-
Question: Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1102X
Posted by
Bicurico
on 09 Nov, 2016 10:54
-
Diclaimer:
Ok. Here it comes... Please do not flame me and yes, I know this has been discussed so many times...
I HAVE READ ALL THREADS AND ALL POSTS regarding both oscilloscopes and still I have the urge to ask this question! So please forgive me.
I am in the business of purchasing my first DSO. I have an old Metrix 20MHz dual channel analogue oscilloscope, which I bought cheap at eBay for the only reason to educate myself on oscillators. We used them in class at Uni, but only on one day and I felt I needed more information/knowledge.
Now I want to upgrade my knowledge and get familiar with a modern DSO. This is really the MAIN reason to purchase one. You may think I am crazy, but I did the same with the Siglent SSA3021X: I got it to have a real SSA and learn how to use it. For me, this is cheaper than attending some off-hour courses.
Of course, I then get to use them for amateur/professional work, too. Mainly because as a part-time I write manuals, product reviews, translations of user guides, etc.
The main application for the DSO would be:
- learning how to use it
- measuring Arduino related stuff
- measuring PIC/Atmel related stuff
- measuring analogue video relates stuff
- measuring DiSEqC signals
- doing some hacks on existing hardware like satellite receivers
- doing some simple repairs
- doind some audio stuff
Right now, I have these two options:
Rigol DS1054Z at 339 Euro
Pros:
- hackable to 100MHz
- hackable for all possible options
- recommended by many users
- 4 channels
Cons:
- hated by as many users
- no external trigger input
- small screen
Siglent SDS1102X at 403.75 Euro including Decoding Kit
Pros:
- official 100MHz
- official decoding kit
- bigger screen
- same brand as my SSA
- external trigger input
Cons:
- just two channels
I am kind of stuck, which one to purchase. Reading all the relevant posts has not set my mind.
Any help, considerations? No brand bashing, please.
Thanks,
Vitor
-
#1 Reply
Posted by
nctnico
on 09 Nov, 2016 10:59
-
I'd go for 4 channels. 2 channels isn't enough for digital electronics.
-
#2 Reply
Posted by
NottheDan
on 09 Nov, 2016 11:23
-
- no external trigger input
Can that be really counted as a con when the alternative is a 2-channel scope? So you need to use one channel for the external trigger. That stll leaves it with one channel more than the other one.
-
#3 Reply
Posted by
Fungus
on 09 Nov, 2016 12:00
-
I'd go for 4 channels. 2 channels isn't enough for digital electronics.
Agree 100%.
Rigol DS1054Z at 339 Euro
Cons:
- hated by as many users
Not so. Count the real number of haters, they fill up all the threads but really it's just three people repeating the same crap over and over. The number of lovers is
much higher.
On the positive side: There's so many DS1054Z owners on there that every single feature has been tested and discussed to death, you know exactly what you're getting with the Rigol. The Siglent hasn't had the same amount of analysis.
Rigol DS1054Z at 339 Euro
Cons:
- no external trigger input
But you have 4 channels and all of them can trigger, so...
Siglent SDS1102X at 403.75 Euro including Decoding Kit
Pros:
- bigger screen
But the same number of pixels, so ...
(unless you have bad eyes)
Siglent SDS1102X at 403.75 Euro including Decoding Kit
Pros:
- official 100MHz
- official decoding kit
- same brand as my SSA
- external trigger input
I'm not sure any of those is really a 'pro'.
If you remove all the irrelevent and 'meh' items from your lists you're left with:
Rigol 'Pro': 4 channels
Siglent 'Con': 2 channels
The Siglent costs 60 Euros more so the choice seems clear to me.
-
#4 Reply
Posted by
Karel
on 09 Nov, 2016 13:22
-
So far I agree with the commenters. DS1054Z. Definitely.
-
#5 Reply
Posted by
rf-loop
on 09 Nov, 2016 13:53
-
Siglent performance as oscilloscope is FAR over this Rigol. This is based to fact that I have used both and also tested some performance things.
This do not mean that Rigol is really bad. No it is not. It is dirty cheap 4 channel DSO what is not good in anything but still can use for many things ok.
If need dirty cheap 4 channel DSO and have limited 400 euro budget and want new equipment, in this case Rigol 1054Z is not bad choice if also take into consideration hackability what may or may not give some optional features.
Also for many kind of use and learning it is - lot of in one box.
But then... If look situation where 2 channel is ok for user needs and then think Rigol and Siglent (just if use Rigol as 2 channel scope)
8" display
max contunuous 60kwfm/s, peak 70kwfm/s inside one TFT refresh cycle.
