The Siglent is much newer, is 12bit but the waveform update rate is much slower and the sampling rate is half of the Agilent MSOX3024A which is fully loaded in terms of options (the one I'm looking at that is). From what I've seen the Agilent should have a much responsive UI?
Another plus for the Agilent is the support for active probes.
I'm in a similar position, trying to decide whether a new Siglent scope is in fact now a better fit for my needs than the MSOX-3104A that's currently my everyday workhorse.
As you've discovered, it's a very touchy subject for some individuals; weirdly so. I already know that I'm probably going to attract disparaging ire from a couple of people I could name right now, just for joining in with my own observations and not fawning over the Siglent like, apparently, I'm supposed to.
Some comparisons are easy to dismiss. If the bandwidth of the instrument is 200 MHz then a sample rate of 1 Gsa/s or more is plenty, and either scope will do just fine. You probably also don't need active probes at that frequency.
Memory depth either is a big deal to you, or it isn't. I genuinely don't know - or care!! - how many samples my MSOX can store. I do know that it's had plenty of memory for every use I've made of it in about the last 10 years, and that a longer memory is a long way down my list of nice-to-have features.
The UI on the MSOX is wonderfully responsive and a pleasure to use. No excuses need to be made here.
The 12 bit front end on the Siglent is lovely, and clearly a significant technical benefit.
On the other hand, the MSOX can probably acquire a great many more waveforms/sec under most conditions, which narrows the gap considerably if you can turn averaging on. I discovered that, for a repetitive small signal, the image on the screen of my MSOX (with averaging) looks very much like the image on my little Siglent 804X HD - there's not really a lot of extra useful information to be had.
In terms of performance (waveforms/sec), I don't know how they compare. Siglent only quotes a useless "up to" figure in the manual, and I found the actual throughput to be orders of magnitude slower when I did some testing a few weeks ago. Given that all the models in the range are only given "up to" specifications, it's impossible to know how they actually compare, and asking about it seems taboo.
The Siglent would be new with warranty, and that's a major plus. The PSUs in the Agilents do fail; take one apart and you'll see it's all but inevitable eventually, they're not well designed IMHO. However, they are replaceable with off-the-shelf, functionally equivalent units. My MSO-X3054A has a substitute PSU and it works perfectly (just the front panel on/off button doesn't work because I bought the wrong version of said PSU... d'oh).
Bigger screen? Yes, please, my middle aged eyeballs could definitely benefit. The tiny screen on the 804X HD gets very cluttered very quickly, but the larger screens on the bigger models should be fine.
It may be the different operational quirks that sway it for you. I quite like the Siglent's use of spare memory to store previous triggers, it's a nice bonus feature that I might use one day. On the other hand, I like the fact that the MSOX has no control needed to set the memory depth - it's always automatic and makes the best use of the available space.
I also really like the fact that on the Siglent I can capture serial data, *then* set up serial decoding and fiddle with settings until the waveform I've already captured decodes correctly. The MSOX is much faster - the UI really has to be seen to be believed side by side with a more conventional scope - but the settings have to be right before the waveform is captured; if they're not right, you need to send the data again.
It's great to have a choice, and I think you need to try them both in person. It's a bit like comparing a 10 yr old sports car with a modern SUV... comfort and capacity vs speed and driving engagement. Your call, and don't let anyone tell you you're wrong either way.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
