EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: paul_ius on June 05, 2017, 08:33:06 pm
-
Hey guys,
I am new here and I want to apologize if this topic has been created before and if so, I would appreciate a link to it.
I'm looking for my first entry level oscilloscope, which I'm gonna use as a general scope, not for any specific purpose. I had my mind set on Rigol DS1054z, but I just recently noticed that Siglent has released SDS1202X-E, the specs of which seem to be superior except for the number of channels. I know that the Rigol's scope can be hacked easily and so on, but even then the specs are not as good as the Siglent's. And, in my country at least, the price difference between the two is just 20 euros, so they cost pretty much the same. So my question is: are those better specs worth sacrificing the two channels for? Also, I have no idea about other feature like the interface, responsiveness and so on, maybe there's a clear winner here that I just don't know about. Maybe some of you have tried both of them and can share the experience?
I would be really grateful for your input guys.
Thanks :)
-Paul
P.S. I'm sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.
-
Welcome to the forum.
For some 4 channels is a must, that's entirely your call.
No control latency reported for the X-E and of course no need for hacks.
A few bugs are being addressed and word is there'll be new FW this month for X-E.
-
I am new here and I want to apologize if this topic has been created before and if so, I would appreciate a link to it.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/entry-level-digital-scope/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/entry-level-digital-scope/)
-
It is a topic that's been done more or less to death, but it seems like you have most of the info (and I wouldn't have assumed non-native english speaker).
The Siglent is a newer unit and the hardware inside reflects that - the interface and capture rate and such is quicker and it's probably the biggest thing over the Rigol aside from having no need to unlock features - basically everything available on the model comes in the standard unit. That said, of course, the two extra channels is a big deal for some applications.
I'd consider what sort of usage you're expecting (at least in the forseeable future) and then check out some video reviews of each to get a visual indicator of responsiveness and UI design. While both should be fairly responsive and have a good UI, you may find a preference in one from seeing it actually being used. I believe Dave's got videos with some on-screen stuff for both scopes.
-
The 2 versus 4 channels is a really big deal - maybe. I had a 350 MHz analog scope (2 channels) so when I bought the DS1054Z last year, I wasn't buying bandwidth, I was buying channels (specifically 4 channels for SPI analysis). I had never had a DSO so I didn't know how much I was missing. The difference is staggering.
Most projects don't take a lot of bandwidth but if you want to look at square waves, you should probably get to at least the 7th harmonic. So the Rigol, unlocked to 100 MHz, is probably only good for a 15 MHz square wave. The Siglent is twice that. But I still have my 350 MHz scope so bandwidth isn't that much of an issue.
I wanted channels, I bought channels. That doesn't keep me from looking at the Siglent. Siglent needs to get that first firmware revision out in the wild. Sooner would be better than later. If I were buying and could wait a month, see how the first update comes out. Right now everybody is cutting Siglent some slack but that update better get it right.
Rigol took several updates over 2 years to get is 'almost' right.
-
Rigol took several updates over 2 years to get is 'almost' right.
Don't count on Siglent being any quicker given their track record so far.
-
Thanks for the answers. The question about the channel count is quite obvious - the more the merrier. I'm more concerned with those other differences. For example, waveform capture rate differs by a lot (approx. 3 times) between the two and to be honest, I have no idea how important that is in real life. Another thing is the min. timebase - 5ns vs 1ns and so on. The problem is that I have very little experience with scopes and I wonder how much of a difference do these specs make for a hobbyist. And I also read some posts of people saying that they very rarely had come across situations where they had to use more than 2 channels, which confused me even more.
I'm not rushing to buy a scope, so I will probably wait for a month to see how the things will turn out in the Siglent's camp, unless it's not worth it
-
While both should be fairly responsive and have a good UI, you may find a preference in one from seeing it actually being used. I believe Dave's got videos with some on-screen stuff for both scopes.
The Rigol really isn't very responsive, with the Siglent being much better in this regard (more processor power available). The UI design is quite different, both physically (dedicated per channel controls on the Siglent, single set that must be set to the channel fir the Rigol) and in terms of on-screen layout.
There are pros and cons to each, so ideally you want to get some actual hands-on time. Otherwise, going through reviews where people are using the instruments (rather than waffling about specs and such) is a good way to gauge responsiveness and UI oddities.
I have the Siglent, but calibrate a broad range of 'scopes as part of my job working in a cal lab.
-
I am new here and I want to apologize if this topic has been created before and if so, I would appreciate a link to it.
This one:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1202x-e-or-rigol-dso1054z-(yes-another-one)/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1202x-e-or-rigol-dso1054z-(yes-another-one)/)
-
Thanks for the answers. The question about the channel count is quite obvious - the more the merrier. I'm more concerned with those other differences. For example, waveform capture rate differs by a lot (approx. 3 times) between the two and to be honest, I have no idea how important that is in real life.
This really depends on what you intend using it for. Unless you have a specific application in mind, put more emphasis on the basics: how well do they work for normal activities.
The Siglent is very usable out to the full 200 MHz bandwidth, so you should be able to work with signals getting up around 100 MHz. The Rigol, when 'hacked', will deliver around 100 MHz (possibly more), so that would make it a bit marginal for a signal around 50 to 60 MHz. If you know that you'll be working on lower speed stuff then that's no problem. If you anticipate working on signals well above 100 MHz then even the 200 MHz bandwidth will be a problem.
The Siglent has better low amplitude accuracy (goes down to a 'real' 500 uV/div) and also withstands higher voltage on the BNC connectors.
The Rigol has the extra channels, which will not be useful most of the time: but if you do find that you need three or four channels, the Siglent isn't going to meet that need.
I'm not rushing to buy a scope, so I will probably wait for a month to see how the things will turn out in the Siglent's camp, unless it's not worth it
Spend some time looking at hands-on reviews, where people actually set up the 'scopes then take measurements.
I was originally going to get the GW Instek GDS 1054B over the Rigol because it is much more useable in terms of the UI and responsiveness. The Siglent has the same processor and higher bandwidth, but two channels, and was (significantly) cheaper for me to buy where I am. There is no harm in waiting and figuring out what you are likely to need. Worst case scenario is you end up buying the wrong 'scope for you, so resell it at a small loss -- more of an issue if you were looking to spend thousands.
Edit:
This thread covers some initial impressions for th Siglent, and bugs that should be addressed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1202x-e-impressions-and-a-couple-of-bugs-to-be-aware-of/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1202x-e-impressions-and-a-couple-of-bugs-to-be-aware-of/)
-
Just a note about the waveform updates: it matters a lot when you're trying to find rare, intermittent glitches in a signal, but not a whole lot more. Depending on the implementation, it can mean faster on screen displays or faster update of math functions or whatnot, but that's not really a requirement of the spec.
As for the channel debate, it's really up to your own personal usage scenario. Of course, just having a channel or two is hugely more valuable than having none, and each added channel sort of drops off in usefulness, but I find myself really preferring more in a lot of applications, and a recent repair's probing would have actually been a lot simpler if I had 8 or 10 analog channels, though most of them would only need kHz of bandwidth (and there are data acquisition devices that basically do this). When you're following an analog signal, it's great to have probes on several parts of the signal path, the output, and the power supply rails, so it would be easy for me to find an application for 6+ channels, and more means you will ID correlations faster and have to switch probes less frequently.
Of course, in many of these cases you're dealing with a repetitive signal that you can just look at one part and then another, or it's close enough to DC for a decent multimeter to pick it up, or you can verify that one part of a circuit directly tracks another, so that probing one gets you the info you're after.... but especially if you're designing or troubleshooting analog designs that have several stages or filters, having more channels is definitely nice.
I had a 2 channel Siglent that I liked quite well and who's performance suited my needs... I found a couple uses for more than two channels and found a good deal on a 4 channel Rigol and switched to it. I won't buy another 2 channel scope because of how often I have all four probes doing something, and I'm trying to get other instruments with trend-chart displays (works like roll mode) because of how valuable that real time visible correlation has been. It's not a real requirement for making measurements and debugging, but it's a quality-of-life improvement that I really prefer.
-
boggis the cat and DaJMasta,
Thank you guys, you've made it a little bit clearer. At least for now, I have some plans for mcu based home automation and lighting control, it might include some inter-mcu communications. Frequency converters are also one of my interests. For these applications I don't think that I'll ever use frequencies above 1MHz. Also, I have no idea what could I measure in 500uV/div range. So additional two channels seem like a better choice.
Still, I'll try to wait for that update and some more reviews of the Siglent. In the meantime, I should decide what is more important to me.
Funny it feels a bit like choosing between a powerful two seater convertible and an economical four door sedan. The brain says to take the latter while the heart wants the thrills of the former.
-
if only SDS1202X-E is 4 channels and a bit longer memory.... the hassle of slow GUI of DS1054Z is a lot lot less than having to do 2nd probing setup just because you dont have enough channel or not long enough memory. the fast GUI and long FFT is a marketing stunt against DS1054Z imho. the only fair competitor of the SDS1202X-E now (in term of practicality) is the previous DS1052E model.... as to compete with DS1054Z is Siglent SDS1204. as someone said, you'll dont know what you are missing by having less channels. i'm working on a project that even 4 channels is crippling imho...
-
While both should be fairly responsive and have a good UI, you may find a preference in one from seeing it actually being used. I believe Dave's got videos with some on-screen stuff for both scopes.
The Rigol really isn't very responsive, with the Siglent being much better in this regard (more processor power available).
It's perfectly responsive on everything except vertical position.
And that isn't really a problem in reality unless you obsess over it.
-
And I also read some posts of people saying that they very rarely had come across situations where they had to use more than 2 channels, which confused me even more.
You have to put such statements into context and try to figure out whether people write that because they have a two channel scope so two channels should be enough for everyone or their measurements only require one or (at most) two channels. In case of the first: ignore! in case of the latter: try to find out what these people are working on and see if you are going in the same direction. As a rough rule of thumb: if you are going to work on digital circuit or switching power supplies then definitely get a four channel scope.
-
I also read some posts of people saying that they very rarely had come across situations where they had to use more than 2 channels, which confused me even more.
Yeah, all two channel 'scope owners say that.
If you've got four channels you will figure out a use for them, especially if you work with microcontrollers. :popcorn:
-
and that is the simplest arduweeno type project case... once you move to a bit involved ee like mixed signal, even 4 ch is not enough... look at the other new era scope thread.. 8 channels, but...
-
If you work with microcontrollers, it is better to have a 16-32 channel logic analyzer with protocol decode (i2c, SPI, SDIO, UART and so on) + 2 channel scope to do some signal integrity test. You can trigger one instrument from another.
-
Especially for beginner, but not too noob of course, at least understand what a scope can do.
Think of what can you gain and learn when using scope with "MORE" channels.
The learning, knowledge and experience gained worth alot, imo.
-
If you've got four channels you will figure out a use for them, especially if you work with microcontrollers. :popcorn:
Sure. And if you had six, or eight... Why not hook them all up to something?
It comes down to trade-offs, and whether you should be using a different tool, such as an MSO, instead of trying to use a four-channel 'scope. In rare cases you will have lots of horrible interactions and have a tough time figuring out the problem unless you have the visibility that an analogue channel gives you -- but those scenarios would be atypical.
Can you give an example from your usage where you needed all four channels, or even needed more?
Two channels is your minimum for comparing two points. Each additional channel gives you an extra point on the same timebase -- but that's a common timebase. Use two 'scopes and you have independent timebases. (Two two-channel scopes are more useful than one four-channel. In potentia.)
-
If you've got four channels you will figure out a use for them, especially if you work with microcontrollers. :popcorn:
Can you give an example from your usage where you needed all four channels, or even needed more?
Look at the primary & secondary voltage and current of a switching PSU. 4 channels...
-
I also read some posts of people saying that they very rarely had come across situations where they had to use more than 2 channels, which confused me even more.
Yeah, all two channel 'scope owners say that.
If you've got four channels you will figure out a use for them, especially if you work with microcontrollers. :popcorn:
I've always had four channel scopes at work and two channel scopes at home. There's no doubt that four is nicer when debugging things, you can simply see more at once and you spend less time moving probes around and taking additional captures. For hard to capture intermittent failures (the type of thing where you set up a trigger and wait minutes or hours for the failure) four makes it more likely you'll capture something educational on the first try. You can capture more in one documentary scope plot.
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!
-
Can you give an example from your usage where you needed all four channels, or even needed more?
SPI => CS', Clk, MOSI, MISO
In the early stages of development, it is important to watch where CS' switches in relation to the other signals. It is not unusual for errant code to raise CS' before the SPI gadget has finished sending the data. There's a reason I know this!
Getting a decode of a short message is just frosting on the cake. I don't need to decode "War and Peace", I just want to know that what I think I sent is what was actually sent. Same for receive... Once that part of the code is known to work, I can concentrate on other stuff.
As I said earlier, I wanted channels and I already had a scope with bandwidth. Still, I got a lot of projects working with just 2 channels (after all, this is my first 4 channel scope and my first DSO) so I didn't absolutely need the DS1054Z but I thought, for the price, why not try a 4 channel DSO and learn new skills. No regrets...
Today, the decision would be a lot more difficult because I would be very tempted to go for the 200 MHz Siglent simply because I am spending more time with FPGAs and eventually I will come up with something that outruns my Rigol. Then again, 4 channels is pretty sweet and I still have bandwidth in the Tek 485!
I agree with the 'flip a coin' approach. Siglent's new scope is going to give Rigol a real run for the money.
-
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.
Looking at reviews the Siglent seems to be much better, in these areas, so if I was buying today my money would be heading Siglent's way, and if Siglent were to launch a SDS1204X in the near future, that would have to be a no brainer for anyone.
-
It comes down to trade-offs, and whether you should be using a different tool, such as an MSO, instead of trying to use a four-channel 'scope.
what tradeoff if we have 2 choices DSO, about the same price, one 2 channels? one 4 channels? why choose 2 channels? why?! for me i tradeoff gui responsiveness for extra 2 channels, and if i have more money i'll do it again.
Can you give an example from your usage where you needed all four channels, or even needed more?
mcu controlled dynamic load (constant current) project:
capture 1 (4ch1.png):
ch1 = mcu trigger pin
ch2 = mosfet's Vs
ch3 = comparator output 1
ch4 = comparator output 2
capture 2 (4ch2.png):
ch1 = mcu trigger pin
ch2 = mosfet's Vs
ch3 = feedback opamp output for mosfet gate driver control
ch4 = mosfet's Vd
whats is not shown is for mcu debug pin (serial comm) etc, i wish i can capture them all once if i have 6-8 channels scope... with 2ch scopes, i have to do the setup and capture 5 times or more and try to superimpose all the signals manually and try to mentally figure out whats going on or if they are in the right place.
-
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 (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.
-
If you've got four channels you will figure out a use for them, especially if you work with microcontrollers. :popcorn:
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. :-)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:palm: 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 :palm: yes we all know that...
-
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.
:palm: 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 :palm: yes we all know that...
Mech, would you consider adding the X-E command set into VisaDSO ?
-
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.
:palm: 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 :palm: yes we all know that...
Would I go back to doing electronics without an oscilloscope? Nope. No way.
-
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...
-
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. |O
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. ;)
-
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... :-DD.
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:palm: 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 :palm: 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.)
-
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.
-
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.
:palm: 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 :palm: 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!
-
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.
:palm: 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 :palm: 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? ;D
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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! :popcorn:
-
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/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/)
-
That guy just did an entire review without touching it once. Point proved! :popcorn:
Then watch Pt 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laK1v2Zas4o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laK1v2Zas4o)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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! :-DD)
-
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.
-
PS: Crappiest 'poll' ever.
Who gets to decide what 'better' and 'worse' means?
-
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...
-
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. :popcorn:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 (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.
-
The user manual says in page 50 that siglent SDS1202X-E have really 5 channels, 2 analog and 3 different trigger channels, ok maybe it isn't really true because one is EXT and the other is EXT/5 which is the same as EXT but with attenuation of 5, and the other channel come from the AC mains, to trigger with the AC line, this is a good way to measure power supplies.
The user manual says you can use EXT channel for trigger from a external clock, then you can connect clk from SPI and see MOSI / MISO with analog channels and get bidirectional communication on screen, you only loose the ss/sda signal, but I think it isn't too much important, usually we want see differences from clk and ss/sda right?
So for SPI decoding, the Siglent scope is as good as Rigol (I think) but SPI is not the only thing which could be use more than two channels as other people said in this thread.
I don't know if I'll use FFT function, but if I'm going to, I saw in any review information displayed in the siglent but not in the Rigol, this is a big problem, or being more correct, is a poor utility in the Rigol. Siglent appear to have better accuracy tan Rigol, but may for home projects I don't need more accuracy but more channels.
-
the interesting thing about the sig' is in the tear down, it has a 4 channel A/D convertor.
so all siglent need to add for a 4 channel version is a second pair of input buffer/antenuator circuits.
too bad they didnt run the second pair of A/D inputs to a pair of RF connectors.
if they had, they could have just made an upgrade pcb.
-
PS: Crappiest 'poll' ever.
Who gets to decide what 'better' and 'worse' means?
Whoever's answering the poll, of course.
-
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)?
You might be triggering on a decoded pattern or something.
If you're entertaining the possibility of getting two scopes, then there's an option that nobody here has raised: get a DS1054Z and an SDS-1202X-E. Now you have as many as 6 channels, two of which go to 200MHz (more, really, from what I've seen in TheDefPom's video reviews). You get the strengths of each, with the only downside being that you have to put up with the Rigol's user interface quirks.
The interesting question in my mind is whether or not you're better off doing that than going with a more capable 4-channel scope. Even with both of these low-end scopes, you're still out less money than you would be with any 4 channel scope that's more capable than the Rigol (well, when talking about acquiring something new -- used is a different story altogether).
-
The user manual says in page 50 that siglent SDS1202X-E have really 5 channels, 2 analog and 3 different trigger channels, ok maybe it isn't really true because one is EXT and the other is EXT/5 which is the same as EXT but with attenuation of 5, and the other channel come from the AC mains, to trigger with the AC line, this is a good way to measure power supplies.
It's two channels, plus one BNC connector for triggering.
I don't know if I'll use FFT function
So maybe it's not a good reason to make a decision. 2 vs 4 channels is far more important.
-
I don't see how in the world you can decode SPI with 2 channels.
By swapping the probes around a lot and remembering what the other channel looked like. :popcorn:
The problem comes when you want to use a channel for triggering but are interested in the data on the other channel.
-
I don't see how in the world you can decode SPI with 2 channels.
By swapping the probes around a lot and remembering what the other channel looked like. :popcorn:
The problem comes when you want to use a channel for triggering but are interested in the data on the other channel.
Yup! That's been my experience!
It all worked out, my projects ultimately work. But using a 4 channel scope makes things a lot easier. In the general case of a uC, the CS' signal is dropped in code before sending the output string to the SPI gadget. Then the CS' signal is raised after the transfer is complete. But that better not happen before the SPI gadget has finished sending the last bit(s). The clock should probably be in the idle condition as well. It's nice to be able to see MOSI and SCK as CS' goes high.
But, clearly, this can be done with a 2 channel scope even though it is a kludge. It is just so much easier with 4 channels. And that's why I spent the money for the DS1054Z.
This new Siglent looks very appealing. I wonder if my bench can hold another scope...
-
the interesting thing about the sig' is in the tear down, it has a 4 channel A/D convertor.
Bastards :(
-
Finally mine arrived.
As somebody asked, here is a short review.
Overall verdict: I have an overwhelming experience. So far I don't have any plans to sell it or return.
0) I'm shocked, it looks like it can capture all 14M points (full memory depth) at full 1GSa. How is this possible?? I thought there should a "fast" and a "slow" memory for different acquisition speeds. What a nice surprise, I can capture whole 10ms at full speed and zoom-in up to some ns per division.
