Is there a benefit to going with one manufacturer?
- Siglent Technologies SPD3303X-E Triple Output Power Supply
- Siglent SDS1104X-E 100Mhz digital oscilloscope 4 channels standard decoder
- Siglent Technologies SDG1032X Arbitrary Waveform - Function Generator
Hi all,
Is there a benefit to going with one manufacturer?
Is there a benefit to going with one manufacturer?
Not really.
- Siglent Technologies SPD3303X-E Triple Output Power Supply
- Siglent SDS1104X-E 100Mhz digital oscilloscope 4 channels standard decoder
- Siglent Technologies SDG1032X Arbitrary Waveform - Function Generator
I believe the scope and ARBGEN can talk to each other and do bode plots, but ... together they cost very nearly as much as, eg. a Rigol MSO5000 which can do a lot more (350MHz bandwidth, 8GHz sample rate, more memory, built in function generator, bode plots, big touch screen, etc, etc.)
The rigol MSO5000 would compare to the siglent SDS2000x plus, right?
AFAIK and going off topic, I've never used this instrument but researched a lot about it. Was once in love with it them totally disappointed, seems to be a very very poor AD resolution (not even 6 full bits) and testimonials says the firmware interface is crap.
I'd say siglent is a more polished instrument, will give less bang for the buck but better usability, altough my experience with siglents and rigols are limited.
AFAIK and going off topic, I've never used this instrument but researched a lot about it. Was once in love with it them totally disappointed, seems to be a very very poor AD resolution (not even 6 full bits)
AFAIK and going off topic, I've never used this instrument but researched a lot about it. Was once in love with it them totally disappointed, seems to be a very very poor AD resolution (not even 6 full bits)
Says who? Where are you getting that idea from?
I would go for a siglent sds2000x plus scope, would latter get a DG811 gen (and hack it).
As for the power supply if you do not need a very specific function (like programmability) I see no particular reason to get a fancy looking psu with a beautiful display, any old HP 6xxx series is SOOOOOO good, I've many of them.
I would get a 6623 or 6622 any time instead a siglent power supply, these babies are work horses and serviceable.
AFAIK and going off topic, I've never used this instrument but researched a lot about it. Was once in love with it them totally disappointed, seems to be a very very poor AD resolution (not even 6 full bits)
Says who? Where are you getting that idea from?
Me probably. Post #1745 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3180030/#msg3180030
I measured it, I'd say it was quite a disappointment considering I'm a bit of a Rigol fan boy. :-(
Interesting about the ADC resolution of the MSO05000. I did a quick eval a few days ago of the SDS2102X Plus in 10 bit mode with 20MHz BW, using precision DC and AC references I've developed (based on LM399AH), this was supporting a HP34401A and Agilent34401A calibration. Used a new Keysight 34465A as measurement reference. Here's what I found using DSO statistics measurement function.
KS34465A SDS2102X Plus
9.99999VDC 9.966VDC
7.04192VDC 7.0092VDC
0.999964VDC 1.0003VDC
100.0005mVDC 98.987mVDC
5.00026VDC 4.9987VDC
2.49994VAC 2.4996VAC (250.000Hz)
Interesting about the ADC resolution of the MSO05000. I did a quick eval a few days ago of the SDS2102X Plus in 10 bit mode with 20MHz BW, using precision DC and AC references I've developed (based on LM399AH), this was supporting a HP34401A and Agilent34401A calibration. Used a new Keysight 34465A as measurement reference. Here's what I found using DSO statistics measurement function.
KS34465A SDS2102X Plus
9.99999VDC 9.966VDC
7.04192VDC 7.0092VDC
0.999964VDC 1.0003VDC
100.0005mVDC 98.987mVDC
5.00026VDC 4.9987VDC
2.49994VAC 2.4996VAC (250.000Hz)
You'll get good results if you put almost anything in "Hi-Res" mode, apply a low pass filter and and take enough averages.
eg. What results do you get if you try that on other 'scopes?
AFAIK and going off topic, I've never used this instrument but researched a lot about it. Was once in love with it them totally disappointed, seems to be a very very poor AD resolution (not even 6 full bits)
Says who? Where are you getting that idea from?
