Best 350MHz scope in a hackable world (Siglent SDS2104X Plus or Rigol MSO5072)

[pascal_sweden]

Bandwidth savings in a hackable world:
We will always choose the lowest bandwidth model, as we know that we can upgrade it to 350MHz anyhow.
Siglent starts with 100MHz. There is no 70MHz model. So we can not go any lower to save costs.
Rigol starts with 70MHz. This saves us some extra money compared to the 100MHz model.

Number of channels and possible savings in a hackable world:
We need to make sure that the physical connectors are already there, as this can not be fixed with a software hack.
Siglent SDS2102X Plus does not come with 4 physical connectors, so we really have to go for Siglent SDS2104X Plus.
Rigol MSO5072 has only 2 channels enabled by default but comes with 4 physical connectors, so we can choose Rigol MSO5072 instead of Rigol MSO5074.

Conclusion: If we want a 350MHz scope with 4 channels in a hackable world, we can choose between Siglent SDS2104X Plus or Rigol MSO5072:

Siglent SDS2014X Plus can be upgraded to Siglent SDS2354X Plus.
Rigol MSO5072 can be upgraded to Rigol MSO5354.

But what is the best option of these two oscilloscopes when comparing them side by side?

Sample rate: Siglent only supports up to 2GSa/s sample rate, while Rigol supports up to 8GSa/s sample rate.
In practice we can consider Rigol has only double sample rate of Siglent if one uses at least 2 channels.
Do we really need 4Gsa/s for 350MHz? Or would 2Gsa/s be enough?

Waveform capture rate: Almost the same for both units. Siglent: 480.000 Wfms/s, Rigol: 500.000 Wfms/s.
But do we know if this value can be achieved for real or not? What are the limitations on the time base settings?
Maybe Rigol or Siglent perform very different on different time base settings. Are there any practical tests available about this?

Sample memory: Siglent supports 400MPts in total, while Rigol supports 200MPts in total.
There is no detail if the Siglent can achieve 400MPts when using only 1 channel in total.

Logic analyzer: The 16 channel Logic Analyzer costs about the same for both units.
However the Siglent Logic Analyzer looks of higher quality.
Do they support same voltage levels? What about the various trigger options?

Display output: The Rigol has an HDMI port while the Siglent has a VGA port.
Obviously HDMI provides better picture quality than VGA. But is the HDMI output 720P or 1080P?

Overall winner of both oscilloscopes based on the above comparisons:

Would that mean that Rigol MSO5072 (hackable to MSO5354) is the big winner?
Or what features (besides memory depth) would favor the Siglent SDS2014X Plus (hackable to SDS2354X Plus) instead of the Rigol?

The Siglent can be further upgraded to 500MHz, but wouldn't that reach the limits given that sample rate is max. 2GSa/s?

[Wade2019]

The best performing oscilloscope must be MSO5072, but MSO5072 is terrible in terms of user experience

[KeBeNe]

not only look at the technical data, the feel is also an important point.
I had the Rigol 5k and replaced it with the Siglent 2104X+ without regrets

[Fungus]

[pascal_sweden]

About the described limitation in the Siglent SDS2000X Plus with regards to the 200MPts memory.

Can someone test if the Rigol MSO5000 can capture the full 200MPts memory at all time bases?

[tv84]

About the described limitation in the Siglent SDS2000X Plus with regards to the 200MPts memory.

Can someone test if the Rigol MSO5000 can capture the full 200MPts memory at all time bases?

Siglent captures the 200Mpts at all time bases. Just not the way you think they are being captured... 

As such, claiming 200 Mpts (WITHOUT a BIG disclaimer) seems deceitful.

(Nonetheless I like the scope.)

[pascal_sweden]

Obviously you did not look at the video!
Check from 00:35 and beyond!

It is perfectly possible to capture 200Mpts at ALL time base settings.
The scope just has to sample all the time, and the moment it triggers it will display that part on the screen, but it means that it has captured data before and after.

You can compare it with the time shifting buffer in a Set-Top Box for Digital Television.
If you are watching on a TV channel you can use time shifting to go back and forth.

[Gandalf_Sr]

The best performing oscilloscope must be MSO5072, but MSO5072 is terrible in terms of user experience

Emphasis added is mine.

How, exactly, is MSO5072 terrible in terms of user experience? 

I own an MSO5074 and it does everything I need, the screen is sharp and clear, the touch screen is useful, the mouse works great, I can zoom out, it has bode plot, up to 8 Gsps.

I'd give mine 9/10 for user experience and 10/10 for value.

[Fungus]

Obviously you did not look at the video!
Check from 00:35 and beyond!

It is perfectly possible to capture 200Mpts at ALL time base settings.
The scope just has to sample all the time, and the moment it triggers it will display that part on the screen, but it means that it has captured data before and after.

Why doesn't it show that data when Dave zooms out? Even my Rigol DS1054Z can do that.

[Fungus]

The best performing oscilloscope must be MSO5072, but MSO5072 is terrible in terms of user experience

Emphasis added is mine.

How, exactly, is MSO5072 terrible in terms of user experience? 

I'd give mine 9/10 for user experience and 10/10 for value.

We live in a world where user interface "experts" are busy making grey on grey web sites, "dark" themes for our computers, etc. I really don't see it myself but maybe the Siglent owners have a special sensitivity to something in the interface that's completely invisible to you and me.

The only advice I can give is to ignore all posts that claim a user interface is good/bad but without giving any evidence for that claim. It could be based on something esoteric idea that makes no difference in real use

[luma]

The best performing oscilloscope must be MSO5072, but MSO5072 is terrible in terms of user experience

Can you explain a bit about your experience with the scope and what exactly is terrible about it?

[Gandalf_Sr]

The only advice I can give is to ignore all posts that claim a user interface is good/bad but without giving any evidence for that claim. It could be based on something esoteric idea that makes no difference in real use

I concur, it's meaningless to say the Snigdent FUS2354X Minus has a "terrible UI" unless I qualify it in some way.

You can say I think it's terrible that the Snigdent FUS2354X Minus has a slow response or it doesn't allow zooming out in standard usage patterns.

[doppelgrau]

Siglent:
 - 10 Bit mode (100 Mhz)
 - 50 Mhz Signal generator (1 Channel)
 - FFT up to 2 Mpts
 - Easier to hack (Keygen)

Rigol:
 - 25 MHz Signal generator (2 Channel)
 - FFT "only" up to 1 MPts

[Elasia]

Obviously you did not look at the video!
Check from 00:35 and beyond!

It is perfectly possible to capture 200Mpts at ALL time base settings.
The scope just has to sample all the time, and the moment it triggers it will display that part on the screen, but it means that it has captured data before and after.

Why doesn't it show that data when Dave zooms out? Even my Rigol DS1054Z can do that.

(Attachment Link)

They made an oddball design choice, its there and works, just not the way people are used to doing it and it requires setup vs what most would expect of just normal zoom in / out with no setup

As far as comparing to rigol, they are similar enough that getting one or the other will get the job done for the most part

The main difference comes down to how you use it and personal preference / feature set

The pic is the setup to do zoom out, its.. interesting... but it is kinda growing on me, i still wish it could be hidden though or even allow a selectable option for hide / small slider / preview slider

[Fungus]

Siglent:
 - 10 Bit mode (100 Mhz)
 - 50 Mhz Signal generator (1 Channel)
 - FFT up to 2 Mpts
 - Easier to hack (Keygen)

Rigol:
 - 25 MHz Signal generator (2 Channel)
 - FFT "only" up to 1 MPts

Rigol:
30% Cheaper
400Mpts memory

Siglent:
200Mpts memory

[Noy]

Siglent:
Ugly UI (Font, Symbols) looks "cheap Chinese"
Shared Channel knobs (biggest issue for me)

Rigol:
Single Channel knobs!! Love them..
50Ohm missing (passthrough termination works, solves the issue.)
Color of the channels ist a bit "questioning"

[doppelgrau]

Where did @Fungus find the 400Mpts memory for the Rigol?

I find in the datasheet (https://www.batronix.com/files/Rigol/Oszilloskope/MSO5000/MSO5000_DataSheet_EN-V2.0.pdf)
Rigol:
 - 200 Mpts (1 Channel), 100 Mpts (2 Channel), 50 Mpts (3-4 Channel)

Siglent:
 - 200 Mpts (up to two channels), 100 Mpts (3-4 Channels)
 - automatic switching between 1x/10x (as selected on the probe)

[jemangedeslolos]

It is not really 8GS/s, it's 2x4 and 2 x 100 Mpts for the Rigol.
They can do interleaving so they are able to do 1x8GS/s and 1x200 Mpts which is good but you have to be careful when comparing with others scope.

It is not 1x2 GS/s and 1x200 Mpts for the Siglent but 2x2GS/s and 2x200 Mpts. It can put things in other perspective.
I don't know why they can't do interleaving, if it's by choice or if the architecture don't allow that.

The Siglent also has a 10inch screen, the bigger the better.
I don't have the Siglent but I don't find the IU cheap.

Rigol is trying to make a modern user interface with unusual colors on this kind of instrument.
I wouldn't say I like the interface but I don't hate it either. I would prefer that there is less space lost.
At least they try something without trying to copy someone else.

One thing that I don't understand is that we can find 10inch full HD touch screens for nothing today.
Why are oscilloscope manufacturers limited to such low resolutions ?

But to answer the question, it is difficult to choose between these two. The price difference is huge. 35-50% more depending on whether we compare to MSO5072 or 5074.

[Elasia]

One thing that I don't understand is that we can find 10inch full HD touch screens for nothing today.
Why are oscilloscope manufacturers limited to such low resolutions ?

More pixels the more processing power / time you need to fill those pixels.. more cost.. whats the trade off gain? questionable for a budget scope

Still think at least the 2k+ line should have had an hdmi port... the web interface is nice but the refresh rate is bleh

[doppelgrau]

Since I'm currently unsure which I want to buy to replace my MSO1104Z I try to sum up all "hard" difference

Rigol:

• Higher sample rate (twice, for one channel four times as high)
• 350MHz probes included
• Signal generator with two channels, higher sample rate, lower frequency (25MHz), lower amplitude (+-5V/+-2.5V)
• Single channel knobs
• about 30% cheaper
• hdmi port

Siglent:

• Twice the memory if using 2-4 channels
• 10 bit mode
• Signal generator with only one channel, higher frequency (50MHz), higher amplitude (+-6V/+-3V)
• Bit better FFT (2Mpts instead of 1)
• Automatically switches between 1x/10x setting (as set on the probes)
• up to 500MHz (but included probes only good for 200MHz)
• internal 50Ohm termination possible
• Keygen (easier)

So besides differences in the GUI, both seem to have different strength.
And I'm still unsure which is better, but currently slightly leaning towards the Siglent I think it may fit my needs a bit better (10 bit mode, more memory on multiple channels, guess won't need the higher frequencies above 200 MHz so the probes won't be an issue), but to be honest, that's mostly guessing.

[tv84]

(I had promised myself that I wouldn't participate but... I'll repeat myself...)

The only difference is price! If you have $1500 buy the Siglent. If you only have $1000 buy the Rigol 5074.

[Fungus]

Where did @Fungus find the 400Mpts memory for the Rigol?

My bad, it's 200mpts.

OK, take that out and the difference is price. One costs hundreds of $$$ more than the other so you'd expect it to be better, comparing them directly is silly*.

eg. We could easily compare the Siglent with something more expensive from R&S and find the R&S is the one to buy. It's turtles all the way up.


(*) That never stopped people directly comparing the Rigol DS1054Z with the Siglent SDS1104X-E though

[doppelgrau]

Well, the price difference is partly since we compare a 70MHz scope with an 100MHz scope (same Bandwidth bought less than 10% difference - so I guess they have the same target group).
Also both are the two cheapest models if you want high memory and sample rate and touch screen, so in my eyes it makes sense to compare them, is it worth to spend the extra money.

[tv84]

Well, the price difference is partly since we compare a 70MHz scope with an 100MHz scope (same Bandwidth bought less than 10% difference - so I guess they have the same target group).
Also both are the two cheapest models if you want high memory and sample rate and touch screen, so in my eyes it makes sense to compare them, is it worth to spend the extra money.

Don't look at the sticker! You know perfectly well that both scopes can be software enhanced so compare them in full glory.

Again: does the MSO cover all your needs? Forget which is better, because they are alike but different. If the MSO covers your needs, stay with the MSO. If you have the $$$ burning your pocket go for the Siglent.

PS: If the Siglent 2074X+ was available outside China it would be a no-brainer!

[macaba]

MSO5074 owner here. I had the same question and it just came down to price. Ideally I would have been able to compare the two side by side in real life.

Mostly happy with the MSO5074, there are some things that could be better; UI lag is one that bothers me. On a stopped acquisition, you can move the trace up and down fairly smoothly with the knob but the UI display of the channel offset takes ages to update. Also, start doing SCPI over TCP causes the UI to really lag (the UI has crashed a couple of times but it’s rare). I’ve seen small anecdotal reports that the Siglent suffers similar UI issues but we’d have to establish a standard testing methodology to compare the two.

[TurboTom]

U/I and history / memory management aside, I'm somewhat surprised of the sample rate / input bandwidth of both scopes:

Siglent uses 2*2GSa/s ADCs (probably off-the-shelf MXT2001 or equivalent), providing insufficient power for the 500MHz specified bandwidth on all channels of the top-of-the-line version. I didn't read all of the SDS2000X+ thread hence I don't know if it had been confirmed that in four-channel mode, the instrument enables a properly designed anti-aliasing filter at its inputs to avoid producing mirror frequency signals.

On the other hand, Rigol's (probably proprietary) ADC on the MSO5000 has more than enough grunt to run all channels at 2GSa/s which doesn't appear to be really necessary on a 350MHz instrument -- remember, the DS2000(A) ran on one MXT2001 ADC just well to provide a (measured) -3dB point of approx. 360MHz on both its channels. So it seems, here the ADC is way over the top, instead the input circuitry is lacking a 50 ohm mode which is a shame considering the possible performace otherwise.

Put Rigol's ADC into Siglent's scope and add some history/sample memory processing of both and you've probably got a "screamer"... 

[tautech]

U/I and history / memory management aside, I'm somewhat surprised of the sample rate / input bandwidth of both scopes:

Siglent uses 2*2GSa/s ADCs (probably off-the-shelf MXT2001 or equivalent), providing insufficient power for the 500MHz specified bandwidth on all channels of the top-of-the-line version. I didn't read all of the SDS2000X+ thread hence I don't know if it had been confirmed that in four-channel mode, the instrument enables a properly designed anti-aliasing filter at its inputs to avoid producing mirror frequency signals.

From the datasheet:
* 1：In interleaving mode bandwidth is 500 MHz, rise time is 0.8 ns; in non-interleaving mode bandwidth is 350 MHz, rise time is 1 ns

[TurboTom]

This makes sense, yet I'ld be quite curious to know if adaptive anti-aliasing filtering is used...

[jemangedeslolos]

One thing that I don't understand is that we can find 10inch full HD touch screens for nothing today.
Why are oscilloscope manufacturers limited to such low resolutions ?