1) Usability. I highly recommend go try by yourself and see what's really important personally for you, and what is not. I'm personally happy with the usability, it's 4+ out of 5. On the good side: it has good responsiveness for most functions it does, better than (ta-da!) RTB2004. Display is bright, knobs are fine.
2) Bugs. There are some. What I found is that horizontal cursors do not account for probe attenuation. Also frequency is displayed wrong when I enable low-pass filter on trigger (shows 1MHz on a 40MHz sine). May this thing somehow counts frequency with the trigger?
3) FFT. I never had a proper a proper spectrum analyzer, but it doesn't look like this scope can replace one. Functions I miss: measurements and quick navigation between peaks. A bit disappointing. But I'll try to write a software to do this (just for fun).
4) Fan noise. Quite noisy in my quiet room. It's not a mechanical noise, it sound like an air conditioner (or like air flow is blocked, I need to re-watch tear-down to see if this is the case)
5) Probes. They look okay, I also bought Testec TT-HF-212 just in case (and for comparison), but it needs a 1MHz signal for proper calibration. Now I need to figure if my SDG2042X (I bought it as well) is good-enough for "three-point probe calibration" and what sort of adapters needed. Huh, silly me :(
I still keep playing with it, discovering, doing stupid stuff (like "measuring" capacitors, playing with cable termination, etc). So, if someone still wants, I can write and update after a while. I really want to find a way to download waveforms to PC (Linux) and control it remotely for automated measurements.
PS never had a scope before (except DSO138, google it if you never seen it). My previous experience was with DSO1052, and before that some old analog scope that had only external triggering (or may be I was too stupid not to find it).
PPS I'm not an electronics engineer, not at all.
-
Whoops, I was wrong about cursors and FFT. Measurements work on FFT too. I think it's time to read the manual :)
-
Finally mine arrived.
As somebody asked, here is a short review.
Overall verdict: I have an overwhelming experience. So far I don't have any plans to sell it or return.
0) I'm shocked, it looks like it can capture all 14M points (full memory depth) at full 1GSa. How is this possible??
What else would it do? All 'scopes have to be able to store data at the full sample rate. :-//
2) Bugs. There are some. What I found is that horizontal cursors do not account for probe attenuation. Also frequency is displayed wrong when I enable low-pass filter on trigger (shows 1MHz on a 40MHz sine). May this thing somehow counts frequency with the trigger?
Sounds far worse than Rigol. Any of those would be at least a 100 page flamewar in a Rigol thread.
3) FFT. I never had a proper a proper spectrum analyzer, but it doesn't look like this scope can replace one.
Yep. 8 bit ADCs simply aren't enough for a really nice FFT.
4) Fan noise. Quite noisy in my quiet room. It's not a mechanical noise, it sound like an air conditioner (or like air flow is blocked, I need to re-watch tear-down to see if this is the case)
Good to know.
I still keep playing with it, discovering, doing stupid stuff (like "measuring" capacitors, playing with cable termination, etc).
Nothing stupid about that.
-
4) Fan noise. Quite noisy in my quiet room. It's not a mechanical noise, it sound like an air conditioner (or like air flow is blocked, I need to re-watch tear-down to see if this is the case)
Good to know.
The Siglent is noticeable quieter than the Rigol and the fan of the Siglent appears to be softer in its noise-spectrum.
I measured them with a B&K 2233 noise-meter (linear, slow, max.-level):
Siglent 1292X-E - 46,1 dB SPL
Rigol 1104Z - 49,6 dB SPL
And additionally the Siglent SDG1025 - 48,6 dB SPL
But because of its noise spectrum the SDG1025 appears to me to be the loudest of the three and the 1202X-E appears to be far softer than the others.
-
0) I'm shocked, it looks like it can capture all 14M points (full memory depth) at full 1GSa. How is this possible?? I thought there should a "fast" and a "slow" memory for different acquisition speeds. What a nice surprise, I can capture whole 10ms at full speed and zoom-in up to some ns per division.
This is halved when both channels are enabled (as is the norm for most 'scopes).
2) Bugs. There are some. What I found is that horizontal cursors do not account for probe attenuation. Also frequency is displayed wrong when I enable low-pass filter on trigger (shows 1MHz on a 40MHz sine). May this thing somehow counts frequency with the trigger?
I think there are some triggering oddities.
Try going into the trigger menus, then just open the [Type] menu option and see if that fixes it. (You don't have to actually change the trigger type, just open that menu.)
4) Fan noise. Quite noisy in my quiet room. It's not a mechanical noise, it sound like an air conditioner (or like air flow is blocked, I need to re-watch tear-down to see if this is the case)
Mine seems very quiet. Sample variation?
5) Probes. They look okay, I also bought Testec TT-HF-212 just in case (and for comparison), but it needs a 1MHz signal for proper calibration. Now I need to figure if my SDG2042X (I bought it as well) is good-enough for "three-point probe calibration" and what sort of adapters needed. Huh, silly me :(
The Siglent probes come with an adapter that you can fit on the end then plug that into a female BNC.
The only issue is the one I tried was really tight, and scraped some of the copper from the probe end -- so beware that.
-
The Siglent is noticeable quieter than the Rigol and the fan of the Siglent appears to be softer in its noise-spectrum.
I measured them with a B&K 2233 noise-meter (linear, slow, max.-level):
Siglent 1292X-E - 46,1 dB SPL
Rigol 1104Z - 49,6 dB SPL
And additionally the Siglent SDG1025 - 48,6 dB SPL
But because of its noise spectrum the SDG1025 appears to me to be the loudest of the three and the 1202X-E appears to be far softer than the others.
I was thinking more about the people who come here and say "I need something REALLY quiet". Looks like the Siglent isn't it, 46,1 dB is still much too noisy when you're sat right next to it.
(the noise king is the R&S HMO - you can't beat fanless for quiet operation!)
-
"The Siglent is noticeable quieter than the Rigol and the fan of the Siglent appears to be softer in its noise-spectrum.
I measured them with a B&K 2233 noise-meter (linear, slow, max.-level):
Siglent 1292X-E - 46,1 dB SPL
Rigol 1104Z - 49,6 dB SPL
And additionally the Siglent SDG1025 - 48,6 dB SPL
But because of its noise spectrum the SDG1025 appears to me to be the loudest of the three and the 1202X-E appears to be far softer than the others."
Sorry, I did forget to mention the measuring distance: The distance was 50 cm, relatively near, but I think a realistic distance on the bench.
The ground noise-level of the room was ca. 43 db SPL - this is a really quiet room!
-
I think there are some triggering oddities.
Try going into the trigger menus, then just open the [Type] menu option and see if that fixes it. (You don't have to actually change the trigger type, just open that menu.)
Playing with options does not help anyhow when "HF reject" activated. I think it counts frequency from the screen waveform or something. So when HF filter is activated it shows distorted waveforms and the algorithm fails to determine zero crossing (just my theory).
The Siglent probes come with an adapter that you can fit on the end then plug that into a female BNC.
Thank you, it did the job. And I don't see any difference between testec and siglent probes. SDG2042X specifies rising time 8.4n, that's approximately what I get with both probes. That's good to know, testec is sort of expensive.
One thing that bothers me is that sometimes I see "glitches", like it fails to trigger properly. Please find the photo attached. Why is this happening? Looks like jitter or something, on lower frequencies it also occurs, but the phase shift is much smaller.
-
I think there are some triggering oddities.
Try going into the trigger menus, then just open the [Type] menu option and see if that fixes it. (You don't have to actually change the trigger type, just open that menu.)
Playing with options does not help anyhow when "HF reject" activated. I think it counts frequency from the screen waveform or something. So when HF filter is activated it shows distorted waveforms and the algorithm fails to determine zero crossing (just my theory).
The Siglent probes come with an adapter that you can fit on the end then plug that into a female BNC.
Thank you, it did the job. And I don't see any difference between testec and siglent probes. SDG2042X specifies rising time 8.4n, that's approximately what I get with both probes. That's good to know, testec is sort of expensive.
One thing that bothers me is that sometimes I see "glitches", like it fails to trigger properly. Please find the photo attached. Why is this happening? Looks like jitter or something, on lower frequencies it also occurs, but the phase shift is much smaller.
What is the source of the signal you are showing in the picture?
-
What is the source of the signal you are showing in the picture?
It's SDG2042X connected via included BNC cable with 50Ohm pass-through termination (connected to the scope).
-
What is the source of the signal you are showing in the picture?
It's SDG2042X connected via included BNC cable with 50Ohm pass-through termination (connected to the scope).
If you don't see similar glitches from the probe compensation tip point, then it might be the SDG2042X and you are just seeing the glitches because of the fast update rate of the SDS1202X-E
-
@exe
For some sanity check and to return settings to normal use try the Autoset and see if you have similar issues.
I see a few things wrong like frequency counter not agreeing with the signal frequency and horizontal trigger point far to the left of the display.
When we see some instability issues sometimes increasing the Holdoff is the way to settle triggering and get meaningful measurements displayed.
A couple of days ago when I asked again for the expected FW release date I was told next week.
-
Thank you very much for helping. I pressed default button on the scope several times. It looks like it works better now, but it didn't help me yesterday. BTW, the unit is on for more than 30mins, so it's not a warm-up issue.
And one thing still bothers me.
1) Trigger has an offset around from the bottom the waveform (does not trigger if it comes any close to the bottom of waveform). But it triggers as expected if set to the very top of waveform.
2) Changing vertical resolution affects triggering.
Is either of these normal? I recorded a video where both problems can be seen: it looses triggering when I change vertical resolution or put trigger close to the bottom edge of the waveform. Here it is: https://goo.gl/photos/AC14aGX4sPcB3E599
PS Self-calibration does not help.
PPS I cannot reproduce the problem when attached to the built-in square wave generator, may be because it does not go negative.
-
Thank you very much for helping. I pressed default button on the scope several times. It looks like it works better now, but it didn't help me yesterday. BTW, the unit is on for more than 30mins, so it's not a warm-up issue.
And one thing still bothers me.
1) Trigger has an offset around from the bottom the waveform (does not trigger if it comes any close to the bottom of waveform). But it triggers as expected if set to the very top of waveform.
2) Changing vertical resolution affects triggering.
Is either of these normal? I recorded a video where both problems can be seen: it looses triggering when I change vertical resolution or put trigger close to the bottom edge of the waveform. Here it is: https://goo.gl/photos/AC14aGX4sPcB3E599
PS Self-calibration does not help.
PPS I cannot reproduce the problem when attached to the built-in square wave generator, may be because it does not go negative.
Yes. I've seen some of the triggering issues in personal use. (didn't watch your vid yet)
Like boggis the cat reports, there are some oddities that we hope will be fixed in the soon to be released FW.
I understand that an inexperienced user will be confused from what they see but the meanwhile the unit can be used with success knowing what the oddities are and work around them.
I'll post here and in a # of threads when the new FW is on the Siglent sites.
-
Thanks for answering. I think it's time for me to ask for support in the Siglent thread rather than cluttering this discussion.
-
tautech, may I ask you to watch my video and check if your scope is affected?
I'm asking because Siglent support is not helpful. I was given an e-mail of their engineer, he answered me once, but then silence (although, it passed less than 24h since last reply). Their point was that trigger has accuracy +-0.2div typical, but I don't buy this. It's not accuracy problem (=offset issue?), it fails to trigger.
Also would like to know what they call "digital" trigger. So far it looks like the trigger itself is "analog", but it is assisted by the code that tries to compensate for, e.g., jitter or may be even offset. But I would like to know more.
-
You get the strengths of each, with the only downside being that you have to put up with the Rigol's user interface quirks.
What Rigol's user interface quirks? Could you please give examples?
-
tautech, may I ask you to watch my video and check if your scope is affected?
I'm asking because Siglent support is not helpful. I was given an e-mail of their engineer, he answered me once, but then silence (although, it passed less than 24h since last reply). Their point was that trigger has accuracy +-0.2div typical, but I don't buy this. It's not accuracy problem (=offset issue?), it fails to trigger.
Also would like to know what they call "digital" trigger. So far it looks like the trigger itself is "analog", but it is assisted by the code that tries to compensate for, e.g., jitter or may be even offset. But I would like to know more.
Will do ....soon. Other demands are pressing.
I have been told FW is due out this week so until we have it we don't know all the issues that have been fixed. I do understand there is a # of things but we must wait and then check for the fixes.
-
Their point was that trigger has accuracy +-0.2div typical, but I don't buy this. It's not accuracy problem (=offset issue?), it fails to trigger.
The triggering system has some bugs, I think.
Once the first firmware update is out we can review them and see if they have been addressed.
Also would like to know what they call "digital" trigger. So far it looks like the trigger itself is "analog", but it is assisted by the code that tries to compensate for, e.g., jitter or may be even offset. But I would like to know more.
Analogue triggering would use hardware, and it does not appear to have this. What it seems to do (common to a lot of 'scopes now) is simply capture data and process it as fast as possible. Part of that continuous processing is the triggering system -- this is a 'digital' (software) trigger.
There are some obvious potential problems with this approach, notably that if the processor gets too busy it may miss trigger events. For this to work well it requires a very low latency process and fast memory buffers. It seems to have the latter (with the 14 million point capture), however many things may have a bad effect on the latency.
-
Analogue triggering would use hardware, and it does not appear to have this. What it seems to do (common to a lot of 'scopes now) is simply capture data and process it as fast as possible. Part of that continuous processing is the triggering system -- this is a 'digital' (software) trigger.
Yep.
There are some obvious potential problems with this approach, notably that if the processor gets too busy it may miss trigger events. For this to work well it requires a very low latency process and fast memory buffers. It seems to have the latter (with the 14 million point capture), however many things may have a bad effect on the latency.
There's no way the "processor" could do this (data is coming in at 1GHz). It will be done in hardware inside the ASIC/FPGA.
-
The guy from Siglent wrote me the trigger is fully digital and it's a software bug. I hope this is true and they fix it soon. It's not critical to me, but extremely annoying. I would expect bugs anywhere, but not in very basic triggering. Also makes mask pass/fail useless when it starts "twitching". Anyway, "what you expected from a $400 Chinese scope".
I don't understand why trigger is specified to have +-0.2div accuracy. It should be dead-on. Are they accounting for software bugs?
-
I don't understand why trigger is specified to have +-0.2div accuracy. It should be dead-on. Are they accounting for software bugs?
To account for the quantisation error, probably. Digital 'scopes have a finite sample rate to consider (analogous to rise time with an analogue signal), and you can't be sure that a signal won't sneak past the ideal trigger point before it gets caught. This is also why glitches (very fast voltage spikes or drop-outs) have to be at least a minimal duration to be sure they will be caught.
Set your trace to 'dot' mode to see what the 'scope is actually working with.
-
...
Analogue triggering would use hardware, and it does not appear to have this. What it seems to do (common to a lot of 'scopes now) is simply capture data and process it as fast as possible. Part of that continuous processing is the triggering system -- this is a 'digital' (software) trigger.
There are some obvious potential problems with this approach, notably that if the processor gets too busy it may miss trigger events. For this to work well it requires a very low latency process and fast memory buffers. It seems to have the latter (with the 14 million point capture), however many things may have a bad effect on the latency.
There has been some discussion about how the trigger works on entry level digital oscilloscopes and I did some comparative tests with three Rigol models which differ substantially regarding the trigger system. You'll find the corresponding contributions starting here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope/msg1066593/#msg1066593 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope/msg1066593/#msg1066593)
Related posts continue for a page or two if it's interesting for you. If you like, you could possibly take similar readings on the Siglent scope, I'ld be curious to see how it compares.
Cheers,
Thomas
-
Damn, guys, this thing drives me nuts. Today it stopped capturing when I set vertical to 100mV/div and below: https://goo.gl/photos/MDa8mEdBG7anj6J59 . Reboot didn't help, nor default button. The waveform was displaying only if I enabled both channels. I was not able not make it working, but eventually the problem... gone. I don't know what I changed in settings, but it's operational again.
Please tell me I'm doing something wrong. I don't believe they released such a buggy firmware.
-
Please tell me I'm doing something wrong. I don't believe they released such a buggy firmware.
Did you alter the trigger settings? I suspect that that it has a tendency to lose the plot sometimes, requiring triggering to be reset.
There are definitely bugs... And this is 'normal' for new equipment. Cost of being an early adopter, unfortunately. :--
-
Did you alter the trigger settings?
May be, but I rebooted the scope and pressed "default" button... And I did this many times before recording the video. It's a shame there is no reliable way to completely reset unit's state. What made it working again is changing trigger or acquisition settings (as you guys suggested a few messages back). Looks like default button does not do its job well.
The unit is on sales for a few month from now, so I wouldn't call myself "early adopter".
One thing that bothers me is that I don't see much reports on problems, while I spend like 50% of the time troubleshooting the scope. Either my unit is faulty or I don't know. I want to send the unit back, but I don't know what to buy as a replacement.
-
The unit is on sales for a few month from now, so I wouldn't call myself "early adopter".
With Siglent you have the honour to be an early adopter during the first 3 years (or longer) after a product has been released. You should have done more research before buying your scope. Return it and buy a DS1054Z (at least the firmware is mature), MicSig TO1000 series, GW Instek 1000B or GW Instek 2000E series. All have more mature firmware than the Siglent scope you have now.
-
Cost of being an early adopter, unfortunately. :--
the actor Sid James once said: it's like the washing up pal, somebody has to do it!
;)
-
You should have done more research before buying your scope.
But I did :(. So far reviews are only positive. How is this possible?
The reason I'm going to return my unit (if possible) is that I don't trust Siglent to fix bugs promptly. So, it's either usable (for me) out of the box, or it goes back.
Thank you, guys, for helping me.
-
The unit is on sales for a few month from now, so I wouldn't call myself "early adopter".
With Siglent you have the honour to be an early adopter during the first 3 years (or longer) after a product has been released. You should have done more research before buying your scope.
Have the DS1054Z haters got a new whipping boy?
Return it and buy a DS1054Z
Looks like it!
I guess some people just gotta hate.
(at least the firmware is mature), MicSig TO1000 series, GW Instek 1000B or GW Instek 2000E series. All have more mature firmware than the Siglent scope you have now.
Or at least wait for the first update, which is supposed to be this week.
I agree it's not wise to buy anything until a few 'tell-it-like-it-is' reviewers have had their hands on it, even if you have to wait a couple of weeks. Still, I'm sure they're been working around the clock on their firmware since the PHBs and marketers decided Launch Day couldn't wait.
-
You should have done more research before buying your scope.
But I did :(. So far reviews are only positive. How is this possible?
It's all about the clicks. Finding bugs needs real use, not just an unboxing video.
Also: Lots of reviewers just want to be the first on Youtube, they don't care about really using it.
-
Did you alter the trigger settings?
May be, but I rebooted the scope and pressed "default" button... And I did this many times before recording the video. It's a shame there is no reliable way to completely reset unit's state. What made it working again is changing trigger or acquisition settings (as you guys suggested a few messages back). Looks like default button does not do its job well.
So the short answer is "no". Why do you expect it to work by repeating an operation that you know is not going to work?
If you select triggering, then open up the [Type] menu, it may correct itself and stay corrected. (You don't need to select anything, just open the menu.) The default settings actually seem to create the problem, so avoid them.
Perhaps this will be fixed in the next firmware. If not, the work-around isn't too difficult. Subtle bugs are more of an issue than what appears to be a default settings blunder.
-
The reason I'm going to return my unit (if possible) is that I don't trust Siglent to fix bugs promptly. So, it's either usable (for me) out of the box, or it goes back.
GW Instek 'scopes are less buggy, and have a fast UI. Cost in the US is low, but in Europe and elsewhere tends to be a bit higher than Rigol or Siglent. Give them a look.
If you really want to avoid all bugs then you should be buying an older 'scope in any case. A cheap 'scope based on a new architecture for the manufacturer is unlikely to be completely solid for several firmware iterations.
-
Damn, guys, this thing drives me nuts. Today it stopped capturing when I set vertical to 100mV/div and below: https://goo.gl/photos/MDa8mEdBG7anj6J59 . Reboot didn't help, nor default button.