Me probably. Post #1745 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3180030/#msg3180030
I measured it, I'd say it was quite a disappointment considering I'm a bit of a Rigol fan boy. :-(
Here we see the danger of making statements like that on The Internet without mentioning the test conditions, etc.
People might read that and go around repeating that it has a 6-bit ADC.
Hi all,
I would think this has been asked before but I did not find anything that specifically addressed my question.
Is there a benefit to going with one manufacturer?
- Siglent Technologies SPD3303X-E Triple Output Power Supply
- Siglent SDS1104X-E 100Mhz digital oscilloscope 4 channels standard decoder
- Siglent Technologies SDG1032X Arbitrary Waveform - Function Generator
These three items are currently listed for $389, $499, and $359 respectively for a total of $1247.00 (This is a little more than I want to spend but might be worth it)
Other than the brand look and feel and having similar interfaces (I would hope) are there other advantages of going with the same manufacturer?
same PC Interface?
Thanks in advance!
--Tim
Interesting about the ADC resolution of the MSO05000. I did a quick eval a few days ago of the SDS2102X Plus in 10 bit mode with 20MHz BW, using precision DC and AC references I've developed (based on LM399AH), this was supporting a HP34401A and Agilent34401A calibration. Used a new Keysight 34465A as measurement reference. Here's what I found using DSO statistics measurement function.
KS34465A SDS2102X Plus
9.99999VDC 9.966VDC
7.04192VDC 7.0092VDC
0.999964VDC 1.0003VDC
100.0005mVDC 98.987mVDC
5.00026VDC 4.9987VDC
2.49994VAC 2.4996VAC (250.000Hz)
You'll get good results if you put almost anything in "Hi-Res" mode, apply a low pass filter and and take enough averages.
eg. What results do you get if you try that on other 'scopes?
Don't have another DSO, although do have 2 Tek 2465s analog scopes.
So why don't you take some measurements with another DSO in "Hi-Res" mode and report what you find
Best,
Wait, it's been a few hours since this post and tautech still hasn't weighed in? Do we need to call the police for a wellness check?
Test conditions are two posts before in post #1743.
Test conditions are two posts before in post #1743.
OK, thanks.
Without even going into the chosen setup it's obvious that:
a) Higher bandwidth scope = more noise.
b) More expensive 'scope with lower bandwidth = less noise (the Siglent costs 50% more)
Is there a benefit to going with one manufacturer?
SDS2000x plus has AWG integrated, not a good one, but it is there and can do bode plot... no need for the DG811
While the Siglent gear I own have similar face plates and look like they should stack well, they do not because they have different depths. Siglent could have made the AWG 4-5cm longer so it could stack well with the DMM, but they did not do so.
SDS2000x plus has AWG integrated, not a good one, but it is there and can do bode plot... no need for the DG811IMHO the AWG is the biggest let-down of the SDS2000X+, which is otherwise a great scope for the price. The hardware seems pretty good with 14bit, 125MS/s and 50MHz BW, but the software implementation is just too basic and only really good for simple fixed (e.g. sine/square) waveforms. No modulation, no pulse train generator, no random noise generator, no noise-on-sine....
The AWG in the SDS2000X+ in its current form is not a replacement for a good signal generator and not up to the implementation in e.g. the R&S RTB2000. However, if Siglent makes a proper signal generator in a future firmware update, this scope is going to be really competitive!
The Bode analyzer functionality is good though (albeit a bit slow).
So much for me to unpack!!! So many responses! What a wonderful community!
So after reading up on MSO it does not look like I will go that route...
However, a combo Scope and AFG sounds like a good combination. What is the typical use case you have where the combo does not give you good enough amplitude?
What is you suggestion for a Combo Scope/AFG?
Thanks!
--Tim
So much for me to unpack!!! So many responses! What a wonderful community!
So after reading up on MSO it does not look like I will go that route...
However, a combo Scope and AFG sounds like a good combination. What is the typical use case you have where the combo does not give you good enough amplitude?
What is you suggestion for a Combo Scope/AFG?
Thanks!
--Tim
Test conditions are two posts before in post #1743.
OK, thanks.
