use a scope a lot when writing software to make sure things like interrupts are happening in response to signals. In the interrupt routine I'll set a spare pin high at the start and low again at the end. You can watch it on the scope and make sure it happens.

If you've got four probes on your table you can always find things to connect them to when you're developing stuff. :-)

Sure, but I guess that is my point.  You find a use for what you have, but it isn't often that you need more than two analogue channels.

So you look at the trade-offs involved.  I would have gone with the locked-down GW Instek and made do with 50 MHz bandwidth (although some of people have claimed it is close to 100 MHz, which would not surprise me from the actual bandwidth of GW Instek 'scopes I have worked on), because the Rigol UI annoys me so much.  Someone else may not care about a good UI and like the 'hacking' aspect to get a whole lot of extras for free.

Most hobbyists in the past have got by without 'scopes entirely.  I wonder how often a 'scope gets hooked up simply because it is there.

[Fungus]

Sure, but I guess that is my point.  You find a use for what you have, but it isn't often that you need more than two analogue channels.

Technically speaking you only ever need to be able trigger on one signal and see another signal in relation to it.

With two channels you just need to have a photographic memory and swap the probes a lot more.

[Mechatrommer]

Most hobbyists in the past have got by without 'scopes entirely.  I wonder how often a 'scope gets hooked up simply because it is there.

people in the past have got by living on the trees, hunt animals just by using sticks (no need gun), no need matches/lighter to make fire etc. no need house no need car no need iphone no need internet etc etc, people will get by yes we all know that...

[tautech]

Most hobbyists in the past have got by without 'scopes entirely.  I wonder how often a 'scope gets hooked up simply because it is there.

people in the past have got by living on the trees, hunt animals just by using sticks (no need gun), no need matches/lighter to make fire etc. no need house no need car no need iphone no need internet etc etc, people will get by yes we all know that...

Mech, would you consider adding the X-E command set into VisaDSO ?

[Fungus]

Most hobbyists in the past have got by without 'scopes entirely.  I wonder how often a 'scope gets hooked up simply because it is there.

people in the past have got by living on the trees, hunt animals just by using sticks (no need gun), no need matches/lighter to make fire etc. no need house no need car no need iphone no need internet etc etc, people will get by yes we all know that...

Would I go back to doing electronics without an oscilloscope? Nope. No way.

[Mechatrommer]

Mech, would you consider adding the X-E command set into VisaDSO ?

i'll love to but... iirc i read the manual sometime ago. i can add anything but without having the device to test, it'll be a difficult job. if i make the code and compile, and send to you, and you test, and say its not ok, and i change again, and make code and send again 100 times iteration, then it will take a lot of time. so i dont think it will be feasible...

[tautech]

Mech, would you consider adding the X-E command set into VisaDSO ?

i'll love to but... iirc i read the manual sometime ago. i can add anything but without having the device to test, it'll be a difficult job. if i make the code and compile, and send to you, and you test, and say its not ok, and i change again, and make code and send again 100 times iteration, then it will take a lot of time. so i dont think it will be feasible...

Yep, that is my concern too, back and forth, back and forth. 
AFAIK the Programming manual is having some additions made to suit the X-E and not finished yet. 
When I have something concrete I'll shoot a link to you by PM.

I've had some small discussion behind the scenes, let's see if we can take this further. 

[2N3055]

It all depends what you do.

If you do lot of troubleshooting (like repair), 1 channel is enough most of the time... You probe around the circuit looking for expected waveforms.. Mentally you are doing one thing at a  time... And sometimes you want to time correlate that with other signal (drive, clock..) so 2nd channel...
For that kind of work, 2 ch and more bandwidth is better... Also, doing that, you twiddle with settings more.. So people doing that kind of work will complain more if scope is not "responsive", and faster UI will be important to them.

If you do development, than 4ch is not even enough sometimes... Switching power supplies, solar chargers, mixed signal.... They all have many parts of the circuit that have to work together, with timing and all kinds of details.. Not to mention looking at voltage and current at the same time...
And also, while doing that, you don't twiddle with settings and buttons that much..
Most of the time you twiddle with circuit or firmware, and watch for the changes on the screen..
While I agree that DS1104Z GUI is not that responsive moving vertical traces as some other scopes, it never was a problem to me...
I do things slowly and deliberately..Slowest thing is always me... .
Also, I only see slow response on vertical channel position settings.. For other settings, I didn't notice any particular sluggishness..
And all of that has nothing to do with waveform screen updates.. Those are fast and realtime.. In fact, GUI is slower because it was given less priority that waveform display..