In trying to set the trigger level on a possibly unknown and possibly small amplitude signal, I'd carefully and slowly adjust the trig level 0.5 div. above and below the flat trace that you can see.
In the video you seem to just give the trig level a quick twiddle around -100mV and -230mV. So there wasn't enough there to convince me it was a bug.
Anytime you change the Y sensitivity it's safest to assume any carefully set trig level is lost and will need a tweak - depends on the waveform.
I think trig is better DC coupled most of the time, even if the CH is AC coupled.
The unit is on sales for a few month from now, so I wouldn't call myself "early adopter".
The CML+ has been available for over a year now. (That's all I need to say!)
One thing that bothers me is that I don't see much reports on problems, while I spend like 50% of the time troubleshooting the scope.
All Slignet scopes should come with a contract of employment. :)
-
If you select triggering, then open up the [Type] menu, it may correct itself and stay corrected. (You don't need to select anything, just open the menu.)
This never helped me. Changing settings did the job.
In trying to set the trigger level on a possibly unknown and possibly small amplitude signal, I'd carefully and slowly adjust the trig level 0.5 div. above and below the flat trace that you can see.
I tried this, no luck (also tried AC/DC coupling). It only worked if both channels were enabled (but trigger was set to the first channel). Anyway, the trigger was in auto mode, so I don't think trigger position is any relevant. Again, eventually it started to work again after I changed settings either in triggering or in acquisition menu. But I believe I didn't do anything stupid to make this bug happen. I only changed display option to dots.
GW Instek 'scopes are less buggy, and have a fast UI. Cost in the US is low, but in Europe and elsewhere tends to be a bit higher than Rigol or Siglent. Give them a look.
I did :) I spent like two hours playing with their 2000e series. The only thing that stopped me is it does not have intensity grade. And twice more expensive, damn :(
-
I did :) I spent like two hours playing with their 2000e series. The only thing that stopped me is it does not have intensity grade. And twice more expensive, damn :(
The GW Instek 2000E series sure has intensity grading but it depends on the brightness and persistence settings.
-
You should have done more research before buying your scope.
But I did :(. So far reviews are only positive. How is this possible?
because you only look for positive. and the individuals who did that are rare chunks that come and go, and remember, any reviews from the manufacturer should be discounted. if you look for problems, you can search for "siglent problem" in google or here... not easy though as they are scattered around forums and threads or very few users who made a review. not a specific consentrated "siglent list of bug" thread.... but if you stay around, you should get a slight grasp on what level of "famousity" the siglent scope around here... "very few users" should also tells you something about it... if you want to be white rat experiment, or as they said "early adopters" then be our guest, we always appreciate reviews and teardowns... ;)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1072cml-problem-buggy-or-broken/msg299933/#msg299933 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1072cml-problem-buggy-or-broken/msg299933/#msg299933)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds-1202x-e-cursor-measurement/msg1221469/#msg1221469 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds-1202x-e-cursor-measurement/msg1221469/#msg1221469)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-software-issue/msg843730/#msg843730 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-software-issue/msg843730/#msg843730)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000-new-v2-firmware/150/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000-new-v2-firmware/150/)
as the ds1054z still is the eevblog's landlord approved scope, that should prove some practicality to it, we better stick to it imho. there are bugs, but that doesnt prohibit us from doing what we should do.. we have community of rigol users here since version 1 (ds1052e) that can help with problems, developed softwares to add value to the product, reverse engineer and hardware teardown review and evaluation on it etc etc...
-
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1072cml-problem-buggy-or-broken/msg299933/#msg299933 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1072cml-problem-buggy-or-broken/msg299933/#msg299933)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds-1202x-e-cursor-measurement/msg1221469/#msg1221469 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds-1202x-e-cursor-measurement/msg1221469/#msg1221469)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-software-issue/msg843730/#msg843730 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-software-issue/msg843730/#msg843730)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000-new-v2-firmware/150/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000-new-v2-firmware/150/)
But these links are not specific for sds1202x-e (except for cursor problem). I decided not to extrapolate experience from products of the past (no company is ideal). I wanted to give Siglent another chance (taking into account positive reviews!). But yes, I sort of fooled myself.
-
The GW Instek 2000E series sure has intensity grading but it depends on the brightness and persistence settings.
Can you please check on this? I didn't find this function. I also asked the consultant, he said it's only for more expensive scopes. I do see "VPO" logo on the front panel, but I'm not sure what it does.
-
The GW Instek 2000E series sure has intensity grading but it depends on the brightness and persistence settings.
Can you please check on this? I didn't find this function. I also asked the consultant, he said it's only for more expensive scopes. I do see "VPO" logo on the front panel, but I'm not sure what it does.
Intensity grading isn't a special function. It depends on the display settings. I've made a screendump with an AM modulated wave just to show the GDS2000E has intensity grading.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-vs-siglent-sds1202x-e/?action=dlattach;attach=325730;image)
Don't get too hung up on intensity grading though. Just like high waveforms per second it is more hype than actual usefulness beyond some point. GW Instek understood that by having the intensity grading not going down all the way to zero so the signal stays visible.
-
Anyway, the trigger was in auto mode, so I don't think trigger position is any relevant.
As long as you don't think AUTO trigger finds or sets a suitable trigger level for you.
AUTO trigger only starts when the scope has been doing nothing for a short while, in the video I think some of your changes to the Y sensitivity were shorter than a short while, - so no AUTO trace(ing) on occasions.
-
AUTO trigger only starts when the scope has been doing nothing for a short while, in the video I think some of your changes to the Y sensitivity were shorter than a short while, - so no AUTO trace(ing) on occasions.
C'mon, a "short while" is much less than a second in case of auto-triggering. Anyway 1) now it works as I expect 2) enabling second channel made it working as expected 3) I waited for some tens of minutes for it to trigger (while reading and writing on this forum).
-
I encountered the triggering issue on my scope as well. Being a noob I wasn't sure if I am using the scope incorrectly or this is a real issue. Thank you for reporting it though.
I was trying to see microphone input signal on the scope.
Now will wait for the software update.
Typed with thumbs.
-
JFYI, Siglent told me they will release new firmware in early July.
-
Ok
Typed with thumbs.
-
Can you please check on this? I didn't find this function. I also asked the consultant, he said it's only for more expensive scopes. I do see "VPO" logo on the front panel, but I'm not sure what it does.
I'm fairly sure that the GW Instek GDS-1054B had intensity grading. It is only 50 MHz bandwidth (although closer to 100 MHz in reality), and lacks protocol decoding, but you get four channels and less bugs. It uses the same processor found in the Siglent 1202X-E, and has similar memory depth etc.
I think that the 2000 series are older, and of course more expensive.
Dave's teardown has some faffing about (technical term) from around the 31:00 mark -- https://youtu.be/9SXZk2tsQ4g
Having said this: probably worth waiting a while if the new firmware for the Siglent is due soon (although it appears to have slipped from June to July, now). Ideally they will have been verifying and fixing the various bugs that have been found so far, and may have decided another needs fixing. We'll see...
-
Amazon are listing the SDS1102X at a great price, how does this compare with the SDS1102X-E? Does the SDS1102X come with free serial decoding?
Thanks :D
-
Can you please check on this? I didn't find this function. I also asked the consultant, he said it's only for more expensive scopes. I do see "VPO" logo on the front panel, but I'm not sure what it does.
I'm fairly sure that the GW Instek GDS-1054B had intensity grading. It is only 50 MHz bandwidth (although closer to 100 MHz in reality), and lacks protocol decoding, but you get four channels and less bugs. It uses the same processor found in the Siglent 1202X-E, and has similar memory depth etc.
I think that the 2000 series are older, and of course more expensive.
The GW Instek GDS2000E series also uses the Zync and has protocol decoding. Basically it is an extended version of the GDS1000B series with a bigger display and more features. Yes, the GDS2000E series is more expensive but it works as specified the minute you take it from the box and plug it in.
-
Amazon are listing the SDS1102X at a great price, how does this compare with the SDS1102X-E?
SDS1202X-E ^^^
SDS1102X has slightly larger form factor, larger display, 50 \$\Omega\$ inputs, 100 MHz vs 200 MHz, more mature product. The 1102X has less FFT points and is missing a couple of new feature that have been added into the 1202X-E UI. The UI is otherwise very very similar.
Does the SDS1102X come with free serial decoding?
It should do but the promo that includes it free is set to expire July 1.
To be sure you need check with the seller.
BTW, was the FW in your SPD3303X-E the most recent ?
-
Does the SDS1102X come with free serial decoding?
If it does, it's a dealer offer. It's not included as standard.
-
OMG, now even the second channel stopped capturing at 0.2V/div and below (attenuation 1x). But sort of good news: re-calibration solved this issue on both channels.
I know that some guys will start shouting that I "didn't warm-up the scope", "left probes attached", etc. No, that's not the case, I take calibration instructions seriously. Moreover, I tried to do self-calibration on a cold unit with a probe and a BNC cable attached, but it couldn't finish it(I had to disconnect cables). I even tried to change probe attenuation (1x-10x), tried to connect and disconnect cable from signal generator, etc. So, no way I forgot to disconnect probes before calibrating.
-
OMG, now even the second channel stopped capturing at 0.2V/div and below (attenuation 1x). But sort of good news: re-calibration solved this issue on both channels.
That seems odd. Could be a software issue, I suppose.
Have you tried reloading the factory defaults?
From the manual:
Press Save/Recall function key, then press “Save” menu select “To Default Key” set the
type to “Factory Setup”. Then press the Default button on the front to set the oscilloscope
to the leave factory setup. Another way is press Save/Recall function key, then press
“Recall” menu select “Factory Default” to recall.
Hopefully that would clear out any erroneous settings, and start from a 'clean slate'.
-
Amazon are listing the SDS1102X at a great price, how does this compare with the SDS1102X-E?
SDS1202X-E ^^^
SDS1102X has slightly larger form factor, larger display, 50 \$\Omega\$ inputs, 100 MHz vs 200 MHz, more mature product. The 1102X has less FFT points and is missing a couple of new feature that have been added into the 1202X-E UI. The UI is otherwise very very similar.
Does the SDS1102X have a less powerful processor?
Does the SDS1102X come with free serial decoding?
It should do but the promo that includes it free is set to expire July 1.
To be sure you need check with the seller.
BTW, was the FW in your SPD3303X-E the most recent ?
My SPD3303X-E came with software Vn 1.01.01.02.02R2 which I think is not quite the latest although it does display the set V/A in a smaller font above the actual values.
-
Have you tried reloading the factory defaults?
Yes, it didn't help. I think factory defaults do not affect calibration.
-
Amazon are listing the SDS1102X at a great price, how does this compare with the SDS1102X-E?
SDS1202X-E ^^^
SDS1102X has slightly larger form factor, larger display, 50 \$\Omega\$ inputs, 100 MHz vs 200 MHz, more mature product. The 1102X has less FFT points and is missing a couple of new feature that have been added into the 1202X-E UI. The UI is otherwise very very similar.
Does the SDS1102X have a less powerful processor?
Yes.
BTW, was the FW in your SPD3303X-E the most recent ?
My SPD3303X-E came with software Vn 1.01.01.02.02R2 which I think is not quite the latest although it does display the set V/A in a smaller font above the actual values.
Correct, the latest is 2R3:
Summary of Changes:
1) Add the CH3’s SCPI control command.
2) Fixed bug relating to the voltage setup.
3) Remove the screen saver.
You might want to update it to remove the screensaver that we wonder why was ever included. :-//
-
I have been considering buying the SDS1202X-E for a to-go scope that I could throw in my car and take to client sites or to my vacation cottage but the bugs that exe is experiencing are putting me off. Does he have a bad unit or are these bugs repeatable? Also looks like a 4 channel -E version may be close given some of the comments here.
Can anyone shed any light on these questions?
-
I have been considering buying the SDS1202X-E for a to-go scope that I could throw in my car and take to client sites or to my vacation cottage but the bugs that exe is experiencing are putting me off. Does he have a bad unit or are these bugs repeatable? Also looks like a 4 channel -E version may be close given some of the comments here.
Can anyone shed any light on these questions?
If you need a portable battery operated scope, you might consider the Micsig TO1104 tablet oscilloscope, 4 channels.
-
I have been considering buying the SDS1202X-E for a to-go scope that I could throw in my car and take to client sites or to my vacation cottage but the bugs that exe is experiencing are putting me off. Does he have a bad unit or are these bugs repeatable? Also looks like a 4 channel -E version may be close given some of the comments here.
Can anyone shed any light on these questions?
If you need a portable battery operated scope, you might consider the Micsig TO1104 tablet oscilloscope, 4 channels.
I agree. A battery powered scope is definitely handy to brind along especially if it is not a crippled one like so many handheld scopes. I like my TO1104 as a scope to grab for a quick measurement because I don't have to plug it into the mains first.
-
I have been considering buying the SDS1202X-E for a to-go scope that I could throw in my car and take to client sites or to my vacation cottage but the bugs that exe is experiencing are putting me off. Does he have a bad unit or are these bugs repeatable?
They're repeatable but it's a brand new model of 'scope and the first firmware update is due Real Soon Now. Try waiting for that update before deciding.
On the other hand why not get the people's favorite, the extensively tested DS1054Z? It's about the same price and you get four channels.
Also looks like a 4 channel -E version may be close given some of the comments here.
Nobody knows what 'close' means. It might be six months.
By the time it arrives there might be something even better on the horizon, what then? :-//
"There might be a something better soon" is never a good purchasing consideration.
-
Hi,
since I've been shopping for a scope for my home lab, I tough I'd share with my experience.
Siglent 1202X-E
Nice things:
Memory depth
Bandwidth
Decoding
math
FFT
Nice trace rendering
Price
quite responsive!
gated measurements - you can select time interval where are the measurements carried out.
Not so nice things:
not easy to get a loan/test-drive. You have to buy it, but you can and send it back within 14 days if you don't like it.
Automatic roll for slow time-base - this drive me nuts
no fine timebase adjustment - at least I was not able to figure it out
Can not tigger on channel that is not used
When using long memory it slows down
My LabView friend was not able to get it working in LV
what would make this scope better:
bug fixes
better FFT control - rudimentary
option for full screen mode - there is quite a lot unused screen estate
4 channels
Verdict:
A rather nice budget scope. Yes, there are some bugs, and if you are not in hurry I would definitely wait a bit to see them resolved before opening your wallet. But all in all, I was positively surprised with it.
We had it for a two weeks, after that my friend decided to provide a new home for this particular unit. He needed the bandwidth. For me, I've discovered that going back to two channels is way harder than imagined. My daily driver is 4 channel Agilent 2k. If your budget is tight and you can live with 2ch, this scope deserve a closer look.
/rant on
On one side I'd like to give some praise to Siglent marketing department for going for 200MHz bandwidth and serial decoding in this price range. On the other hand, they blown it big time. For a price of two more analog front ends, they could have had THE budget scope to have, "New DS1054Z". 4 channels at 100Mhz, FFT, serial decoding, 200MHz when used 2 channels and less. Now it's just another budget scope in the eternal "should I buy DS1054Z or this XXXX scope" dilema... So close. Maybe the next time.
/rant off
Rigol 2072
I do not have personal experience with DS1054, but I have tested 2072
At first sight, I liked it a lot(mainly the screen). All love was gone in 2min.
Imagine that you are controlling the scope with rubber bands, or that you are really drunk... My life is too short for this kind of stuff. Was off my table in 5min. It was a huge letdown, I had a great experience with 1062CA. When describing behavior to a friend with DS1054, he concurred that "UI is quite slow". Since they are quite widespread, it should not be too hard to find someone in your area and see if it drives you nuts or not.
Keysight X1000
Nice stuff:
2+1channel
can trigger from disabled channel
responsive
brand name/quality/distribution - not a problem to have it loaned for test drive.
ugly stuff:
memory depth.
price - big time. Decoding ? open your wallet. 100Mhz bandwidth ? yep, open your wallet.
rudimentary math
Verdict:
Nice scope with wrong price tag. I do not know what is current status of hacking. If you can hack edux into the full deal, it might be worth it.
Other models are IMHO too expensive.
What scope did I decided to buy for my home lab? None yet. Currently I'm trying to get a better price for 1054B from GW Instek. If they offered it in Europe for a similar price as in US, I probably would have had it on my desk already...
-
What scope did I decided to buy for my home lab? None yet. Currently I'm trying to get a better price for 1054B from GW Instek. If they offered it in Europe for a similar price as in US, I probably would have had it on my desk already...
Do you need/want decoding? If so, the Instek 1054B is off the table. It doesn't have it, period.
-
Yes, I know.
I don't need the scope to do bus decoding.
-
Thanks for the suggestions but a battery scope is not what i want. Actually I have an Agilent MSO7104B as my main scope and a Rigol MSO2702a as backup but they are both plumbed into my main workbench which I'm hesitant to rip apart every time I want to go to the lake for the weekend or call on a client for a day; hence my desire for something reasonably priced that will do most things I might need for everyday testing.
-
Yes, I know.
I don't need the scope to do bus decoding.
Ah, okay. That wasn't clear because you listed decoding as advantages for a couple of the models, so I thought perhaps that was of interest to you.
Seems to me that if you don't need or particularly care about decoding, the Instek would basically be the clear winner due to its combination of price, number of channels, and overall capability. Even with an elevated price in Europe, it still looks like a winner.
Unless, that is, they're tripling the price over there or something ridiculous like that. Just how much is GDS-1054B over there, anyway?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
@kcbrown
List price is 500eur = cca 570usd. They run discounts to 450eur = cca 504usd.
It seems that list price in USA is 430usd, there is a running discount at www.tequipment.net (http://www.tequipment.net), they offer it for 360usd(eevblog discount not counted in, dunno if its applicable for items that are already discounted). All are prices without VAT. So not really tripling, but a cca 33% more expensive in EU. 40% if you compare discount pricing...
So I can have it delivered form www.tequipment.net (http://www.tequipment.net) (pay 50usd shipping, 105usd customs handling fee + tax/vat) for the roughly the same price I would pay local distributor without VAT. And I could place a nice sticker on it "traveled 2/3 around the world". Yes, there is "ripp of Europe tax", but 30%-40% seems kinda excessive...
For comparison, SDS1202X-E goes for 379usd from saelig, and for 402usd in Europe from batronix. A roughly 6% markup. Go figure.
-
I have been considering buying the SDS1202X-E for a to-go scope that I could throw in my car and take to client sites or to my vacation cottage but the bugs that exe is experiencing are putting me off. Does he have a bad unit or are these bugs repeatable?
They're repeatable but it's a brand new model of 'scope and the first firmware update is due Real Soon Now. Try waiting for that update before deciding.
Reproducible is the way to determine if something is not isolated. There could be an issue with exe's particular unit, and an issue repeatable with that same unit only verifies that the issue is present. I have not seen anyone else noting that these same issues were found.
(Software issues can be subtle, and difficult for others to replicate. These may be bugs affecting all units or a result of a fault in one unit.)
On the other hand why not get the people's favorite, the extensively tested DS1054Z? It's about the same price and you get four channels.
There are plenty of issues with this 'scope, as well. You seem to be assuming that anyone choosing something different is mistakenly overlooking the Rigol, despite it being heavily bought and used extensively.
-
I have not seen anyone else noting that these same issues were found.
There simply aren't many of them out there yet.
On the other hand why not get the people's favorite, the extensively tested DS1054Z? It's about the same price and you get four channels.
There are plenty of issues with this 'scope, as well. You seem to be assuming that anyone choosing something different is mistakenly overlooking the Rigol, despite it being heavily bought and used extensively.
No, I'm saying "better the devil you know".
And there aren't many issues these days.
-
For comparison, SDS1202X-E goes for 379usd from saelig, and for 402usd in Europe from batronix. A roughly 6% markup. Go figure.