More pixels the more processing power / time you need to fill those pixels.. more cost.. whats the trade off gain? questionable for a budget scope

Still think at least the 2k+ line should have had an hdmi port... the web interface is nice but the refresh rate is bleh

I almost agree with you but I don't have enough knowledge in oscilloscope architecture.
I don't know what is the screen refresh rate, but I doubt that today it is a problem to refresh a screen at 50Hz in full HD resolution.

A better resolution makes it possible to display more things on the screen with better defined characters.
We are all used to using smartphones with 5-6 inch screens in 4K res so going back with a low resolution on a 10 inch screen is not that great.

That said I understand very well that on a 1000€ oscilloscope this is not possible so I deviate from the initial subject, but on an MSO7000 or SDS5000X, they could have made an effort.

[tautech]

This makes sense, yet I'ld be quite curious to know if adaptive anti-aliasing filtering is used...

IDK however the first 2 pages in the SDS2kX Plus thread have some good posts from Performa01 that you should study more.

[jemangedeslolos]

U/I and history / memory management aside, I'm somewhat surprised of the sample rate / input bandwidth of both scopes:

Siglent uses 2*2GSa/s ADCs (probably off-the-shelf MXT2001 or equivalent), providing insufficient power for the 500MHz specified bandwidth on all channels of the top-of-the-line version. I didn't read all of the SDS2000X+ thread hence I don't know if it had been confirmed that in four-channel mode, the instrument enables a properly designed anti-aliasing filter at its inputs to avoid producing mirror frequency signals.

On the other hand, Rigol's (probably proprietary) ADC on the MSO5000 has more than enough grunt to run all channels at 2GSa/s which doesn't appear to be really necessary on a 350MHz instrument -- remember, the DS2000(A) ran on one MXT2001 ADC just well to provide a (measured) -3dB point of approx. 360MHz on both its channels. So it seems, here the ADC is way over the top, instead the input circuitry is lacking a 50 ohm mode which is a shame considering the possible performace otherwise.

Put Rigol's ADC into Siglent's scope and add some history/sample memory processing of both and you've probably got a "screamer"... 

I think that is a ADC08D1000 for the SDS2000X and SDS2000X Plus but Im not sure.

[tv84]

I don't know what is the screen refresh rate, but I doubt that today it is a problem to refresh a screen at 50Hz in full HD resolution.

A better resolution makes it possible to display more things on the screen with better defined characters.
We are all used to using smartphones with 5-6 inch screens in 4K res so going back with a low resolution on a 10 inch screen is not that great.

Do you prefer fancy graphics or better responsiveness and adherence to the real signal being analysed? 

That's the trade-off.  As usual, there are pricier machines that have both.

[jemangedeslolos]

I don't know what is the screen refresh rate, but I doubt that today it is a problem to refresh a screen at 50Hz in full HD resolution.

A better resolution makes it possible to display more things on the screen with better defined characters.
We are all used to using smartphones with 5-6 inch screens in 4K res so going back with a low resolution on a 10 inch screen is not that great.

Do you prefer fancy graphics or better responsiveness and adherence to the real signal being analysed? 

That's the trade-off.  As usual, there are pricier machines that have both.

fancy graphics no, but more information on screen with more defined characters yes. With a 12 or 15inch screen, 20 GS/s, gesture control, no fans and 2000€ all included and free shipping.
Not that complicated 

Without jocking I say that because I am a little envious of the R&S UI

[TurboTom]

I think that is a ADC08D1000 for the SDS2000X and SDS2000X Plus but Im not sure.

AFAIK the MXT2001 is basically a chinese clone of the ADC08D1000 series of ADCs.

[tggzzz]

Do you prefer fancy graphics or better responsiveness and adherence to the real signal being analysed? 

That's the trade-off.  As usual, there are pricier machines that have both.

Another tradeoff: a real 50ohm input or an imitation 50ohm//20pF input?

Who cares what happens inside a scope if the signal reaching it is distorted by the probe and/or cable and/or input!

A scope without a probe (or 50ohm cable) is only half of the measurement tool.

[jemangedeslolos]

I think that is a ADC08D1000 for the SDS2000X and SDS2000X Plus but Im not sure.

AFAIK the MXT2001 is basically a chinese clone of the ADC08D1000 series of ADCs.

Thank you, I didn't know that.

[noreply]

Been following with attention this thread and I'm still    as to what device is best for my immediate needs.

What I like about the Rigol so far;-

1. 350Mhz probes included - lets face it having 500MHz on Siglent without appropriate probes is pointless - so additional $$ required
2. HDMI - helps with 'dim & reflective screen' when working in your 'lab'
3. Dual AWG - despite lower BW - very handy

What I don't like ;-

1. Looks 'cheap' with black plastic finish
2. Screen is 'gloss' and poor brightness and < 10"    (yes I know can use HDMI as stated above - but not in the field)
3. 'Upgradability' not as elegant as Siglent's - just entering appropriate license keys 


Before I move to the 'dark side' (pun intended  ) - I'm curious as to the capability of logic analysis on both devices - the Rigol & the Siglent?

Nobody jas made a detailed comparison as yet - I welcome your input(s) 

Is there a 'clear' winner in capability, user interface and general 'usability' that is noteworthy - or are they much the same 

[TurboTom]

I think that is a ADC08D1000 for the SDS2000X and SDS2000X Plus but Im not sure.

AFAIK the MXT2001 is basically a chinese clone of the ADC08D1000 series of ADCs.

Thank you, I didn't know that.

A little off-topic, but nonetheless a very interesting read: @jjoonathan's write-up of his DS4000 fix, replacing two of Rigol's (supposedly) MXT2001 with ADC08D1000s.

[pascal_sweden]

It would indeed be nice for a review that compares both devices by performing some actual tests using real world scenarios.

Not just turn some buttons and complain about the UI, but perform some actual tests using real world scenarios.

Make active use of the Logic Analyzer.
Check the protocol decoding.
Capture a hard to find glitch.
Check if the waveform update rates are similar.
Check the usefulness of the spectrum analyzer.
Save waveforms to an Excell sheet.
Check how easy it is to configure the signal generators.
Perform a bode plot and check the speed and accuracy.

[noreply]

It would indeed be nice for a review that compares both devices by performing some actual tests using real world scenarios.

Not just turn some buttons and complain about the UI, but perform some actual tests using real world scenarios.

Make active use of the Logic Analyzer.
Check the protocol decoding.
Capture a hard to find glitch.
Check if the waveform update rates are similar.
Check the usefulness of the spectrum analyzer.
Save waveforms to an Excell sheet.
Check how easy it is to configure the signal generators.
Perform a bode plot and check the speed and accuracy.

 

Sure would be nice to have a side by side review

- not sure if Dave has done a real 'in-depth' side by side review

- other than the initial teardown and general 'fiddling' with the interface(s) for the respective devices 

[pascal_sweden]

A little off-topic, but nonetheless a very interesting read: @jjoonathan's write-up of his DS4000 fix, replacing two of Rigol's (supposedly) MXT2001 with ADC08D1000s.

I am impressed! Some people are really smart troubleshooters.

Smart and handy! Gifted talent. Respect!

[Fungus]

Sure would be nice to have a side by side review

- not sure if Dave has done a real 'in-depth' side by side review

- other than the initial teardown and general 'fiddling' with the interface(s) for the respective devices 

I think Dave said he's not going to do reviews like that because it's many days of work to do it properly. That's why he just does a teardown and quick fiddle with the basic features.

It won't help anyway, some people will always value a different color case or a better response in the vertical position control more than actual features. These people can be just as vocal as the people with real usage evidence.

[pascal_sweden]

Batronix in Europe sells both oscilloscopes.

Anybody from Batronix on this forum who is up for a detailed review?

[tv84]

A little off-topic, but nonetheless a very interesting read: @jjoonathan's write-up of his DS4000 fix, replacing two of Rigol's (supposedly) MXT2001 with ADC08D1000s.

Tom, thanks for the link. Awesome stuff! Absolute respect for Jonathan's work! 

[Martin72]

(I had promised myself that I wouldn't participate but... I'll repeat myself...)

The only difference is price! If you have $1500 buy the Siglent. If you only have $1000 buy the Rigol 5074.

I totally agree to this and I got them both, first the rigol for over a year.
Then sold for the siglent and until now never regret it.
Bigger, clearer screen, better touchscreen responsive, less lag between touching and acitvating an element than on rigol, looks "adulter" in general (no "mickey mouse" design).
Menu structure much more better, eres and 10 bit resolution, noiseless frontend, better than rigol (remind dave´s comment to this in his "review" of the mso 5000).
50 ohm inputs ( which is better than using a external termination), external trigger input...
But that´s what you expect, when you paying more.

The rigol could not get all it´s "horsepower" to the wheels, 8GSa/s are outstanding in it´s class( and not only there), also 200mpt Memory, 9" display, 2-ch inbuilt awg, lots of math functions including digital filters, 4 math channels (siglent got 2) simultaneously displaying, excellent waveform update rate and so on....excellent bang for bucks ratio.

I guess, rigol want to make it possible, to sell their own asic as cheap as possible and this is the result.
In pros but also in cons, which are :

-Display is somekind of dim( after modification it´s getting better, but in comparision to the siglent there´s still a difference), weak angle view, touchpanel is laggy and not so precise as on the siglent.
-Small fan, in the first edition inacceptable noisy, after the update less noise but scope is heating more up.
-Case look and feel cheaper, the design of the front are toy-style.
(BTW, it makes no difference to me, if a scope got separate or common vertical channel controls)
-No external trigger input, no autosense inputs ( I didn´t miss them).
-Math: You got more displaying channels, but all got the same trace colour...
-Weak support in case of firmware updates.

But...
For 1000 bucks it couldn´t get any better than buying this raw diamond, still I like it.
When spending appx 25...30% more, you get the siglent sds2k+.
If some things will be fixed/upgraded, this could be the scope for life for a hobbyist.
At least we´re talking about 1000...1400 bucks in both cases, which will be probaly the maximum range for most of the hobbyists.

[Elasia]

noreply

This is usually what I do... contact whoever your favorite distributor is and flat out tell them you are interested in both scopes and want to see them side by side for a couple of weeks and plan to return the other

Most of the time they are kosher with it or might even just send you some demo units for you to try and send back

If that fails, i will buy both items maybe from them or a competitor that's close on price but dont deal with, give both a good gander then return one

I'm not going to do a logic probe write up but its been pretty good using it and even more fantastic i know how to timebase shift now and zoom out lol

[noreply]

(I had promised myself that I wouldn't participate but... I'll repeat myself...)

The only difference is price! If you have $1500 buy the Siglent. If you only have $1000 buy the Rigol 5074.

I totally agree to this and I got them both, first the rigol for over a year.
Then sold for the siglent and until now never regret it.

...
...
...

But...
For 1000 bucks it couldn´t get any better than buying this raw diamond, still I like it.
When spending appx 25...30% more, you get the siglent sds2k+.
If some things will be fixed/upgraded, this could be the scope for life for a hobbyist.
At least we´re talking about 1000...1400 bucks in both cases, which will be probaly the maximum range for most of the hobbyists.

Martin ...

Thanks for a very insightful post

- I share your passion in the observations and comments
- without even owing either of the devices at the moment 

[noreply]

noreply

... contact whoever your favorite distributor is and flat out tell them you are interested in both scopes

Already in progress ... will report next week 

[pascal_sweden]

Look forward to the side by side review!

[willd1971]

Hi everyone - SDS2104X Plus is currently in stock at Labtronix in the UK.  www.labtronix.co.uk

[pascal_sweden]

Did you finish the side by side review?

[NCG]

10 bit and input noise defined it above all for me.

[Fungus]

What happens to the infamous Rigol noise if you turn on (eg.) 4x averaging?

With 350Mhz front end and 8GS/sec sample rate you have samples to spare for things like this.

I'd imagine it drops right down, maybe even giving something approximating 9-bits resolution.

[tautech]

10 bits plus an additional ERES 3 bits on an already low noise front end leaves most others in its wake.

[TurboTom]

10 bit and input noise defined it above all for me.

Even though the SDS2000X Plus appears to provide a lower noise floor than some of its competitors, it's an eight bit oscilloscope by hardware. Siglent uses two MXT2001 dual 1GSPS 8bit ADCs in its frontend that can be cascaded to provide 2GSPS when only two channels of the scope are in use.

Every marketing talk of 10bit or even more refers to things that happen in software (and should be specified as such). This doesn't mean that this option isn't useful. But for comparison purposes, one should always keep that in mind. There are only a few scopes in the entry or mid level range that actually contain ADCs that sample more accurately than eight bits -- a few Owons (utilizing the HMCAD1520 that can be internally reconfigured to provide 8/12/14 bit sampling depth, yet at reduced sampling rate - good choice for audio / sensor jobs) or the RTB2000 (Rohde&Schwarz) with its proprietary 10 bit full-speed ADC (up to 2.5GSPS).

[mawyatt]

10 bit and input noise defined it above all for me.

Even though the SDS2000X Plus appears to provide a lower noise floor than some of its competitors, it's an eight bit oscilloscope by hardware. Siglent uses two MXT2001 dual 1GSPS 8bit ADCs in its frontend that can be cascaded to provide 2GSPS when only two channels of the scope are in use.

Every marketing talk of 10bit or even more refers to things that happen in software (and should be specified as such). This doesn't mean that this option isn't useful. But for comparison purposes, one should always keep that in mind. There are only a few scopes in the entry or mid level range that actually contain ADCs that sample more accurately than eight bits -- a few Owons (utilizing the HMCAD1520 that can be internally reconfigured to provide 8/12/14 bit sampling depth, yet at reduced sampling rate - good choice for audio / sensor jobs) or the RTB2000 (Rohde&Schwarz) with its proprietary 10 bit full-speed ADC (up to 2.5GSPS).

Agree that if software enhancement is utilized the "expand" the apparent ADC resolution it should be identified as such. The ADC & front end is the core of the DSO and should be evaluated on what this core circuitry can perform. With this in mind the real discriminator is how well this core ADC & front end can perform stand alone without software enhancements.

Invoking ENOB or Effective Resolution Bits (ERB) performance of the core gets to the performance that is fundamentally hardware limited. Howard Long did an actual comparison of DSOs based upon his measurements that was reported here which created lots of interesting discussions.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/

Later I did some measurements of the DSO I had and reported here,

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/50/

I can't speak for the Rigol or other DSOs but the SDS2102X Plus I have has impressed me, and it's ENOB, ERB and input referred noise are quite respectable IMO.

Edit: Didn't know the Owon DSO were true 12 bits and used this Analog Devices ADC, just checked and the XDS3102A and 3202A apparently utilize this ADC. Need to check on how these Owon DSOs perform.

Best,

[Fungus]

Every marketing talk of 10bit or even more refers to things that happen in software (and should be specified as such).

Yep, but tautech's a siglent salesman who has to pretend that all Siglents are devices from heaven.

Technically speaking you can turn on 4x averaging on the Rigol and still have the same sample rate as the Siglent but with a lot lower noise. Hence my question above.

(and also my wondering whether all the noise about the Rigol's noise is really productive or not, ie. does it really make much difference in practice?)

What happens to the infamous Rigol noise if you turn on (eg.) 4x averaging?

I'd imagine it drops right down, maybe even giving something approximating 9-bits resolution.

[tautech]

Every marketing talk of 10bit or even more refers to things that happen in software (and should be specified as such).

Yep, but tautech's a siglent salesman who has to pretend that all Siglents are devices from heaven.