Sequence mode up to 80000wfm, up to (specs) 400kwfm/s (measured maximum quaranteed speed) 485kwfm/s
Separate vertical controls for channels
Full speed Waveform History Buffer up to 54Mpts memory (always working background) up to 80000 waveforms (for both channels)
Waveform history buffer have always time stamp for every single waveform.
Full current wfm/s speed mask test
500uV/div full BW true sensitivity. (In Rigol 5mV/div Also can find in this forum.
Better intensity gradation.
Color gradation. Helps also in some cases visibility.
Always whole captured wfm length visible. (less real visual blind time)
I have used both and it is very clear that Siglent have more processing power. (look example zoomed window)
Lot of better Sinc interpolation what really works. Siglent keep always true ADC based sample (draw through sample points and can always switch on or off including also stop state and history buffer and seqments. In Rigol this is really just bad joke (but perhaps it need this for show "nice image". Explanation and examples can find in this forum.
Siglent have much more low signal noise. Also can find in this forum.
Siglent trigger engine performance is better (less inaccuracies, less trigger instabilities and jitter)
But if look prices and example 2 - 4 channel. It is clear that Siglent is more expensive class scope. So it also need be better.
Normal price ( Batronix ) for 4 channel SDS1102X is over 565Eur and Rigol DS1104Z (Sold as DS1054Z front sticker and FW settings) is 403 Eur.
-
#6 Reply
Posted by
sainter
on 09 Nov, 2016 14:14
-
I would try to stick to one manufacturer, I would presume there would be a better product integration if you need few instruments working together. If for the work you do, two channels are enough, go with a better option. If you need more than two channels, ether swallow the bitter pill of a cheaper 4-ch scope or the bigger price of 4-ch Siglent.
-
#7 Reply
Posted by
Bicurico
on 09 Nov, 2016 23:14
-
Thanks to all!
Durinig the day I refrained to reply, but now I think I should.
I really appreciate your feedback and I am inclined to go for the Rigol DS1054Z, for the following reasons:
1) It is 64Euro cheaper, which represents 19% and in my case does make a difference (remember, I am not planing to make any money with it)
2) It does have 4 channels, which is something I never used before
3) It is hackable to enable all possible functionality, which is nice
4) I don't expect to outgrow the DS1054Z anywhere soon, as I said, the main goal is to learn about DSO's
5) It may actually be more interesting to have different brands sitting on my desk - I will benefit when taking pictures for blog, articles, etc. as it looks less brand-specific
But I must be honest: the SDS1102X is very tempting and the reasons are well explained by rf-loop. It seems to me a better device (one class higher), it just happens to be a two channel DSO and I have no idea if I would regret such a decision later on, especially because I know I won't be pushing either oscilloscope to its limits, but might want to use 4 channels.
Puh! Still not so sure...
Regards,
Vitor
-
#8 Reply
Posted by
JPortici
on 09 Nov, 2016 23:31
-
I would try to stick to one manufacturer, I would presume there would be a better product integration if you need few instruments working together.
nope. there is no "better product integration" as you pose it, at least not for chinese brands. i have no idea about better brands but this is still test equipment, not some consumer bullshit in the like of "iphone need itunes syncing to move an mp3 from a computer" everything that can work together work together regardless of the brand
-
#9 Reply
Posted by
Marcos
on 09 Nov, 2016 23:36
-
Think twice before buying the Rigol one.
How would you feel when you will get a firmware upgrade for your "beloved" scope and things like this will happen to you ?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/just-upgrade-my-rigol-ds1054z-to-the-4-04-firmware/msg1067296/#msg1067296Every single time when they tried to fix bugs on them they are inducing other ones which will be exposed sooner or later.
Why that? Because they don't know what they are doing!
Come on Fungus...can't wait your "supporter" reply to this.
Thankfully I sold mine as soon as I noticed how "good" it was.
PS...beware that the latest firmware upgrade was removed from their official site because...guess what?
...it's not working as it supposed to be and apparently bricked older units.
Show must go on! They will never be able to make a decent scope out of it!
-
#10 Reply
Posted by
DaJMasta
on 10 Nov, 2016 00:22
-
I have an SDS1102X and it's a great scope. I do find myself in situations where being able to monitor more than two points is really useful (even doing analog work) and my next scope will definitely be a 4 channel. Especially if you don't have a repeating signal (a function gen helps with this), being able to monitor more than two things on the same trigger is really useful.
I also wouldn't take unlocking a scope for granted. Sure, it may be likely and a great bonus, but don't buy with that weighted heavily into your value equation because there is no guarantee. If you actually have an application in mind that runs above 50MHz, I'd consider the higher base flavor. If you're just looking for extra, then hoping for the unlock is probably just fine.