Don't forget to deduct the Saelig EEVblog members discount, ask for it in this thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/equipment-discounts-from-saelig/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/equipment-discounts-from-saelig/)
-
Guys, what do you think about Micsig TO1074 in comparison to the Rigol and the Sig? At first I didn't consider it as a possible contender, but according to the reviews and opinions, TO1000 series seems to be quite good. Of course TO1074 has a bit lower bandwidth compared to the hacked Rigol, but is portable and much smaller. I sometimes play around with car electronics, so portability would be a bonus. Although, I'm not sure about the touchscreen, I prefer physical knobs and buttons, but it would probably be only a minor inconvenience.
Now TO1074+battery costs only 30 euros (excl. VAT) more than the Sig at Batronix.
-
Guys, what do you think about Micsig TO1074 in comparison to the Rigol and the Sig? At first I didn't consider it as a possible contender, but according to the reviews and opinions, TO1000 series seems to be quite good. Of course TO1074 has a bit lower bandwidth compared to the hacked Rigol, but is portable and much smaller. I sometimes play around with car electronics, so portability would be a bonus. Although, I'm not sure about the touchscreen, I prefer physical knobs and buttons, but it would probably be only a minor inconvenience.
Now TO1074+battery costs only 30 euros (excl. VAT) more than the Sig at Batronix.
A tablet has the advantage of isolation from mains ground but that's not generally an issue for auto work.
Maybe the best decode suite is more important for auto use.
-
Guys, what do you think about Micsig TO1074 in comparison to the Rigol and the Sig? At first I didn't consider it as a possible contender, but according to the reviews and opinions, TO1000 series seems to be quite good. Of course TO1074 has a bit lower bandwidth compared to the hacked Rigol, but is portable and much smaller. I sometimes play around with car electronics, so portability would be a bonus. Although, I'm not sure about the touchscreen, I prefer physical knobs and buttons, but it would probably be only a minor inconvenience.
The touch screen works nicely IMHO even better than knobs. Portability and tablet form factor is nice for working on cars. From experience: using a scope on an extension cord in a car is a nuisance. OTOH the TO1074 can also be used on a desk using the stand.
-
I'd go for the battery powered tablet too.
You don't always have an extension cord available.
Many new cars don't even come with the 12V cigarette lighter anymore so you can't plug in an inverter unless you tap into the battery
Less bulky.
Also, it's nice to have decoders but be sure it works for you
For example, i reviewed the manuals for some scopes that suggested they could only trigger on std id can frames... or that can frames were limited at 100 or 500 kbps. Decoder is there but it's useless
Or decoder is in software and wfm/s goes so low that you may miss the events you are looking for
PS: 1202X-E is being sold for 350 eur + VAT ar batterfly in italy
-
Guys, what do you think about Micsig TO1074 in comparison to the Rigol and the Sig?
I just ordered TO1104 from aliexpress. I'll share my impression here once I receive it. But delivery may take a while...
-
I just ordered TO1104 from aliexpress. I'll share my impression here once I receive it. But delivery may take a while...
Thanks, that would be great.
Ability to work on a car without an extension cord is not a priority for me, just a bonus. Also I saw in another topic that decoding feature is already implemented in the beta firmware, so I guess it's coming soon in the official release. I'm just not sure if it's going to be available only on TO1104 or on all of them.
Also, I couldn't find anywhere if it's possible to upgrade the TO1074 version later on, does anyone know anything about that? I doubt that 1074 and 1104 have different hardware.
-
Also, I couldn't find anywhere if it's possible to upgrade the TO1074 version later on, does anyone know anything about that? I doubt that 1074 and 1104 have different hardware.
Unfortunately, I didn't find any information about this (no tear downs of 1074 I'm aware of). The "common" opinion is that there is no known way to perform this upgrade (that's why I bought 1104). Although, I would ask MicSig support. But the only email I know is sales@micsig.com and it does not accept emails from me (but you can try). So far I only managed to communicate with MicSig only via chat in AliExpress.
I also quickly checked firmware file a few days ago, it looks to be encrypted :(. Damn, I really would like to put my dirty fingers into firmware (and may be fix some bugs, who knows :)).
-
I really would like to put my dirty fingers into firmware (and may be fix some bugs, who knows :).
There's bugs? :scared:
-
There's bugs? :scared:
Hope there is none. But people report, for example, touch buttons on the side could be more sensitive. This could be fixed by adjusting/calibrating touch panel in the Linux driver (assuming device runs Linux).
Anyway, nctnico says it's a decent device (for the price) for a beginner. So I hope to be satisfied :).
-
Call me a masochist if you want but I just ordered an SDS1202X-E from Saelig with the EEVBlog discount - it's a pretty good deal, no shipping and no taxes (due to the odd system in the USA). I think it will make a good to-go scope rather than me ripping one of my good ones out of the test bench setup.
I hope that the updated software is released soon and that it fixes the triggering bugs.
-
Well, my motivation to return the unit is that I don't want to support bad practice of releasing untested firmware and not fixing bugs for months. I'm pretty sure I would be able to survive with discovered problems, but I don't want to create a demand for semi-finished products.
Some bugs are really trivial to fix. They don't even need to do a full-cycle testing, they could release new firmware as "beta" or "nightly build". It hurts to see such an old-fashioned approach with looong release cycles.
-
Well, my motivation to return the unit is that I don't want to support bad practice of releasing untested firmware and not fixing bugs for months. I'm pretty sure I would be able to survive with discovered problems, but I don't want to create a demand for semi-finished products.
Stick to older products, then. Today almost every product seems to be rushed out the door with software / firmware issues 'to be corrected later'.
Some bugs are really trivial to fix. They don't even need to do a full-cycle testing, they could release new firmware as "beta" or "nightly build". It hurts to see such an old-fashioned approach with looong release cycles.
If they want to do QA on the firmware changes then that can be a long process. This is what prevents a slew of quick patches -- along with issues that arise from customers not performing the update processes correctly. What can be done doesn't always align with what you should do, from a commercial perspective.
(I still believe that opening up the firmware for end-of-life products to customers to tinker with could be valuable, if handled correctly.)
-
I don't want to support bad practice of releasing untested firmware ...
... They don't even need to do a full-cycle testing, they could release new firmware as "beta" or "nightly build".
It hurts to see such an old-fashioned approach with looong release cycles.
Seems like you have not quite made up your mind whether you want to see more or less quality assurance and testing? ;)
-
Seems like you have not quite made up your mind whether you want to see more or less quality assurance and testing? ;)
Yeah, I was imprecise in wording. I meant "buggy software with no demonstrable intention to fix it ASAP". No software is perfect, I get it (I'm a SW engineer, I also do my mistakes from time to time). But trivial problems affecting many users should be fixed promptly or users may turn away (also bad for reputation).
Is this possible in practice? Well, nctnico says GW Instek, for example, fixes simple problems in weeks or sometimes even days. That's how it should be.
-
Yeah, I was imprecise in wording. I meant "buggy software with no demonstrable intention to fix it ASAP". No software is perfect, I get it (I'm a SW engineer, I also do my mistakes from time to time). But trivial problems affecting many users should be fixed promptly or users may turn away (also bad for reputation).
I get the feeling the bosses and marketers just fix a launch date and the poor programmers get all the blame when launch day arrives and it's not quite ready.
It's the way of the world.
Before you say "that's crap and they shouldn't do it!", remember exactly who it was that rushed out to buy one on launch day instead of using common sense. :popcorn:
-
Before you say "that's crap and they shouldn't do it!", remember exactly who it was that rushed out to buy one on launch day instead of using common sense. :popcorn:
If nobody bought anything when it was released then most consumer items would be declared failures, and that would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consider how many products such as mobile phones are released with buggy software and even hardware faults (or user-error in the form of not holding the device 'correctly' / failing to have a fire extinguisher handy).
There is a risk / reward tradeoff in buying something new that may have improvements, but also may turn out to be a lemon. People can opt to choose an older, less risky, product: but some will prefer taking the risk.
-
I get the feeling the bosses and marketers just fix a launch date and the poor programmers get all the blame when launch day arrives and it's not quite ready.
May be, but that's not my point :(. I'm just saying they had enough time to fix it. I know what marketing pressure is, I work under pressure too :(.
I think Siglent just decided not to dedicate much resources to improve firmware (since most people use the way it is now and few complaining). So it gets only bare minimum of developers' time. That's understandable (considering their cost margins), but I don't support such approach.
Considering the price, the only option I see to get any decent firmware is to share it with other scopes. But I don't know how feasible this is. Anyway, I don't pretend to be guru of marketing and engineering. May be I don't see the whole situation. Just sharing my thoughts.
-
@exe While you have every right to decide to send yours back, I think you are being a bit hasty with your decision. I may be wrong but I believe that Siglent will fix the trigger issue within a month, probably less. Even $10,000+ scopes from the big guys like Keysight have had firmware issues that that took a month to fix and God knows, I've waited and waited for things on Rigol scopes to be fixed.
I bought the SDS1202X-E because of the compelling value for money - just over $350 for a 200+ MHz scope (defpom's review shows it with a 350 MHz signal) with deep memory and serial decode/trigger built in for free. It's also state of the art as far as technology is concerned; I recently did a design using the Zynq 7020 and that chip alone is $113 on Digikey, I would struggle to design the hardware for $350 in parts, never mind the write the firmware.
If I end up being disappointed, I'll apologize to you and send mine back.
-
@exe While you have every right to decide to send yours back, I think you are being a bit hasty with your decision. I may be wrong but I believe that Siglent will fix the trigger issue within a month, probably less.
Seeing is believing. I already have made the mistake to wait for Siglent to fix firmware but that ended up with having to buy a different scope + dumping the Siglent one into the bin.
-
@exe While you have every right to decide to send yours back, I think you are being a bit hasty with your decision.
It's fine to disagree with me. We all different and have different needs. I hope your unit will serve you well.
I think sds1202x-e just put too much doubt in my head. But if you feel it's a good scope for you, why not? Especially now you have much more information than I had when I decided to purchase it. Maybe, if I had more realistic expectations I would keep it. I also have some professional bias.
Concerning frequencies, I found that 1) 1GS/s is just too low to see 100MHz+ signals (unless it's a perfect sine) 2) My environment is so noisy that 200MHz bandwidth creates problems, I see too much noise. So I mostly work with 20MHz BW limit enabled. I'm yet to learn how to work with higher frequencies (should start with removing long ground lead, I know :)).
Anyway, congratulations with your new purchase!
-
@exe While you have every right to decide to send yours back, I think you are being a bit hasty with your decision.
It's fine to disagree with me. We all different and have different needs. I hope your unit will serve you well.
I think sds1202x-e just put too much doubt in my head. But if you feel it's a good scope for you, why not? Especially now you have much more information than I had when I decided to purchase it. Maybe, if I had more realistic expectations I would keep it. I also have some professional bias.
Yep, I fully understand that.
IMO you make valid points, I too am disappointed the X-E was not released with more mature FW. For those that've had DSO experience the bugs aren't so bad that they can't be worked around but for a smart scope novice they are apparent and disconcerting.
I have full faith that Siglent will release new FW soon, look at the timelines of FW that's been released for other products since the release of X-E.
http://siglentamerica.com/gjjrj.aspx?id=15 (http://siglentamerica.com/gjjrj.aspx?id=15)
Of course this was 'work in progress' and shouldn't be put aside as owners of other equipment are waiting for FW tweaks too.
I nag the factory every week for X-E FW but as a SW engineer you know damn well that with a # of bugs the risk is that you create more bugs with the ones you fix. You also know the process of beta testing takes good time with further tweaks and further tests adding to delays.
That you couldn't wait is fine but in your profession I do find your lack of understanding ........... :-//
-
That you couldn't wait is fine but in your profession I do find your lack of understanding ........... :-//
Well, programming has changed a lot last ten years :). Now it's all about short release cycles, continuous integration, fully-automated testing, and code reviews. We work using agile methodologies (SCRUM). It's when big tasks are split into many small and delivered to production either ASAP (sometimes even a few minutes after code is approved and committed) or at the end of "sprint" at worst (which is no longer than 1month). After every sprint we do so-called "sprint retrospective" and discuss what went wrong and where to improve (also good chance to give management some feedback :)). We do make mistakes, nobody is ideal. Just we recognize this and try to be better.
So, no, I don't understand people sticking to old and inefficient approaches :).
-
Also, I couldn't find anywhere if it's possible to upgrade the TO1074 version later on, does anyone know anything about that? I doubt that 1074 and 1104 have different hardware.
Well, it looks like it's possible at least in some cases to upgrade:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-tablet-oscilloscope-tbook-mini-to1000/?all (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-tablet-oscilloscope-tbook-mini-to1000/?all)
Damn, I wish I found this info yesterday :)
-
I own several pieces of Agilent/Keysight test gear, MSO7104B 1GHz 4-channel scope, N1996A CSA Spectrum Analyzer, 34461A 6.5 digit benchtop meter, 4433B ESG Sig Gene with a ton of options, ES8753 6GHz Network Analyzer, . I have a Rigol 2072A scope and recently purchased a Siglent SPD3303X-E power supply that I'm very impressed with.
I write this not to brag but to point out that there is still room for low end stuff as long as you don't expect too much of it. Yes, theoretically a scope with 'only' 1 Gsps is not up for a complicated non-sinusoidal 100 MHz waveform but the MSO7104B cost me around $9,000 and it's 'only' 4 Gsps. The simple fact is that, most of my testing is done at 50 MHz or under and I don't really want to put a $9,000 scope in my car and leave it in the trunk while I go eat in a diner.
I'm just trying to explain that, for $350, I have limited expectations of the SPS1202X-E. You get what you pay for!
-
For those that've had DSO experience the bugs aren't so bad that they can't be worked around but for a smart scope novice they are apparent and disconcerting.
Now that's an interesting line of argument: "You are just too inexperienced to work around the bugs, newbie!". Very endearing, especially coming from a Siglent dealer. I am sure the Siglent X-E line will now quickly gain cult status as the scope for real men...
-
@exe While you have every right to decide to send yours back, I think you are being a bit hasty with your decision. I may be wrong but I believe that Siglent will fix the trigger issue within a month, probably less.
Seeing is believing. I already have made the mistake to wait for Siglent to fix firmware but that ended up with having to buy a different scope + dumping the Siglent one into the bin.
And yet, Siglent has also provided timely fixes for other products (e.g., their new DMMs, their function generators, to name two -- there may be others as well).
So Siglent might step up to the plate here, or they might not. Your experience with them is older than the improved behavior they've more recently exhibited. To insist that Siglent will behave for this the same way that they did with your scope is the same as insisting that ovnr's experience (here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/opinions-on-gw-instek-scopes/msg1131121/#msg1131121 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/opinions-on-gw-instek-scopes/msg1131121/#msg1131121)) with GW Instek's firmware updates for their scopes overrides yours. After all, he also waited a long time (years) before Instek came out with improved firmware.
Siglent now has the opportunity to succeed by showing it will pursue firmware fixes for their oscilloscopes much more aggressively than they have in the past. They also now have the opportunity to fail. It's on them to decide which it's going to be.
Oh, and just for the record, you did prove at least somewhat correct with respect to Siglent's initial firmware release -- they do seem to have at least one rather bad bug in it (the trigger threshold disappearing when you go into AC coupled mode).
-
Of course this was 'work in progress' and shouldn't be put aside as owners of other equipment are waiting for FW tweaks too.
I nag the factory every week for X-E FW but as a SW engineer you know damn well that with a # of bugs the risk is that you create more bugs with the ones you fix. You also know the process of beta testing takes good time with further tweaks and further tests adding to delays.
That you couldn't wait is fine but in your profession I do find your lack of understanding ........... :-//
The process of testing and so forth wouldn't be as visible an issue with the proper pipelining setup. It's entirely possible to set things up such that firmware releases with bug fixes are done on a schedule. Yes, the amount of time between discovery of a bug and a fix for it would not change with such an approach, but at least the bug fixes would come in a steady stream.
There is always risk of introducing new bugs whenever alterations are made. What matters is the rate of bug production versus the rate of fixes. As long as the latter outpaces the former, all is good. It's when the former outpaces the latter that it's time to stop development altogether and do a ground-up rewrite (since those conditions usually arise as a result of the complexity of the software growing to an unmanageable state).
-
Of course this was 'work in progress' and shouldn't be put aside as owners of other equipment are waiting for FW tweaks too.
I nag the factory every week for X-E FW but as a SW engineer you know damn well that with a # of bugs the risk is that you create more bugs with the ones you fix. You also know the process of beta testing takes good time with further tweaks and further tests adding to delays.
That you couldn't wait is fine but in your profession I do find your lack of understanding ........... :-//
The process of testing and so forth wouldn't be as visible an issue with the proper pipelining setup. It's entirely possible to set things up such that firmware releases with bug fixes are done on a schedule. Yes, the amount of time between discovery of a bug and a fix for it would not change with such an approach, but at least the bug fixes would come in a steady stream.
Yep.
This is where I wonder if there's been a change of philosophy at Siglent re bug fixes.
In recent times they've been reasonably fast at fixing significant bugs and even addition of new functionality, some of which has been asked for from this forum.
X-E seems different, maybe it's the new processor platform or some attempt to get ALL known bugs fixed in one foul sweep. The latter I presume IMO as some of the last that have been identified seem to correlate to the FW release date being pushed further out.
There is always risk of introducing new bugs whenever alterations are made. What matters is the rate of bug production versus the rate of fixes. As long as the latter outpaces the former, all is good. It's when the former outpaces the latter that it's time to stop development altogether and do a ground-up rewrite (since those conditions usually arise as a result of the complexity of the software growing to an unmanageable state).
Yep, we've seen this too.
Nearly 2 years back the SDS2000 series original FW was dropped and a V2 released that had a much better GUI and an unexpected benefit was the increase in memory depth from 28 Mpts to 70 Mpts with V2 FW.
The V2 FW GUI is now the standard GUI across all the X series models.
-
It's interesting to watch the double standard unfolding in this thread after all the mean things that were said by certain people about the DS1054Z's minor/obscure bugs. The DS1054Z never had any bugs in basic things like triggering.
I'm sure people wouldn't be saying "Oh, let's wait, they might fix that soon" if this was an OWON or a Hantech. They'd be saying "those things are garbage, send it back and buy something else".
Why is Siglent being given so much love?
-
the MSO7104B cost me around $9,000 and it's 'only' 4 Gsps.
I would call it progress, scopes become a commodity :). Anyway, as Fungus said, triggering is a core feature. It is the only feature I absolutely need, anything else is by far less important.
Let me say one more thing. I discovered triggering issues while using the scope normally. I just connected the scope to the signal generator. And I quickly noticed periodic "glitches" on the screen. Trying to troubleshoot I bumped into all sort of problems and spent hours trying to figure out what was the source of the problem.
That was very disappointing experience, especially because I didn't know where the problem is: is it a faulty scope or the signal generator? Which one should I send back?
I decided I cannot trust the scope. I need confidence. All tools have limitations, but there are limitations and uncertainties I would like not to have.
-
It's interesting to watch the double standard unfolding in this thread after all the mean things that were said by certain people about the DS1054Z's minor/obscure bugs.
Only interesting to brand partisans.
The DS1054Z never had any bugs in basic things like triggering.
A lot of basic functionality had issues, and triggering wasn't free from bugs -- and there are still bugs now, after a couple of years of high sales volume.
Selecting long time bases causing unresponsiveness, screensaves taking ridiculous lengths of time, there were (still are?) incorrect measurements, 'random' slowdowns and freezes... Hardware flaws are present, too.
There are a lot of problems that may be "minor" for some usage, but make it unusable for other applications.
Why is Siglent being given so much love?
Why do you perceive this to be the case? Pointing out bugs or issues (some similar to those with the Rigol) and complaining about the lack of a firmware update don't seem any different to what happens with any 'scope that has such issues. This seems to be most of them, today (including the expensive brands).