Says he that abandoned Rigol and bought a Micsig. 

[mawyatt]

Every marketing talk of 10bit or even more refers to things that happen in software (and should be specified as such).

Technically speaking you can turn on 4x averaging on the Rigol and still have the same sample rate as the Siglent but with a lot lower noise. Hence my question above.

(and also my wondering whether all the noise about the Rigol's noise is really productive or not, ie. does it really make much difference in practice?)

What happens to the infamous Rigol noise if you turn on (eg.) 4x averaging?

I'd imagine it drops right down, maybe even giving something approximating 9-bits resolution.

I seriously doubt that you can achieve anywhere near 9 bits Effective Resolution with the Rigol ADC & Front End as Howard had shown it struggles to achieve an Effective Resolution of 5 bits, the ENOB will be even worse!

Another potential guage is the accuracy of the ADC and front end, which I have not seen much posted on various DSOs. Might be nice if someone could do actual accuracy measurements and post the results as Howard has done here. Table shown below.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/


Best,

[TurboTom]

That's what i meant when I posted in some contribution that this 5 bits of ENOB for the DS5k will now stand cast in iron. There was an error in the interpretation of the RMS figures, making the whole measurements for scopes with some millivolts offset mute. See here.

[Fungus]

Effective Resolution of 5 bits...

Here we go again... 

That chart has been debunked several times now.

[Fungus]

Says he that abandoned Rigol and bought a Micsig. 

What does that have to do with anything? 

Was I not allowed to buy something new? I must have missed that memo.

[mawyatt]

That's what i meant when I posted in some contribution that this 5 bits of ENOB for the DS5k will now stand cast in iron. There was an error in the interpretation of the RMS figures, making the whole measurements for scopes with some millivolts offset mute. See here.

Yes that is a concern reading the lower level rms vs. SD values, I had forgot about the DC offset issue which BTW doesn't seem to be a problem with the DSO I have, the rms and SD read similar on all vertical scales. However, shouldn't the higher level rms and SD be almost identical on the DS5k or is the offset just that bad everywhere on the vertical scales?

Best, 

[mawyatt]

Effective Resolution of 5 bits...

Here we go again... 

That chart has been debunked several times now.

Yes directly from the Rigol fanboy or girl that thinks averaging fixes everything

Best,

[Fungus]

Yes directly from the Rigol fanboy or girl that thinks averaging fixes everything

a) I don't own anything made by Rigol

b) I was asking what happens to the noise figures, not telling anybody anything. Averaging is a perfectly valid technique for reducing noise.

[mawyatt]

Yes directly from the Rigol fanboy or girl that thinks averaging fixes everything

a) I don't own anything made by Rigol

b) I was asking what happens to the noise figures, not telling anybody anything. Averaging is a perfectly valid technique for reducing noise.

a) Didn't you own some Rigol equipment in the past, maybe a DSO?

b) Quote from a comment above.

"Technically speaking you can turn on 4x averaging on the Rigol and still have the same sample rate as the Siglent but with a lot lower noise. Hence my question above."

Technically speaking seems like a statement to me!

and more on this.

"and also my wondering whether all the noise about the Rigol's noise is really productive or not, ie. does it really make much difference in practice?"

Noise generally isn't productive and most designers attempt to reduce it unless your striving for a noise generator

Putting all this fun aside, think we should all ask Dave or Howard to do a proper side by side unbiased evaluation since they seem to be the only folks with direct access to a number of these mid-level DSOs. Since Howard had indicated he was somewhat of a Rigol Fanboy I placed a little more faith in his evaluation than I normally do, but as TurboTom pointed out the rms vs. SD with offset bias issue. In all honesty I would have probably made that same mistake before realizing the DSO rms reading includes the DC offset since most RMS DVMs read AC waveform rms and don't include the DC term. What's funny is my Fluke and Keysight handheld DVMs say True RMS Reading, which isn't True!! They both read AC rms, since a True rms should be waveform agnostic and include all sources AC + DC

Anyway, we wouldn't be discussing any of this if we didn't have such high performance, quality instruments available at moderate prices from newer resources such as Rigol, Siglent, Micsig & others. Fun times for those younger engineers and scientist that now can afford these instruments at home. I know when I was younger the usual Tektronix and HP equipment was way off limits price-wise. You had to wait for a much older bargain instrument on the used market that likely needed repair.

Now to study up on the Owen DSO that was mentioned which includes the 8/12/14 bit Analog Devices HMCAD1520 multi-mode ADC, Dave's review wasn't encouraging tho

Best,

[Fungus]

"Technically speaking you can turn on 4x averaging on the Rigol and still have the same sample rate as the Siglent but with a lot lower noise. Hence my question above."

Technically speaking seems like a statement to me!

I don't think there can be any argument over whether averaging reduces noise or not. Or whether 8 divided by 4 equals 2. 

The question is: How is the noise afterwards?

[Fungus]

as TurboTom pointed out the rms vs. SD with offset bias issue. In all honesty I would have probably made that same mistake before realizing the DSO rms reading includes the DC offset since most RMS DVMs read AC waveform rms and don't include the DC term. What's funny is my Fluke and Keysight handheld DVMs say True RMS Reading, which isn't True!! They both read AC rms, since a True rms should be waveform agnostic and include all sources AC + DC

Yep, it's a very easy thing to overlook and very difficult to 100% cancel out.

Yet more proof that you should never trust any number on the screen of your DSO.

[mawyatt]

"Technically speaking you can turn on 4x averaging on the Rigol and still have the same sample rate as the Siglent but with a lot lower noise. Hence my question above."

Technically speaking seems like a statement to me!

I don't think there can be any argument over whether averaging reduces noise or not. Or whether 8 divided by 4 equals 2. 

The question is: How is the noise afterwards?

Averaging isn't guaranteed to reduce all "noise" as expected, it depends on how the "noise" correlates between the averaging samples. If the "noise" is from a switching type source (SMPS), then averaging may not work as well since the switching noise will likely have a high correlation between samples. Pure random white noise does follow the usual thinking about noise averaging since it has zero correction between samples.

The DSO input referred noise could have components from it's SMPS, digital clocking, display drive, the Mains, and so on, these may not average out as expected since they are not truly random and likely depend on the sweep rate, triggering and scale factors. A well designed front end shouldn't have serious noise issues at any scale factor that reduce the display quality and create uncertainty in the observed waveform evaluation.

Waveform averaging should be utilized to improve the measured waveform noise properties, and shouldn't be a requirement for the measuring instrument to subdue its own input noise. During a discussion on higher performance ADCs & DACs a Keysight Fellow told me that the instrument needs to be at least 10X better than the measurement, which places a reasonable limit on the DSO input noise performance.

The DSO I have has front end noise of ~77uvpp with a SD of ~17uv @ 1ns/div and 163uvpp &  23uv @ 1us/div respectively on the 500uv/Div. Using the 10X factor mentioned indicates that the DSO input noise should not be greater than 8*Scale Factor/10 or 8*500uv/10 or 400uvpp.

Best,

[mawyatt]

as TurboTom pointed out the rms vs. SD with offset bias issue. In all honesty I would have probably made that same mistake before realizing the DSO rms reading includes the DC offset since most RMS DVMs read AC waveform rms and don't include the DC term. What's funny is my Fluke and Keysight handheld DVMs say True RMS Reading, which isn't True!! They both read AC rms, since a True rms should be waveform agnostic and include all sources AC + DC

Yep, it's a very easy thing to overlook and very difficult to 100% cancel out.

Yet more proof that you should never trust any number on the screen of your DSO.

That was simply a user error using the rms rather than the sd value as pointed out by TurboTom. I suspect the Rigol reported both those values correctly, including the peak to peak but I don't know since I didn't make those measurements.

YOU may not trust the numbers on YOUR DSO screen, but I trust those on my DSO screen! Here's a few numbers from the DSO screen I do trust since a new Keysight 34465A was used, and results supported with a HP34401A and an Agilent 34401A.

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)

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/

And a few more "noise" & ERB measurements including FFT noise floor.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/50/


Best,

[Fungus]

"Technically speaking you can turn on 4x averaging on the Rigol and still have the same sample rate as the Siglent but with a lot lower noise. Hence my question above."

Technically speaking seems like a statement to me!

I don't think there can be any argument over whether averaging reduces noise or not. Or whether 8 divided by 4 equals 2. 

The question is: How is the noise afterwards?

Averaging isn't guaranteed to reduce all "noise" as expected, it depends on how the "noise" correlates between the averaging samples. If the "noise" is from a switching type source (SMPS), then averaging may not work as well since the switching noise will likely have a high correlation between samples. Pure random white noise does follow the usual thinking about noise averaging since it has zero correction between samples.

Now who's speaking "technically"?

All I'm after is somebody with an MSO5000 to actually do it and say what happens.

Because ... if the noise drops way down to manageable levels then this whole issue would seem moot to me.

I think Siglent's not being able to zoom out after capturing a signal would probably bother me more  - I need that much more often than I'd need to look at mV signals. YMMV.

Edit: If the input signal interacts badly with the sample averaging then there's also the option of applying a low pass filter on a math channel... use the tools provided!

[Noy]

If Dave can do a video, maybe rigol has than some spare software engineers left after the DS70000 stuff is "completed" for an initial release... and than they can improve/polish something in the 5k-8k series (also they should look / copy  Bode plot things from siglent ones. The pressure must only be high enough.. ;-)

[Martin72]

Hi,

One of my last measurings with the 5000 was ripple-noise from a 60Vdc linear power supply.
Specified with 1mVrms, you see nothing from it on the scope, because of it´s own noise, nevertheless what you try (high res, bandwithlimit, capacitor directly on the input, etc..).
But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something..

Will repeat this with my siglent in the next days (holidays, yeah), expecting not to need to average the signal.

Martin

Edit:

I need that much more often

For what ?

[Fungus]

But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something..

There you go...!

The noise isn't a fatal problem. I wouldn't pay $500 extra for the occasional times I need to look at that sort of signal, not when there's a simple workaround.

[2N3055]

But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something..

There you go...!

The noise isn't a fatal problem. I wouldn't pay $500 extra for the occasional times I need to look at that sort of signal, not when there's a simple workaround.

That is a crutch. It will only show repetitive signal. It won't show spread spectrum signal or real noise, in fact it will suppress it...
So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

[mawyatt]

But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something..

There you go...!

The noise isn't a fatal problem. I wouldn't pay $500 extra for the occasional times I need to look at that sort of signal, not when there's a simple workaround.

Well let's show what Martin72 actually stated rather than snip the bottom section, here's top part.

"One of my last measurings with the 5000 was ripple-noise from a 60Vdc linear power supply.
Specified with 1mVrms, you see nothing from it on the scope, because of it´s own noise, nevertheless what you try (high res, bandwithlimit, capacitor directly on the input, etc..)."

Note the waveform shown, it "appears" that this is just wideband noise, even tho high res, bandwidth limit and a shunt capacitor on the input was used!! A typical user would likely not suspect a hidden waveform from the linear regulator, but an astute user such a Martin72 knew this might not be accurate and had to invoke 64 averages to revel what the true identity of the linear regulator noise properties were, since the DSO noise is so high it completely obscures the DUT noise waveform.

BTW this type of measurement is quite common in the areas I'm involved with, measuring noise in systems,  power supplies and others, and tracing the sources.

So you are right There you go...!

Best,

[mawyatt]

a) I don't own anything made by Rigol

Seems you conveniently avoided my later question?

a) Didn't you own some Rigol equipment in the past, maybe a DSO?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/best-350mhz-scope-in-a-hackable-world-(siglent-sds2104x-plus-or-rigol-mso5072)/50/

Here's a quote from your post on 12/12/2020

I just went from a Rigol DS1054Z to a Micsig and it's awesome.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/whats-a-good-4ch-replacement-for-an-old-rigol-1052e-scope/msg3367438/#msg3367438

So no hidden agenda and just to be clear where you very recently actually owned something by Rigol, a DSO in fact! Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 


Best,

[Fungus]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

[Fungus]

Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 

Nope, I got the Micsig because it has a big screen, it has a battery, and the user interface is awesome. 

It can also do stuff like view web pages and datasheets when you're not using it as a 'scope. I built one of these two days ago while reading the instructions on my Micsig (which was running on internal battery). Show me a Siglent that can do that!

Bottom line: Micsigs are useful even with no probes attached.



PS: I don't remember my DS1054Z being noisy. 

[mawyatt]

But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something..

There you go...!

The noise isn't a fatal problem. I wouldn't pay $500 extra for the occasional times I need to look at that sort of signal, not when there's a simple workaround.

That is a crutch. It will only show repetitive signal. It won't show spread spectrum signal or real noise, in fact it will suppress it...
So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

Yes a crutch indeed, and avoidable with a DSO with a better designed front end. This isn't pushing the kTB noise limits of a receiver or other type system where physics and nature combine to obscure signals, but a measuring instrument that's supposed to be able to measure things to revel the noise and it's origins only to find it's self induced!! Granted averaging is useful but shouldn't require employment just to view a typical type signal, and is beneficial to revel a signal that is buried in it's own noise as "seen" from the input, rather than the instrument burying the input signal in noise from itself!!

Averaging doesn't help with non-repetitive type signals, and the whole basis for Spread Spectrum, where only the proper correlated average exhibits the "Processing Gain" and the signal of interest rises from the embedded noise.

Back in the research area & labs I retired from, this DSO would be shelved in favor of a DSO that doesn't portray these characteristics, we would have no time to mess around with this kind of non-sense. Seems almost every other quality DSO doesn't have this issue, so I'm sure the Rigol designers are aware of this limitation and working diligently to create a new a lower noise front end for their future DSO to remain technically completive competitive.

Best,

[mawyatt]

Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 

Nope, I got the Micsig because it has a big screen, it has a battery, and the user interface is awesome. 

It can also do stuff like view web pages and datasheets when you're not using it as a 'scope. I built one of these two days ago while reading the instructions on my Micsig (which was running on internal battery). Show me a Siglent that can do that!

Bottom line: Micsigs are useful even with no probes attached.



PS: I don't remember my DS1054Z being noisy. 

Just in case you aren't aware, that's what laptops & iPads are for, and they likely do this much better with a much better retina screen and touch effects, not to mention battery life!!

A DSO is for measuring signals and such, not for browsing the internet. Anyway, most new DSOs have ethernet, USB, and WiFi with Web based interfaces, so they can be operated from a remote desktop, laptop, phone to iPad and used for presentations, data collection, and of course surf the net.

Can't see having a DSO that can browse the net being a deciding factor, I'm more interested in how well it makes measurements.

I'm old and retired now, so maybe this is the wave of the future for DSOs

Best,

[TurboTom]

Add a miniature X-ray flourescense spectrometer and we've got a genuine tricorder...

[Fungus]

Just in case you aren't aware, that's what laptops & iPads are for

Yet more stuff cluttering up the workbench...

Averaging doesn't help with non-repetitive type signals

Maybe I wasn't defining the word "Averaging" clearly enough.

I mean averaging of neighboring samples. What Rigol calls "High Resolution" mode.

[Fungus]

A DSO is for measuring signals and such, not for browsing the internet.

Not any more.

I'm more interested in how well it makes measurements.

Very nicely, thank you.

