Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E

[exe]

Forgot to mention. If my 400euro scope is a bit buggy I'm probably OK with that. I have expectations relative to the price. And, again, no equipment is perfect, even big names have their faults, nothing is perfect.

[nctnico]

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.

True but if you have read my GDS-2000E review then you'd known I've tested the sh*t out of it and only decided to keep it AFTER GW Instek fixed the bugs (within 3 weeks BTW). That is an entirely different experience than I had with Siglent (like day & night) with one of their > $2000 oscilloscopes which I had to write off because it was useless. Mistakes happen but what is most important is how they get fixed.

[Mechatrommer]

I just want a better 4 channel scope than 1054z.

siglent 1024 2GSps 4ch is there... why dont get it?

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

we are waiting for 6-8 channels rigol.. you may wait 4ch siglent at that cheap price..

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

few years ago we bought DS1052E because there were no 4ch competitor and its the cheapest price DSO recommended.. today we have 4ch DS1054Z as an option, so many of us jumped for the upgrade. but you want to stick with the 2ch option, we cant say much its your money as i said we are waiting 6-8ch upgrade, you may wait (better BW) 4ch upgrade

[Fungus]

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

The haters complain that the vertical position control on the Rigol lags a tiny bit. I say it's no big deal because you don't really use it much in practice.

That guy just did an entire review without touching it once. Point proved! 

[Fungus]

Forgot to mention. If my 400euro scope is a bit buggy I'm probably OK with that. I have expectations relative to the price. And, again, no equipment is perfect, even big names have their faults, nothing is perfect.

There's a whole thread of them:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/

[tautech]

That guy just did an entire review without touching it once. Point proved! 

Then watch Pt 2.

[exe]

I just want a better 4 channel scope than 1054z.

siglent 1024 2GSps 4ch is there... why dont get it?

SDS1204CFL? Much more expensive, only 24k memory and worse vertical sensitivity. I also know nothing about this model, never even seen it. The SDS1202X-E it briefly touched at the electronics fair, although I spent most of the time on RTB2004, GDS-2070E, dsox1102g and some lecroy scopes (because booth guy was very enthusiastic to show their equipment).

Another reason I didn't want to buy a ~$1K scope is that a cheap scope plus AWG (I bought SDG2042X along with the scope) will give me much more value for the same price.

PS This will be my first scope (although I used to borrow ds1052e), so I'm not 100% sure what features I really need (but I believe FFT, low noise floor and good vertical sensitivity is a must for me). Anyway, If it does not do the job, I'll just sell at loss it and buy a better one. I hope there won't be much bias because of this, I spent last 2.5 years researching the market, watching/reading reviews, etc. So I think I know what I'm doing.

[Loboscope]

Both scopes are good instruments for the hobbyist and beginner, I can tell this, I have them both.
The Rigol is proved  and well-known with its skills, issues and limits, but concerning its older and slower hardware, there will be no more improvements possible. The Siglent has indeed the more modern and faster hardware, but Siglent now is claimed that they will have the competence to improve the software to the grade, the hardware will allow. But I expect so, Siglent is not new in the business.
As the 1202X-E is today, it will be utilisable (except the xy-mode, which is still extremely to slow, nearly useless).

I think, the decision to go now with the new Siglent is really good.
If the scope will satisfy you, you could later by a second one. It has both trigger out and trigger in, so you can stack them and have 4 channels set to one trigger-point. Or 2x2 Channels with two independent trigger-points if it will be necessary.

Or you will later buy a used Rigol cheap. When Rigol will release a follower to the DS1000Z-series (and/or Siglent brings out a 1204X-E ?), the price for the actual models will fall rapidly. Until then you will have a nice and easy to use scope to begin to work with.

[rstofer]

Forgot to mention. If my 400euro scope is a bit buggy I'm probably OK with that. I have expectations relative to the price. And, again, no equipment is perfect, even big names have their faults, nothing is perfect.

The same thing happened with the DS1054Z.  The first couple of updates took care of the big problems but there were still small issues at the margins.  A place where few hobbyists play.  Few ever noticed.