Recall that your principal excuse for the performance issues and bugs in the Rigol was cost: that you shouldn't expect a US$400 'scope to operate as well as a much more expensive one. That isn't unreasonable, provided basic functionality is available. This Siglent has more processing power, so should be capable of doing better than the Rigol -- but there are obvious bugs that need to be corrected.
I don't see any significant difference in reaction.
(From the end user perspective, I only care about the Siglent bugs, as that is what I bought. More generally, there is no real reason that firmware cannot be written correctly for any instrument.)
-
Recall that your principal excuse for the performance issues and bugs in the Rigol was cost: that you shouldn't expect a US$400 'scope to operate as well as a much more expensive one. That isn't unreasonable, provided basic functionality is available.
Not quite. The principle excuse isn't the final price, it's the value for money. Bang per buck.
Take a step back and look at what you're getting for your money: 4 channels, 100 Mhz, etc.
You can overlook a lot of flaws when you see it from that perspective, especially when there's no real alternatives without spending 2-3x more.
This Siglent has more processing power, so should be capable of doing better than the Rigol -- but there are obvious bugs that need to be corrected.
I don't see any significant difference in reaction.
The difference is:
a) The people who bashed the Rigol to death for sport are mysteriously absent here
and
b) There's now other choices for the same money (which wasn't true for much of the Rigol's existence).
-
a) The people who bashed the Rigol to death for sport are mysteriously absent here
Perhaps they care less about cheap 'scopes now as there are more of them available.
There are always going to be some people for whom a lesser quality instrument is considered beneath them. Gear snobs, essentially. However there are also people who will -- correctly -- point out the significant flaws that some cheap products have, and note that you can't really consider a product with a lot of limitations as being equivalent to a much more expensive but more capable product.
b) There's now other choices for the same money (which wasn't true for much of the Rigol's existence).
Until the GW Instek GDS 1054B came out there wasn't another four-channel model in the same space. Given that this Siglent isn't four channel I'm not sure what your complaint is here.
Lack of more general criticism for the Siglent? Some people choosing it despite it only having two channels? The Rigol has had a large number of firmware updates, and is possibly as good as it is ever going to get now, so it is a 'mature' product. If anything, that should give it an advantage over a new-to-market model with a lot of as yet unaddressed bugs -- including some that appear to be serious.
:-//
-
I'm not sure what your complaint is here.
Not a complaint, just an observation.
-
There are always going to be some people for whom a lesser quality instrument is considered beneath them. Gear snobs, essentially. However there are also people who will -- correctly -- point out the significant flaws that some cheap products have, and note that you can't really consider a product with a lot of limitations as being equivalent to a much more expensive but more capable product.
It is still fair to compare scopes because there is a concept like "good enough". It should be expected that a $400 scope won't perform like a $200k scope or even a $2k scope. But it still might be "good enough" for the application.
Each user needs to look at their needs and decide what is "good enough". I might seriously consider adding the SDS1202X-E to the mix IF they ever get their firmware squared away. Bugs for boundary uses don't concern me, failing to trigger probably does. But I will give them the same chance we all gave Rigol. It took a few iterations to get most of the bugs out and I suspect the same will be true for Siglent. If they are taking this entry level market seriously, they need to jump all over the bugs. I am hoping they will.
A 200 MHz scope has more bandwidth than a 100 MHz scope and bandwidth is everything! Except channels...
-
A 200 MHz scope has more bandwidth than a 100 MHz scope and bandwidth is everything! Except channels...
AND samplerate.
I like 200 MHz but i think it will be more harm than good if you probe fast signals... such as MCU pins :(
my 1054z wobbles a lot when probing PIC32MZ pins
-
A 200 MHz scope has more bandwidth than a 100 MHz scope and bandwidth is everything! Except channels...
AND samplerate.
1 GSa/s is just adequate for two channels at 200 MHz bandwidth, or four at 100 MHz, if the sampling is 'shared' across channels. If Siglent produce a four-channel variant of the SDS 1202X-E then they would have to put a faster sampling part in or reduce the bandwidth. (Or, potentially, offer 200 MHz for one or two channels, then reduce this to 100 MHz for three or four active channels.)
I like 200 MHz but i think it will be more harm than good if you probe fast signals... such as MCU pins :(
my 1054z wobbles a lot when probing PIC32MZ pins
This is likely to be due to other sources of noise, rather than the 'scope. Use the bandwidth limitation option, if appropriate. Consider buying a better quality probe (or buy / build something special purpose if this is something you use the 'scope for a lot). You may even find that the simple act of repositioning or reorienting the device that you're probing has a significant effect.
-
The new scope arrived and first impressions are very good, the fan is a little noisy but the UI is very responsive and I can't seem to recreate the triggering issue. I've included a couple of pictures, the first of which shows the software and FPGA versions.
I have a quick question about the PP215 probes; how do you get the hook tip off? I pulled at mine but it doesn't come off and I'm worried that I'll break it if I pull too hard.
-
Hold the probe and push the tip with your thumb
-
you have to wonder what would happen if Siglent (or Rigol) made the software open-source!!
it worked well for routers and phones.
-
you have to wonder what would happen if Siglent (or Rigol) made the software open-source!!
it worked well for routers and phones.
I'm not sure what you mean. I can hardly think of of a router or a phone that has opensource firmware released by the manufacturer. Most routers were hacked, same for phones. So, if it runs, say lineage os (ex cyanogenmod) it's not because of the manufacturer (except, may be, OnePlus). It's because somebody put a lot of efforts to make it supported.
Sometimes manufacturers release kernel sources, but that's because it's not a big deal for them as most phones / routers are based on standard chipsets (but this is very hard port kernel to a specific device without access to the design docs). Kernel source is absolutely not the same as a complete firmware. Again, few companies ever done this.
-
I can't seem to recreate the triggering issue.
Of course :). By the nature of the problem I have no doubts it works well on square waves. The problem is much more complex than this.
Long tale short, try using a sine wave 10+Mhz, set low V/div (high sensitivity) and play with triggering coupling and level.
-
most router makers provide the source - you have to dig a bit to find it.
it's a legal requirement because it's usually based on open-source stuff to begin with.
similar with chinese fones - the korean company's dont give a damn (yet)
-
most router makers provide the source - you have to dig a bit to find it.
it's a legal requirement because it's usually based on open-source stuff to begin with.
similar with chinese fones - the korean company's dont give a damn (yet)
Concerning legal requirements, there are many ways around (like, adding proprietary kernel modules, separate firmware for wifi/dsl chips, tivoization, etc). That's why only a limited set of routers have alternative firmware available. Again, this is my experience. I just go to the supermarket and check on openwrt.org. Most devices are not supported because no useful sources available for some popular chipset, most notably from broadcom (last time I checked about two years ago). For example, try to buy a DSL-router that has alternative firmware (afaik, there is only one such device).
Phones... Well, no phone I wanted to buy had useful sources (e.g., xiaomi). But now I see the situation has change a bit. That's good. And, as you said, Korean manufactures are more friendly than, e.g., Sony or most of Chinese companies.
-
nothing wrong with xiaomi - my main and favourite fone is a Mi4 :-+
and there is bucketloads of custom firmware for it.
-
nothing wrong with xiaomi - my main and favourite fone is a Mi4 :-+
and there is bucketloads of custom firmware for it.
They usually release kernel sources like 5-6 months after release. And not always for all components. For example, no drivers for fingerprint sensor on mi4s (I used to have one). Concerning "bucketloads of firmware", I don't trust any of them as they usually come from random persons without sources and building procedure. Seriously, I don't understand why people trust such builds.
Okay, here I wanted to state that, for example, mi5s does not have kernel sources. But, damn, they released a few days ago :). That's good, I may buy this phone.
-
The new scope arrived and first impressions are very good, the fan is a little noisy but the UI is very responsive and I can't seem to recreate the triggering issue. I've included a couple of pictures, the first of which shows the software and FPGA versions.
They are not whisper quiet........remember you have a 200 MHz scope with a fast processor in quite a small package so there needs to be some airflow to keep the engine room cool. ;)
Using the blue Print button will save a small (less than 50kb) file to a USB stick which is quick to upload here and fast for anybody to download or view. Large camera pics are a PITA.
I have a quick question about the PP215 probes; how do you get the hook tip off? I pulled at mine but it doesn't come off and I'm worried that I'll break it if I pull too hard.
Yep, they do hold on well, better than anything else I've come across. Be sure to pull them straight and they'll come off. Once you know how much force it takes you'll be confident for tip removal. On refitting be sure to push until you hear the click.
-
I made the pictures 50% size on X and Y axes meaning that they are a quarter the size that they started off. Sorry if the <1 Meg files are using up all y'all's bandwidth.
[Edit] I gave the hook-tips a good tug and see what happens they came off.
openwrt (https://wiki.openwrt.org/) is an awesome OS for routers, I upgraded a Buffalo wireless router about 4 years ago and it won't crash or die, it used to lock up twice per week.
[Edit] changed ddwrt to openwrt, seems the former has become a business, the latter is an awesome free OS for wireless access points but you need to make sure you buy an access point/router that's in their (extensive) list.
I seem to remember that someone said that the SDS1202X-E didn't have 50 Ohm terminations built in but I can't find where; I haven't tested it yet but it's there in the UI so I assume it does - I found it right after I ordered 2 x 50 ohm BNC feed thrus although the ones I ordered are rated at 2W so I will probably keep them.
As my first picture shows, mine came with software Vn 5.1.3.8 and I don't see any downloads for SDS1202X-E firmware on their website - I'm curious, does everyone have the same version as me right now?
-
make sure you buy an access point/router that's in their (extensive) list.
Lovely software, indeed. But the "list of devices" includes old, obsolete and partially supported and unsupported devices. Also, many routers come in different "revisions" (really can be completely different devices). I would suggest just buy a "community approved" router with a big user base. This is the safest option, imho (just not always possible due to regional availability).
I seem to remember that someone said that the SDS1202X-E didn't have 50 Ohm terminations built in but I can't find where; I haven't tested it yet but it's there in the UI so I assume it does
Only expensive scopes have this option (so far). So, no, it does not have it. You would hear a relay click if it had it. Still, this option is useful for correct measurements as it tells the type of termination. Like, my signal generator also have option "50Ohm / Hi impedance", but this option does nothing but corrects displayed signal amplitude.
PS I don't see any pictures you mentioned. Did I miss something?
-
Triggering 'Issue'
Tried up to 200 MHz from my arbitrary waveform generator with various signals, I can't get the trigger to fail. If the timebase is too long you get confused looking waveforms but zooming on on the X-axis produces a well-locked waveform. The [Auto] button also finds and displays a locked waveform at 100 MHz and 200 MHz.
50 Ohm Input Selection
Put a meter across the Channel 1 input and selected the 50 Ohm setting from the channel soft menu but the input impedance stays at around 1 M Ohm - it looks like it's as @exe says, it's for use with external 50 Ohm feed thrus - at least the ones I bought are not unnecessary.
-
Triggering 'Issue'
I haven't been able to replicate this problem as described, either. It may be that exe was unfortunate enough to get a faulty unit, or perhaps there were other factors involved.
50 Ohm Input Selection
This is just an error. There is no 50 Ohm termination setting, so that menu shouldn't be there. (Selecting the option does nothing, obviously.)
-
Only expensive scopes have this option (so far). So, no, it does not have it. You would hear a relay click if it had it. Still, this option is useful for correct measurements as it tells the type of termination. Like, my signal generator also have option "50Ohm / Hi impedance", but this option does nothing but corrects displayed signal amplitude.
A signal generator may want to know the input impedance it is driving in order to correct the nominal output (what you would expect to see on a measuring device, for that impedance). A 'scope measures the signal, however. There is no utility to having a false 50 Ohm indication appear, and in fact this could be a problem if you believe that this really should be a 50 Ohm termination as you may be telling your source -- e.g. your signal generator -- that it is driving a 50 Ohm input when it is in fact 1 MOhm.
This is just a mistake on the part of Siglent, leaving in an option that should have been removed.
-
50 Ohm Input Selection
This is just an error. There is no 50 Ohm termination setting, so that menu shouldn't be there. (Selecting the option does nothing, obviously.)
We're not so sure, I can't imagine why it would be left in the menu for no good reason
rf-loop might be onto something:
About FFT. Tiny example.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-siglent-sds1000x-e-oscilloscope-based-on-xilinx-zynq-7000-soc-architecture/?action=dlattach;attach=315545;image)
(there is 455kHz (Radio receiver IF) signal first with 100Hz and after then 120Hz modulation. (Carrier level 1Vrms (0dBVrms) and in both cases modualtion 20%. (with 20% AM mod both sidebands are -20dBc)
Of course 100Hz from carrier can see, and as can see resolution is well enough for separate 20Hz (100Hz and 120Hz peaks) with this frequency. Of course if we rise f Nyquist also resolution change - this is FFT.
Pity there is not 50ohm inputs so it can not show dBm (power) scale.
Please Siglent:
Add function that if user use external 50ohm termination then user can tell it to scope (select External 50 ohm) and after then dBm is available as example in SDS1000X(X+ series.
With rf works dBm is normal and very common way to tell levels what everyone knows and use. Of course every user can calculate but this is waste of time when scope can do it simply for me.
Only expensive scopes have this option (so far).
Incorrect.
The SDS1000X series that the X-E is the economy version of has 50 \$\Omega\$ inputs.
For ~$50 more you get 50 \$\Omega\$ inputs and the bigger 8" display.
List on the 100 MHz model was $499 and they've been on special for a while for $425.
The MSO (Plus) versions are a bit dearer and have inbuilt AWG.
There is no mention of 50 \$\Omega\$ inputs in the product page but it's stated in the datasheet.
http://siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1 (http://siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1)
-
Tried up to 200 MHz from my arbitrary waveform generator with various signals, I can't get the trigger to fail. If the timebase is too long you get confused looking waveforms but zooming on on the X-axis produces a well-locked waveform. The [Auto] button also finds and displays a locked waveform at 100 MHz and 200 MHz.
Could you please set sine amplitude at around 100mV p-p and try to trigger at the bottom peak? My unit couldn't do that, it lost triggering half division before the bottom of the waveform. However, it worked perfectly well when triggering level was positive.
I also had "jerking" like here: https://goo.gl/photos/zm3KWYmatkPySThK6 (sorry if I posted this before). Might it happen because of, e.g., faulty clock source? That would explain a lot.
Anyway, good to know it's only my unit. Or a software bug that I triggered somehow.
-
50 Ohm Input Selection
This is just an error. There is no 50 Ohm termination setting, so that menu shouldn't be there. (Selecting the option does nothing, obviously.)
We're not so sure, I can't imagine why it would be left in the menu for no good reason
rf-loop might be onto something:
It would be simpler, and far more useful, to just allow an assigning of dBm (or any other required transformation) than having to set a dummy '50 Ohm' input setting, so I don't believe this to be probable. Consider what you are suggesting: you want a dBm scaling for the FFT, so rather than select it from a menu related to the FFT functions you go to the channel configuration and set a fake 50 Ohm impedance. Really? :-//
Far more likely that it was just overlooked when they shifted the code across to the new platform.
(This seems to be a case of trying to find a 'reason' for a rather obvious error. There is no utility at all that I can think of, for a measuring instrument, in having a 50 Ohm setting when there is none physically present. The only thing you can achieve is confusion and additional errors.)
-
Could you please set sine amplitude at around 100mV p-p and try to trigger at the bottom peak? My unit couldn't do that, it lost triggering half division before the bottom of the waveform. However, it worked perfectly well when triggering level was positive.
I tried this and found that I could get the trigger pretty close to the bottom of the sine wave but not as close as to the top - see first picture - I could get all the way to the top. However, this is clearly caused by the rising edge trigger because, when I changed to falling edge, I could get all the way to the bottom but only within a few mV of the top (the observed behavior switched polarity). One thing I noticed was that, when triggering close to the edge, the frequency was wrong, when the trigger was set to zero volts, it was spot on.
[Edit] Also, when I pulled the USB drive from the scope and plugged it into my Windows 10 PC, it complained that the drive needed repair, I repaired it and the files were OK but I can't find any safe eject system on the scope - is there one?
-
Could you please set sine amplitude at around 100mV p-p and try to trigger at the bottom peak? My unit couldn't do that, it lost triggering half division before the bottom of the waveform. However, it worked perfectly well when triggering level was positive.
I tried this and found that I could get the trigger pretty close to the bottom of the sine wave but not as close as to the top - see first picture - I could get all the way to the top. However, this is clearly caused by the rising edge trigger because, when I changed to falling edge, I could get all the way to the bottom but only within a few mV of the top (the observed behavior switched polarity). One thing I noticed was that, when triggering close to the edge, the frequency was wrong, when the trigger was set to zero volts, it wa
Yes. I could reproduce exactly same behaviour. With falling edge I could go all the to the bottom as well. My signal was 200mv peak to peak due to my signal generator limitation.
Thank you Gandalf!
Typed with thumbs.
-
I tried this and found that I could get the trigger pretty close to the bottom of the sine wave but not as close as to the top - see first picture - I could get all the way to the top.
Can you please do the same, but at a higher frequency? Say, 20MHz. Will this affect triggering anyhow?
-
Can you please do the same, but at a higher frequency? Say, 20MHz. Will this affect triggering anyhow?
Yes. I tried with the 20Mhz signal and the triggering worked with the falling edge all the way to the bottom.
I have taken screenshots which I can upload as well.
Typed with thumbs.
-
Also, when I pulled the USB drive from the scope and plugged it into my Windows 10 PC, it complained that the drive needed repair, I repaired it and the files were OK but I can't find any safe eject system on the scope - is there one?
Yes.....................YOU. :)
Just be sure to wait after Print/saves for the USB stick LED to finish flashing before removal.
To others that seem to not be able to let the lower triggering level go......It has been seen and documented and we must wait for the new FW to see the remedy.
-
I saved a file to the USB drive, waited 5 minutes, and then removed the drive. When I plug it into my Windows 10 PC, it still reports that there is a problem with the drive which it offers to repair; after the repair, it is fine and the saved files are all there - it seems that the scope doesn't close out the file session after a save. This isn't a whine, it's an observation.
I don't see the triggering issue (or the USB drive observation above) as a big deal, it's sort of quirky and I could live with it as-is but if they tuned it up to fix both I'd be happier.
-
What file system does the stick use?
I think it's just a Windows thing. Windows does it to itself, too.
-
this is a windows problem, i'v seen it before with cards formatted by games consoles etc.
even xp did it sometimes - m$ never properly supports standards - even when they create them!!
-
I can definitely unmount a pendrive from Windows and the next time I stick it in the machine it says it needs 'repairs'.
-
What file system does the stick use?
FAT 32
-
I can't seem to recreate the triggering issue.
Of course :). By the nature of the problem I have no doubts it works well on square waves. The problem is much more complex than this.
Long tale short, try using a sine wave 10+Mhz, set low V/div (high sensitivity) and play with triggering coupling and level.
I have now done several test in my lab using many kind of signals with more than just one single scope, including also signals mixed with noise, using my all experience and knowledge from over 50 year hobby and over 40 year profession. I can not see this kind of trigger "issue" what you are talking about. Just nothing but normally working trigger including normal hysteresis (of course it can talk if this amount is best compromise or not) for edge detection (depending OF COURSE also about selected direction). It need also know how triggers works normally in practice and in theory before start claim issues. Of course my tests do not proof your individual unit works ok. My test only show how factory new scope is normally working.
-
I'm with rf-loop, I don't think there is a trigger issue unless exe has a bad unit.
-
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.
What is the update cycle on the Rigols? I am leaning towards the DS1054Z at the moment, but fear a newer model might pop up months after purchase. Even though my scope will be just as good as before, it would be nice if a new scope could improve upon some of the shortcomings of the current model. Having a more reponsive UI and better FFT would both be improvements that I would appreciate and those would inevitably be part of a new model.
