Hello,
For anyone who knows that Rigol can be hacked he can find the price Siglent 1104X-E and 1204X-E high, but for those who do not know that Rigol can be hacked then for him the price Siglent is correct.
One must think before saying that 1104X-E and 1204X-E Siglent is expensive!
As for hacker Siglent 1104X-E in 1204X-E, you will have to wait a long time if the 2 models are different internally!
In my opinion.
Diabolo
The 100 MHz version is listed as a two channel version, though.
At these prices I guarantee you it's not going to be a DS1054Z killer. The 100 MHz version is over 25% more expensive than an easily upgraded DS1054Z
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
but if you really NEED the 100 MHz you'd know you WANT to have the 1 GS/s per channel in 2 channel modes or 500 MS/s in 4 channel mode
the decoder that doesn't use data from screen buffer to decode
the possibility to attach an AWG in the future, which can work with the scope
and maybe you want to look at canbus too?
if you want to put in terms of 25% more money, you get a scope that's 100% better when used at its fullest.
500MS/s vs 250MS/s per channel. that's 100% more.
14Mpts vs 6 Mpts per channel. that's more than 100% more
also CAN/LIN instead of the usuals only, call it whatever percent more
without even mentioning the rest of the wall of text..
if you want to put in terms of 25% more money, you get a scope that's 100% better when used at its fullest.
Only to you.
Most of that "wall of text" is just that, a wall of text. Gobbledygook to most of the hobby world.
not really, your typical MCU GPIO has a sufficienly fast risetime that can cause signal integrity problems if you want to use higher speed SPI peripherals for example.
I understand all this, I was just pointing out the limitation of the cheapest option, and that signal integrity can be an issue due to the compromises made.
That said, I'm surprised just how poorly it deals with the Sin(x)/x interpolation when running close to nyquist. I would be very interested to see a similar test made on the Siglent 200MHz (it may have already been done somewhere in another thread) - at 200MHz/500MSa/s it's running at the same BW/sample rate ratio at the rigol at 100MHz/250MSa/s.
The tek is indeed running at 5Gsa/s per channel - I included the reference to show that the source was actually nice and square to begin with. I also know that it's not the 50R feedthrough causing issues, as I tested it on the tek running in 1M mode.
I understand all this, I was just pointing out the limitation of the cheapest option, and that signal integrity can be an issue due to the compromises made.
I'm surprised just how poorly it deals with the Sin(x)/x interpolation when running close to nyquist (it also looks nearly as bad with Sin(x)/x off, including the pre-shoot etc).
...if you have 3+ channels enabled
What you see on the Rigol isn't a bug, it's exactly what the math says will happen if you only apply Sin(x)/x to a few samples on either side of the pixel of interest.
Assuming the Siglent will be better than this might backfire on you. The 200MHz model has the exact same ratio of samples to bandwidth as the Rigol.
I understand all this, I was just pointing out the limitation of the cheapest option, and that signal integrity can be an issue due to the compromises made.
Sure, but have you compared that to other devices in this price range? It's not a valid criticism of the Rigol unless you do a side-by-side comparison with others.I'm surprised just how poorly it deals with the Sin(x)/x interpolation when running close to nyquist (it also looks nearly as bad with Sin(x)/x off, including the pre-shoot etc).
Sin(x)/x isn't magic, it's a theoretical thing that only works perfectly if you apply it to every sample in the entire waveform (which obviously no oscilloscope can do).
What you see on the Rigol isn't a bug, it's exactly what the math says will happen if you only apply Sin(x)/x to a few samples on either side of the pixel of interest.
Assuming the Siglent will be better than this might backfire on you. The 200MHz model has the exact same ratio of samples to bandwidth as the Rigol....if you have 3+ channels enabled
Another red herring. With more channels enabled the Rigol reduces the sample rate so this is expected behavior, predicted by the math.
What you see on the Rigol isn't a bug, it's exactly what the math says will happen if you only apply Sin(x)/x to a few samples on either side of the pixel of interest.
What you see on the Rigol isn't a bug, it's exactly what the math says will happen if you only apply Sin(x)/x to a few samples on either side of the pixel of interest.AFAIK other people have already proven that the way sin(x)/x interpolation is implemented on the DS1054Z is wrong and thus makes a signal look worse than it should be.
What you see on the Rigol isn't a bug, it's exactly what the math says will happen if you only apply Sin(x)/x to a few samples on either side of the pixel of interest.AFAIK other people have already proven that the way sin(x)/x interpolation is implemented on the DS1054Z is wrong and thus makes a signal look worse than it should be.Yes, but that's not really the question. question is if any of the others are better, right?
Ofcourse the other ones are better! sin(x)/x is the industry standard method to do signal reconstruction on digital oscilloscopes for decades. It is well documented so there is absolutely no reason to do it wrong.
I don't know any DSO which does sin(x)/x wrong except for the DS1054Z.
Ofcourse the other ones are better! sin(x)/x is the industry standard method to do signal reconstruction on digital oscilloscopes for decades. It is well documented so there is absolutely no reason to do it wrong.Well that proves it then! Nobody else could possibly fail so long as it's written down somewhere!!I don't know any DSO which does sin(x)/x wrong except for the DS1054Z.Except... it doesn't really do it wrong. That's just a thing in Rigol hater's imaginations.
I suspect it is a combination of some >nyquist frequencies getting through the filter, and something odd going on with the reconstruction, though I don't have proof of the latter. That is why I am interested in how the Siglent does when running at 200MHz & 500MSa/s - for all I know it could have similar behavior!
Anyway, I was mainly trying to point out why the premium for the SDS1104X-E over the DS1054Z might be worth it even at 100MHz.