-
#11 Reply
Posted by
rstofer
on 10 Nov, 2016 01:15
-
The SPI bus is so much easier to work with since I got the 4 channel DS1054Z. The primary reason I bought the scope was the number of channels. I already had (and still have) a Tek 485 to deal with signals up to 350 MHz. For SPI, you trigger on CS' which means you should be able to display an entire transaction. Decoding is a real help and particularly for what's coming back from the peripheral. In any event, CS', Clk, MISO and MOSI signals fit on a 4 channel scope quite well.
I'm happy with my DS1054Z and I did successfully install the latest update (Sept 2016?). When you read reviews, think about the possibility that the writer is not entirely up to speed on DSOs. Many of the complaints devolve into user error.
The DS1054Z is the first and only DSO I have ever used. I can't compare it with anything except my 485. There is no comparison! The DSO has so many more features that about the only thing good about the 485 is bandwidth and its ability to function as a space heater under my bench.
-
#12 Reply
Posted by
David Hess
on 10 Nov, 2016 06:46
-
The DS1054Z is the first and only DSO I have ever used. I can't compare it with anything except my 485. There is no comparison! The DSO has so many more features that about the only thing good about the 485 is bandwidth and its ability to function as a space heater under my bench.
High bandwidth *is* a feature which is indispensable in some applications.
As others have said, 4 channels usually means that a separate external trigger is not required like on a 2 channel oscilloscope. The Rigol 1000Z can use its MSO inputs as triggers for the analog inputs although I suspect this works poorly because of jitter.
-
#13 Reply
Posted by
tautech
on 10 Nov, 2016 06:56
-
..............
But I must be honest: the SDS1102X is very tempting and the reasons are well explained by rf-loop. It seems to me a better device (one class higher), it just happens to be a two channel DSO and I have no idea if I would regret such a decision later on, especially because I know I won't be pushing either oscilloscope to its limits, but might want to use 4 channels.
Puh! Still not so sure...
Regards,
Vitor
The Plus (SDS1102X+) version should be considered, sure it's a bit dearer but then you'll have MSO and AWG capability should you need it along with an External trigger input for a total of 19 channels.
ATM the Decode option is free.
http://siglenteu.com/qyxwxx.aspx?id=2523&sid=210
-
#14 Reply
Posted by
Karel
on 10 Nov, 2016 07:31
-
-
#15 Reply
Posted by
Wirehead
on 10 Nov, 2016 07:37
-
In all honesty: both scopes are good beginner scopes.
Sure some have a couple of bugs - every scope has them. Even Tek, Keysight,.. Part of these bugs surfacing, is due to the large userbase. And don't forget, that you'll hear more negatives, than users who are actually happy with it. It's logic. I'd rather have something with known "issues" than some blackbox..
SDS1102X has perhaps a better screen, and gets official decoding for free at the moment. That's nice to have!. On the other hand:
The DS1000Z series give you four channels, and 24Mpts of memory.
Pick your poison. They're both good.
-
#16 Reply
Posted by
tautech
on 10 Nov, 2016 07:39
-
-
#17 Reply
Posted by
Bicurico
on 10 Nov, 2016 09:33
-
Question 1:
How good does the Siglent's decoding work? Does it show ASCII characters with recent firmware, or do you just get the HEX values?
Am I correct that the Rigol can either show ASCII or HEX?
This is something important for me, as I definitly want to do some serial sniffing (yes, I do have a cheap Logic Analyzer, but I want to do it with an MSO to be able to see the waveform, too).
Question 2:
If I would have specified on the first post that I only be needing 2 channels, would the technical answer be in favour of the Siglent (which is what I am assuming at this point)? I don't care about marketing strategies, etc. I care about serious bugs, limitations, etc.
Question 3:
This has been asked so many times, I read all I could about it and still I am not sure: how many of you *really* need 4 channels? What *exactly* are you measuring when using 4 simultaneous channels? I cannot come up with a single requirement of mine for that. And yes, as mentioned, I have a small cheap LA if I wanted to analyse many lines. If I would be doubtfull of the waveform, wouldn't it make sense to monitor each one individually?
This question goes on: if people say "go for the 4 channel, you never know if you need them", I then ask: "wouldn't it be better to get a 8 channel DSO? - one never knows...". Am I being silly and 4 channel is really what everyone needs?
And finally: how usefull is the 4 channel DS1054Z, when the sample rate gets divided by the 4 simultaneous channels? It's not like ou will be measuring a 50MHz signal on 4 separate channels at once?
Sorry if these seem lame questions, but it seems everytime one asks these qustions, the thread ends up in a Rigol vs Siglent flame war, which does not help anyone. Right now, I am so in middle of both, I have each DSO sitting on the respective online cart, waiting to make up my mind.