-
What is the update cycle on the Rigols? I am leaning towards the DS1054Z at the moment, but fear a newer model might pop up months after purchase. Even though my scope will be just as good as before, it would be nice if a new scope could improve upon some of the shortcomings of the current model. Having a more reponsive UI and better FFT would both be improvements that I would appreciate and those would inevitably be part of a new model.
Stay tuned for tautech to chime in with some subtle hints about an upcoming new and enhanced Siglent... Must happen any minute now... :P
Seriously -- I don't think it makes sense to try and time your purchase based on guesses about future releases. If you need a scope now, buy one now. (And it might be an entry level Rigol or a Siglent, depending on whether 4 channels or better UI response and bandwidth are more important.)
-
but fear a newer model might pop up months after purchase. Even though my scope will be just as good as before, it would be nice if a new scope could improve upon some of the shortcomings of the current model. Having a more reponsive UI and better FFT would both be improvements that I would appreciate and those would inevitably be part of a new model.
There's always something better and brighter just around the corner in one brand or another.
Want a scope that's current and is the best on offer for a few years......those days are gone, such is the pace of change. Do your homework well, take note of comments from those that have been in the industry a long time, watch countless reviews, but be aware many are rapidly outdated by new firmware and then pick your brand/model.
-
Want a scope that's current and is the best on offer for a few years......those days are gone, such is the pace of change. Do your homework well, take note of comments from those that have been in the industry a long time, watch countless reviews, but be aware many are rapidly outdated by new firmware and then pick your brand/model.
Indeed. When there is some competition and it's fierce the crown goes from one competitor to the next. This month maybe Siglent has the most exciting offer. Next month it might be Rigol with a newly released product. I remember the old times of the Unix workstations when there was a really heavy competition among Sun (SPARC), MIPS, IBM (Power RISC), HP (PA-RISC) and DEC (Alpha). Usually, the most recently released processor was the fastest and it kept the prize until the next one by another competitor was released.
And in the case of oscilloscopes probably Xilinx has quite shaken the market with the release of the Zynq SoC :)
-
Indeed. When there is some competition and it's fierce the crown goes from one competitor to the next. This month maybe Siglent has the most exciting offer. Next month it might be Rigol with a newly released product.
That does not appear to be the case here. The four channels of the Rigol still make me lean towards it. However, there are some well discussed shortcomings, like the slow UI and FFT. If a new model appears on the horizon, it would inevitably mitigate those issues, so it pays to be aware of the market landscape. I do not absolutely have to buy a DSO right now.
If that new model is unlikely to appear any time soon, the advice to just go with the best choice of the moment goes into effect. There is always the possibility of a competitor coming up with a killer four channel model, but that is, as you mention, just how it is.
-
What is the update cycle on the Rigols? I am leaning towards the DS1054Z at the moment, but fear a newer model might pop up months after purchase.
That line of thinking never works.
If it did, nobody would ever buy a car (for example).
-
What is the update cycle on the Rigols? I am leaning towards the DS1054Z at the moment, but fear a newer model might pop up months after purchase. Even though my scope will be just as good as before, it would be nice if a new scope could improve upon some of the shortcomings of the current model. Having a more reponsive UI and better FFT would both be improvements that I would appreciate and those would inevitably be part of a new model.
If you want better responsiveness, better vertical resolution and better FFT the Siglent SDS1202X-E is what you're looking for. But limited to two channels. Also, the Siglent is not yet supported by software such as Sigrok. If you want the best bang for the buck with four channels, then get the Rigol. Both have shortcomings but both are useful tools as long as you are aware of their limitations.
I'm not sure they will release anything in the low end soon. Maybe they'll jump on the Zynq 7000 bandwagon following Siglent and GW Instek? No idea. They recently made a vague announcement of some new electronics for oscilloscopes but it seems to be targetted to a higher cathegory.
At the end of the day you will have to decide wether one of the alternatives in the market suit you and it does at an acceptable price. In the future of course there will be a new release. That is true especially with cut throat competition between the newcomers to the instrumentation market.
-
What is the update cycle on the Rigols? I am leaning towards the DS1054Z at the moment, but fear a newer model might pop up months after purchase. Even though my scope will be just as good as before, it would be nice if a new scope could improve upon some of the shortcomings of the current model. Having a more reponsive UI and better FFT would both be improvements that I would appreciate and those would inevitably be part of a new model.
If you want better responsiveness, better vertical resolution and better FFT the Siglent SDS1202X-E is what you're looking for. But limited to two channels. Also, the Siglent is not yet supported by software such as Sigrok. If you want the best bang for the buck with four channels, then get the Rigol. Both have shortcomings but both are useful tools as long as you are aware of their limitations.
I'm not sure they will release anything in the low end soon. Maybe they'll jump on the Zynq 7000 bandwagon following Siglent and GW Instek? No idea. They recently made a vague announcement of some new electronics for oscilloscopes but it seems to be targetted to a higher cathegory.
At the end of the day you will have to decide wether one of the alternatives in the market suit you and it does at an acceptable price. In the future of course there will be a new release. That is true especially with cut throat competition between the newcomers to the instrumentation market.
Commen mainly trigged due to this colored part.
They have same vertical resolution. But, Rigol have expanded from 5mV/div to 2 and 1mV/div reducing vertical resolution. These 1 and 2mV/div are derived from 5mV/div. Siglent do not use this trick in SDS1000X/X-E series. Down to 0.5mV/div it use full ADC range.
But then ther eis one other resolution thing and this is big difference.
Rigol reduce horizontal mesurement resolution. I do not know exactly what is amount of data what it use. Propably something under 1k or even less.
Siglent X-E use full data. It do not decimate at all. If there is 14M sample length on the RFT and it was 1GSa/s sampled, automatic measuremets resolution 1ns.
This can test easy and some result is also here in forum.
If some can do test, set horizontal to 1ms/div and one channel. Input 500ns period pulses and pulse width example 50ns and risetime 8ns and fall time 25ns. Now turn measurements on. Rise, fall, width and period.
For Siglent this is easy piece of bisquit. Rigol - err
Rigol do not have waveform history buffer what works justbacround with current wfm/s speed storing every acquisition to memory, amount depending t/div and memory settings. Up to 54M with some settings.
Stop scope and look what just previously happend.
Rigl do not have high speed sequence mode.
Rigol destroy real samople data (well known Sinc joke.
Siglent can always display true raw sample data. In run more and also afterwards linear/Sinc can select, as also dots/lines.
In many cases this is important with digital type signals for go over Sinc function bad effects.
Motly in all things Siglent X-E and X beats Rigol Z in everything. Perhaps Rigol some things on display looks more "finished and polished". Also it is more mature perhaps, or least it have been on market quite long time. But Siglent is much more severe real tool.
Also I have previously owned and used Rigol 1kZ, so there is also some real behind my words instead of rumors.
There is one major show stopper thing. If user want/need 4 channel and this is "must". Rigol have 4 channel. Siglent 1kX series have only 2 channels --- for now...
-
Rigol reduce horizontal mesurement resolution. I do not know exactly what is amount of data what it use. Propably something under 1k or even less.
It would be 600 points (screen) but end-result suggests around 300 points effective. 16kpts FFT (if configured not to use "screen") is only exception AFAIK.
-
If you want better responsiveness, better vertical resolution and better FFT the Siglent SDS1202X-E is what you're looking for. But limited to two channels. Also, the Siglent is not yet supported by software such as Sigrok. If you want the best bang for the buck with four channels, then get the Rigol. Both have shortcomings but both are useful tools as long as you are aware of their limitations.
Yeah, I have to remind myself of that occasionally. Whatever scope one picks, it is going to be a neat and very useful tool regardless, and it is still going to be a great tool when a new champion has emerged.
Currently I am leaning towards the Rigol due to the four channels.
That line of thinking never works.
If it did, nobody would ever buy a car (for example).
I don't intend to start a huge discussion, but that is how it often works :) For instance, in computer, phone and car sales, update cycles are an important factor.
Automotive update cycles are quite predictable and you can be throwing away money if you do not take that into account. Not only consumers, but lease and rental companies also take heed. The drop in sales at the end of the life cycle of a certain model can be an issue for car makers, so they sometimes entice consumers to buy with luxury extras. Sometimes they even explicitly release 'goodbye editions', a sort of ultimate edition at the end of the model cycle. Consumers can choose to have a kitted out model now, or a more bare bones new model later for the same money.
Another example would be the sales of Apple products. If we look at iPhone sales, they are highly cyclical in nature, with sales peaking right after release of the new model.
https://images.dazeinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Apple-iPhone-sales-figures-q2-2016.png
-
Another example would be the sales of Apple products. If we look at iPhone sales, they are highly cyclical in nature, with sales peaking right after release of the new model.
Did Apple ever release a new model at the exact same price point as the previous one? Usually they put the price up.
The oscilloscope market is much slower moving than the Apple or automobile market though.
-
Rather than starting yet another thread, my question might be more suited here. I am currently looking for an entry level scope. The work I want to do with it is very mixed. Analog, digital, microcontrollers, switching and linear power supplies on PCBs, everything to do with remote controlled vehicles, CPLDs and FPGAs and a small amount of RF stuff. In most cases, I think more channels would serve me better, like when decoding digital signals, working on brushless motor drivers or viewing two sets of input and output signals. In a few cases, like FPGAs, the extra bandwidth might serve me well. Unlocking bandwidth or features to get the most bang for buck is not an issue.
In my specific case, are there any reasons to talk me into or out of either model that have not been discussed at length already?
Did Apple ever release a new model at the exact same price point as the previous one? Usually they put the price up.
The posted graph shows units shipped.
-
@MR Scram: if you have not already done this: also take a look at the GW Instek GDS-2000E (4 analog) or MSO2000 (4 analog + 16 digital) series. These are more expensive compared to the scopes in the topic title but they have more features besides displaying a signal and the firmware is mature.
-
@MR Scram: if you have not already done this: also take a look at the GW Instek GDS-2000E (4 analog) or MSO2000 (4 analog + 16 digital) series. These are more expensive compared to the scopes in the topic title but they have more features besides displaying a signal and the firmware is mature.
Thanks for the advice! The cheapest 4 channel GDS-2000E seems to be three times as expensive as the DS1054Z. That might be a bit too rich for my blood right now, even if it can be unlocked to 200 MHz. The MSO2000 does not seem to be for sale around these parts, which would make warranty a huge hassle.
If it means a significant upgrade, I am willing to consider increasing the budget, or if it turns out some of the things I would want to do with a scope are simply out of reach on the models mentioned in this thread. I don't mind spending money on a good tool, but at the same time I have to be realistic about my budget. Spending more here means less options elsewhere.
-
If you want better responsiveness, better vertical resolution and better FFT the Siglent SDS1202X-E is what you're looking for. But limited to two channels.
Regarding FFT, I just found the project linked below. It provides better FFT on the DS1054Z, allowing your computer to do the heavy number crunching and yielding much better results. If you use FFT a lot it might be a bit of a hassle, but for occasional use, it is a great option to have.
http://hackaday.com/2015/09/22/a-better-spectrum-analyzer-for-your-rigol-scope/ (http://hackaday.com/2015/09/22/a-better-spectrum-analyzer-for-your-rigol-scope/)
-
@MR Scram: if you have not already done this: also take a look at the GW Instek GDS-2000E (4 analog) or MSO2000 (4 analog + 16 digital) series. These are more expensive compared to the scopes in the topic title but they have more features besides displaying a signal and the firmware is mature.
Thanks for the advice! The cheapest 4 channel GDS-2000E seems to be three times as expensive as the DS1054Z. That might be a bit too rich for my blood right now, even if it can be unlocked to 200 MHz. The MSO2000 does not seem to be for sale around these parts, which would make warranty a huge hassle.
If it means a significant upgrade, I am willing to consider increasing the budget, or if it turns out some of the things I would want to do with a scope are simply out of reach on the models mentioned in this thread. I don't mind spending money on a good tool, but at the same time I have to be realistic about my budget. Spending more here means less options elsewhere.
It also depends on whether you need this scope to make money. If you can't afford to wait for bug fixes and/or the limitations make work go slower then spending extra money is the only option.
-
Note that with DS1054Z you cannot work live with substantially different frequencies at same time. Memory depth allows for high sample rate capture but auto-measurements do not work on hf part while zoomed out. Might be important with motor work (low freq physical process + high freq signaling). This limitation did come as surprise and annoyed me so much that started sort of "holy war" back in the day :P
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/)
This is common with scopes that use screen buffer for measurements to speed things up, but comes at cost.
-
Note that with DS1054Z you cannot work live with substantially different frequencies at same time. Memory depth allows for high sample rate capture but auto-measurements do not work on hf part while zoomed out. Might be important with motor work (low freq physical process + high freq signaling). This limitation did come as surprise and annoyed me so much that started sort of "holy war" back in the day :P
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/)
This is common with scopes that use screen buffer for measurements to speed things up, but this comes at cost.
If I understand you correctly, the DS1054Z uses a software optimisation by using the data on the screen, rather than the full recorded dataset. Because of this, detecting multiple signals that vary wildly in frequency cannot be accurately automatically detected.
Would that be an accurate summary?
-
Would that be an accurate summary?
Yep. Now finding cheap scope that does all well currently impossible if you need it all:
- good analog part (4ch) with full-memory automation
- good FFT
- digital channels
- serial triggering
- serial decoding
I would be looking into combining devices if proper do-it-all stuff out of range.
-
Note that with DS1054Z you cannot work live with substantially different frequencies at same time. Memory depth allows for high sample rate capture but auto-measurements do not work on hf part while zoomed out. Might be important with motor work (low freq physical process + high freq signaling). This limitation did come as surprise and annoyed me so much that started sort of "holy war" back in the day :P
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/)
This is common with scopes that use screen buffer for measurements to speed things up, but this comes at cost.
At a risk to start it again (hope not) I do have to again reiterate: DS100Z uses decimated data (from screen) for measurements. So if you are watching a signal that is zoomed in (set timebase ) to a part of signal you want to measure it will measure correctly. If you set timebase so you can't legibly see waveform, it doesn't measure correctly. That is completely true.
But most of the time that is not important. That type of measurement is only applicable to repetitive, monotonic, waveform, and is actually statistics of measurements across the capture (single trigger event). That is useful to analyze quality of clock , for instance.. But, in order for that to be useful, scope has to have high end clock stability etc..
For instance when you measure "Rise time" on Rigol DS1000Z, it measures first detected positive slope and measures that.. It wont measure any other, even if you have 10 periods on screen. It works same as auto cursor measurements. And statistics shown are between different trigger events, not between different waveform periods in same trigger event.
So basically, before measurement, you need to "aim" to what part of waveform you want to measure..
That is not very sophisticated, but works.. And is used most of the time in my work. And most other people. And is only way to measure something if you are not looking into continuous clock or sine wave..
If I have 10ms of empty capture, and in the middle of it there is 1us burst of something, I will zoom in to that. To see what is going on there.. To see how it looks, to see the shape of the edges.
And surprisingly, if you "zoom in" to it (on top, long timebase, on bottom zoomed in) it will measure with zoomed pixels.. With good resolution and accuracy. And since it does that even on stopped signal, it means it keeps whole sampled memory, and decimates only for screen. They might even be able to make measurements work on a whole 24Mpoints (or a smaller subset, but still more that now, like some other scopes.) but they don't think it's important.. And most of the time it's not.
Statistical signal analyzer it is not. But as a simple scope works just fine.
DS1000Z is simple cheap machine that serves well if you respect it's specifications. It's not perfect, not even very good, but more than good enough for most part. It is certainly worth it's money.
There are many thing on DS1000Z that are not perfect.
I'm looking to get better scope, partly because it doesn't have decode on segmented memory (which is joke in a first place) and tools to search segmented memory.
For instance, GW Instek GDS-2000E Series seems to have both decode from segmented memory and capability to search through segmented memory with pretty much everything you can trigger on... If that works well, that is probably cheapest good scope that can be used professionally for simpler tasks not requiring mid or high end scope...
But any 4ch scope that is SUBSTANTIALLY better (meaning: work giving money for) is more than 4x expensive.. Or was so far.. If that changes, people will start recommending something else.
-
But most of the time that is not important. That type of measurement is only applicable to repetitive, monotonic, waveform, and is actually statistics of measurements across the capture (single trigger event). That is useful to analyze quality of clock , for instance.. But, in order for that to be useful, scope has to have high end clock stability etc..
Motors. Slow-changing statistically smoothed measurements on physical part, while keeping eye on control part. But ok, suppose this is niche application, but second implication is cumbersome serial decoding. Some think that manually browsing thru megabytes (because it only decodes zoomed part) is normal practice. Actually normal practice is having navigable event table over full memory decode.
I'm quite sure one can get all the modern features under $1000 if combine devices.
-
I spent a week trading off the SDS1202X-E and 1054Z and ended up buying the 1054Z because of the following things:
1. 4 channels
2. Ecosystem around it. For example PyDSA, forum posts galore, well established limitations and workarounds.
3. Direct copy of captured waveform to DS1022Z synthesizer
4. Slightly cheaper
5. UK reseller is decent with plenty of stock and covered by SOGA in UK
6. If I want an FFT I want one that will hit 1GHz and understands RF power so I'm going to buy (or build) a spectrum analyser anyway.
MOST of what I do is either audio, RF, power, digital and the RF side of things is better served with an SA. The power, audio, digital are well served by the DS1054Z.
Bear in mind I've done fine with a 50MHz analogue crate, a pattern trigger and a logic probe for 20 years ;)
-
Yep. Now finding cheap scope that does all well currently impossible if you need it all:
- good analog part (4ch) with full-memory automation
- good FFT
- digital channels
- serial triggering
- serial decoding
I would be looking into combining devices if proper do-it-all stuff out of range.
That surprises me. I remember Dave showing us in the features review that the DS1054Z has a hardware frequency counter in addition to the on-screen software frequency counter. I would think that mitigates this issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2qdtQkBKhc&t=38m24s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2qdtQkBKhc&t=38m24s)
-
But most of the time that is not important. That type of measurement is only applicable to repetitive, monotonic, waveform, and is actually statistics of measurements across the capture (single trigger event). That is useful to analyze quality of clock , for instance.. But, in order for that to be useful, scope has to have high end clock stability etc..
Motors. Slow-changing statistically smoothed measurements on physical part, while keeping eye on control part. But ok, suppose this is niche application, but second implication is cumbersome serial decoding. Some think that manually browsing thru megabytes (because it only decodes zoomed part) is normal practice. Actually normal practice is having navigable event table over full memory decode.
I'm quite sure one can get all the modern features under $1000 if combine devices.
Agree.. manually browsing thru megabytes is not a way to go.. That's why I also have logic analyzer separately.. But it's not the same.
For me, normal practice is search and navigable event table over multiple segmented captures..
I have many products that are idle most of the time and emit data bursts occasionally. I need segmented memory, and a usable one..
That just show how all of us have different needs. And no single instrument will be able to make everybody happy. For your work, I would recommend you Picoscope.. But you already know that and have one AFAIK...
Regards,
Sinisa
-
DS1054Z has a hardware frequency counter in addition to the on-screen software frequency counter. I would think that mitigates this issue.
Maybe be of interest, counter performance mapped:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg1080859/#msg1080859 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg1080859/#msg1080859)
Edit: not only freq, but all horizontal stuff is basically non-functional when not at exactly right timebase, or zoom level. PWM duty for example.
-
What I have found so far, using both of them, is that the UART decoder in the Siglent is a bit sensitive to the timing settings.
I have been trying with a RS485 bus, capturing Modbus packets at 9600 bps. And packets for which all the bytes decoded successfully at 10 ms/div had some errors when capturing at 50 or 100 ms/div.
Unfortunately I've done the test at work and my main goal wasn't to compare oscilloscopes but to check something else, so I can't do a more comprehensive testing nor begin capturing examples.
I wil try to reproduce it at home if possible. But I found that, for an initial packet beginning with 01h-04h the first byte wasn't decoded despite looking perfectly fine on screen.