Without even going into the chosen setup it's obvious that:
a) Higher bandwidth scope = more noise.
However, a combo Scope and AFG sounds like a good combination. What is the typical use case you have where the combo does not give you good enough amplitude?
What is you suggestion for a Combo Scope/AFG?
--Tim
However, a combo Scope and AFG sounds like a good combination. What is the typical use case you have where the combo does not give you good enough amplitude?
What is you suggestion for a Combo Scope/AFG?
--Tim
Mostly for me it’s microcontroller ADCs with Vref over 2.5V, so, for example, a 2.5V AWG maximum often won’t test through the ADC’s full range.
The Rigols seems to be the best in terms of having 2 channels, and modulation and even AWG capabilities, but are limited to +/-2.5V. I’m not aware of any other scope AFG offering modulation capabilities, and very few offer dual channel.
Siglents top out at +/-3V and is single channel, and offers no AWG capability or modulation.
Keysights top out at +/-5V and are single channel on the 3000 series, dual channel on the 4000 and 6000, and do offer AWG capability but no modulation.
Tek MDOs are +/-5V and offer no AWG or modulati9n capability.
However, a combo Scope and AFG sounds like a good combination. What is the typical use case you have where the combo does not give you good enough amplitude?
What is you suggestion for a Combo Scope/AFG?
--Tim
Mostly for me it’s microcontroller ADCs with Vref over 2.5V, so, for example, a 2.5V AWG maximum often won’t test through the ADC’s full range.
The Rigols seems to be the best in terms of having 2 channels, and modulation and even AWG capabilities, but are limited to +/-2.5V. I’m not aware of any other scope AFG offering modulation capabilities, and very few offer dual channel.
Siglents top out at +/-3V and is single channel, and offers no AWG capability or modulation.
Keysights top out at +/-5V and are single channel on the 3000 series, dual channel on the 4000 and 6000, and do offer AWG capability but no modulation.
Tek MDOs are +/-5V and offer no AWG or modulati9n capability.For completeness: the R&S RTM3000 offers modulation, arbitrary (32kpts) and noise. All in all it is a pretty complete generator. I do use it every now and then. Unfortunately there is no way to trigger on the internal generator though.
You’ll see I had the 20MHz bandwidth limit apploed in all cases.
You’ll see I had the 20MHz bandwidth limit apploed in all cases.
Yes, I saw that, but the statement still applies.
The dangerous part is extrapolating your result to when 20MHz limiter isn't enabled*. You're assuming the Rigol noise will increase in exactly the same way as the Siglent noise.
(*) ie. the Way the 'scope is generally used.
You’ll see I had the 20MHz bandwidth limit apploed in all cases.
Yes, I saw that, but the statement still applies.
The dangerous part is extrapolating your result to when 20MHz limiter isn't enabled*. You're assuming the Rigol noise will increase in exactly the same way as the Siglent noise.
(*) ie. the Way the 'scope is generally used.
But if I hadn't used the BW limiter, everyone would have complained that I wasn't comparing like for like.
I didn't put the BW limit on to make the Rigol look bad, I just wanted a level playing field.
Maybe some of the Rigol noise appears a bit further down the circuit path, after the 20Mhz limiting capacitor.
What noise levels do you see with the limiter off? That the figure would be interesting, too. Also: How much effect does the 20Mhz limiter have on each 'scope? Some of them might have a better limiter (ie. more than capacitor).
It seems that Rigol's own chipset has been a bridge too far and it is not the leap ahead they promise it to be.
I think these are the alternatives in Rigol:
Rigol DG1032Z 30MHz Arbitrary Waveform Function Generator
Rigol DP832 195W Power Supply
Rigol DS1054Z 50MHz 4-Ch Digital Oscilloscope
I think these are the alternatives in Rigol:
Rigol DG1032Z 30MHz Arbitrary Waveform Function Generator
Rigol DP832 195W Power Supply
Rigol DS1054Z 50MHz 4-Ch Digital Oscilloscope
For the power supply, if I were buying one today, I would probably go with a GW Instek GPP model with the LAN option.
