I just received my ADS1013D from Banggood.
I consider it as a very valuable piece of equipment, and a real oscilloscope with a huge advantage over
my previous oscilloscopes [bold added] ( I have many anchor boats and a recent rigol 1054Z)
You will have access only to the beginning part ( which is what you asked for).
Certainly not on par with your Rigol 1054Z, right?
What will be the circumstances/types of testing with your new ADS1013D that you would not use the Rigol for?
@nctnico
There is also the category of tools
4) Cheap, not full featured, but fulfill your needs.
Certainly not on par with your Rigol 1054Z, right? https://www.tequipment.net/Rigol/DS1054Z/Digital-Oscilloscopes/
What will be the circumstances/types of testing with your new ADS1013D that you would not use the Rigol for?
@nctnico
There is also the category of tools
4) Cheap, not full featured, but fulfills your needs.That IS category 1.
Well, after considerable consternating and other assorted deliberations, I went with the Hantek 5072P. http://www.hantek.com/en/productdetail_97.html
My own interest in this "toy" is more because of form factor and portability than its measuring ability.
The FFT function seems very dubious to me. I am not sure how they're deriving it, but the weird 'foldback' artefacts it produced (shown in my screen-grabs) are spurious.
If that's important to you, then this is probably not suitable. More testing would be required to figure out what it is doing, and the limitations.
There is no labels on the ADS1013D, and the scales are difficult to adjust. It can only be used marginally.
It's a 'basic' instrument.
A modern 'real' oscilloscope (Siglent and Rigol are probably fine low-cost options) is a better bet if you want a more flexible instrument.
Siglent make hand-held 'scopes, too, if that is a requirement.
A modern 'real' oscilloscope (Siglent and Rigol are probably fine low-cost options) is a better bet if you want a more flexible instrument.
The FFT on both of those is horrible.
Yes we all know the low cost Rigol FFT is poor but an equivalent Siglent X-E ?
Yes we all know the low cost Rigol FFT is poor but an equivalent Siglent X-E ?
I'm just looking at the horrible FFT, awful laggy controls and slow update rate shown in this video:
(skip to 4:00)
It doesn't look like much of a step up from the Rigol to me.
eg. At 4:30 he's showing a single sine wave, shouldn't the 'scope be showing a horizontal noise floor with a single vertical spike?
(Attachment Link)
My DSO Quad can manage it. It updates the FFT overlay at 30 fps, too, not the 1 fps of the Siglent.
(Attachment Link)
One glance at the UI and I know it's operating with very old FW and after watching the whole video it's obvious how much better the results would be with the features that have since been added.
So you bought a DSO Quad to supplement the FFT that your Rigol can't do ?
One glance at the UI and I know it's operating with very old FW and after watching the whole video it's obvious how much better the results would be with the features that have since been added.
Video? Screenshots? I'm having trouble finding any. Let's see the new frame rates, etc.
Let's see if they've managed to get it up to the level of a DSO Quad.
From 6.45. Also with old firmware but from a guy that knows how to drive Siglent X-E FFT.
OK, so with the latest firmware a good "driver" can achieve a similar update rate to a DSO Quad by reducing the memory depth to 2.8kpts and the FFT to 2048 points. Got it.
(Attachment Link)
Even so, he couldn't sort out the sloping noise floor or the weird cone shaped "peaks".
Even so, he couldn't sort out the sloping noise floor or the weird cone shaped "peaks".
This may be an accurate evaluation of the applied signal.
Images taken from this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-fft-frequency-centering/
Going by those this one must be broken