Later updates took care of everything except a misspelling which is now an inside joke.

The Siglent will go the same way (hopefully) where most of the gross complaints will be solved in the first update leaving a few at the margins.  Now, from what I read, Siglent doesn't have a stellar reputation for putting out fixes so we'll have to see.  They have the opportunity to become the dominant player in the entry level scopes.  I hope they do it right!

I want one...

[boggis the cat]

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.

The basic stuff seems to work OK.  I think that there are some trigger issues that are software related, but they're an inconvenience rather than 'critical' (provided you are aware that they exist, and can work around them).

Subtle bugs or problems are the real issue.  If you know something is wrong then that is less of a problem than if you are assuming it is right when it isn't.

My one seems to meet all of the specs quite easily, but I'm waiting on Siglent's verification procedure before doing any significant work on it.

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).

The GW Instek is probably less buggy than the Siglent.  The trade-off being less features.  It also would have cost me more, so I opted for the Siglent.

[boggis the cat]

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.

Not if you need between zero and two channels.  If you need zero, then you don't even need the 'scope.

End of discussion!

Pfft.  End of rational argument, I think you mean.

Why are you sure that everyone doesn't "need" six channels?  Eight?  Is there an upper limit? 

So what happens when Siglent produces a four-channel variant?  You'll have to think up some different argument.  Being a fanboy is hard work.

(Although Rigol should release something similar soon.  Let's hope it hasn't got only two channels!  )

[Fungus]

I don't often connect all 4 probes but 3 is quite common.

I could probably live with the way the new Keysight does it, ie. the external trigger input can be used as a third 'digital' channel (it shows a trace on screen, works for serial decodes, etc).

I'd definitely be unhappy with only 2 channels.

The new Keysight is a pretty good 'scope from what people are saying and only costs twice as much as the Siglent/Rigol.

[Fungus]

PS: Crappiest 'poll' ever.

Who gets to decide what 'better' and 'worse' means?

[2N3055]

Scopes are not consumer product "...my phone is better than yours because it has more cores...." teenager bulshit...
Even the most expensive scopes have some compromises in their design. That is nature of engineering.

If you need 4 channels for your work, and 100MHz is enough, that is BETTER for you than 2 ch 200 MHz. Not only better, but your ONLY option.
If you don't need more than 2ch and you need 200MHz bandwidth, than that is BETTER for you and, again, not only better, but your ONLY option.

If you can get 8ch and 1GHz scope, that would be able to do both tasks.. Total overkill, at a price you wouldn't be able to pay.. So it is irrelevant .

This is argument what is a better vehicle: a van or a sports car... Well, if you are a race driver answer is obvious. If you deliver cargo, it is also obvious.
If you ask which is faster(or cooler, if you like sports cars), it is also obvious, but irrelevant if you have a job to deliver 600Kg pallet....

So irrelevant argument. It depends of what you do..

If you dabble in digital, mixed signal and such, 4ch is better choice.
If you doing 2m (144 MHz) radio or such, 200 MHz analog scope will do.. And 200 MHz Siglent will be better... Even if it has bugs (which I mention anecdotally, I don't have one so AFAIK it might be perfect) it will still be better than instrument that just can't do any measurement on that frequency...

[Fungus]

End of discussion!

Pfft.  End of rational argument, I think you mean.

Why are you sure that everyone doesn't "need" six channels?  Eight?  Is there an upper limit? 

Nope. 

The point being made is that when you need more channels, there's no substitute.

It's also exponential. The difference between 2 channels and 4 channels is vastly greater than the difference between 4 channels and 8 channels.

Put it in context: Would 2 channel 'scope owners be content with only 1 channel? I don't think so. It's simply not enough, no matter how amazing the 'scope is.

[exe]

I agree that a four-channel scope is better in general (and in fact I need 3+ channels!). But that's not the only consideration. And not everyone might need more than two channels _frequently_. Also, you often can get away with two channels, just this will slow you down.

So, let's conclude "2ch vs 4ch" discussion that 4ch is better than 2ch, but there are much more new and affordable 2ch scopes. And they have their own market.