And turning those measurements on/off is a lot faster and easier with a graphical touch screen than using an old-fashioned twisty knob to move around a grid of text labels (then mis-clicking when you push it to select one of them).

[mawyatt]

Maybe I wasn't defining the word "Averaging" clearly enough.

I mean averaging of neighboring samples. What Rigol calls "High Resolution" mode.

The noise obscured waveform shown (see attachment) was with your self defined "Averaging" mode, which as you say Rigol calls "High Resolution" mode!!

Here it is from the previous post, and waveforms below.
"Specified with 1mVrms, you see nothing from it on the scope, because of it´s own noise, nevertheless what you try (high res, bandwithlimit, capacitor directly on the input, etc..)
But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something"

Note this reference to averaging is Waveform Averaging not to be confused High Resolution mode.

Heres what Waveform Averaging means from PicoScope:

"In PicoScope, waveform averaging is a mathematical function that computes the average of a sequence of waveforms. This is useful for removing noise from a repetitive signal. The result of averaging is a cleaner picture with the same frequency resolution as the original capture but with increased vertical resolution."

So in this case Waveform Averaging (64) is utilized to help remove the noise induced from the scope itself, not from the input signal, and revel the input signal waveform details!

Keep digging my friend, you are getting deeper and deeper 

[mawyatt]

A DSO is for measuring signals and such, not for browsing the internet.

Not any more.

We shall see what folks buy a DSO for, net surfing or measuring!!

I'm more interested in how well it makes measurements.

Very nicely, thank you.

That's good!! If the net surfing was good, but the scope measurements were not, I don't think you would be a happy camper


And turning those measurements on/off is a lot faster and easier with a graphical touch screen than using an old-fashioned twisty knob to move around a grid of text labels (then mis-clicking when you push it to select one of them).

Agree, the touch screen is quite useful, and with a mouse even more so!!

Best,

[Fungus]

Agree, the touch screen is quite useful, and with a mouse even more so!!

But still, the Siglent 2000 series it to supplement the twisty knob. The Micsigs were touchscreen-first so they're designed for touchscreen from the ground up (the side-knobs were added in later models).

The result is a much better design, eg. when things have many parameters you don't have to open lots of different sub-menus to set each parameter individually, you get all the parameters on a single page.

eg. Serial decoding


It's literally four presses to go down the page and say "UART" -> "CH1" -> "BaudRate" -> "9600"

(or whatever).

Yes, you can use a mouse, too.

[tautech]

 
What is a max 150 MHz Micsig doing in a 350 MHz DSO thread ?

Why would it even be considered as a contender in this class of scope ? Maybe in the 1 GSa/s DSO class although in this bracket it's expensive.

[mawyatt]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

The Siglent would not require a separate low-noise preamp for the measurement under discussion because it has a real input 500uv/div scale factor vs 2mv/div, so 4X advantage there. On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

So you are right again, the difference is indeed a crutch for the Rigol!!

Edit: Someone following these threads might infer that the Siglent has a built-in low-noise preamp, that would be correct, except this built-in low-noise preamp has the full DSO bandwidth capability, not a limited bandwidth as you might expect for a low-noise preamp!! In fact, just measured ~620MHz 3dB bandwidth at 500uv/div scale factor for a "500MHz enabled" SDS2102X Plus, now that's impressive!!

You are doing a great job of pointing out the limitations and differences of theses two mid-level DSOs, please keep up the great dialog



Best,

[nctnico]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

The Siglent would not require a separate low-noise preamp for the measurement under discussion because it has a real input 500uv/div scale factor vs 2mv/div, so 4X advantage there. On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

That is only true IF you can get the signal into the oscilloscope using the commonly grounded probe or cable. For low voltage measurements a differential pre-amplifier is a much better choice.

[Martin72]

Why would it even be considered as a contender in this class of scope ? Maybe in the 1 GSa/s DSO class although in this bracket it's expensive.

We recommend the Micsig if you are looking for an oscilloscope for mobile use or would like to have a touch oscilloscope. Compared to desktop oscilloscopes such as the Rigol DS1000Z series, the measurement technology and the range of functions of the Micsig devices cannot yet keep up.

But it got a huge advantage even against the 350Mhz scopes, you could use it as a tablet..

Back to topic:

For me it was a disappointment seeing nothing on my rigol because of it´s noisy frontend and it was a final disappointment to "hear" from the support, that the much more expensive 7000 series got the same frontend.
I don´t want to play around with averaging until a signal was visible, which could be the expected one.
As the SDS2K+ came up, it won´t come in my mind to change to it - Too "weak" performance against the rigol in the first view.
"Poor" Samplerate ( Rigol´s 8GSa/s in this pricerange...Rub your eyes guys, this is still incredible today) and a few things more, which was on the first view a loosing one(only 2 instead of 4 math channels, rigol got more maths functions).
But then I study the siglent specs closer...
1PPM timebase, real low noise frontend, integrated 50Ohm termination....
Brighter, bigger screen, good UI....But what about the "poor" samplerate of "only" 2GSa/s ?
Well, we got Lecroy scopes with 500Mhz bandwith and only 1GSa/s samplerate and they working good - So why bother about 2GSa/s.....
And so I did the change.
To get the threadtitle, for me the sds2k+ is the best 350(500)Mhz scope in the "hackable world" . 

[mawyatt]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

The Siglent would not require a separate low-noise preamp for the measurement under discussion because it has a real input 500uv/div scale factor vs 2mv/div, so 4X advantage there. On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

That is only true IF you can get the signal into the oscilloscope using the commonly grounded probe or cable. For low voltage measurements a differential pre-amplifier is a much better choice.

No doubt a differential probe is ideal but also adds some additional cost and may not be readily available. Someday I'll probably get one, but now retired everything is out-of-pocket, so this must wait for a justified "need".

We've often use two identical conventional scope probes (sometimes just equal length coax cables) into the scope channels 1 & 2, then subtracted the channels for the differential measurement. Attaching both probes to a common pulse source and nulling the result using the compensation trim for the pulse null, and a channel variable scale for the DC amplitude null gives respectable results.  Not suggesting this as replacement for a quality differential probe, but certainly helped in a pinch with the old analog Tektronix scopes

Now it seems some differential probes are priced where it's getting attractive 

I know lots of folks like to bash Siglent, not sure why, but most seem heavily biased and are Fanboys or girls for other DSO brands. That's fine, I can quickly evaluate the source where they are coming from by the statements made, it's hard to hide bias with technical discussions. I actually prefer Keysight/Agilent/HP and Tektronix gear, and would have never considered anything else, but with a limited budget and out-of-pocket I ventured out and followed the numerous post on EEVblog, quickly realizing the biased views with all the enthralled BS. Later I picked the Siglent SDS2104X Plus, but settled for the SDS2102X Plus because the 2104 was BO. I was, and still am impressed with what I got 

I can say without a technical doubt that Siglent just got the front end design of this SDS2000X Plus series scope right, it is an absolute superb performer. If anyone doubts this I strongly suggest get one and see for yourself, then engage in discussions based upon real measurements not speculation. I would really appreciate if Dave or Howard would reengage a review of these various mid-level DSOs, think we all would benefit from this, especially new folks that haven't got the time to tread thru all the massive BS flying around this DSO subject 

Best, 

[nctnico]

Well, I never stated that the analog frontend from Siglent is bad. Actually from the information on this forum it turns out it is very good. In general Siglent's hardware is well designed; no problems there. Still, from experience I know that getting low amplitude signals into an oscilloscope can be tricky at times.

[Martin72]

It will always be a tricky one.
But to have it right to the topic, and the topic is in real a comparison between rigol 5000 and siglent 2k+, the siglent "win" although it lacks some of the fancy advantages the rigol got on the papers.
Why, the answer is clear to me.
Have a look on actual payable R&S scopes, have a look on actual keysight scopes.
What they got seems small against the rigol for example.
But what they got it works perfect.
Right what you expect from A-Brands.
And now, siglent seems to go the same way.
Not having fancy shining specs, but what they got it will work.
And therefore, as I said it once months ago, the siglent is the more "adulter" scope in the hobbyist range for me.

[mawyatt]

There is definitely some truth in what you say about Keysight (maybe R&S), and from our experience the older Tektronix. We hardly ever paid any attention to the HP/Agilent/Keysight or Tektronix detailed data sheet specs, just the key performance metrics were important. When using this equipment in the lab we knew that it would behave like we expected, and accurately give the measurement results we needed. Why, because these instruments were designed from the ground up to be useful instruments in the lab and not met some arbitrary data sheet parameter, they were designed by engineers that actually used this equipment. Had many discussions with "other" OEM equipment suppliers, they always touted that "their" instruments had better specs than HP or Tektronix, didn't care because they didn't have the HP or Tektronix DNA

Best, 

[TurboTom]

Couldn't agree more with the previous contributors -- the sad thing is that the guideline changed form "fit for the lab" to "adequate for the sales department". Probably, this happened alongside the decay of the sales prices of the insruments (and increase of the sales numbers), so nowadays the average instruments availabe to the hobbyist provide a performance level that previously had been available only to the professionals, prepared to spend a small fortune on their instruments. Still, this doesn't legitimate (IMO) the approach to "bend" specs and characteristics to best meet the market.

We, on the other side of the "supply chain", may have more power than we anticipate -- if we don't buy a certain product, the manufacturer will run into trouble sooner or later and will be forced to take care of the market more respectfully.

What really makes me wonder behind all this questionnaire is: Why don't the major TE manufacturers openly make use of a forum like this (maybe they do so in secrecy), with all its "power-users" and professionals around, to test their future entry and mid range level products for fitness to the market, or to put it differently, to use it as an inspiration for their design engineers, to match a product just to the demands of the potential users? There's so much knowledge and experience accumulated among the subscribers to this forum that I'ld really consider it unwise of the manufacturers to disregard this possible input to their design commitee.

Of course, it would require considerable experience on behalf of the manufacturers to distinguish between "noise" and real, useful information when skimming any forum, but anyway, I think a manufacturer, doing this seriousy, could gain a lot of invaluable information from places like this!

Whatsoever, I don't think my reasoning will change anything, but, at lest now I feel satisfied to have made my thoughts available to scrutiny regarding this issue, after having enjoyed almost half a bottle of brandy (...for different reasons...)  -- so bear with me.

Cheers, Tom

[kahuna0k]

On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

I have both (Rigol MSO5074@350Mhz and Siglent SDS2104X@500Mhz), and measuring the avg stddev of the noise at 1mV I get 75uV on the Siglent and 167uV on the Rigol, both on full bandwidth and default values for everything else. At 2mV and limiting both to 200Mhz bandwidth I get 283uV on the Rigol vs 51uV on the Siglent.

I think that the Siglent is better in terms of noise and UI, and I prefer it for everything except digital signals, but the Rigol is not as bad as some people are telling here. I'm pretty sure that many would have not even dream of something like it 10 years ago.

IMHO the big difference is that Siglent seems much better in terms of firmware updates.

[tautech]

Tom, it's happening already and as you surmise by very capable technicians some of which are members here. I know of at least 67 8 that have worked with Siglent on a number of projects.

What you can't see is the NDA's we've all had to sign in order to be fortunate enough to be involved in the beta development of instruments. 

[ResistorRob]

Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 

Nope, I got the Micsig because it has a big screen, it has a battery, and the user interface is awesome. 

It can also do stuff like view web pages and datasheets when you're not using it as a 'scope. I built one of these two days ago while reading the instructions on my Micsig (which was running on internal battery). Show me a Siglent that can do that!

Bottom line: Micsigs are useful even with no probes attached.



PS: I don't remember my DS1054Z being noisy. 

Fungus has 11,570 posts on this forum and I doubt even 70 of those added any value to the discussion. Sorry... Someone had to say it 

Here is a discussion of 350MHz oscilloscopes. Only two models to be exact. And here he is posting about a 150Mhz scope. It doesn't even have half the bandwidth of what would be on topic. His big selling point on the MicSig is the ability to view webpages? Even a $30 Walmart cellphone can do that, and won't take up any bench space because it fits in your pocket.

Every time I read a post and say to myself WTF is this nonsense I look at the author and it's usually Fungus. Is there anyway to filter his posts out of my view?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. For the longest time I have been considering the Siglent 1104x-e because it fits every one of my needs, but never pulled the trigger on it because it lacked touchscreen which I don't need but really want. So I waited for something to come along in price range because if I'm going to go over my budget it needs to last me a very long time. When the Rigol MSO 5000 hit the market I did love the way it looked. But it had a very dim screen and no 50 ohm termination. (Supposedly the dim screen was fixed in a firmware update but I see conflicting information on how good this was). Then the Siglent 2000x plus came out and I really do like the scope but people on here bashing it had me a little gun shy. After I did some research some things aren't ideal such as how it handles memory. It's out of my budget but I'm saving up for it. Probably as close to my dream scope as I will get.

After all that rambling here is my point. If you want to decide between the Rigol and the Siglent then do your research and figure out which one most fits your wants and needs. Something I have lusted over forever is the ability to customize trace colors, something just added to the Siglent. Neither scope dominates over the other. Each has pros and cons so decide what works best for you. People on this forum will suggest what they like best which may not be what best fits your needs. Ignore peoples opinions and focus on the facts they present and make your decision from that. If you didn't know about the color customization on the Siglent that brings me to my second point. They are awful at marketing and you won't find any mention of all the cool features and functions they added via updates since it's initial release. So my tip is check the firmware update notes of both scopes and there may be a hidden gem you didn't know about that really seals the deal for you.

[Fungus]

Fungus has 11,570 posts on this forum and I doubt even 70 of those added any value to the discussion. Sorry... Someone had to say it 

Let's go back two more posts, shall we:

a) I don't own anything made by Rigol

Seems you conveniently avoided my later question?

a) Didn't you own some Rigol equipment in the past, maybe a DSO?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/best-350mhz-scope-in-a-hackable-world-(siglent-sds2104x-plus-or-rigol-mso5072)/50/

Here's a quote from your post on 12/12/2020

I just went from a Rigol DS1054Z to a Micsig and it's awesome.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/whats-a-good-4ch-replacement-for-an-old-rigol-1052e-scope/msg3367438/#msg3367438

So no hidden agenda and just to be clear where you very recently actually owned something by Rigol, a DSO in fact! Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 


Best,

He gets away Scott free...? Double standard much?

What is a max 150 MHz Micsig doing in a 350 MHz DSO thread ?

As if you've never invaded a thread with Siglent spam or posted a comment designed purely to goad other users.

[Fungus]

After all that rambling here is my point. If you want to decide between the Rigol and the Siglent then do your research and figure out which one most fits your wants and needs.

Yep, the thread has actually been over for two pages now.

Conclusion: "It depends".

[tautech]

Every time I read a post and say to myself WTF is this nonsense I look at the author and it's usually Fungus. Is there anyway to filter his posts out of my view?

Profile>Account settings>Modify Profile>Buddies/Ignore list>Edit Ignore list

FYI he has been known to openly stalk and incite members for reactions for them to be banned.
Watch your arse with this fruitcake.

[Fungus]

Every time I read a post and say to myself WTF is this nonsense I look at the author and it's usually Fungus. Is there anyway to filter his posts out of my view?

Profile>Account settings>Modify Profile>Buddies/Ignore list>Edit Ignore list

But don't worry, tautech will quote them all so you can read then anyway.

FYI he has been known to openly stalk and incite members for reactions for them to be banned.

That's a lie and you know it.

[nctnico]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. For the longest time I have been considering the Siglent 1104x-e because it fits every one of my needs, but never pulled the trigger on it because it lacked touchscreen which I don't need but really want. So I waited for something to come along in price range because if I'm going to go over my budget it needs to last me a very long time. When the Rigol MSO 5000 hit the market I did love the way it looked. But it had a very dim screen and no 50 ohm termination. (Supposedly the dim screen was fixed in a firmware update but I see conflicting information on how good this was). Then the Siglent 2000x plus came out and I really do like the scope but people on here bashing it had me a little gun shy. After I did some research some things aren't ideal such as how it handles memory. It's out of my budget but I'm saving up for it. Probably as close to my dream scope as I will get.

Now you make it sound as if there are only two choices. I agree with your assesment that the Siglent is the better choice compared to Rigol judging on how quickly Siglent fixes bugs (nowadays) and Siglent has a better analog front-end. But then again: do you really need 350MHz of bandwidth? I totally get that it is easy to get hung-up on nice features but if you are on a budget (who isn't? *) then it is a good idea to take a break and put the pros and cons of various models (not just the Rigol and Siglent mentioned in this thread) on a piece of paper. With all the pros and cons on a paper it is easy to identify the more important and less important features versus the money they cost.

* Sometimes it takes me a year or more to decide which instrument to buy.

[Fungus]

Now you make it sound as if there are only two choices. I agree with your assesment that the Siglent is the better choice compared to Rigol judging on how quickly Siglent fixes bugs (nowadays) and Siglent has a better analog front-end. But then again: do you really need 350MHz of bandwidth?

A very valid point.

The elephant in the room is that when you get to 350Mhz you're well inside the area where you need to start looking at active probes.

I totally get that it is easy to get hung-up on nice features but if you are on a budget (who isn't? *) then ...

Any idea of being "on a budget" is moot once you reach active probe territory.

[tautech]

FYI he has been known to openly stalk and incite members for reactions for them to be banned.

That's a lie and you know it.

I know the truth and so do the moderators not your version of 

Your actions were recognized and discussed by a few members so pull your head in.

[nctnico]

Now you make it sound as if there are only two choices. I agree with your assesment that the Siglent is the better choice compared to Rigol judging on how quickly Siglent fixes bugs (nowadays) and Siglent has a better analog front-end. But then again: do you really need 350MHz of bandwidth?

A very valid point.
The elephant in the room is that when you get to 350Mhz you're well inside the area where you need to start looking at active probes.

Not really. I usually use a direct cable connection as high frequency signals often have a low impedance anyway. And there are plenty of options to buy or make cheap passive probes. On top of that you can choose from several active probe designs out there which are very affordable.

@tautech: pot - kettle - black

[Fungus]

Not really. I usually use a direct cable connection as high frequency signals often have a low impedance anyway.

Yes, direct cable is fine.

[mawyatt]

On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

I have both (Rigol MSO5074@350Mhz and Siglent SDS2104X@500Mhz), and measuring the avg stddev of the noise at 1mV I get 75uV on the Siglent and 167uV on the Rigol, both on full bandwidth and default values for everything else. At 2mV and limiting both to 200Mhz bandwidth I get 283uV on the Rigol vs 51uV on the Siglent.

I think that the Siglent is better in terms of noise and UI, and I prefer it for everything except digital signals, but the Rigol is not as bad as some people are telling here. I'm pretty sure that many would have not even dream of something like it 10 years ago.

IMHO the big difference is that Siglent seems much better in terms of firmware updates.

Since you own both DSOs most of the discussions are centering around, could you make the input referred noise measurement with the bandwidth of 20MHz? This was the BW used for the various noise measurements made by Howard Long and used in the power supply measurements by Martin72 as shown in the scope plots, and what I posted that you've quoted. Please include the peak to peak and standard deviation measurements.

Thanks for helping out, most of us aren't lucky enough to own both of these nice DSOs. So much of the discussions centered around speculation (and the usual non-sense) with little supporting measurements

Best,

[Fungus]

Since you own both DSOs most of the discussions are centering around, could you make the input referred noise measurement with the bandwidth of 20MHz? This was the BW used for the various noise measurements made by Howard Long and used in the power supply measurements by Martin72 as shown in the scope plots, and what I posted that you've quoted. Please include the peak to peak and standard deviation measurements.

Thanks for helping out, most of us aren't lucky enough to own both of these nice DSOs. So much of the discussions centered around speculation (and the usual non-sense) with little supporting measurements

 

Would also be nice to know what effect "hi res" mode has on the noise levels at 2x, 4x, 8x.

PS:

[nctnico]

There is another oopsie in the video as well... the oscilloscope inputs aren't terminated and this does make a difference when doing noise comparisons.

[Fungus]

There is another oopsie in the video as well... the oscilloscope inputs aren't terminated and this does make a difference when doing noise comparisons.

Dave says not.

https://youtu.be/Y6gzYbuMjOA?t=1265

[mawyatt]

I see little (<2uv) difference on the 500uv/div scale between having the input terminated with internal 50 ohms, or not at 20MHz BW limit on the SDS2102X Plus I have. With 200MHz & 500MHz it's <1uv. Normally I would expect this to be higher at all BWs, but it is what it is.

BTW does anyone have a detailed schematics of the front end utilized on the latest DSOs? Would be interesting to study what's going on before the ADCs!

Best 

[nctnico]

There is another oopsie in the video as well... the oscilloscope inputs aren't terminated and this does make a difference when doing noise comparisons.

Dave says not.

https://youtu.be/Y6gzYbuMjOA?t=1265

And he is wrong because A) on some scopes it does matter and B) you want to make measurements under the same conditions.

An open input can pick up all kinds of noise and it is not a well defined condition.

[Fungus]

And he is wrong because A) on some scopes it does matter

To be fair, he doesn't actually say "not".

He says that your front end is badly designed if it does.

[nctnico]

And he is wrong because A) on some scopes it does matter

To be fair, he doesn't actually say "not".

He says that your front end is badly designed if it does.

Sorry but a 1 mega Ohm open circuit point is bound to pick up something. An oscilloscope is never used with an open input; the source impedance will always be magnitudes lower so in order to make an apples for apples comparison AND to measure using the same circumstances the oscilloscope input must be terminated when measuring the front-end noise. It is a simple matter of practising good measuring techniques. Which in turn lead to unambiguous results.

[Fungus]

It is a simple matter of practising good measuring techniques. Which in turn lead to unambiguous results.

OK, if you insist...   

[mawyatt]

The whole DSO "noise" concept gets very confusing very quickly when you take time to think about what's actually going on and where it's coming from. Here's a few examples.

All Input Referred Sources:

1) Thermal Voltage noise
2) Current Shot noise
3) 1/f and various flavors noise
4) Power Supply noise
5) AC Mains noise
6) Clock noise
7) ADC Sampling noise
8 ADC Bit noise (reference noise)
9) Quantization noise
10) BNC pickup noise

Where do these various noise sources originate, and where/how are they coupled into the scope electronics?  Then we are asking the DSO to measure it's own Input Referred noise, and at different scope bandwidths and scale factors!!

Some means of a standard test setup needs to be applied, including scale factor, bandwidth, input termination, temperature and so on. I would think that 3 different input terminations be considered, Open (AKA 1M), Short and 50 Ohm (like the Network Analyzers do), which may give a hint as to what types of noise are contributing.

As the linear power supply noise measurement has shown, scope input noise does matter, regardless of how you chose to define it, or foolishly ignore it.
Here's a typical example, when doing troubleshooting of a couple old Tektronix scopes (2465) the manual suggest the first thing in the troubleshooting procedure is to measure the various power supply voltages and noise levels, some from SMPS and some from linear supplies. Tek even provides all these voltages on a common 16 pin DIP socket on the main PCB Top Side. Improper voltage levels or/and excessive noise levels can point you in the proper direction right from the start.

Anyway, having a nice selection of good, low noise, wide band, high resolution DSOs is certainly good for the end users. Lots of quality instruments to select from

Best, 

[nctnico]

The problem with an open input measurement is that you have to define and control the environment. Without anything connected you basically need a shielded chamber (like they use for EMC testing) and a filtered mains supply in order to do this measurement correctly (IOW: with repeatable results for every device). A good (and way cheaper) altenative would be to put a metal cap over the BNC input (like a non-shorting BNC dust cap).

[mawyatt]

The problem with an open input measurement is that you have to define and control the environment. Without anything connected you basically need a shielded chamber (like they use for EMC testing) and a filtered mains supply in order to do this measurement correctly (IOW: with repeatable results for every device). A good (and way cheaper) altenative would be to put a metal cap over the BNC input (like a non-shorting BNC dust cap).

Just get yourself a type N or SMA Open that used for VNA calibration, these have a metal sealed end caps that terminates the electric field, so no need for a expensive chamber or other complex and expensive fixtures. Get a BNC to type N or SMA adapter as shown and you have a shielded Open, completely controlled environment to use.

BTW it makes no difference on the DSO I have whether I use the shield BNC or not. Also makes no difference if I use a BNC Open, BNC Short, BNC Termination, or the DSO 50 ohm termination, they are all ~ the same.

No need for anything expensive, complex or elaborate! Just get one of those inexpensive NanoVNA Cal kits like I show, either SMA or type N, you have a Open, Short and 50 ohm Termination all shielded to use. Simple as that

Best,

[Fungus]

BTW it makes no difference on the DSO I have whether I use the shield BNC or not. Also makes no difference if I use a BNC Open, BNC Short, BNC Termination, or the DSO 50 ohm termination, they are all ~ the same.

FWIW I tried a 50 Ohm terminator on my little Micsig and it made no noticeable difference,

[ResistorRob]

Now you make it sound as if there are only two choices. I agree with your assesment that the Siglent is the better choice compared to Rigol judging on how quickly Siglent fixes bugs (nowadays) and Siglent has a better analog front-end. But then again: do you really need 350MHz of bandwidth? I totally get that it is easy to get hung-up on nice features but if you are on a budget (who isn't? *) then it is a good idea to take a break and put the pros and cons of various models (not just the Rigol and Siglent mentioned in this thread) on a piece of paper. With all the pros and cons on a paper it is easy to identify the more important and less important features versus the money they cost.

* Sometimes it takes me a year or more to decide which instrument to buy.

Well the original post wanted a comparison between the Rigol and Siglent models only. So that is why it sounds that way :-) I personally don't need 350Mhz but in order to get the features I want then I need to get into that range. I have done what you suggested with putting the pros and cons in a list and had many more options than these 2 scopes, so I do agree with you. I also took longer than a year to decide on what to buy. I'm looking for something to use until the scope dies or I die so I'm going out of what would be a reasonable and responsible budget and just getting the scope that will make me smile every time I look at it.

[mawyatt]

Well the original post wanted a comparison between the Rigol and Siglent models only. So that is why it sounds that way :-) I personally don't need 350Mhz but in order to get the features I want then I need to get into that range. I have done what you suggested with putting the pros and cons in a list and had many more options than these 2 scopes, so I do agree with you. I also took longer than a year to decide on what to buy. I'm looking for something to use until the scope dies or I die so I'm going out of what would be a reasonable and responsible budget and just getting the scope that will make me smile every time I look at it.

Followed a similar path but didn't take a year to decide. Sifting thru all the threads on EEVblog, with lots of good information and an equal dose of BS and non-sense, the decision was distilled down to the Rigol and Siglent based upon what I needed/expected in a DSO and what my budget allowed. I decided on the Siglent, but would have been happy with the Rigol as both are excellent values and mid-range DSOs IMO. Sure there are other excellent choices for mid-range DSOs, and being accustomed to Keysight & Tektronix I looked closely at what they offered, but ended up passing on them mainly because of the higher cost and this was out-of-pocket rather than a company purchase, so the "bias" shifted towards the lower cost.

Best,

[mawyatt]

The problem with an open input measurement is that you have to define and control the environment. Without anything connected you basically need a shielded chamber (like they use for EMC testing) and a filtered mains supply in order to do this measurement correctly (IOW: with repeatable results for every device). A good (and way cheaper) altenative would be to put a metal cap over the BNC input (like a non-shorting BNC dust cap).

I wouldn't think that the DSO would normally be exposed to field strengths high enough to significantly couple to the open DSO BNC input. Careful DSO placement without any nearby LED lamps or SMPS converters should keep these unwanted fields at acceptable levels. If one is seeing a significant difference in Open Circuit and Terminated DSO noise levels, this begs the question of the source/reason of this difference? Maybe it's pointing to a coupling mechanism inside the DSO rather than thru the input BNC, or the input amplifier shot noise.

Just speculating, ignoring the input amplifier shot noise (likely FET inputs), but if the internal "noises" within the DSO are the real culprit, and they are coupling to the front end. With the external termination in place, the impedance "seen" by the internal noise sources is significantly lowered and thus the coupling is reduced which shows as a lower self measured noise.

Edits above:

Anyway, something to think about?

Comments??

Best,

[nctnico]

After some thinking IMO a test with a metal dust cover over the BNC inputs is the best way to test for noise. This results in a controlled test setup.

[kahuna0k]

Terminating both scopes with a 50\$\Omega\$ bnc terminator, limiting to 20Mhz at the 2mV/1us range, I get the following:

	Vpp	StdDev
MSO5074 Normal	1.21mV	187uV
SDS2104X+ 8b	194uV	30.1uV
MSO5074 HiRes	1.14mV	184uV
SDS2104X+ 10b	140uV	20.4uV

Bonus data: If I set the channel to GND coupling the Rigol actually gets 0.0 for both while the Siglent still gets 132uV and 17uV for Vpp and StdDev 

Edit: correct typo (thanks Martin72

[Martin72]

194mV by 2mV/Div. ?

[mawyatt]

Think this is in uv not mv!

If so, I get similar results for both 8 and 10 bit modes

8 bit      ~178uv PP and ~29.3uv SD
10 bit    ~132uv PP and ~19.5uv SD

Thanks for doing these tests

Best 

[Martin72]

Will do this tomorrow too, then we have three...

If I set the channel to GND coupling the Rigol actually gets 0.0 for both while the Siglent still gets 132uV and 17uV for Vpp and StdDev

Will check this too.

[Fungus]

Bonus data: If I set the channel to GND coupling the Rigol actually gets 0.0 for both

If so, it must be 'cheating' in software...

What do you see on screen? A perfectly flat line?

[Fungus]

	Vpp	StdDev
MSO5074 HiRes	1.14mV	184uV

How many samples were being averaged there? If the 20Mhz limiter is on then you can easily go to 32x (or even 64x).

[Martin72]

Will do this tomorrow too, then we have three..

Done, after warmup and self-cal, using the internal 50ohm and no averages.

[rf-loop]

Why peoples are using 2mV/div vertical scale when lowest full resolution is 1mV/div.

[TurboTom]

IIRC, Rigol's phoenix chipset initially had been released without a boxcar averaging (or highres) mode. After complaints by the early adopters, it had been added in firmware -- as it appears, as an afterthought -- and as we now see, there's apparently still something broken with it.

There had been a lot of speculation about the nature of the digital part of their sampling engine, if it's a genuine FPGA or rather some hard-wired gate array. In case of the latter, it may explain the poor performance of Rigol's phoenix chipset's high-res mode, and would be a real bummer and a bad error on behalf of them.

Since apparently, none of their scopes utilizing this chipset, works much better than the MSO5k in highres mode or has much less noise in the high input sensitivity ranges, it seems that it's an inherent problem to their proprietary chipset, which may turn out a real problem for Rigol. They probably have bound all of their entry and mid range scopes to this platform for years to come and if this platform isn't performing competitively, they simply won't sell as anticipated. They seem to be in a similar boat as Agilent when they introduced their MegaZoom chipset, limiting it to the relatively small internal sample memory -- with the difference, that when the MegsZoom chipset hit the market, its memory size was competitive and it performed very well otherwise, too.

I'ld be surprised that if there was an easy (firmware-based) fix for Rigol's recently released scopes' deficiencies, Rigol wouldn't correct the problems in no time. Right now, one must get the impression that Rigol cannot play in the same league as their main competitor, Siglent. For the laws of the market, that's bad news...

[Martin72]

Why peoples are using 2mV/div vertical scale when lowest full resolution is 1mV/div.

For comparision with the two prior user-measurings.*
But we all could repeat it with 1mV/Div. 

*) "Remember, only when all competitors will start at the the same time, a comparison of the times makes sense" (J.Malmsheimer)

[tv84]

Bonus data: If I set the channel to GND coupling the Rigol actually gets 0.0 for both

If so, it must be 'cheating' in software...

I hate this!

[Martin72]

@TurboTom

I got a taste of it as I did the question to the rigol support concerning the next higher range, the 7000s, will they got lowe noise.
And the answer was, they got the same frontend....
MSO5000, I can understand when it´s a bit noisier than others.
But the more expensive 7000s Range also....And what about the 8000 ?
Seems, rigol have made a bad mistake.

[rf-loop]

Why peoples are using 2mV/div vertical scale when lowest full resolution is 1mV/div.

For comparision with the two prior user-measurings.*
But we all could repeat it with 1mV/Div. 

*) "Remember, only when all competitors will start at the the same time, a comparison of the times makes sense" (J.Malmsheimer)

here

1mV
  8bit
  10bit

2mV
  8bit
  10bit

[Noy]

Would be interesting to see what the DS70000 is doing there. Same chipset..

[rf-loop]

Why peoples are using 2mV/div vertical scale when lowest full resolution is 1mV/div.

For comparision with the two prior user-measurings.*
But we all could repeat it with 1mV/Div. 

*) "Remember, only when all competitors will start at the the same time, a comparison of the times makes sense" (J.Malmsheimer)

Perhaps because Rigol do not have  real 1mV. It is only display scale magnified from some other ... Rigol data sheet is bit weird. They tell 2 and 1mV is magnified from 4mV/div... (I bit suspect this data sheet. https://www.batronix.com/files/Rigol/Oszilloskope/MSO5000/MSO5000_DataSheet_EN-V2.0.pdf)

Vertical and there note 3.  Oh and note 3 do not include anything about 500uV. 

[Martin72]

500µV was later added by firmware - why ever...
In his first video about the rigol, Dave said you won´t use this scope for low level measurements.

[rf-loop]

500µV was later added by firmware - why ever...
In his first video about the rigol, Dave said you won´t use this scope for low level measurements.

Advertising manager need this number. This is only reason.

But if I believe this data sheet also 1 and 2 mV are just made by FW. What is real truth here.
Siglent SDS2000XPlus 500uV/div is sure just magnified from 1mV so it have  half resolution.
Also if measure noise it give just roughly same what 1mV/div. naturally because it is only pixelzoom.

[Fungus]

IIRC, Rigol's phoenix chipset initially had been released without a boxcar averaging (or highres) mode. After complaints by the early adopters, it had been added in firmware -- as it appears, as an afterthought -- and as we now see, there's apparently still something broken with it.

There had been a lot of speculation about the nature of the digital part of their sampling engine, if it's a genuine FPGA or rather some hard-wired gate array. In case of the latter, it may explain the poor performance of Rigol's phoenix chipset's high-res mode, and would be a real bummer and a bad error on behalf of them.

If that's true then it's an unbelievable mistake. Even an idiot like me can imagine adding a programmable FIR filter to a chipset for this sort of application.

[mawyatt]

Designing a chip-set such as Rigol's Phoenix isn't trivial and likely Rigol contracted this design out. Even tho Phoenix isn't anywhere near SOTA, even when introduced, still requires unique design skills and unlikely Rigol has those skills captured internally.

As many have found out contracting complex chip designs to 3rd parties isn't always straight forward & successful, and may require many costly respins to "get it right", or even "get it close". Depending on the CMOS or SiGe BiCMOS process utilized this quickly becomes an expensive recurring endeavor.

My guess this happened to Rigol and after a couple expensive respins, they decided that Phoenix was "good enough" but not what they had originally anticipated. Hopefully they've learned from this and can develop future custom chip-sets that are more robust in performance than Phoenix.

Being a retired IC designer I personally admire Rigol for taking this risk, and hopefully they will be successful in the next generation chip-set, placing a lot of pressure on Siglent and others to follow suit. Integration is the way to higher performance at lower recurring cost, but has much higher non-recurring cost & risk, so difficult to sell management considering the limited market and ROI. In the near future we may have new mid-level and priced DSOs with real 500uv/Div scale factors, and real 12-14 ADCs with 11~12 bit ENOB @ 10~20GSPS, if certain managements can be sold

Best,

[kahuna0k]

For completeness:
Terminating both scopes with a 50\$\Omega\$ bnc terminator, limiting to 20Mhz at the 1mV/1us range, I get the following:

	Vpp	StdDev
MSO5074 Normal	1.34mV	177uV
SDS2104X+ 8b	162uV	24.2uV
MSO5074 HiRes	1.24mV	174uV
SDS2104X+ 10b	125uV	18.1uV

In terms of noise there is no discussion, but IMHO, noise is not everything, not even the more important thing depending on what you are working with. There are things that I like in the Rigol, like for example: memory management (the zooming out thing), 1GSa/s vs 500MS/s in each digital channel, being able to search for patterns in the decoded channels, 4 math channels instead of 2, 2 channel AWG.

Also although the UI is more polished and more responsive in the Siglent, I hate when I cannot use the physical controls to do something and I need to use the touch screen. And a minor complain, can we get the generic rotating control to scroll the menu when it does not fit in the screen? Scrolling the right menu by dragging it is slow and always ends in me selecting the wrong thing.

You can only say that one scope is better than the other if it is better in everything. The Siglent is better if you care about noise, but IMHO the Rigol is better if you care about digital signals. So go and look at the tech specs of both, check what you will use and what you will need, and if both have it, go for the Siglent, as the UI is better and the firmware updates more frequent.

[Martin72]

being able to search for patterns in the decoded channels

Just a matter of the software (like "Me, I´m fat and you´re dumb - I could get slim and what about you? " )...

memory management

On their list (with low priority)

4 math channels instead of 2, 2 channel AWG

Shoot, that couldn´t be equalized....Although I if I had a wish, I would like to have a noiseless frontend instead having a AWG build in.

go for the Siglent, as the UI is better and the firmware updates more frequent.

There are a little bit more pros like ext. trigger input, 50Ohm integrated, 1/10 sense (for me not so important), bigger and brighter screen and so on.
But you´re right, I got the rigol for over a year and could say, there´s nothing equal to its price of appx 1000 bucks.

Scrolling the right menu by dragging it is slow and always ends in me selecting the wrong thing.

Here, me too.... Must learn to use a mouse...

[kahuna0k]

	Vpp	StdDev
MSO5074 HiRes	1.14mV	184uV

How many samples were being averaged there? If the 20Mhz limiter is on then you can easily go to 32x (or even 64x).

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I was using the HiRes capture mode in the Acquire menu of the Rigol and the 10 bit mode in the Siglent.

In the Rigol, if I use average acquisition mode over 64 samples at 1mV/1uS I get 568uV Vpp and 57.2uV StdDev, and these numbers don't get better if I increase the number of samples.

I would expect those to be 0.0 for noise if it would be sampling over consecutive waveforms (as in fact it happens if I use the average math function in the Siglent) so it seems that you are right and it is averaging over consecutive samples of the same waveform. That would be a more fair comparison to the 10bit mode of the Siglent. Although, even with that, the noise is still not as good as the 10bit mode of the Siglent, but clearly better than the HiRes and Normal acquisition modes. So now the question is, wtf is the HiRes mode on the Rigol?

In Rigol states that the HiRes is actually sampling over the same capture waveform and average is capturing over different triggering events, but how can StdDev of that average over different triggering events do not average to 0 (even at 4096 sampling events)? I'm starting to think that not even Rigol understands how this new ASIC works 

[Martin72]

Like the 500µV, the hi-res mode was later on implemented.
As it came up, I couldn´t see any enhancements, but it was active...I´ll search my former post.

[Martin72]

Hi,

Found the post and...Well...

With my knowledge of today I must say, it was nearly almost BS what I´ve posted 1.5yrs ago...

But for the records, here it is:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2233980/#msg2233980

 

[kahuna0k]

Watching the video and looking at some tests I've done myself it seems that what the HiRes mode does is increase the dynamic range. It seems that I can get much finer detail in a 5V peak-to-peak signal in the Rigol than in the Siglent. I need to do more tests, as that somehow contradicts what Martin said about measuring power supplies ripple, where the Siglent performed much better.

Maybe the floor noise of the Rigol is bad for whatever the reason, but the dynamic range in HiRes is actually better (probably not 12bits but better than those famous 5-6 ENOB). I need to learn a lot to be able to properly discuss this, but I think that there is more to be uncovered here

[Martin72]

Don´t forget to check it out against the siglent with 10bit  and 10 plus 3 bit Eres..

[nctnico]

Watching the video and looking at some tests I've done myself it seems that what the HiRes mode does is increase the dynamic range. It seems that I can get much finer detail in a 5V peak-to-peak signal in the Rigol than in the Siglent. I need to do more tests, as that somehow contradicts what Martin said about measuring power supplies ripple, where the Siglent performed much better.

More noise does help with oversampling to get more bits from an ADC so it is plausible that the Rigol actually performs better where it comes to Hi-res mode. It is one of the cases where turning the bandwidth limit OFF helps to see more tiny details in a signal.

[Fungus]

	Vpp	StdDev
MSO5074 HiRes	1.14mV	184uV

How many samples were being averaged there? If the 20Mhz limiter is on then you can easily go to 32x (or even 64x).

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

What that video calls "decimation interval" at 0:43.



Does the 'scope let you choose the number of samples in that interval? If so, how many was it using?

[Fungus]

Watching the video and looking at some tests I've done myself it seems that what the HiRes mode does is increase the dynamic range.

Dynamic range is mathematically the same as "less noise". It's what I've been trying to get at for many posts now.

The Rigol has sample rate to burn. Surely the HiRes mode can be used to reduce noise and still keep the 350MHz bandwidth.

[Fungus]

In terms of noise there is no discussion, but IMHO, noise is not everything, not even the more important thing depending on what you are working with.

Noise is important but not as much as the Siglent owners would have the Rigol owners believe (IMHO). It's like a computer benchmark or a car's MPG rating - an easy number for reviewers to look at and publish but ultimately useless in the real world.

If you're genuinely interested in noise then you need an external amplifier to boost the signal to a level where both Rigols and Siglents can see it easily, eg.  If I were a power supply designer then I'd have a signal amplifier permanently connected to channel 4 of my 'scope. They cost an order of magnitude less than the difference in price between a Rigol and a Siglent.

Plus: I'm still not convinced there isn't a setting anywhere on the Rigol that will reduce the noise for people who don't measure it very often, eg. HiRes mode or a combination of math functions.

To the others: Why is this even on topic and not just me being a dumbass? Because most of the Rigol vs. Siglent discussion has centered around noise. Sorry for not taking it as gospel that low noise is sooooo desirable.

[kahuna0k]

I've found no way to set the decimation interval or any other option related to HiRes mode, I don't think it is exposed in the interface, probably something hard coded, hopefully dependent of the bandwidth. I know that higher dynamic range should be come with a lower noise, but I think that, depending on the source of the noise, we could have some amount of noise at very low voltages, but high dynamic range. For example it could resolve tens of milivolts on a 10V peak to peak signal (around 10 bits of dynamic range) but it could still have 1mV of noise below that.

[nctnico]

Plus: I'm still not convinced there isn't a setting anywhere on the Rigol that will reduce the noise for people who don't measure it very often, eg. HiRes mode or a combination of math functions.

To the others: Why is this even on topic and not just me being a dumbass? Because most of the Rigol vs. Siglent discussion has centered around noise. Sorry for not taking it as gospel that low noise is sooooo desirable.

This takes me back to the time where I owned an Agilent DSO7104A. This scope is very noisy (even with the bandwidth limit on). Most of the time I had hi-res on because the noise would obscure details of the signal. However the hi-res mode isn't compatible with all acquisition modes and when you compress a signal you get all kinds of aliasing artefacts. All in all having to use hi-res all the time is a nuisance.

[2N3055]

We came at the point where random words are being said and no correlation to any real data and concepts is being done.

Lets make it clear:

1. More noise is more noise. Hires uses LOW amount of noise, just enough to make bit flicker up and down at the edge of the A/D threshold, and then takes sequence of 4,8,16 32 consecutive  samples and averages it. Superimposed noise will have effect of creating residual voltage (noise should average to 0 but it won't because sub bit voltage threshold will skew distribution up or down, proportional to voltage) that will yield higher resolution than A/D used.  If you drown signal in 2 bits worth of sampling noise, all you will see will be noise.  For Hires to work A/D has to be monotonic and to have very good DNL. Otherwise you just get noise... Hires works well if front end is noisy and A/D is perfect. If noise is artefact from A/D converter, Hires doesn't work that well.  That is why I suspect that it might be that  in new Rigols, A/D is the one being the source of noise, and that would explain poor Hires implementation.

2. Rigol doesn't have "sample rate to burn". Hires works such that you need to filter down to effective sample rate that is 20x less to gain 2 bits (roughly). That means you get effective rate of 400MS/s to gain 4x less noise (if it works well) and you get 200MHz bandwith.. 4X reduction will still be a bit more noise than SDS2000x+ running at full speed and at higher sample rate at that time. When same tricks are available to both scopes, one with better starting position will always win... GIGO....

3. The video that was referenced (MSO5000 vs R&S2000 hires something) is very confused and misguided video showing something else than what is discussed here. They are not comparing noise, and they are not comparing dynamic range. Rigol's new integrated front end chips seem to have one good characteristics: they seem to have faster overdrive recovery than front end in RTB2000. So when you push the signal off the screen, amplifier doesn't distort so much as the one in RTB2000. Also in some ranges, scopes have different offset capabilities. Rigol simply found a voltage range where they could work at higher amplification than RTB2000 so signal was reaching A/D in more favorable way in Rigol. And left side of signal on Rigol is still distorted, it just recovers real fast (kudos for that, real good job Rigol) so most of the signal after first two edges looks nice. But it is still distorted, just much less. And you can see at all times how much more noise there is on Rigol compared to R&S, despite Hires being on. They also did the trick to show it in colour grading mode, so big, thick yellow line is not so obvious.

New Rigols have more noise. Period. No amount of bullshit will change that.

What is important to end user is fact: does it matter for your end use?
If you're not looking at signals at milivolt levels at 100 MHz+ bandwith probably not. MSO5000 has some other nice features, it's retrigger rate is faster so it will look more analog like on the screen etc etc.
It is perfectly good scope for general purpose use. It has 4 decodes, 4 math channels, etc etc. So there are things where it has strengths..

You just have to chose wisely what is important to you.
Analog performance, LeCroy type of concept? Go with SDS2000X+.
Digital work, decoding, interactive work? MSO5000 will do just fine.

Not really sure?  Both will do...

[Martin72]

New Rigols have more noise. Period. No amount of bullshit will change that.

Word.

You just have to chose wisely what is important to you.

Word.

Analog performance, LeCroy type of concept? Go with SDS2000X+.

That´s why I´ve changed to it, others may not need it and would be happy with the 5000, which costs less - win-win for them.

The video that was referenced(...)

Is from rigol to show rigols performance against another brand.....hmmmmm
The opposite were the same hmmm, better a neutral person who got access to both of them should compare something between.

[nctnico]

3. The video that was referenced (MSO5000 vs R&S2000 hires something) is very confused and misguided video showing something else than what is discussed here. They are not comparing noise, and they are not comparing dynamic range. Rigol's new integrated front end chips seem to have one good characteristics: they seem to have faster overdrive recovery than front end in RTB2000. So when you push the signal off the screen, amplifier doesn't distort so much as the one in RTB2000.

No. The problem in the video is that they choose the memory length in the RTB2000 too short so the sampling rate is too low. You are looking at a filtered (hi-res also filters), undersampled signal (look at the samplerate of the RTB2000). Remember that what is on screen in the video is a stopped acquisition which is then enlarged. Overdrive recovery is not an issue in this case.

[2N3055]

3. The video that was referenced (MSO5000 vs R&S2000 hires something) is very confused and misguided video showing something else than what is discussed here. They are not comparing noise, and they are not comparing dynamic range. Rigol's new integrated front end chips seem to have one good characteristics: they seem to have faster overdrive recovery than front end in RTB2000. So when you push the signal off the screen, amplifier doesn't distort so much as the one in RTB2000.

No. The problem in the video is that they choose the memory length in the RTB2000 too short so the sampling rate is too low. You are looking at a filtered (hi-res also filters), undersampled signal (look at the samplerate of the RTB2000). Remember that what is on screen in the video is a stopped acquisition which is then enlarged. Overdrive recovery is not an issue in this case.

No look again.

Scope is in RUN mode, and distorted one also have offset applied.  Check screenshots attached from 1:40 on...
You can clearly see how scope reacquires new sample after vertical sensitivity change..

Sample rate is low, but 305 kS/s is more than enough to capture 25000 points for the duration of screen, so plenty of oversampling for that screen..
No, that is simply overdrive recovery, where Rigol decided to skew test to particular point where they chose something that was favorable for Rigol.

Problem is that they didn't use  RTB2000 screen zoom function, because with it's lover noise, higher real A/D resolution and HIRES, it could have easy shown that BETTER than Rigol because you could have avoided distortion completely.  Because Rigol also distorted those first two edges on the left.  It looks nicer but it still wrong...

So that is shady marketing... If I where them I would pull that video. It makes them look sleazy.
If they wanted to show some advantage, I'm sure they could find some real benefits....

[TurboTom]

I can't help but wonder about the noise figures of both mentioned scopes. I guess we've got to approach the noise figures differently to make them more comparable and to better understand where they originate from. @ncnico made the reasonable suggestion to test noise with the input BNCs capped off (to eliminate interference) but not terminated or shorted.

I assume that none of the mentioned scopes have a "proper" 50 ohms input (MSO5k obviously not) with a properly designed 50 ohms divider signal path. In this class of scopes, there's usually the "generic" 1Mohm divider and a 50R terminating resistor that can be connected in parallel with the BNC via a relay if selected. So, if the input is left unterminated, it should "see" in the highest sensitivity ranges an impedance of 1Mohm with a few picofarads in parallel. The thermal noise of 1Mohm at 20°C and an observed bandwidth of 20MHz is approx. 570µV RMS. If any of the the scopes reports less noise under these conditions, it's got to be cheating.

Depending on the coupling of the input, the impedance "seen" by the first amplifier stage may differ a lot with the input terminated. It may actually range from 50R (direct coupling) to probably several tens or maybe even hundreds of kiloohms.

Siglent's noise represents an input impedance with a terminated input of round about 3kohms while Rigol's is more close to 100kOhm.

So, if I may ask someone who's got access to both these scopes if he may try another configuration for a noise measurement:
TB 1µs, sensitivity set to the last "genuine" range, i.e. without digital magnification (I guess that's 2mV/div on the MSO), input impedance 1Mohm, 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled, BNC if possible capped off (even some aluminium foil wrapped aroud may do).
I'ld like to compare the following measurements: Sampling mode (1) normal and (2) peak (to understand if there's some additional "smoothing" going on in normal sampling mode). Measure functions: Vpp and STD (AC RMS) averaged. Maybe a few sensitivity comparisons would also be interesting, i.e. how the noise measurement changes when the input range is changed, maybe between 5mV/div and the lowest range available.

I guess there's much more "signal shaping" going on in these scopes than we can imagine...

[Martin72]

In this class of scopes, there's usually the "generic" 1Mohm divider and a 50R terminating resistor that can be connected in parallel with the BNC via a relay if selected.

Have a look:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/eevblog/49964995676/in/album-72157714555911588/

So, if I may ask someone who's got access to both these scopes if he may try another configuration for a noise measurement:

Can do this on my siglent only, but not today for several reasons...

[nctnico]

3. The video that was referenced (MSO5000 vs R&S2000 hires something) is very confused and misguided video showing something else than what is discussed here. They are not comparing noise, and they are not comparing dynamic range. Rigol's new integrated front end chips seem to have one good characteristics: they seem to have faster overdrive recovery than front end in RTB2000. So when you push the signal off the screen, amplifier doesn't distort so much as the one in RTB2000.

No. The problem in the video is that they choose the memory length in the RTB2000 too short so the sampling rate is too low. You are looking at a filtered (hi-res also filters), undersampled signal (look at the samplerate of the RTB2000). Remember that what is on screen in the video is a stopped acquisition which is then enlarged. Overdrive recovery is not an issue in this case.

No look again.

Scope is in RUN mode, and distorted one also have offset applied.  Check screenshots attached from 1:40 on...
You can clearly see how scope reacquires new sample after vertical sensitivity change..

If that is the case I'll take your word for it. I just skipped through the video to get to the conclusion. To me it doesn't make any sense to do such a comparison with the scopes in run mode so I assumed the maker of the video would have done the same. The whole point of hi-res is to be able to zoom in on tiny details of a signal in stop mode once you run out of vertical offset range.

[Fungus]

All in all having to use hi-res all the time is a nuisance.

Sure, I don't imagine you'd need it for looking at 5V signals.

But if you only occasionally look at mV signals and it works for noise reduction then for occasional use, I don't see $500 worth of problem. Especially not when you can buy an amplifier for $50 and get better results than the Siglent.

[Fungus]

We came at the point where random words are being said and no correlation to any real data and concepts is being done.

Lets make it clear:

1. More noise is more noise.

I don't think anybody's arguing other wise.

What I'm arguing is that the difference between Siglent noise and Rigol noise isn't as big a deal as people are making out. If mV measurements are really your passion then you'll own a suitable signal amplifier to boost the signal.

[Fungus]

3. The video that was referenced (MSO5000 vs R&S2000 hires something) is very confused and misguided video showing something else than what is discussed here.

The single frame I extracted from it was useful (I hope).

(The person who called overlaying of multiple waveforms "Averaging mode" needs shooting).

[mawyatt]

For someone trying to decide on a DSO and having distilled the selections down to a couple candidates (difficult with all the stuff flying around on DSOs), it seems getting both candidates and doing an evaluation for what is important to the user is in the works

With a quality supplier available and shipping charges reasonable....and the supplier allows returns for no reason...., then doing your own side by side testing in your own environment is the best possible decision maker!! No vendor staged videos, specmanship data manipulation, fanboy or girl representations, biased views, or whatever, just the end user evaluation to their needs. The only additional cost would be the return shipping.

I'm not advocating this for all equipment purchases, but complex higher-end and cost devices like these DSOs seems a reasonable approach. Returned items take away from resell value, which reduce margins for distributors and OEMs, so very selective use advised. I haven't done this yet, mainly because I try and do my homework before the purchase, and when working (retired now) we never had to worry about new equipment as the factory reps were all too willing to bring over and leave the latest and greatest instruments for our evaluation. We always had plenty of time from rep to evaluate new equipment in our environment, which often led to a purchase later, so the "incentive" was in place. Most may not have this luxury, now I don't, so other means are required in the equipment decision process, and the self test comparison seems reasonable today with the on-line purchasing, and low cost shipping. 

Best,

[nctnico]

All in all having to use hi-res all the time is a nuisance.

Sure, I don't imagine you'd need it for looking at 5V signals.

On the Agilent DSO7104A I had to use it for all signals in order to be able to make cursor measurements.

[Martin72]

In this class of scopes, there's usually the "generic" 1Mohm divider and a 50R terminating resistor that can be connected in parallel with the BNC via a relay if selected.

In the picture of the teardown (the link in may last post) you can see a 24R9 Resistor soldered to the bnc input, is that part of a:

I assume that none of the mentioned scopes have a "proper" 50 ohms input (MSO5k obviously not) with a properly designed 50 ohms divider signal path.

?

Actually it´s not clear for me, why it is a 24R9 resistor there as I never make up my mind about proper 50Ohm Signal termination.

[nctnico]

3. The video that was referenced (MSO5000 vs R&S2000 hires something) is very confused and misguided video showing something else than what is discussed here.

The single frame I extracted from it was useful (I hope).

(The person who called overlaying of multiple waveforms "Averaging mode" needs shooting).

No because that is exactly what averaging does. It overlays multiple acquisitions to produce an average. The confusing part is that Rigol seems to be using the term averaging also for high-res. In a sense that is correct because oversampling in order to achieve more bits averages a number of subsequent samples from the same acquisition.

[TurboTom]

In this class of scopes, there's usually the "generic" 1Mohm divider and a 50R terminating resistor that can be connected in parallel with the BNC via a relay if selected.

In the picture of the teardown (the link in may last post) you can see a 24R9 Resistor soldered to the bnc input, is that part of a:

I assume that none of the mentioned scopes have a "proper" 50 ohms input (MSO5k obviously not) with a properly designed 50 ohms divider signal path.

?

Actually it´s not clear for me, why it is a 24R9 resistor there as I never make up my mind about proper 50Ohm Signal termination.

I guess there's another 24R9 on the opposite side of the PCB  -- Merry Christmas!

[Martin72]

Merry Christmas!

Same!

[TurboTom]

I couldn't stop to reason about the input noise and finally, I simply had to add to my previous statements about this issue my latest thoughts:

If the (standard high-impedance) input of a scope is left open, it's resemling a resistance of 1Mohm in parallel with a capacitance of a few picofarads, say 15pF. This RC-combination is basically a low pass filter of first order with a 3db frequency of 67kHz (in this case), and not the 20MHz bandwidth that I used to estimate the thermal noise. At a frequency band of 67kHz, the thermal noise would be round about 33µV rms (surprise, surprise...), so if it's arranged that way, Siglent's noise figure may be quite accurate, provided they don't change that much with an open input.

I guess, in the next days someone will help out with a few tests - thanks so much for this  . I haven't got any of these instruments and as yet, don't see the need to change this (though TEA tries to convince me...).

[Martin72]

and as yet, don't see the need to change this (though TEA tries to convince me...).

"Das Vergleichen ist das Ende des Glücks und der Anfang der Unzufriedenheit"

"Comparing is the end of happiness and the beginning of dissatisfaction"

(Kierkegaard)

Stay tough ! 

[Martin72]

So, if I may ask someone who's got access to both these scopes if he may try another configuration for a noise measurement:
TB 1µs, sensitivity set to the last "genuine" range, i.e. without digital magnification (I guess that's 2mV/div on the MSO), input impedance 1Mohm, 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled, BNC if possible capped off (even some aluminium foil wrapped aroud may do).
I'ld like to compare the following measurements: Sampling mode (1) normal and (2) peak (to understand if there's some additional "smoothing" going on in normal sampling mode). Measure functions: Vpp and STD (AC RMS) averaged. Maybe a few sensitivity comparisons would also be interesting, i.e. how the noise measurement changes when the input range is changed, maybe between 5mV/div and the lowest range available.

Before leaving home for visiting relatives, I´ve done a few measures.
TB 1µs, lowest vertical 1mV, 2mV, 5mV, 1mV Normal and 1mV Peak, further 1,2,5mV in normal mode but 10bit.
Input impedance 1M, no cap for bnc.

[Zlotnik]

10 bit and input noise defined it above all for me.

Even though the SDS2000X Plus appears to provide a lower noise floor than some of its competitors, it's an eight bit oscilloscope by hardware. Siglent uses two MXT2001 dual 1GSPS 8bit ADCs in its frontend that can be cascaded to provide 2GSPS when only two channels of the scope are in use.

Every marketing talk of 10bit or even more refers to things that happen in software (and should be specified as such). This doesn't mean that this option isn't useful. But for comparison purposes, one should always keep that in mind. There are only a few scopes in the entry or mid level range that actually contain ADCs that sample more accurately than eight bits -- a few Owons (utilizing the HMCAD1520 that can be internally reconfigured to provide 8/12/14 bit sampling depth, yet at reduced sampling rate - good choice for audio / sensor jobs) or the RTB2000 (Rohde&Schwarz) with its proprietary 10 bit full-speed ADC (up to 2.5GSPS).

BTW, over on the SDS2000X Plus thread, user maxspb69 posted a very interesting 1:1 comparison of the SDS2000X Plus and the RTB2000 input noise & ADC resolution. The Siglent’s front end really seems to be quite good, comparable to the much more expensive R&S.

If anything, I think the front end is almost too good, as you probably can’t make full use of it without a wider ADC as on the RTB.

[mawyatt]

I couldn't stop to reason about the input noise and finally, I simply had to add to my previous statements about this issue my latest thoughts:

If the (standard high-impedance) input of a scope is left open, it's resemling a resistance of 1Mohm in parallel with a capacitance of a few picofarads, say 15pF. This RC-combination is basically a low pass filter of first order with a 3db frequency of 67kHz (in this case), and not the 20MHz bandwidth that I used to estimate the thermal noise. At a frequency band of 67kHz, the thermal noise would be round about 33µV rms (surprise, surprise...), so if it's arranged that way, Siglent's noise figure may be quite accurate, provided they don't change that much with an open input.

I guess, in the next days someone will help out with a few tests - thanks so much for this  . I haven't got any of these instruments and as yet, don't see the need to change this (though TEA tries to convince me...).

One must also consider the noise model for this front end and the individual sources of noise. Changing the input source impedance and bandwidth effects input noise properties from the source R and any shot noise * R effects (although the shot noise is likely very small due to a FET input), but does not effect the bandwidth of the noise contributions behind the input since they don't "see" this bandwidth limit. The only way these noise sources are controlled is with post filtering just before the ADC like the DSO bandwidth control does.

So what I am trying to say it that the input bandwidth limit of the RC product only effects the noise contributions from the source R and not the subsequent amplifier stages.

Best and Happy Holidays,

[mawyatt]

If anything, I think the front end is almost too good, as you probably can’t make full use of it without a wider ADC as on the RTB.

Yes, as I've said before Siglent just got this DSO frond end design right, it's that good!! And begs the question for a new DSO version with a 10 or 12 bit core ADC

Best and Happy Holidays,

[Martin72]

And begs the question for a new DSO version with a 10 or 12 bit core ADC

You mean the thing with the pin-compatible up to 14bit ADC like GWInstek got ?
I´m not very deep into the technology ( but learn every day spending some time here), but the GW scope´s samplerate decrease dramatically low, when choosing the modes 10,12,14 bit.
Apart from this it will be of course a very nice thing, when siglent launch a 10 bit or more scope to a payable price.
And no, the SDS6000 line are not meant, as they are ways above the prices, hobbyists can pay.

For me, my limit is reached by paying 3000 bucks for private using a scope.

[mawyatt]

And begs the question for a new DSO version with a 10 or 12 bit core ADC

You mean the thing with the pin-compatible up to 14bit ADC like GWInstek got ?
I´m not very deep into the technology ( but learn every day spending some time here), but the GW scope´s samplerate decrease dramatically low, when choosing the modes 10,12,14 bit.
Apart from this it will be of course a very nice thing, when siglent launch a 10 bit or more scope to a payable price.
And no, the SDS6000 line are not meant, as they are ways above the prices, hobbyists can pay.

For me, my limit is reached by paying 3000 bucks for private using a scope.

At first, thought the SDS2000X Plus used the same ADC family as GWInstek but someone pointed out that's not the case. Since the 8, 12 and 14 bit versions of those ADCs are pin compatible that would have been nice!! Siglent will have to redesign the PCB as well as the firmware for a higher resolution ADC, so a more involved design task, and maybe not justifiable.

As mentioned the superb front end is already there in case Siglent is listening

Best & Happy Holidays,

[Martin72]

Hi Mike,

Do we really need 10 or more Bits ?
And then on a pricelevel, we can afford ?
Maybe a bad example, but last year we (company I´m working) bought a lecroy waverunner scope for 13500 bucks ( 40% off... ).
And it´s great, can do much more we ever need - And got 8 bit resolution..
Actually we got the siglent 2K+ with it´s 10 bit mode plus additonally up to 3 bits Eres function.
Should we really need more, with suitable price for us hobbyists ?
I think, when siglent will build scopes with a native resolution of 10 bits or more, they won´t be cheaper as the R&S Scopes, which already got it.
Native 10bit or more scope for less then 3000, 2000 bucks are a wet dream.
Combined with the excellent noise behaviour of the sds2k+ and the accurate timebase, even more wet.
Today...

[mawyatt]

Hi Martin,

Agree, 10 native bits with a good ENOB is likely all that's needed, but the enticing aspect of the ADC GWINstek is using in the 12, 14 bit "enhancement" in hardware. I can't say if this is better than doing the "enhancement" in software like Siglent and others are doing, but sure is enticing 

Think of what the core Siglent FFT would be like with hardware baseline 12 or 14 bit data, it's already pretty good as it stands now

Edit: Recall almost 15 years ago Fugi had developed a 8 bit ~56GPSP ADC in 65nm CMOS, a year later it was ~65GSPS, and a couple years later much much faster. This 56GSPS ADC had a core of ~320 capacitive ratioed SAR ADCs operating @ ~180MSPS, and each ADC had ~400 correction DACs, so 320 SAR Sub-ADCS and 400 DACs per ADC, and two ADCs per chip! These were for the wide bandwidth fiber-optic receivers, and had ENOBs ~6 bits, and error correction took place on-chip with the massive array of DACs correcting errors at the source rather than post processing.

If you follow the camera sensors then the sensor has each pixel column or row with a SAR ADC, usually 14~16 bits. A 36MP camera sensor has 6000~8000 individual ADCs. IC design guidelines are totally orthogonal to PCB design guidelines, and a totally different mindset all-together!

I've been out of the loop for the past couple years since retiring, but a little imagination will give an idea of what's going on today with 10, 7, & 5nm CMOS technology. BTW watch for a new type ADC called Non-Uniform Sampling emerging from the research labs of 10 years ago, the input analog waveform produces it's own anti-aliasing filter in post processing

Best & Happy Holidays,

[kahuna0k]

I posted this to the wrong thread, linking here for reference.

[IAmBack]

So, if I may ask someone who's got access to both these scopes if he may try another configuration for a noise measurement:
TB 1µs, sensitivity set to the last "genuine" range, i.e. without digital magnification (I guess that's 2mV/div on the MSO), input impedance 1Mohm, 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled, BNC if possible capped off (even some aluminium foil wrapped aroud may do).
I'ld like to compare the following measurements: Sampling mode (1) normal and (2) peak (to understand if there's some additional "smoothing" going on in normal sampling mode). Measure functions: Vpp and STD (AC RMS) averaged. Maybe a few sensitivity comparisons would also be interesting, i.e. how the noise measurement changes when the input range is changed, maybe between 5mV/div and the lowest range available.

Before leaving home for visiting relatives, I´ve done a few measures.
TB 1µs, lowest vertical 1mV, 2mV, 5mV, 1mV Normal and 1mV Peak, further 1,2,5mV in normal mode but 10bit.
Input impedance 1M, no cap for bnc.

I did those measurements too, but my results are different. Scope bought at the beginning of december.

For 1mV/div, 20M BW limit, TB 1µs, one channel active, 8bit normal mode: PK-PK is 200µV, Stdev 30µV, RMS depends on actual calibration (with "fresh" calibration it is about 40µV, but can be also as high as 300µV). Room temperature is about 25^oC (it may be important). Measurements done after more than 30 min. of warming-up. Turning input do "gnd" does not change results a lot.

Maybe it is worth to check it on other user's units?

[Martin72]

Hi,

Please make screenshots from...
Apart from this, I think this deviation is not a big worrying thing.
And you can try to cap the bnc with aluminiumfoil, in case your enviroment is "noisier" than mine here.

[KK1L]

A little off-topic, but nonetheless a very interesting read: @jjoonathan's write-up of his DS4000 fix, replacing two of Rigol's (supposedly) MXT2001 with ADC08D1000s.

I am impressed! Some people are really smart troubleshooters.

Smart and handy! Gifted talent. Respect!

Echo the bravo.  Regarding the PFA to look for a wirebond open it is often not the wire, but the bond. The wires are encapuslated and wont be moving even if they do break outright. Below is an example.


73 es God Bless de KK1L, Ron <><

[hpw]

I am also in the evaluation for a shoe box... so does Siglent plans to release soon new gear or updated gear for the SDS2xxx models?

Also not happy to loose a input just for triggering & also a pointer for the 16 port logic graph's, while would like to analyze propagation timing & delays.

hp

[tautech]

I am also in the evaluation for a shoe box... so does Siglent plans to release soon new gear or updated gear for the SDS2xxx models?

Not for a while as SDS2000X Plus models are very capable and popular.

Also not happy to loose a input just for triggering & ....

SDS2kX Plus has an Ext trigger BNC input on the rear which is limited to 1.5 VRMS or 7.5 VRMS depending on the internal divider selected. Most other Siglent DSO's have the same Ext trigger input.
Maybe that's sufficient sensitivity for your needs ?

also a pointer for the 16 port logic graph's, while would like to analyze propagation timing & delays.

What do you mean by this ? 

I have the Siglent STB3 test board and it can generate a wide range of signals so maybe there's some LA vs analog signal measurement you would like to see.

[hpw]

I am also in the evaluation for a shoe box... so does Siglent plans to release soon new gear or updated gear for the SDS2xxx models?

Not for a while as SDS2000X Plus models are very capable and popular.

Also not happy to loose a input just for triggering & ....

SDS2kX Plus has an Ext trigger BNC input on the rear which is limited to 1.5 VRMS or 7.5 VRMS depending on the internal divider selected. Most other Siglent DSO's have the same Ext trigger input.
Maybe that's sufficient sensitivity for your needs ?

also a pointer for the 16 port logic graph's, while would like to analyze propagation timing & delays.

What do you mean by this ? 

I have the Siglent STB3 test board and it can generate a wide range of signals so maybe there's some LA vs analog signal measurement you would like to see.

OK, if you have a ADC/DAC with various clocks & timing & various additional signals who relate to the master clock, I would like to measure & see how the edges are within the spec's. So within the graph, I would like to measure the delay/time or when the edge happen.

Hope it is now clear enough... a picture would be anyway better

[Martin72]

so does Siglent plans to release soon new gear or updated gear for the SDS2xxx models?

Why should they ?
SDS2K+ is "new", got several advantages in it´s priceclass against others, when you want some things "better", then grab the next higher range from them.
New gear in general is another thing but I guess, it will happen, when, in another pricerange.

[tautech]

also a pointer for the 16 port logic graph's, while would like to analyze propagation timing & delays.

What do you mean by this ? 

I have the Siglent STB3 test board and it can generate a wide range of signals so maybe there's some LA vs analog signal measurement you would like to see.

OK, if you have a ADC/DAC with various clocks & timing & various additional signals who relate to the master clock, I would like to measure & see how the edges are within the spec's. So within the graph, I would like to measure the delay/time or when the edge happen.

Hope it is now clear enough... a picture would be anyway better

Some digital channels ( 8 ) with 3 active signals with Ch4 connected to D0 showing skew between digital and analog signal paths. Triggering in ch4 with a zone trigger (off display) and digital decode engaged just for fun. X cursors on D0 and trigger point of Ch4 displaying 3.9ns propagation delay. Zoom mode used.

Now.....This is a SDS5054X but I would entirely expect SDS2000X Plus to produce exactly the same result as their firmwares are closely aligned.
Hopefully I collect more SDS2000X Plus tomorrow.

[hpw]

so does Siglent plans to release soon new gear or updated gear for the SDS2xxx models?

Why should they ?
SDS2K+ is "new", got several advantages in it´s priceclass against others, when you want some things "better", then grab the next higher range from them.
New gear in general is another thing but I guess, it will happen, when, in another pricerange.

Just asking, if some know if any new DSO are in the pipeline (like higher than 2 Gs or bits), I would wait.

As I see, the higher models 5xxx do not have the 10 bit feature, or I am wrong?

Are there any trigger Jitter spec's given for those models?

Hp

[Fungus]

Just asking, if some know if any new DSO are in the pipeline (like higher than 2 Gs or bits), I would wait.

Do you know that manufacturers deliberately don't tell people these things - to avoid them "waiting".

[tautech]

As I see, the higher models 5xxx do not have the 10 bit feature, or I am wrong?

Correct. SDS5000X only have 3 bits of ERES enhancement whereas SDS2000X Plus have the 10 bit mode and up to 3 bits of ERES and both can be applied together.

Are there any trigger Jitter spec's given for those models?

Yes of course, consult the datasheets for trigger jitter specs. Under 10ps for both models.

[hpw]

Currently reading the release notes on  V1.3.5R5 as 5. Fixed several bugs:

     b) 2-channel 100MHz model cannot be upgraded to 350MHz 

[Martin72]

Hm ?

[mawyatt]

Currently reading the release notes on  V1.3.5R5 as 5. Fixed several bugs:

     b) 2-channel 100MHz model cannot be upgraded to 350MHz 

Please don't tell that to my SDA2102X Plus, it has been "enhanced" with the help of folks here and now sports a measured input bandwidth of over 600MHz

Best,

[checksum]

Hi everyone - SDS2104X Plus is currently in stock at Labtronix in the UK.  www.labtronix.co.uk

Just bought one from your site today :-). Looking forwards to a delivery this week I hope.

[lastguy]

Thanks for all posts to refresh me, I don't own scope, but used scopes from 200MBW tek(DOS like GUI, poor waveform, Eth card costs me $668!) upto 50GHz Keysight. When I measure 16GHz differential signal I use 3.5mm CH1-CH3. I also tried 25GHz diff probe after calibration, yet it is a bit noisy - may be phase noise - to cause my measurement fail. Use 3.5mm/SMA I no need calibration.
BNC BW is 3GHz and well above 350-500M. Scope input has no divider but attenuator (except for OP gain change), for mv/Div ranges attenuators are bypassed or signal is directly passed.
Passive probe has its own capacitor compensation, traditional input cap is 13-15pf. That doesn't mean scope input cap. All low end scope (<=1G) uses simple relay to turn on 50ohm impedance if any, other than this, impedance matching (I mean signal path impedance) would be ignored, because path is short and is not 50ohm. The 50ohm is ended at the input to eliminate refection.
"Hires" as mfg stated is oversampling then "middle value filtering" (which is common is signal processing). "Average" is based on multiple trigging or samples average. Both can increase A/D EOB, which is also commonly used in SAR ADC.
I personally think the extra noise is more likely from ADC chip, yet shield input stage might help.
No doubt of 8GSa by interlaced sampling, or each ADC has 0.5ps delayed start pulse, I know FPGA can output calibrated delay line not sure whether can be so fine, I'm sure our DDR IP can, may be PCB/cable can, I use differential 3' cable pair with +-1ps tolerance. Many years ago HP 54601 scope uses "EQ" sampling, each capture can be shifted by 0.1ps, and real time sampling is only 10 or 100MHz (forgot)
5X is de facto std for sine wave, for example Keysight 3104T 1GBW has 5GSa, 16G PCIe signal needs 80GSa. Theoretically you can use Sinx/x and 2X+ sampling rate yet only when your signal is nice sine wave. 5X means each cycle you have only 5 samples, usually not enough for non-sine wave. So, 2GSa means you can use it for 400M signal, may be 500M sinewave.

[Martin72]

Ehh....what...

[Electro Fan]

also a pointer for the 16 port logic graph's, while would like to analyze propagation timing & delays.

What do you mean by this ? 

I have the Siglent STB3 test board and it can generate a wide range of signals so maybe there's some LA vs analog signal measurement you would like to see.

OK, if you have a ADC/DAC with various clocks & timing & various additional signals who relate to the master clock, I would like to measure & see how the edges are within the spec's. So within the graph, I would like to measure the delay/time or when the edge happen.

Hope it is now clear enough... a picture would be anyway better

Some digital channels ( 8 ) with 3 active signals with Ch4 connected to D0 showing skew between digital and analog signal paths. Triggering in ch4 with a zone trigger (off display) and digital decode engaged just for fun. X cursors on D0 and trigger point of Ch4 displaying 3.9ns propagation delay. Zoom mode used.

Now.....This is a SDS5054X but I would entirely expect SDS2000X Plus to produce exactly the same result as their firmwares are closely aligned.
Hopefully I collect more SDS2000X Plus tomorrow.

tautech, thanks for posting the propagation delay test images.  Plz let us know if you are able to run the tests on a SDS2000X Plus to see how it compares to the SDS5054X.

[tautech]

Hi EF
Sorry no 2kX Plus in stock ATM for another week or so however I'd guess the prop delay for them has to be longer as they are 500 MHz vs 1 GHz front end.
Still it matters little as you can trim it out for any of the analogue channels.

Have a look at the linked videos in the last few posts here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/diy-logic-analyzer-probe-and-pods-for-siglent-scopes/