This is the 4-channel one. You can find the 3-channel model a bit cheaper.
https://www.tequipment.net/Instek/GPP-4323/DC-Power-Supplies-/-Lab-Power-Supplies/
There's a good discussion about it here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/seeking-psu-advice-rohde-schwarz-nge103b-com3-or-keysight-e36313a/msg3230970/#msg3230970
It seems that Rigol's own chipset has been a bridge too far and it is not the leap ahead they promise it to be.
Well, that's life, you get what you pay for. The MSO5000 is for me remarkable scope but i'd still prefer to own the SDS2000x+ because it seems more polished to me and frankly, I see no reason to have a 8gsa/s converter for a 350MHz signal, thats almost 23x (also, whats the point of having such high frequency and no 50ohm input, nahhh).
Somehow after reading every post's suggestion I have arrived at the same list of Siglent pieces.
Siglent Technologies SPD3303X-E Triple Output Power Supply
Siglent SDS1104X-E 100Mhz digital oscilloscope 4 channels standard decoder
Siglent Technologies SDG1032X Arbitrary Waveform - Function Generator
What are the same comparable items with Rigol? My head is swimming with too many model numbers and features!
Thanks!
Tim
...
Test conditions are two posts before in post #1743.
Effective bits:
My comparison of MSO5000 to SDS2000X+
...
Test conditions are two posts before in post #1743.
Effective bits:
My comparison of MSO5000 to SDS2000X+
I'm sorry but I dare to question @Howardlong's findings on the MSO5000 rms noise and thus the calculated equivalent resolution.
Just compare the peak-to-peak with rms noise figures at 500mV/div setting:
Vpp - 44.5mV
Vrms - 44.2mV
These two numbers are more or less identical which is mathematically impossible in case of an observation of AC signals. Vrms cannot be higher than Vp = 1/2 Vpp, which is the case if the signal has true square shape. And noise doesn't look that much like a square wave... On average, the crest factor for white noise can be assumed to be in the ballpark of 4, thus Vrms should be closse to 1/8 Vpp which matches the figures of the "big" Keysight and the TEK surprisingly well.
To explain the measured figures, I state that all those numbers that deviated considerably from the 1/8 relation had some amount of DC offset superimposed. This is easily overlooked since the zero marker is such a tiny pip at the left border of the screen... The better method of evaluating the AC component of Vrms using internal measurements is just taking the standard deviation of Vpp. This eliminates the average (DC offset) by summing up geometrically the difference of the individual measurements minus the average, e voila -- AC RMS .
The resulting equivalent resolution figures for some of the scopes will turn out much better if this calculation is done properly, but this wouldn't change the impression the reader now already memorized that the MSO5000 has got a front-end that's noisy like the Niagara falls... The apparent noise definitely differs, and Rigol for sure is among the noisier "party", but it's definitely not as bad as Howard evaluated in his table. Much of the apparent noise is also contributed to the way the traces are visualized, and Rigol's display engine traditionally emphasizes the extremal values and thus makes their scopes appear more noisy.
I'm not a Rigol or Siglent fanboy - I own gear of both companies and also had some "buyer's remorse" with both, but I think when publishing a comparison like this, we should at least make sure that the figures make sense from a mathematical point of view...
So if I'm not wrong my calc for MSOX3104T would go like this, for those conditions:
(Attachment Link)
and
(Attachment Link)
so that gives:
(Attachment Link)
Although ENOB is not single number, it is frequency/ENOB graph....
So if I'm not wrong my calc for MSOX3104T would go like this, for those conditions:
(Attachment Link)
and
(Attachment Link)
so that gives:
(Attachment Link)
Although ENOB is not single number, it is frequency/ENOB graph....
Shouldn't the ENOB be computed based upon a sine wave input of full scale peak to peak (8 divisions)? If so then the relative signal power would be (4*scalefacor/rt2)^2, or 8*(Scale Factor)^2.
Best,
So if I'm not wrong my calc for MSOX3104T would go like this, for those conditions:
(Attachment Link)
and
(Attachment Link)
so that gives:
(Attachment Link)
Although ENOB is not single number, it is frequency/ENOB graph....
Shouldn't the ENOB be computed based upon a sine wave input of full scale peak to peak (8 divisions)? If so then the relative signal power would be (4*scalefacor/rt2)^2, or 8*(Scale Factor)^2.