[exe]

If the scope will satisfy you, you could later by a second one. It has both trigger out and trigger in, so you can stack them and have 4 channels set to one trigger-point. Or 2x2 Channels with two independent trigger-points if it will be necessary.

Good suggestion, I was told the same when talked with a sales guy . But I have 3 concerns:

1) Waveforms won't be on the same screen, harder to correlate information and do relative measurements
2) I believe triggering should have some noticeable delay at higher frequencies. Can this be a problem?
3) it will occupy more space than a single unit, extra power cord, extra ethernet cable...

PS guys, I was hoping to do automated measurements with SDG2042X and SDS1202X-E. I quickly googled it, should be tottaly possible without proprietary software, right? Hope I didn't make a stupid mistake and there is a simple (telnet?) protocol to set settings remotely and download waveforms.

[Fungus]

If the scope will satisfy you, you could later by a second one. It has both trigger out and trigger in, so you can stack them and have 4 channels set to one trigger-point. Or 2x2 Channels with two independent trigger-points if it will be necessary.

Good suggestion, I was told the same when talked with a sales guy . But I have 3 concerns:

1) Waveforms won't be on the same screen, harder to correlate information and do relative measurements
2) I believe triggering should have some noticeable delay at higher frequencies. Can this be a problem?
3) it will occupy more space than a single unit, extra power cord, extra ethernet cable...

Why would you chain them? Can't you just connect the triggering signal to both (with a T connector)?

[stj]

i would like to see rigol copy the thing on the siglent where they use different colours instead of brightness gradients for persistance.

it looks like it would be much easier to see jitter without actually staring up at the scope.
i would buy the sig just for this, *if* it had 4 channels - but it doesnt.

i mostly do digital repair, a logic probe will say something is fine, because it's just an 0 or 1 thing,
but a scope will spot if the transitions arent always going fully high or low or have noise on them.

[paul_ius]

PS: Crappiest 'poll' ever.

Who gets to decide what 'better' and 'worse' means?

Don't be that guy, who goes all technical on every single detail, even though everybody else understands everything using common sense. If you need a reference, just take a look at the specs of the scopes in the title. A big part of the discussion is what's more preferable rather than comparing actual specs and I also didn't want to overcomplicate the options.

[boggis the cat]

If the scope will satisfy you, you could later by a second one. It has both trigger out and trigger in, so you can stack them and have 4 channels set to one trigger-point. Or 2x2 Channels with two independent trigger-points if it will be necessary.

Good suggestion, I was told the same when talked with a sales guy . But I have 3 concerns:

1) Waveforms won't be on the same screen, harder to correlate information and do relative measurements

Yes, unless you want to split a signal to both 'scopes, which wastes a channel (and may create other issues).

On the other hand: you have more space for each trace, and less clutter.  Measurements may be able to be tailored better.

2) I believe triggering should have some noticeable delay at higher frequencies. Can this be a problem?

Each 'scope may have differing lag.  Just as you might need to deskew channels on a single 'scope, it might be necessary to check that the external triggers are aligned.

Time-stamped data would have to be checked, too, if this were an issue.  (And you were saving data, obviously.)

3) it will occupy more space than a single unit, extra power cord, extra ethernet cable...

Definitely.  Eat more power, too.  Cost would normally be significantly higher for two two-channel 'scopes vs. a single four-channel model, as well.

You do get to have different timebases, and could even do weird stuff like have XY mode set on one 'scope.  More flexibility.  Some people keep an analogue 'scope on hand, and will press that into service as needed -- this may be the best option, for a two scope set up.

The same 'x+1 channels are better than x' argument can be reused for 'scopes: two are (theoretically) better than one, etc.  There are going to be trade-offs, just as with selecting a single 'scope.  Is it worth the hassle of trying to juggle two 'scopes?  Only you can decide.

[MDLSoft]

Hi All! I'm newbie in this forum, this is my first post, and first of all, i would like say: It's great!!

As paul_ius I'm looking for the same, my first own oscilloscope "multipurpose". I worked in the past with some Tek and R&S. At that time I only needed one single channel, but now I'm developing microcontrolled based systems, Arduino and PIC for now.