-
What I have found so far, using both of them, is that the UART decoder in the Siglent is a bit sensitive to the timing settings.
I have been trying with a RS485 bus, capturing Modbus packets at 9600 bps. And packets for which all the bytes decoded successfully at 10 ms/div had some errors when capturing at 50 or 100 ms/div.
Unfortunately I've done the test at work and my main goal wasn't to compare oscilloscopes but to check something else, so I can't do a more comprehensive testing nor begin capturing examples.
I wil try to reproduce it at home if possible. But I found that, for an initial packet beginning with 01h-04h the first byte wasn't decoded despite looking perfectly fine on screen.
When you get to test this in greater depth please include whether or not you're using the appropriate serial triggering suite or the normal edge trigger.
I demo'ed a X-E unit yesterday using the normal edge triggering and despite having a rising edge trigger it decoded without error.
Anyway the more info you can provide the better it can be replicated if indeed there is an issue.
TIA.
-
What I have found so far, using both of them, is that the UART decoder in the Siglent is a bit sensitive to the timing settings.
I have been trying with a RS485 bus, capturing Modbus packets at 9600 bps. And packets for which all the bytes decoded successfully at 10 ms/div had some errors when capturing at 50 or 100 ms/div.
Unfortunately I've done the test at work and my main goal wasn't to compare oscilloscopes but to check something else, so I can't do a more comprehensive testing nor begin capturing examples.
I wil try to reproduce it at home if possible. But I found that, for an initial packet beginning with 01h-04h the first byte wasn't decoded despite looking perfectly fine on screen.
When you get to test this in greater depth please include whether or not you're using the appropriate serial triggering suite or the normal edge trigger.
I demo'ed a X-E unit yesterday using the normal edge triggering and despite having a rising edge trigger it decoded without error.
Anyway the more info you can provide the better it can be replicated if indeed there is an issue.
I used serial trigger, on the first start bit.
-
I had to try that again, this time I captured an example of the SDS1202X-E decoding oddity. The oscilloscope is running the latest firmware version.
I set up the oscilloscope to 100 ms/div (It says it will fill 14 Ms at 10 MS/s which is more than enough to decode a 9600 bps signal, I guess), 1 V/div. Using a x10 differential probe (Hameg HZ109). It's triggering in serial mode, start bit.
There is some noise which could be due to probe malfunction or to the fact that there are around 40 metres of twisted pair cable going to a power consumption monitor.
I have complete files available (the oscilloscope setup and a binary capture). Both screenshots are the same Modbus packet with different levels of detail. Send me a private message with an email address if you want the complete capture (14 MB in binary format) and the setup.xml file.
-
@borjam
Got your PM.
What concerns me is even while you're DC coupled the idle level is undetermined, it's midway neither Hi or Lo. :-//
How can that be ?
BTW to capture more OSD info including the menu just use the blue Print button rather than the Save menu to capture a screenshot.
-
@borjam
Got your PM.
What concerns me is even while you're DC coupled the idle level is undetermined, it's midway neither Hi or Lo. :-//
How can that be ?
BTW to capture more OSD info including the menu just use the blue Print button rather than the Save menu to capture a screenshot.
It's not undetermined, it is RS485, measured with differential probe... When idle drivers go mid supply... differentially that's zero volts..
-
@borjam
Got your PM.
What concerns me is even while you're DC coupled the idle level is undetermined, it's midway neither Hi or Lo. :-//
How can that be ?
It's a two wire RS485 bus, which means it's half duplex. Devices are in high impedance mode when receving. In order to transmit, a device changes the port mode to transmission (which makes it reach the set the right idle mode), it transmits and after transmission it goes back to high impedance. That's why you see a 0 volt idle level.
Some devices can be a bit different. This one for example is a ModbusTCP-RS485 gateway and it doesn't assert the serial line before transmitting but it just begins with the first start bit. In another example I tried, using a different RS485 device, the line is "activated" in idle mode (so, the voltage goes high) and it waits for several ms before sending the first stop bit.
I am attaching a sample of that other device, this time captured on a Rigol DS1000Z. I tried this same device with the Siglent and it failed to decode the first byte successfully depending on the time base I configured.
In this case you see the idle value is around 2 V (positive).
-
@borjam
Got your PM.
What concerns me is even while you're DC coupled the idle level is undetermined, it's midway neither Hi or Lo. :-//
How can that be ?
It's a two wire RS485 bus, which means it's half duplex. Devices are in high impedance mode when receving. In order to transmit, a device changes the port mode to transmission (which makes it reach the set the right idle mode), it transmits and after transmission it goes back to high impedance. That's why you see a 0 volt idle level.
Some devices can be a bit different. This one for example is a ModbusTCP-RS485 gateway and it doesn't assert the serial line before transmitting but it just begins with the first start bit. In another example I tried, using a different RS485 device, the line is "activated" in idle mode (so, the voltage goes high) and it waits for several ms before sending the first stop bit.
I am attaching a sample of that other device, this time captured on a Rigol DS1000Z. I tried this same device with the Siglent and it failed to decode the first byte successfully depending on the time base I configured.
In this case you see the idle value is around 2 V (positive).
OK, gotcha thanks to 2N3055. :)
Is this from the 8th still true:
I have been trying with a RS485 bus, capturing Modbus packets at 9600 bps. And packets for which all the bytes decoded successfully at 10 ms/div had some errors when capturing at 50 or 100 ms/div.
And it's a timebase specific thing ?
Which implies it's doing it wrong in the old ROLL mode settings, something that was supposed to be fixed in the X (not X-E) series but this is a little different.
Factory is finished for today but I'll have some time to have a bash with my test board and see if I can duplicate it in the morning and report it before they get to work. >:D
-
Is this from the 8th still true:
I have been trying with a RS485 bus, capturing Modbus packets at 9600 bps. And packets for which all the bytes decoded successfully at 10 ms/div had some errors when capturing at 50 or 100 ms/div.
And it's a timebase specific thing ?
Which implies it's doing it wrong in the old ROLL mode settings, something that was supposed to be fixed in the X (not X-E) series but this is a little different.
Factory is finished for today but I'll have some time to have a bash with my test board and see if I can duplicate it in the morning and report it before they get to work. >:D
I disabled the roll mode of course.
Anyway, I have a full capture (14 MB file) and setup.xml file. You can send them to Siglent so that they can determine wether it's a bug or not.
As a matter of fact I purchased my scope from Batronix, maybe I should let them know as well. But given that you are already following the issue here it might be redundant. No matter where you distribute them I guess you are interested on Siglent products working properly.
Maybe even Siglent is reading. Hello? ;)
-
Is this from the 8th still true:
I have been trying with a RS485 bus, capturing Modbus packets at 9600 bps. And packets for which all the bytes decoded successfully at 10 ms/div had some errors when capturing at 50 or 100 ms/div.
And it's a timebase specific thing ?
Which implies it's doing it wrong in the old ROLL mode settings, something that was supposed to be fixed in the X (not X-E) series but this is a little different.
Factory is finished for today but I'll have some time to have a bash with my test board and see if I can duplicate it in the morning and report it before they get to work. >:D
I disabled the roll mode of course.
It's disabled by default in slow timebase settings while in Decode.
Anyway, I have a full capture (14 MB file) and setup.xml file. You can send them to Siglent so that they can determine wether it's a bug or not.
Thanks, won't need it.
As a matter of fact I purchased my scope from Batronix, maybe I should let them know as well. But given that you are already following the issue here it might be redundant. No matter where you distribute them I guess you are interested on Siglent products working properly.
Exactly.
We try, some might call us very trying. ;)
Don't discount another round of FW updates for the X-E, there's still a few minor issues I've seen and reported.
Maybe even Siglent is reading. Hello? ;)
7.30pm in Shenzhen, not likely and 11.30 here............bed.
-
At this time without extra work I do not have available good test signal but using signal generator... 4600Hz square 15 cycles and cycle period 3s. This is same as 9600 baud 1 start, 8bit, 1 stop, noparity (data value 0x55/ASCII U/ binary 01010101)
Trigger start bit.
No problems using 100ms/div or other more slow settings.
Here 2s/div
signal is 3* 0x55 repeating every 3 second.
1 image
First without zoom so that it can see every message is without problems. (if there is problems this decode line show red marks)
2. image
Then scope still running and now zoomed for look one 3 byte "message"
Also tested with same signal 5s/div. No problem.
3. image
Also 10s/div, no problem.
More slow testing... not time to do more.
Of course this kind of signal is not at all good for testing but still it show something.
Also with slow time bases every burst is decoded ok when look these with zoom and of course also data table show it.
Data table have some bug. If there is long message and I have zoomed part of it. Data table can of course scroll to show what ever byte in message but there is, imho, Bug. Every time scope start new acquisition it jump back to show beginning of message / least using these slow time bases. Not tested more.
-
Just adding some more data points.
I have been trying to decode the same signal at different time base settings.
At 1 ms/div and 2 ms/div it decodes fine.
At 5 ms/div and so forth it fails on the first byte. I have included the screenshots below.
The decode is configured as UART with the following parameters:
Threshold: -1V
Baud: 9600
Data length: 8 bit
Parity: None
Stop bit: 1
Idle level: High
Bit order: LSB
Link to trigger: Decode 1
Trigger set up:
Type: Serial
Protocol: UART
Signal: Threshold: -1 V
Trigger setting -> Source type: TX
Condition: Start
Bus configure->Baud: 9600
Bus configure->Data Length: 8
Bus condifure->Parity check: None
Bus configure->Stop bit: 1
Bus configure->Idle level: High
Bus configure->Bit order: LSB
The files are:
1 ms/div
2 ms/div
5 ms/div
5 ms/div (previous capture zooming in on a packet)
10 ms/div
10 ms/div (previous capture zooming in on a packet)
20 ms/div
20 ms/div (previous capture zooming in on a packet)
100 ms/div
and 100 ms/div zoomed in on different parts of the capture.
-
How does the GDS-1054B compare to these two models?
-
How does the GDS-1054B compare to these two models?
More mature firmware but no decoding. BTW lots of UI improvements SDS1202X-E users are asking for are already in the recent GW Instek scopes.
-
How does the GDS-1054B compare to these two models?
Nice to use but low bandwidth,, no serial decoders not hackable, ugly, not great bang-per-buck.
-
Hi all,
was wondering if there has been any major changes in this comparison in the last couple of months. I'm deciding between these two and the micsig TO1104 which is now on sale for ~$80 off. Thought it might be better to use this thread than starting an entirely new one. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Main use case is school projects and hobby stuff using the MSP430 and the atmega2560.
-
cbc02009
I've got the Rigol, just bought it. I'm delighted with it.
In the last month I've only use two channels.
The Siglent one comes with decoding built in. The Rigol does not, unless you want to take the moral dilemma of stealing this additional functionality by unlocking this is a few seconds. They sell this functionality.
The Siglent has had a hardware issue with probe compensation at 10x. New units that have been manufactured (we are told on here anyhow) have been fixed. The concern is that distributors will still have older stock before the fix.
The shading gradients of the Siglent appears better on paper.
Having said all that, as I said, I recently bought the Rigol DS1054Z, and I'm really delighted with it.
As far as the extra two channels, well the question is whether you think you can really concentrate on more than two things at once or not realistically. It's probably a "nice to have".
I'm glad I have those extra two, but it's not a deal breaker.
Either scope will do you well.
-
4 traces is VERY useful: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/tektronix-475-repair-assistance/msg1330121/#msg1330121 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/tektronix-475-repair-assistance/msg1330121/#msg1330121)
-
Hi all,
was wondering if there has been any major changes in this comparison in the last couple of months. I'm deciding between these two and the micsig TO1104 which is now on sale for ~$80 off. Thought it might be better to use this thread than starting an entirely new one. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Main use case is school projects and hobby stuff using the MSP430 and the atmega2560.
Welcome to the forum.
If you can hang on until the 4 ch X-E is available it will clean them all up.
Watch for a vid Dave will do on them very soon as they will be released in the next few days.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/)
The HW issue that trys mentions affects the older 2 ch models and will be corrected in the 4 ch versions before they get to market.
-
deciding between these two and the micsig TO1104
I have both,
the Rigol is Desktop, nice UserInterface with Knobs (OldSchool), but 5or6 years old technology
the Migsig is Tablet, portable, big screen (4:3), WLAN and optional HDMI (for school?)
handling is faster, only some taps (or mouse) and you are done...
and it is far less noisy with far better FFT and faster X-Y
to decide, see the Micsig-Thread here and maybe youtube
-
was wondering if there has been any major changes in this comparison in the last couple of months. I'm deciding between these two and the micsig TO1104 which is now on sale for ~$80 off. Thought it might be better to use this thread than starting an entirely new one. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Main use case is school projects and hobby stuff using the MSP430 and the atmega2560.
Micsig allows for a different work style. You test something, then take scope to the sofa to review waveforms and videos :)
-
was wondering if there has been any major changes in this comparison in the last couple of months. I'm deciding between these two and the micsig TO1104 which is now on sale for ~$80 off. Thought it might be better to use this thread than starting an entirely new one. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Main use case is school projects and hobby stuff using the MSP430 and the atmega2560.
Micsig allows for a different work style. You test something, then take scope to the sofa to review waveforms and videos :)
I agree and the battery operation makes the TO1104 way more portable. I have a TO1104 myself and the small formfactor and battery make it easy to just pull it out and place it somewhere for a quick measurement. Besides that the TO1104 has no bugs that I'm aware off. Everything just works.
-
Huh, okay. So it sounds like I should hold off for a bit because the new products will be coming out shortly. Thank you all for your advice. I might just go with a cheap usb one until then, as I don't currently need a great amount of accuracy.
-
Like many others I'm trying to decide between the 1054z and Siglent's 1202xe. I'm not willing to pay the extra bucks for the new 1204xe with first generation firmware. My interests mostly involve audio and power supplies with occasional dabbling in arduino, esp8266 etc. I am curious about the relative performance with FFTs. Perusal of these blogs leads me to believe the Siglent 1202xe is the better performer in this area. Since they both use 8 bit A/D, is the difference due to Siglent's newer more powerful SOC? Is the Rigol limited by its processing hardware or is it possible that a firmware change could close the gap? What is the nature of the FFT difference today and is it likely to change? 4 channels is not a trump card for me nor is a 200Mhz bw. I also acknowledge Siglent's compensation vs attention problem but don't think it'll be a show stopper for me. Thanks for any advice.
-
Micsig allows for a different work style. You test something, then take scope to the sofa to review waveforms and videos :)
Remember to unplug probes first... 8)
-
I am curious about the relative performance with FFTs. Perusal of these blogs leads me to believe the Siglent 1202xe is the better performer in this area. Since they both use 8 bit A/
For Audio FFTs a decent sound card will destroy both of them (16 bits or more in the samples...)
You can also process the data from a 'scope on a PC, all you need is an Ethernet cable (I assume the Siglent can do this, I know the Rigol can). This way you're not limited to what the 'scope can do.
https://sigrok.org/
-
Like many others I'm trying to decide between the 1054z and Siglent's 1202xe. I'm not willing to pay the extra bucks for the new 1204xe with first generation firmware. My interests mostly involve audio and power supplies with occasional dabbling in arduino, esp8266 etc. I am curious about the relative performance with FFTs. Perusal of these blogs leads me to believe the Siglent 1202xe is the better performer in this area. Since they both use 8 bit A/D, is the difference due to Siglent's newer more powerful SOC? Is the Rigol limited by its processing hardware or is it possible that a firmware change could close the gap? What is the nature of the FFT difference today and is it likely to change? 4 channels is not a trump card for me nor is a 200Mhz bw. I also acknowledge Siglent's compensation vs attention problem but don't think it'll be a show stopper for me. Thanks for any advice.
Welcome to the forum
Yep the faster processor is responsible for the great (for entry level) FFT performance.
SN#'s after BBD do not have the compensation issue.
-
Doofus,
Be aware that tautech is associated with Siglent, as nice as he is, so bear this in mind with responses about comparing to other manufacturers.
As far as Audio is considered, I've pretty amazed at how useful Audacity is using the "Plot Spectrum" function (which is effectively what you're seeing with FFT). This is just using a £1 USB Sound Card dongle, and the free open source Audacity software.
Also, as far as compensation issues only affecting "old" Siglent 1202xe, that is not entirely true. We are led to believe that due to shipping times, and general stock control that there are enough stocks held globally by distributors and resellers that you cannot guarantee at this stage whether you will get one with the probe compensation hardware fault or not.
As far as Audio is concerned, JohnAudioTech in Youtube does an excellent job using FFT on his Rigol scope.
Trys
-
And let's not forget about Digilent's 'Analog Discovery' which sits somewhere between a sound card and an oscilloscope.
-
And let's not forget about Digilent's 'Analog Discovery' which sits somewhere between a sound card and an oscilloscope.
And is excellent for Audio analysis thanks to a 14-bit ADC.
-
And let's not forget about Digilent's 'Analog Discovery' which sits somewhere between a sound card and an oscilloscope.
I have one and really like it as a learning tool, it is packed full of functions. I still feel the need for a "real" DSO, but I am not in a rush and can wait to see how this 4 channel market progresses. The Analog Discovery has 2 main drawbacks as I see it, the 20mhz bandwidth limit, and the price. At $279 it is pretty close to the Rigol 1054Z at $330 (w/discount). There is a lot of first hand info available on it as an audio tool, particularly on YT. Dave
-
I hadn't heard of the Analog Discovery before. It looks like it could be an economical ($300 or so) alternative for a low frequency analyzer. Interesting as an extra piece of gear but I'd still be looking for a more user friendly scope. Having an AWG and logic analysis capabilities as well as a programmable PS gives it quite a bit of Moxie.
-
A retired EE on YT has taken some very indepth looks at the AD. If you are interested in learning more about its capibilities and limits you should check out his vids. Once on YT a search on the AD will yield quite a bit of other information as well. Their software is free to download and can be run in demo mode to get a feel for it. Digilents website is chock full of instructional and educational info about the AD as well. Except for the price, no one seems to have a bad word to say about it as long as you stay within its intended uses. Dave dose a review of it on hit YT page as well. Dave
https://youtu.be/lQbg7hilS2U
-
I hadn't heard of the Analog Discovery before. It looks like it could be an economical ($300 or so) alternative for a low frequency analyzer. Interesting as an extra piece of gear but I'd still be looking for a more user friendly scope. Having an AWG and logic analysis capabilities as well as a programmable PS gives it quite a bit of Moxie.
With the 4 ch X-E AWG USB module and all Siglent AWG's too they can be used as a low power DC source, IIRC 200mA.
The AWG USB module needs one of the 4 ch X-E models to drive it and then Bode plots are possible with the DSO too. They also have a 16 ch LA option if you're looking to get as much as you can out of a single box.
-
I hadn't heard of the Analog Discovery before. It looks like it could be an economical ($300 or so) alternative for a low frequency analyzer.
Yep. The built-in wave generator lets you automate Bode plots, etc.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/analog-disovery-as-audio-analyzer/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/analog-disovery-as-audio-analyzer/)
-
Neat bit of kit really. For the sake of learning electronics, it really does everything.
Only criticism is it could do with some higher voltage outputs, say +/-20v
-
In the back of my mind I was questioning how either of these (Rigol and Siglent) 8 bit scopes could achieve a dynamic range greater than 1/256 or approx 46dB. After googling I found a pretty helpful article. https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope. (https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope.) The short answer is oversampling and/or averaging. Perhaps others might find this interesting too.
-
In the back of my mind I was questioning how either of these (Rigol and Siglent) 8 bit scopes could achieve a dynamic range greater than 1/256 or approx 46dB. After googling I found a pretty helpful article. https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope. (https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope.) The short answer is oversampling and/or averaging.
Unfortunately that answer is too short. In order for oversampling to work you need enough noise (>1LSB) with a good distribution and the ADC needs to be good enough. In reality you can't get much more bits from an ADC beyond it's design specs (othwerwise everyone would be using 1 bit ADCs).