Cheers,
Vitor
-
#18 Reply
Posted by
Fungus
on 10 Nov, 2016 10:23
-
Am I correct that the Rigol can either show ASCII or HEX?
Yes.
(also decimal)
Question 2:
If I would have specified on the first post that I only be needing 2 channels, would the technical answer be in favour of the Siglent (which is what I am assuming at this point)? I don't care about marketing strategies, etc. I care about serious bugs, limitations, etc.
No.
Question 3:
This has been asked so many times, I read all I could about it and still I am not sure: how many of you *really* need 4 channels?
I
really need 3. Two isn't enough, I'm not sure I've ever
needed all 4, but I have used 4 sometimes simply because it made a job easier.
And that's the point: When you have more channels, you'll use them. It's not always from
necessity but sometimes it just makes things easier.
eg. I use mine a lot for debugging software, not just looking at signal integrity. You can toggle pins to show program logic happening, etc. Yes you could use your cheap logic analyzer for that but it's not real time and you need to be constantly swapping between windows. A device with its own screen is a lot better.
"wouldn't it be better to get a 8 channel DSO? - one never knows...". Am I being silly and 4 channel is really what everyone needs?
Do they make them??
(I guess they make MSOs as the next step up...)
And finally: how usefull is the 4 channel DS1054Z, when the sample rate gets divided by the 4 simultaneous channels? It's not like ou will be measuring a 50MHz signal on 4 separate channels at once?
Go with "it has
just enough sample rate for 4 channels at 100MHz".
-
#19 Reply
Posted by
nctnico
on 10 Nov, 2016 13:16
-
Sorry if these seem lame questions, but it seems everytime one asks these qustions, the thread ends up in a Rigol vs Siglent flame war, which does not help anyone. Right now, I am so in middle of both, I have each DSO sitting on the respective online cart, waiting to make up my mind.
If you are unsure then save more money and buy a better scope. Both SDS1102X and DS10254Z have severe drawbacks because they are build to be cheap but IMHO the DS1054Z would currently be the best choice for $400 due to 4 channels and more mature firmware.
-
#20 Reply
Posted by
Bicurico
on 10 Nov, 2016 15:55
-
Thanks for all the input.
I just placed the order of a DS1054Z.
I figured that I won't be using the scope for any super demanding job and for my basic mateur requirements either scope would do fine.
With that said:
- I went for the 4 channels
- I went for the cheaper price
- I went for the fact that I want to have different brands sitting on my desk, so that any blog/Youtube entries look less suspicious regarding brands
- I went for the fact that the user base must be huge
I am a bit sad, because part of me wanted the SDS1102X for:
- the bigger screen size (even at the same resolution, bigger is normally better)
- faster responsiveness
- apparently a slightly better hardware base (not so sure about the software)
- no hacks required: 100MHz + decoding option included in price
Funny, but any of my points do not take any specific application or requirement into consideration, which is why I ended up recognizing that anyone of both DSO would have more functionality than needed.
Regards,
Vitor
-
#21 Reply
Posted by
nctnico
on 10 Nov, 2016 16:00
-
Having different brands would be the least of my worries.
-
#22 Reply
Posted by
David Hess
on 10 Nov, 2016 17:04
-
If I would have specified on the first post that I only be needing 2 channels, would the technical answer be in favour of the Siglent (which is what I am assuming at this point)? I don't care about marketing strategies, etc. I care about serious bugs, limitations, etc.
2 channels are almost always good enough if the external trigger input is taken advantage of but there are some applications where 4 channels are indispensable. For instance decoding both sides of an SPI interface requires at least 3 channels for the input, output, and clock and even then a 4th channel would be needed for chip select. You might be able to do part of it with 2 channels and perhaps the external trigger input but it is inconvenient. This would be a good task for the digital inputs on a mixed signal DSO but check to make sure that they support decoding.
I would also want 4 channels to allow using 2 channels in differential mode while a 2nd and 3rd signal are also displayed. My inexpensive solution for this was to buy two 2 channel DSOs and stack them.
-
#23 Reply
Posted by
David Hess
on 10 Nov, 2016 17:18
-
Or for the full story you could watch this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/
Just be sure you can handle the heat. 
I have been reading through the original discussion and I just watched the video and I am not satisfied. The president of Siglent just repeated what his representatives did so the video does not add anything.
1. Talk is cheap and Siglent did not made the situation right with the seller.
2. What they did was a misuse of IP laws.
I suspect they had a policy of doing this indiscriminately and just got caught in this case.
-
#24 Reply
Posted by
bitseeker
on 11 Nov, 2016 01:53
-
I am a bit sad, because part of me wanted the SDS1102X for:
No problem. Save up and get a Siglent later. There may be a new model by then.