Best,
To be honest ENOB is supposed to be measured specified with the actual signal at actual frequency, so it includes both noise and distortions in SINAD.
In this case we assume (for 2mv/div for instance) full scale P-P sine signal of 16 mV. RMS of that (11,35mV) divided with RMS of noise (110 uV) gives 10641 ratio, convert that to dB (power ratio) gives 40,2dB, and converted to ENOB :6,397 bit.
I did quick test with R&S method and got same results.
These tests will have major source of error in scopes built in RMS function and it's limits to deal with calculating RMS of noise and otherwise very complex signal.
Please correct me if I'm wrong..
Regards,
Please note that my table was effective resolution, not ENOB; there is a difference.
TurboTom: I do still have the scopes, but I'm very time poor at the moment.
So if I'm not wrong my calc for MSOX3104T would go like this, for those conditions:
(Attachment Link)
and
(Attachment Link)
so that gives:
(Attachment Link)
Although ENOB is not single number, it is frequency/ENOB graph....
Shouldn't the ENOB be computed based upon a sine wave input of full scale peak to peak (8 divisions)? If so then the relative signal power would be (4*scalefacor/rt2)^2, or 8*(Scale Factor)^2.
Best,
To be honest ENOB is supposed to be measured specified with the actual signal at actual frequency, so it includes both noise and distortions in SINAD.
In this case we assume (for 2mv/div for instance) full scale P-P sine signal of 16 mV. RMS of that (11,35mV) divided with RMS of noise (110 uV) gives 10641 ratio, convert that to dB (power ratio) gives 40,2dB, and converted to ENOB :6,397 bit.
I did quick test with R&S method and got same results.
These tests will have major source of error in scopes built in RMS function and it's limits to deal with calculating RMS of noise and otherwise very complex signal.
Please correct me if I'm wrong..
Regards,
I had seen the IEEE definition on ENOB, and agree it's without signal distortion and not at a specified signal frequency since no signal is actually applied. So maybe a best case ENOB, or as Howard mentioned Effective Resolution.
From above "In this case we assume (for 2mv/div for instance) full scale P-P sine signal of 16 mV. RMS of that (11,35mV) divided with RMS of noise (110 uV) gives 10641 ratio, convert that to dB (power ratio) gives 40,2dB, and converted to ENOB :6,397 bit."
Since the peak to peak full scale signal would yield a sine wave of 4 divisions peak, the RMS would not be of the 8 division peak to peak value, but of the 4 division value. So this would yield 4*2mV/rt2 = 5.657mV RMS, not 8*2mV/rt2 = 11.35mV??
Just trying to follow the thinking behind these calculations, so I can supply a similar set of values that are consistent with what's been shown.
Best,
My logic is that full screen at 2 mV/div is 16 mV from top to bottom (8 mV above and 8mV below zero). If you inscribe sinewave inside, top to bottom, RMS of that sinewave would be 16 mV/1.41= 11,35 mV.
That is full scale RMS. That is also how I understood IEEE excerpt in R&S whitepaper.
But, I agree it is beside point to call upon some standard if all conditions are not observed. And I agree that we shouldn't call it ENOB but effective resolution.
We could simply define a figure of merit that would compare full scale with residual RMS and P-P noise.. It would serve well as relative comparison and would be somewhat easier to reproduce.
There were previous comparisons made, including calculating noise PSD and such...
My logic is that full screen at 2 mV/div is 16 mV from top to bottom (8 mV above and 8mV below zero). If you inscribe sinewave inside, top to bottom, RMS of that sinewave would be 16 mV/1.41= 11,35 mV.
That is full scale RMS. That is also how I understood IEEE excerpt in R&S whitepaper.
But, I agree it is beside point to call upon some standard if all conditions are not observed. And I agree that we shouldn't call it ENOB but effective resolution.
We could simply define a figure of merit that would compare full scale with residual RMS and P-P noise.. It would serve well as relative comparison and would be somewhat easier to reproduce.
There were previous comparisons made, including calculating noise PSD and such...
The RMS of a sinusoid is (peak value)/rt2, not (peak to peak value)/rt2. In your example you have a full scale 8 division sine wave at 2mv/div, so 16mv peak to peak and thus 8mv/rt2 RMS value.
Agree a FOM should be utilized and I'm all ears for what should be utilized/created for such.
Best,
So if I'm not wrong my calc for MSOX3104T would go like this, for those conditions:
(Attachment Link)
and
(Attachment Link)
so that gives:
(Attachment Link)
Although ENOB is not single number, it is frequency/ENOB graph....
Shouldn't the ENOB be computed based upon a sine wave input of full scale peak to peak (8 divisions)? If so then the relative signal power would be (4*scalefacor/rt2)^2, or 8*(Scale Factor)^2.
Best,
To be honest ENOB is supposed to be measured specified with the actual signal at actual frequency, so it includes both noise and distortions in SINAD.
In this case we assume (for 2mv/div for instance) full scale P-P sine signal of 16 mV. RMS of that (11,35mV) divided with RMS of noise (110 uV) gives 10641 ratio, convert that to dB (power ratio) gives 40,2dB, and converted to ENOB :6,397 bit.
I did quick test with R&S method and got same results.
These tests will have major source of error in scopes built in RMS function and it's limits to deal with calculating RMS of noise and otherwise very complex signal.
Please correct me if I'm wrong..
Regards,
I had seen the IEEE definition on ENOB, and agree it's without signal distortion and not at a specified signal frequency since no signal is actually applied. So maybe a best case ENOB, or as Howard mentioned Effective Resolution.
From above "In this case we assume (for 2mv/div for instance) full scale P-P sine signal of 16 mV. RMS of that (11,35mV) divided with RMS of noise (110 uV) gives 10641 ratio, convert that to dB (power ratio) gives 40,2dB, and converted to ENOB :6,397 bit."
Since the peak to peak full scale signal would yield a sine wave of 4 divisions peak, the RMS would not be of the 8 division peak to peak value, but of the 4 division value. So this would yield 4*2mV/rt2 = 5.657mV RMS, not 8*2mV/rt2 = 11.35mV??
Just trying to follow the thinking behind these calculations, so I can supply a similar set of values that are consistent with what's been shown.
Best,
My logic is that full screen at 2 mV/div is 16 mV from top to bottom (8 mV above and 8mV below zero). If you inscribe sinewave inside, top to bottom, RMS of that sinewave would be 16 mV/1.41= 11,35 mV.
That is full scale RMS. That is also how I understood IEEE excerpt in R&S whitepaper.
But, I agree it is beside point to call upon some standard if all conditions are not observed. And I agree that we shouldn't call it ENOB but effective resolution.
We could simply define a figure of merit that would compare full scale with residual RMS and P-P noise.. It would serve well as relative comparison and would be somewhat easier to reproduce.
There were previous comparisons made, including calculating noise PSD and such...
You're right to question them, as did I at the time.
The figures are from the scope's own measurements.
This your RMS is corrected after this original msg, so I do not take this accidental human mistake on table.
But I want ask one think.
There are these..
"My logic is that full screen...blablabla.."
Then also
"That is full scale RMS."
Not all scopes have ADC full scale same is display full height.
Of course it do not make big difference but... small error there and other error here and there... and we talk finally perhaps big error.
Many scopes (but not all) what I have handled have ADC full scale around or over 10 vertical div and displayed part of whole vertical is 8 div. But different scopes may be different in this.
If 2mv/div and ADC FS is example bit over 10 div. For simplify think 10div.
In this case FS sinewave is 20mVp-p so 7.071 mVrms. I think there need use this ADC full scale in calculations what is used in individual scope instead of displayed part of signal if it is different.
You're right to question them, as did I at the time.
The figures are from the scope's own measurements.
Did you do a self-cal immediately before making those measurements?
Please note that my table was effective resolution, not ENOB; there is a difference.
TurboTom: I do still have the scopes, but I'm very time poor at the moment.
Could you show how you calculated the Effective Resolution in your table so we can compare results on an "Apples to Apples" basis.
BTW thanks for showing the table and taking the time to post these results
Best,
Just for completeness:
The SDS2000X+ and also SDS5000X have 30 LSB/div, that is 240 steps for full screen. Very little overhead.
The SDS1000X-E (and most likely also SDS2000X-E) have 25 steps per division, hence only 200 counts full screen.
The SDS2000X+ can maintain the full extended bandwidth of 500 MHz down to 500 µV/div.
All contemporary Siglent DSOs prvide fine adjust of the vertical gain, and these are true hardware PGA steps.
Please note that my table was effective resolution, not ENOB; there is a difference.
TurboTom: I do still have the scopes, but I'm very time poor at the moment.
Could you show how you calculated the Effective Resolution in your table so we can compare results on an "Apples to Apples" basis.
BTW thanks for showing the table and taking the time to post these results
Best,
Here's the spreadsheet I used.
Other than the brand look and feel and having similar interfaces (I would hope) are there other advantages of going with the same manufacturer?
Please note that my table was effective resolution, not ENOB; there is a difference.
TurboTom: I do still have the scopes, but I'm very time poor at the moment.
Could you show how you calculated the Effective Resolution in your table so we can compare results on an "Apples to Apples" basis.
BTW thanks for showing the table and taking the time to post these results
Best,
Here's the spreadsheet I used.
Thanks. If I interpret the spreadsheet correctly you are using Effective Resolution Bit as Log(FS/N)/Log(2) and not the standard ENOB of (SINAD -1.76)/6.02, where in our case SINAD would be 10*Log(FS/N +1) using RMS values and no distortion term, since no input signal is actually applied.
Using what I did which includes the ADC quantizing error term but no distortion term I get similar but slightly 0.3 bit lower (not surprising since 1.76/6.02 ~0.3 bit) results, for example.
MSO8104A
2mv 5.26 vs. 5.55
100mv 6.71 vs. 7.01
200mv 6.71 vs. 7.01
500mv 6.74 vs. 7.03
5V 6.70 vs. 6.99
Best,
Back to the original question...QuoteOther than the brand look and feel and having similar interfaces (I would hope) are there other advantages of going with the same manufacturer?
I have several Siglent 'x' devices, but they do not really have the same look and feel, as you (rightfully) hope. Their user interfaces differs in many ways, and the 'deeper' you go (e.g. configuring the communication interfaces), the larger the differences. While the screens with their underlying 5 or 6 soft buttons suggests a consistent UI approach, this is not the case, and the overall button 'logic' varies. Physical button placement varies quite a bit. For instance, the SDG AWG and SDL electronic load both have 10 digit keypads, but they keys are just the other way around. Also the PC software for these devices seems to have nothing in common, entirely different programs. Some have 'real' on/of buttons, some soft buttons. The cases stack reasonably well, but as others have noted, their depth is sometimes different.
Having that said, I selected them for what I needed for specific use cases, and feel happy for what they do at their price point. They are quite nice devices and I would buy them again.
Siglent should take note of this uniform UI experience if they expect to move up the instrument food chain.
The equipment decision makers are older and tend to use tried and true instruments they know and have experience with.
Please note that my table was effective resolution, not ENOB; there is a difference.
TurboTom: I do still have the scopes, but I'm very time poor at the moment.
Could you show how you calculated the Effective Resolution in your table so we can compare results on an "Apples to Apples" basis.
BTW thanks for showing the table and taking the time to post these results
Best,
Here's the spreadsheet I used.
Thanks. If I interpret the spreadsheet correctly you are using Effective Resolution Bit as Log(FS/N)/Log(2) and not the standard ENOB of (SINAD -1.76)/6.02, where in our case SINAD would be 10*Log(FS/N +1) using RMS values and no distortion term, since no input signal is actually applied.
Using what I did which includes the ADC quantizing error term but no distortion term I get similar but slightly 0.3 bit lower (not surprising since 1.76/6.02 ~0.3 bit) results, for example.
MSO8104A
2mv 5.26 vs. 5.55
100mv 6.71 vs. 7.01
200mv 6.71 vs. 7.01
500mv 6.74 vs. 7.03
5V 6.70 vs. 6.99
Best,
Yes, as I stated before, effective resolution isn’t the same as ENOB. As you say, effective resolution gives an apparently “better” result than ENOB.
It is however possible the Vrms calculation in the MSO5000 is wrong