Hello, I'm new to this forum, I have to buy my very first oscilloscope, I've checked out the Excel decision matrix, but still I have fear clicking that Buy Now button on Amazon. Are you seriously sure 4 channel with "worst" specs are better than 2 with "better" specs? Everybody says everything and the contrary... People I've asked *personally* say 2 channel are enough.
It all depends on what you do with it but really you shouldn't be considering 2 channels these days (IMHO).
On an intellectual level you
can do anything with two channels, ie. you can trigger on one signal and see another signal relative to the trigger point. On a practical level: Two channels means a lot of probe swapping, especially in the age of digital electronics.
I don't know if ordering the Rigol will make me totally sure I'm happy, and what I could get IF I've had ordered the Siglent instead of the Rigol... Does anybody have a clue about the comparison BY 2019 and with ALL the upgrades and fixes ALREADY applied to those two oscilloscopes?
If it's your first oscilloscope then the Rigol
will make you happy. The practical difference between Rigols and Siglents isn't as much as people like to think - both show wiggly lines on screen just fine, neither is lacking any major features.
I see in that chart that "Need to press the math button twice" is a red mark for the Rigol. Have you looked at how many button presses and know twiddles it takes to show a measurement in a Siglent? (a lot!) The Rigol has a row of buttons down the left side of the screen dedicated to that.
Bandwidth? A hacked Rigol is a lot closer to 200Mhz than it is to 100Mhz.
etc.
At the end of the day it comes down to how much money you want to spend. For the price of a 4-channel Siglent you can have a Rigol plus a decent multimeter (or soldering iron, or power supply...)