-
Actually the 24 bit sigma-delta A/Ds used for audio are 1 bit A/Ds. I agree though that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. The analog front end and the A/D have to be up for the task. Even though they are advertised as 24 bits, the ENOB is somewhat less than that. Forget trying to get anywhere near that kind of resolution at frequencies these scopes have to work at.
-
Actually the 24 bit sigma-delta A/Ds used for audio are 1 bit A/Ds.
No because there is a lot more to a delta-sigma ADC than the single comparator it uses.
-
Actually the 24 bit sigma-delta A/Ds used for audio are 1 bit A/Ds.
No because there is a lot more to a delta-sigma ADC than the single comparator it uses.
Doofus means that the quantizer has 1 bit resolution.
Audio delta-sigma converters with 4 bit quantizers used to be common but when this is done, then the linearity is limited by the 4 bit ADC used for a quantizer which limits linearity and distortion. Multibit quantizers are still used in RF applications where blocking dynamic range matters like jam resistant GPS receivers (https://www.u-blox.com/sites/default/files/products/documents/u-blox-AntiJamming_WhitePaper_%28GPS-X-09008%29.pdf). There is no doubt a place for them in Wifi and various direct conversion receivers however the race to the bottom has made them all horrible as far as overload performance.
-
The Analog Discovery has 2 main drawbacks as I see it, the 20mhz bandwidth limit, and the price. At $279 it is pretty close to the Rigol 1054Z at $330 (w/discount).
I thought so as well, so I chose "a real scope" and a "real" signal generator (TO1104+SDG2042). But now I need Bode plots and I think AD2 can save me a lot of time and also has much better resolution (14bit in theory). It also has differential inputs which is a big plus for me (normally all scope channels share the same ground). So, now I'm convinced it's a really useful device for low/mid-freq measurements. I'm going to buy one and, chances are, I'll use it more often than "the real scope".
PS shame on MicSig for not publishing communication protocol so I cannot control it from my programs. They do have some drivers for Windows (requiring a lot of bloatware), but I'm on Linux. I managed to reverse engineer their protocol to some extend, but it's waste of time.
-
PS shame on MicSig for not publishing communication protocol so I cannot control it from my programs. They do have some drivers for Windows (requiring a lot of bloatware), but I'm on Linux. I managed to reverse engineer their protocol to some extend, but it's waste of time.
Any chance you could share what you have so far on MicSig's protocol? It could be helpful to others.
-
Doofus,
Welcome to the forum!
Thanks for posting that link, an interesting and informative read. The link above didn't work for me because of the full stop (period) at the end of the link.
Here is the link that hopefully works for folk on here:
https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope (https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope)
Trys
-
Sorry about the period and thanks for fixing it up.
-
Unfortunately the article doesn't mention the amount of noise needed. Imagine you have a signal which sits between two ADC steps. No amount of oversampling is going to help get you the exact value of that signal. This isn't some scenario I dream up. I have seen interpolation (high res mode) go completely wrong on an oscilloscope because there wasn't enough noise in the system to make oversampling work.
-
Any chance you could share what you have so far on MicSig's protocol? It could be helpful to others.
Huh, I thought I already posted this... But I cannot find it. Either it was deleted or I forgot to push "post" button :( All I could find now is a script I made to unpack their firmware, I'll post it there.
-
The Analog Discovery has 2 main drawbacks as I see it, the 20mhz bandwidth limit, and the price. At $279 it is pretty close to the Rigol 1054Z at $330 (w/discount).
I thought so as well, so I chose "a real scope" and a "real" signal generator (TO1104+SDG2042). But now I need Bode plots and I think AD2 can save me a lot of time and also has much better resolution (14bit in theory). It also has differential inputs which is a big plus for me (normally all scope channels share the same ground). So, now I'm convinced it's a really useful device for low/mid-freq measurements. I'm going to buy one and, chances are, I'll use it more often than "the real scope".
Within its capabilities (voltage/frequency), the AD2 is an amazing device. I have been fooling around with an RC circuit as a demo project for my grandson and I should have been using the AD2 instead of my DS1054Z. The Rigol puts on a good show but my AD2 has a 27" screen.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/best-experimentsdemos-for-learning-about-capacitors-and-inductors/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/best-experimentsdemos-for-learning-about-capacitors-and-inductors/)
Really, the whole thread is about the Bode' plot.
The differential inputs are really nice to have under certain circumstances. You lose that capability if you use the BNC adapter.
-
After reading several last pages of this thread, I got getting the impression that MicSig TO1104 is better than or equivalent to Siglent SDS1202X-E in almost every way? Or does it lack significant functionality? I'm a complete newbie, this will be my first scope, primarily used for MCU-based projects.
-
After reading several last pages of this thread, I got getting the impression that MicSig TO1104 is better than or equivalent to Siglent SDS1202X-E in almost every way? Or does it lack significant functionality? I'm a complete newbie, this will be my first scope, primarily used for MCU-based projects.
I wrote a review about the MicSig TO1104 a year ago and go into the various choices in the low end segment:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293)
Since the review the protocol decoding has been released officially.
-
I wrote a review about the MicSig TO1104 a year ago and go into the various choices in the low end segment:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293)
Since the review the protocol decoding has been released officially.
It's really hard for me to understand the features right now, so would you say that there is parity feature-wise, or is MicSig significantly weaker as one would expect from a portable product vs benchtop one?
-
The MicSig TO1104 is a (low end) benchtop scope in tablet form. It doesn't have the weaknesses you typically see in (portable) hand-held scopes.
-
Have they completed implementing decoding in T01104 by now? Also, is there now functional PC software for this device, or does it still require Windows 7 SP1? And have they fixed saving data, or does it still save only 35kpts?
-
The decoding has been completed. I have not revisited saving data or the PC software. In general PC software for test equipment sucks anyway (also true for Keysight, Tektronix, etc so nothing new here) so don't expect any miracles.
-
The decoding has been completed. I have not revisited saving data or the PC software. In general PC software for test equipment sucks anyway (also true for Keysight, Tektronix, etc so nothing new here) so don't expect any miracles.
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?
-
For me, it’s pretty simple, knobs!
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?
For me, it’s pretty simple, knobs!
:)
2x 1GSa/s ADC's
2x 14 M memory modules (one for each ADC)
Lower front end noise, see here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850)
Search facilities
Bode plot
FFT
16ch LA
Fast UI.
But keep doing your homework to get the full picture.
Threads:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/)
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
I wouldn't call it out specced. The TO1104 has different features like touch screen, battery power, ability to record videos of signals, input filtering, HDMI output, 8GB of internal storage and it can decode 2 different protocols at the same time. Last but not least the TO1104 doesn't have any (known) bugs.
The signal noise is low since all the scopes in this price class use the same analog frontend / ADC chips.
Here is a TO1104 review I did last year:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293)
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?
The TO1104 is missing bugs, unethical corporate sales tactics (like shipping bad SDS1202X-E units in Feb 2018 after the compensation issue was reported back in Sep 2017) and eevblog threads where members complain about it. Actually it is kind of boring (it just works, plain and simple and looks like owners love it)
TO1104 serial decode does not show decode list or table, but as nctnico commented, it can decode 2 serial protocols (UART + i2c, UART TX + UART RX, SPI MOSI + SPI MISO, etc)
EDIT: corrected error pointed by tautech.
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?
The TO1104 is missing bugs, unethical corporate sales tactics (like shipping bad SDS1204X-E SDS1202X-E units in Feb 2018 after the compensation issue was reported back in Sep 2017) and eevblog threads where members complain about it. Actually it is kind of boring (it just works, plain and simple and looks like owners love it)
Correction added ^^^
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?
For me, it’s pretty simple, knobs!
:)
2x 1GSa/s ADC's
2x 14 M memory modules (one for each ADC)
Lower front end noise, see here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850)
Search facilities
Bode plot
FFT
16ch LA
Fast UI.
But keep doing your homework to get the full picture.
Threads:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/)
Micsig TO1104 has FFT
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?
For me, it’s pretty simple, knobs!
:)
2x 1GSa/s ADC's
2x 14 M memory modules (one for each ADC)
Lower front end noise, see here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850)
Search facilities
Bode plot
FFT
16ch LA
Fast UI.
But keep doing your homework to get the full picture.
Threads:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/)
Micsig TO1104 has FFT
Yep, of course.
To quote nctnico from his review:
Unfortunately the FFT function is a bit minimalistic. The length varies depending on how much of the waveform is displayed. The maximum FFT length I managed to get is 43kpts which isn't bad at all but I think that the FFT is performed on the display data just like the measurements. This oscilloscope has a lot of processing power under the hood so I expected it to do way longer FFT.
SDS1000X-E models have 1 Mpt FFT.
-
So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?
Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.
What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?
For me, it’s pretty simple, knobs!
:)
2x 1GSa/s ADC's
2x 14 M memory modules (one for each ADC)
Lower front end noise, see here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-xds3062a-input-noise-(good)-and-glitches-(bad)/msg1433850/#msg1433850)
Search facilities
Bode plot
FFT
16ch LA
Fast UI.
But keep doing your homework to get the full picture.
Threads:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/)
Micsig TO1104 has FFT
Yep, of course.
To quote nctnico from his review:
Unfortunately the FFT function is a bit minimalistic. The length varies depending on how much of the waveform is displayed. The maximum FFT length I managed to get is 43kpts which isn't bad at all but I think that the FFT is performed on the display data just like the measurements. This oscilloscope has a lot of processing power under the hood so I expected it to do way longer FFT.
SDS1000X-E models have 1 Mpt FFT.
True but on the upside the TO1104 FFT implementation allows to do FFT on a part of a long signal which can be useful in some cases.
-
Is this a test how far you can nest quotes before the forum software crashes? ::)
-
Is this a test how far you can nest quotes before the forum software crashes? ::)
I've seen worse. Want to try?
-
Hi All,
i have ordered both the Rigol DS1054Z and Siglent SDS1202X-E and did a 1-on-1 comparison for the features that interest me the most as an electronics hobbyist. I have created a decision matrix Excel table which you might want to check under:
https://www.microfarad.de/blog/oscilloscope-comparison/ (https://www.microfarad.de/blog/oscilloscope-comparison/)
Please note that i am not affiliated to any of the manufacturers and the outcome only reflects my personal preferences. You may feed the Excel table with different input data as per your own requirements and will get the result in favor of the one or the other device.
Best Regards
Karim
-
Good job Karim, the DS1054Z (with upgrades) is hard to beat especially with 4 channels.
-
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. 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?
Thanks!
-
after the latest firmware upgrade, I would say that the advantage is on the Siglent SDS1202X-E side. If you are not sure 2-Channel vs 4-Channel, then probably you don't need 4 channels.... but you might need the extra channels after a short time.
If you can get the SDS1104X-E, much better. It is more expensive, but I think you will not regret the decision.
-
If you're on a tight budget, the 1054Z all day long. Two channels and more bandwidth is far more crippling than four channels and lacking a bit of extra bandwidth, plus a few other software features. The 1104X-E is the better scope, but I don't think it's $150-$200 "better". I say this as an 1104X-E owner. I'll also note that you should shop around and compare... I bought my 1104X-E on Amazon.ca, and their price was just ~$20CAD ($500CAD) more than the 1054Z ($480CAD), making my decision a no-brainer.
-
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. :popcorn:
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...)
-
Hi All,
i have ordered both the Rigol DS1054Z and Siglent SDS1202X-E and did a 1-on-1 comparison for the features that interest me the most as an electronics hobbyist. I have created a decision matrix Excel table which you might want to check under:
https://www.microfarad.de/blog/oscilloscope-comparison/ (https://www.microfarad.de/blog/oscilloscope-comparison/)
I have both and there is something I don't really like in the DS1000Z series: when you select "dots" mode it doesn't display actual samples, but interpolated data which, in my opinion, is a big mistake. Rigol developers seem to favor some cosmetic criteria when deciding how to display data (non transparent handling of sin(x)/x interpolation, no real dots mode, etc).
That said I am not in the Rigol or Siglent bashing crowd. Both instruments are extremely useful depending on your needs. I don't regret buying any of them although, of course, they would be much better if some shortcomings were addressed.
-
I have both and there is something I don't really like in the DS1000Z series: when you select "dots" mode it doesn't display actual samples, but interpolated data which, in my opinion, is a big mistake. Rigol developers seem to favor some cosmetic criteria when deciding how to display data (non transparent handling of sin(x)/x interpolation, no real dots mode, etc).
How often do you use dots mode in real life?
The "cosmetic" criteria of the Rigol actually shows a more accurate signal when the sample rate:bandwidth ratio is high enough to seriously distort the signal due to the Gibbs phenomenon. nb. It doesn't do it all the time, it only kicks in with all channels enabled and at maximum sample rate. With one or two channels? It does the industry standard sin(x)/x.
That said I am not in the Rigol or Siglent bashing crowd. Both instruments are extremely useful depending on your needs. I don't regret buying any of them although, of course, they would be much better if some shortcomings were addressed.
If those sort of "shortcomings" bother you then you need to spend more money and get a real oscilloscope.
-
I have both and there is something I don't really like in the DS1000Z series: when you select "dots" mode it doesn't display actual samples, but interpolated data which, in my opinion, is a big mistake. Rigol developers seem to favor some cosmetic criteria when deciding how to display data (non transparent handling of sin(x)/x interpolation, no real dots mode, etc).
How often do you use dots mode in real life?
The thing is, dots are not useful at all unless they are implemented so that raw data is shown. Unless dots are really different from the other representation their only value is cosmetic. So what does sound better to you? A feature that turns out to be only cosmetic, or a feature that also can offer you more information that might help you judge a possible problem better?
That said I am not in the Rigol or Siglent bashing crowd. Both instruments are extremely useful depending on your needs. I don't regret buying any of them although, of course, they would be much better if some shortcomings were addressed.
If those sort of "shortcomings" bother you then you need to spend more money and get a real oscilloscope.
As I said I don't regret anything! For the record, I could say that the full ROI was achieved when I solved a problem in half an hour instead of spending several days on it.
And shortcoming free products don't exist of course. I don't think either of them are not real oscilloscopes anyway. They can be better or worse than others, that's an entirely different question. But to me they are real and not toys at all ;)
-
And shortcoming free products don't exist of course. I don't think either of them are not real oscilloscopes anyway.
So why derail yet another "My first oscilloscope?" thread with a tiny technical detail that makes no practical difference in real life?*
If somebody comes in with a specific list of requirements that the Rigol doesn't meet, then then fair enough, mention it.
As a general purpose 'scope for people on a budget? The Rigol is awesome! 1.6 ns rise times and four channels for under $400? Give me more of that!
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope/?action=dlattach;attach=521522;image)
-
The thing is, dots are not useful at all unless they are implemented so that raw data is shown.
I'm not sure they're useful, ever. Real signals aren't made of dots. :popcorn:
-
Bandwidth? A hacked Rigol is a lot closer to 200Mhz than it is to 100Mhz.
Measured -3dB bandwidth of unlocked 1000Z is around 130 MHz. That is awesome for the price..
Also 18000 USD Keysight 3104T doesn't even have dot mode. Nobody cares...Also sin(x)/x is automatically handled, no user option. Also, nobody cares..
Like Borjam says. they are both extremely useful little scopes, that in a hands of a person that knows how to use them, will be good enough for a lot of professional work, not to mention hobby...
-
Also 18000 USD Keysight 3104T doesn't even have dot mode. Nobody cares...Also sin(x)/x is automatically handled, no user option. Also, nobody cares..
This.
Measured -3dB bandwidth of unlocked 1000Z is around 130 MHz. That is awesome for the price..
See image above for a better measurement. :popcorn:
-
From time to time Tequipment.net (you can get eevblog discount from them) sells refurb DS1054Z (I just looked and can't find one right now). After discount, I paid $285 shipped for my DS1054Z and it gets near daily use.
-
Hi All,
i have ordered both the Rigol DS1054Z and Siglent SDS1202X-E and did a 1-on-1 comparison for the features that interest me the most as an electronics hobbyist. I have created a decision matrix Excel table which you might want to check under:
https://www.microfarad.de/blog/oscilloscope-comparison/ (https://www.microfarad.de/blog/oscilloscope-comparison/)
Please note that i am not affiliated to any of the manufacturers and the outcome only reflects my personal preferences. You may feed the Excel table with different input data as per your own requirements and will get the result in favor of the one or the other device.
If you have time you should add the GW Instek GDS1054B (hacked) to this comparison. I think it can win on several points from both scopes already in your comparison.
-
Does the forum software have an option for auto-responders? These could monitor all threads, be triggered by certain keywords, and automatically post a response. If users could set these up according to their preferences, it would save some of us a lot of time! 8)
Some suggestions (choose your own trigger words):
Fungus: "The DS1054Z is just fine!"
nctnico: "Don't forget about GW Instek!"
ebastler: "Guys, please..."
;) ;)
-
Does the forum software have an option for auto-responders? These could monitor all threads, be triggered by certain keywords, and automatically post a response. If users could set these up according to their preferences, it would save some of us a lot of time! 8)
Some suggestions (choose your own trigger words):
Fungus: "The DS1054Z is just fine!"
nctnico: "Don't forget about GW Instek!"
ebastler: "Guys, please..."
;) ;)
LOL.. Epic...
-
Does the forum software have an option for auto-responders? These could monitor all threads, be triggered by certain keywords, and automatically post a response. If users could set these up according to their preferences, it would save some of us a lot of time! 8)
Some suggestions (choose your own trigger words):
Fungus: "The DS1054Z is just fine!"
nctnico: "Don't forget about GW Instek!"
;) ;)
At least we're getting it down to half a page now.
ebastler: "Guys, please..."
What's really needed is a way to stop newbies from posting that question in the first place.
PS: Who's forcing you to read posts with "Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E" in the title? Not me. :-//
-
Does the forum software have an option for auto-responders? These could monitor all threads, be triggered by certain keywords, and automatically post a response. If users could set these up according to their preferences, it would save some of us a lot of time! 8)
Some suggestions (choose your own trigger words):
Fungus: "The DS1054Z is just fine!"
nctnico: "Don't forget about GW Instek!"
ebastler: "Guys, please..."
;) ;)
An autoresponder which lists the following scopes DS1054Z, SDS1104X-E and GDS-1054B triggered on each of these keywords before someone makes a posting would even be better. Few people research all the available options themselves before posting a question so you'll get a lot of repeated answers.
-
PS: Who's forcing you to read posts with "Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E" in the title? Not me. :-//
He has to! Or else, we won't have the "Guys, please..."!
-
PS: Who's forcing you to read posts with "Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E" in the title? Not me. :-//
He has to! Or else, we won't have the "Guys, please..."!
Thanks tv84 -- you have beaten me to writing the exact same thing! ;)
Alternative explanations: "Voices in my head make me do it!",
or "The Show new replies to your posts list makes me do it!". 8)
-
I paid $285 shipped for my DS1054Z and it gets near daily use.
I thought you have a micsig scope... If so, what happened to it?
-
I paid $285 shipped for my DS1054Z and it gets near daily use.
I thought you have a micsig scope... If so, what happened to it?
Nope, never owned one of those.
-
Hell, didn't know my question could be so much irritating to you experts... :-DD
I will probably end buying the Rigol, I'm also bored of not being able to choose, or getting the "consider the GW Instek". Siglend and Rigol have 1€ difference price on Amazon.it and the purpose of my "first oscilloscope" is to work with induction heating and all the oscillator / mosfets switching thing. 4 channels are useful, since I learned reading from you that triggering with probes switching is a thing for the expert hand, not me.
-
Do not know if someone has asked this, this is a very long post to read.
How do the FFT compare on both of these machines.
-
FFT: SDS1202X-E is the clear winner
-
1.6 ns rise times and four channels for under $400? Give me more of that!
Variable bandwidth with vertical sensitivity and signal level is the new must have feature. Soon all DSOs will have it.