My experience is that I usually use 1ch for quick checks, or 3 or 4 for troubleshooting and development...  So for me 4 ch is a must..

As somebody mentioned, if that new Siglent SDS1202X-E was in fact SDS1204X-E, well, that would have been interesting to me.. Provided it's reasonably bug free and such... Even for a few bucks more..

[ebclr]

The problem is that isn't SDS1204X-E Siglent missed the bandwagon and Rigol still the king, because both are 1 gs and only rigols has 4 channels  is a huge difference, That responsivity UI talk is empty talk, Rigol is totally usable, and both come from "chinese engineering firmware", where  is quite ease to find little problems never solved,  SDS1202X-E  would be a nicer competitor for Hantek DSO5102P not fo Rigol DS1054Z.

[Fungus]

If you do lot of troubleshooting (like repair), 1 channel is enough most of the time... You probe around the circuit looking for expected waveforms.. Mentally you are doing one thing at a  time... And sometimes you want to time correlate that with other signal (drive, clock..) so 2nd channel...
For that kind of work, 2 ch and more bandwidth is better... Also, doing that, you twiddle with settings more.. So people doing that kind of work will complain more if scope is not "responsive", and faster UI will be important to them.

If you're constantly moving the traces up and down in that scenario then you're doing it wrong. The only time you really need to move traces up and down is when you turn a channel on/off.

The vertical scale knob (which you would use a lot) is no less responsive on a Rigol than any other scope.

[2N3055]

If you're constantly moving the traces up and down in that scenario then you're doing it wrong. The only time you really need to move traces up and down is when you turn a channel on/off.

The vertical scale knob (which you would use a lot) is no less responsive on a Rigol than any other scope.

No, not constantly, but you would more than usual, for instance to align the signal to grid for quick visual measurement..

And I said that, vertical scale, or time scale or any other knob except vertical position works just fine..

If you want to check what I would find as a good enough vertical position speed, stop the acquisition, and then move channel up and down..
Sometimes, with all 4 ch on, I just do that. Stop, move them all to pos, and restart acquisition... That is quick and easy workaround.

[boggis the cat]

Most hobbyists in the past have got by without 'scopes entirely.  I wonder how often a 'scope gets hooked up simply because it is there.

people in the past have got by living on the trees, hunt animals just by using sticks (no need gun), no need matches/lighter to make fire etc. no need house no need car no need iphone no need internet etc etc, people will get by yes we all know that...

You missed the important part: how often does a 'scope get hooked up when it isn't really needed?

There is a tendency to use what you have.  If you have a four channel 'scope, then you may find another couple of points to monitor.

More equipment isn't the point.*  That is the mentality of people who collect vast amounts of photographic equipment -- and/or increasingly expensive items -- expecting that to somehow deliver better photographs.

(* Unless you collect equipment as a hobby, which is also fine.)

[boggis the cat]

If you want to check what I would find as a good enough vertical position speed, stop the acquisition, and then move channel up and down..
Sometimes, with all 4 ch on, I just do that. Stop, move them all to pos, and restart acquisition... That is quick and easy workaround.

Yes, if you are repositioning the traces then stopping the acquisition is going to much less painful than trying to shift them while still running, on the Rigol.  My experience with trying to calibrate these things was unpleasant, though -- laggy UI is a huge nuisance if you are doing lots of manual adjustment.

If you use your equipment a lot then you'll figure out work-around to many issues.  Others you just have to accept.  These are not expensive instruments, so you shouldn't expect that level of performance.

[nctnico]

Most hobbyists in the past have got by without 'scopes entirely.  I wonder how often a 'scope gets hooked up simply because it is there.

people in the past have got by living on the trees, hunt animals just by using sticks (no need gun), no need matches/lighter to make fire etc. no need house no need car no need iphone no need internet etc etc, people will get by yes we all know that...

You missed the important part: how often does a 'scope get hooked up when it isn't really needed?

Never! Please stop trying to wiggle your way out of needing 4 channels. The more information you can collect the easier it is to track down a problem; a 4 channel scope shows more information than a 2 channel scope so a 4 channel oscilloscope is always better. End of discussion!

[Mechatrommer]

Most hobbyists in the past have got by without 'scopes entirely.  I wonder how often a 'scope gets hooked up simply because it is there.

people in the past have got by living on the trees, hunt animals just by using sticks (no need gun), no need matches/lighter to make fire etc. no need house no need car no need iphone no need internet etc etc, people will get by yes we all know that...

