Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Poll

What do you prefer?

2 channel scope with better specs
48 (48.5%)
4 channel scope with worse specs
35 (35.4%)
No idea
16 (16.2%)

Total Members Voted: 99

Author Topic: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E  (Read 32370 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MDLSoft

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: es
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #75 on: June 09, 2017, 09:47:29 AM »
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.
 

Online stj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1370
  • Country: gb
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #76 on: June 09, 2017, 10:00:06 AM »
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.
 

Online kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 360
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #77 on: June 09, 2017, 10:23:56 AM »
PS: Crappiest 'poll' ever.

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

Whoever's answering the poll, of course.
 

Online kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 360
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #78 on: June 09, 2017, 10:43:31 AM »
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).
« Last Edit: June 09, 2017, 10:46:21 AM by kcbrown »
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6815
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #79 on: June 09, 2017, 03:45:34 PM »
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.

 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6815
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #80 on: June 09, 2017, 03:51:26 PM »
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.


« Last Edit: June 09, 2017, 03:53:38 PM by Fungus »
 

Online rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3223
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2017, 04:46:43 AM »
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...
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #82 on: June 10, 2017, 07:03:55 AM »
the interesting thing about the sig' is in the tear down, it has a 4 channel A/D convertor.

Bastards :(
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #83 on: June 15, 2017, 07:22:06 AM »
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.
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #84 on: June 15, 2017, 07:34:40 AM »
Whoops, I was wrong about cursors and FFT. Measurements work on FFT too. I think it's time to read the manual :)
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6815
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #85 on: June 15, 2017, 04:18:18 PM »
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.
 

Offline Loboscope

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #86 on: June 15, 2017, 05:49:24 PM »
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.
 

Offline boggis the cat

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • Country: nz
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #87 on: June 15, 2017, 06:17:58 PM »
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).

Quote
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.)

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6815
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #88 on: June 15, 2017, 06:42:50 PM »
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!)

 

Offline Loboscope

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #89 on: June 15, 2017, 07:08:39 PM »
"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!
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #90 on: June 16, 2017, 06:37:45 AM »
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.
 

Offline TK

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
  • Country: us
  • I am a Systems Analyst who plays with Electronics
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #91 on: June 16, 2017, 06:43:42 AM »
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?
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #92 on: June 16, 2017, 06:56:20 AM »
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).
 

Offline TK

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 465
  • Country: us
  • I am a Systems Analyst who plays with Electronics
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #93 on: June 16, 2017, 07:09:38 AM »
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
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9745
  • Country: nz
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #94 on: June 16, 2017, 07:19:27 AM »
@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.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist & NZ Siglent Distributor
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #95 on: June 16, 2017, 07:50:25 AM »
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.
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9745
  • Country: nz
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #96 on: June 16, 2017, 08:00:16 AM »
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.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist & NZ Siglent Distributor
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #97 on: June 16, 2017, 08:16:16 AM »
Thanks for answering. I think it's time for me to ask for support in the Siglent thread rather than cluttering this discussion.
 

Offline exe

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Country: nl
  • self-educated hobbist
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #98 on: June 20, 2017, 07:36:20 AM »
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.
 

Offline fishandchips

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E
« Reply #99 on: June 20, 2017, 07:58:58 AM »
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?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf