Thanks for all your answers. So I have to decide between a sure election like the Rigol, that we know that it works so good, or Siglent, that has more depth memory but maybe they has less experience manufacturing and anyone knows him...Anyway I don´t how much important is this depth memory diference in the practice. The question is, Is it enough to buy the Siglent instead Rigol?
I thought in the Siglent DSO because a worker from HAMEG called me to sell it to me. At the begining he wanted to sell me a HAMEG DSO but it was too expensive for me, and then he told me that they have a chinese model that they recommending me for their quality and technicals specs, so I thought if HAMEG sell this, it must to be good...
It should be a great idea to find someone who has a Siglent...but it seems a little dificult, so I think that finally I will buy a Rigol and I will change his firmware to get the 100 Mhz.
Anyway if someone has another idea it would be perfect!
Thanks again!
For a DSO, bandwidth, sampling rate, and memory depth are all the critical components for its overall performance, a weakness is one hampers the whole performance.
But, Dave Jones said in one of this forums that the diference betwen Rigol DS1052E and Rigol DS1102E 100MHz is just the software, so if this its true, when you increase the 50 Mhz to the double, it does also the sample rate and the rise time convert into the half, isn´t?
It apparently has an analog front end that drops off around 160MHz.. sufficient for antialiasing samples rates of 320MSps. Hopefully the DSP stage doesn't 'throw away' too many samples, and actually does interpolating decimation. (Is this the question about the sinc(x) stage?)
For a DSO, bandwidth, sampling rate, and memory depth are all the critical components for its overall performance, a weakness is one hampers the whole performance.Don't forget the analog part, this is not your standard RF amplifier (no matched impedances and much wider bandwidth). The Rigol doesn't appear to be particularly great at this, but I haven't seen a comprehensive test. Analog performance is just not as apparent from a spec sheet as something like sample rate. Other properties that don't stand out from specs are user interface, responsiveness, number of waveforms per second (especially when enabling measurements/math/FFT), contrast/viewing angle of the screen and noise (in the waveform, not fan noise). Tons of ways to ruin the user experience of a scope .
My experience with other DSOs are limited, but Rigol's analog front end hasn't played a substantial part in affecting the scopes capacity to show waveforms properly, beyond reducing amplitude. Even with the unmodded 1052E, which has its 160 MHz front analog end crippled.
My experience with other DSOs are limited, but Rigol's analog front end hasn't played a substantial part in affecting the scopes capacity to show waveforms properly, beyond reducing amplitude. Even with the unmodded 1052E, which has its 160 MHz front analog end crippled.Remember that it's a frequency-dependent reduction of amplitude, so for anything but sine waves, this will result in distortion. There may also be a phase shift at higher frequencies, which will result in even more distortion.
The 160 MHz number you guys keep quoting was from a single scope on a single vertical attenuation setting. I've seen some other results that appeared to indicate that the front-end attenuator was way too low above 70 MHz or so, but that person didn't have the proper test equipment to verify, and I don't have a Rigol scope. Someone much more knowledgeable than me claimed that it was unrealistic to expect cheap scopes with standard SMT components on FR-4 to meet their frequency specs over the vertical attenuation range, and that it was perfectly normal that the gain was way too low at 70 MHz. But I am careful with drawing conclusions from these results, since they were from just one person, and somewhat incomplete. Unlike some people that base their claims on a single bandwidth measurement .
Yes, assuming its at its best to stay far before the -3dB mark to avoid it frequency response related distortion. If this scope were really 160 MHz, making it limited to 50 MHz would give a lot of 'head room' for harmonics. Not to mention your skepticism about the true frequency limits of the front end amp.
I too was going to post a query about this 150/160 MHz limit but I found at least 3 separate eevblog posters who made measures at different times, it doesnt' seem like its the same device, so there maybe some truth to it:
gandalf8
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg29449#msg29449
dimlow
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1495.msg19819#msg19819
Rossmoffett:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=30.msg2059#msg2059
This one seems valid, but only at one attenuator setting.
It appears that he concluded that his edge rate was way too slow to actually verify 150 MHz bandwidth. You also need to show that it's a Gaussian response before you can calculate bandwidth from rise time.Rossmoffett:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=30.msg2059#msg2059This one is relative to the unmodified frequency response,
IMO not enough evidence to state that the front-end has a bandwidth of 160MHz, since that statement suggests that it applies to all samples of their scopes at all vertical setting.
Btw afaik Atten = Siglent (I do not know why they do this, maybe some Asian marketing reasons or maybe this old case between Atten - Rigol copy dispute what Rigol win in Chinese cord room)
ADS1102CAL with small capture memory 7" 480 h.pixel
ADS1102CML with 2M (or 2x1M) and 7" 480 h.pixel
Hi,
This is my view of the SDS1102CM after 2 weeks:
http://cseb.hu/siglent
Regards,
Csaba
Hi,
This is my view of the SDS1102CM after 2 weeks:
http://cseb.hu/siglent
Regards,
Csaba