I'm developing a system with 4 rfid SPI readers, it could be interesting to see MISO, MOSI, SCK and SS signal together but as I haven't my oscilloscope yet, I'm not sure if could be a need or only a extra. Siglent sds1202x-e can decode SPI, I2c, CAN and other serial protocol wich I don't remember now. I think the most important problems with SPI could be propagation times and interferences, to do this you only need two channels if I'm not wrong, as many other things, you could use multiple channels todo some more confortable but many times isn't a must.

I'ts clear that Siglent scope is newer and as I saw in reviews (youtube) looks more precise than Rigol, faster and better FFT, better trigger in Siglent and a few things where Siglent is a bit better than Rigol DS1054Z, so my concern is about if I'm looking for troubles with timings and interferences, if I can't see it fine with Rigol ¿why 4 channels or 20?. I need see what is happening in my circuits, but really I don't know if there is such difference or Rigol is more than sufficient to do my work. I think these are excellent value oscilloscopes but for now I haven't clear wich is best for me.

Thank you to everyone here, it's very interesting to read all the opinions and thanks to it I'm sure I'll choose the right for me!

P.S.: I'm sorry if my English is not the best in the world, but I hope you can understand me fine!.

[Fungus]

If it's bidirectional SPI then you probably 3 three channels for that. You'll also find propagation delays a lot more quickly with more channels.

For microcontroller work in general, 4 channels is better than 2.

If you don't have a definite use for FFT then that's just a word on paper, not a reason to choose a 'scope. The Siglent's FFT is better than the Rigol's but it isn't amazing either. Both are 8-bit and that makes them very noisy/limited by definition.

[rstofer]

I'm developing a system with 4 rfid SPI readers, it could be interesting to see MISO, MOSI, SCK and SS signal together but as I haven't my oscilloscope yet, I'm not sure if could be a need or only a extra. Siglent sds1202x-e can decode SPI, I2c, CAN and other serial protocol wich I don't remember now.

I don't see how in the world you can decode SPI with 2 channels.  It seems to me you want to see the framing of the transaction which is the CS' signal.  Then you probably want to see the clock so you can compare it with the data edges.  Finally, you can get by with 3 channels if you only look at MISO or MOSI but I would think you would want to look at, and decode, both sides of the transaction.

I have worked with SPI on a 2 channel scope but it's always a kludge.  Maybe I look at CS' and see where the clock starts up relative to CS'.  There are setup times to obey.  Then maybe I look at SCK and MISO or MOSI but I have to be careful where I trigger (holdoff probably helps) because I won't be able to see CS'.  Maybe I can use the external trigger even though I can't see it.  And, so it goes...  That's why I bought the DS1054Z.  I was tired of messing around trying to look at 4 signals with a 2 channel scope.  Yes, I could use a logic analyzer but that doesn't tell me much about signal fidelity.

If Siglent hadn't introduced the SDS1202X-E, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  The DS1054Z was the only credible scope in the $400 bracket.  Now we have two and have to agonize over a decision.  It's all Siglent's fault!

[klaff]

I'm developing a system with 4 rfid SPI readers, it could be interesting to see MISO, MOSI, SCK and SS signal together but as I haven't my oscilloscope yet, I'm not sure if could be a need or only a extra. Siglent sds1202x-e can decode SPI, I2c, CAN and other serial protocol wich I don't remember now.

I don't see how in the world you can decode SPI with 2 channels. ...

You can get the SDS1202X-E manual here: http://www.siglentamerica.com/USA_website_2014/Documents/UserManual/SDS1000X-E_UserManul_UM0101E-E02A.pdf

I haven't tried using the SPI decoding yet (I have done CAN), but I think you connect CLK and either MISO or MOSI, and set CS to a timeout value between 100 ns and 5 ms. If you had a bit-bang system with closely spaced conversations and irregular timing that might not work, but for hardware based SPI you could probably find a value that would be functional (a little like setting holdoff to reliably trigger on a burst-type waveform). Then you get to see one-half of the conversation decoded at a time. Certainly not as good as having a four-channel approach, but a lot better than nothing.