You missed the important part: how often does a 'scope get hooked up when it isn't really needed?

yup but you derailed too much imho. this thread about selecting 2 dso because "I'm looking for my first entry level oscilloscope", about the same price, 1 is 2 ch but 2x the bandwidth about half the memory, large fft, 1 is 4ch half BW larger memory but crappy ftt, which one should i buy? which one more important? which one is more practical?. not "i want to buy everything because i cant do with limited device", or "can i do ee without a dso" thread. we dont just snap things up because its there, but because its there, so why not?

[exe]

I made my choice and went for... siglent. Not because I don't need four channels (I do!), I just want a better 4 channel scope than 1054z. So I decided to buy a decent 2ch scope and wait for a 1054z successor to come. Or for a 4ch equivalent of SDS1202X-E. It looks like scopes evolve quite fast and I'd rather change my scope every few years, than invest a lot of money now.

[nctnico]

It looks like scopes evolve quite fast and I'd rather change my scope every few years, than invest a lot of money now.

That is a very sensible approach!

[rstofer]

I made my choice and went for... siglent. Not because I don't need four channels (I do!), I just want a better 4 channel scope than 1054z. So I decided to buy a decent 2ch scope and wait for a 1054z successor to come. Or for a 4ch equivalent of SDS1202X-E. It looks like scopes evolve quite fast and I'd rather change my scope every few years, than invest a lot of money now.

After you spend some time with it, write a review.  Even an informal review such as a simple thread.  People are interested in this new scope and it has a lot going for it.

Personally, I'm waiting for Siglent to update the firmware before I spend a lot of time on reading/watching reviews.  But I am interested in what others think about the scope.

[exe]

Personally, I'm waiting for Siglent to update the firmware before I spend a lot of time on reading/watching reviews.

Any critical bugs in Siglent I should be aware of? I saw some people complaining about bugs in this thread, but I didn't see anything critical in reviews I've seen.

As a side note, I'm yet to see a scope without bugs. Even lecroy scopes for many $$$ are not without problems. I also don't trust 100% internet reviews as my hands-on impression from using scopes on an electronics fair was not what I expected from watching videos on youtube (I spent 5 hours playing with equipment and asking consultants about scopes).

PS thanks to nctnico for recommending GW Instek (although I bought Siglent at the end because it's a more fresh than GDS-1054B and costs less). I can also say why GW Instek costs more in Europe than in US (I asked a representative about this). The answer was: 1) US is a bigger market, single language 2) EU consists of 29 countries, too much fragmentation, different laws, different regulations (so I was told). I tend to believe this.

[nctnico]

Personally, I'm waiting for Siglent to update the firmware before I spend a lot of time on reading/watching reviews.

Any critical bugs in Siglent I should be aware of? I saw some people complaining about bugs in this thread, but I didn't see anything critical in reviews I've seen.

That is because most reviews don't go further than twiddling a few knobs so many bugs stay hidden and may never be found. There is an extremely high probability I won't buy anything from Rigol or Siglent again because a) the obvious bugs should have been caught during product testing b) fixing the bugs takes way too long c) I need equipment to work as advertised from day one. Rigol and Siglent seem to optimise effort versus sales and make a product just good enough so that they can get away with it for the hobbyist market.

[TK]

PS thanks to nctnico for recommending GW Instek (although I bought Siglent at the end because it's a more fresh than GDS-1054B and costs less). I can also say why GW Instek costs more in Europe than in US (I asked a representative about this). The answer was: 1) US is a bigger market, single language 2) EU consists of 29 countries, too much fragmentation, different laws, different regulations (so I was told). I tend to believe this.

If you are considering the FINAL price you pay, probably it is the VAT.  Sales tax is much lower in the US than in EU.

[exe]

I won't buy anything from Rigol or Siglent again

Yet you bought GW Instek . And they had quite a few bugs in their GDS-2000E series in the beginning, AFAIK. Their previous scopes had even worse bugs, see Dave's review on 2000A series. But I agree, it's better not to count on software updates (even for non-Asian manufactures, IMHO). The scope should be good-enough to use from day one or better postpone the purchase.

So, I watched this review ([1]) from TheDefpom and concluded that it's worth buying. And I have 14 days money back, just in case...

[1] https://youtu.be/64kxGDOg7es