Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs

[2N3055]

the choice probably doesn't really matter, so I let a few superficial things guide me instead.

 

This is very, very important point...

If you only look superficially and your only criteria is color, then, really, there is no difference....
And you should go with color that you prefer.
No argument there.

[Fungus]

If you only look superficially and your only criteria is color, then, really, there is no difference....
And you should go with color that you prefer.
No argument there.

Not everybody lives and dies by their FFT implementation.

[gf]

Not everybody lives and dies by their FFT implementation.

The general question is: Do they fix bugs, or are you left alone with the bugs.
No bug is a real problem if it gets fixed within a reasonable amount of time.

[ Unfortunately, it is a bad habit of some manufacturers to only focus on the development of successor models after the release of one model, even though the released one is not yet mature. ]

[awakephd]

If you are still undecided, may I suggest a tried and tested method that works well for me in these situations....assign each option to heads or tails and then toss a coin. After you do, you can often find that you are either happy or not with the result, revealing your subconscious preference in the matter.

Excellent advice! Every time I think I am starting to lean in one direction, someone comes along and talks about their good experience with the other one. I look forward to hearing about your experience with the DHO804.

[Mechatrommer]

i wonder what kind of ee person rely their life on FFT and then buy a cheap entry level DSO thinking its should be the main feature. FFT is just additional side effect feature programmed on whats left available in mcu resources/memory. the real function of an "Oscilloscope" is signal observation. built-in AFG and Bode Plot and MSO feature with LA probe are a bonus if one can get for cheap never been seen before. and afaik, FFT on DHO800/900 is so much better already than DS1000Z, and DS1000E has none, yet it was still the most popular entry level scope back then and helped many to debug circuits. from experience of the past model, rigol will fix it its a matter of when. (remember it even took time to fix from Pluses to Pulses) imho is much better to hobbiests pocket compared to a polished DSO out of factory but costs 10x. but of course if you have money, just go directly to like R&S brand. but i guess afaik, no brand DSO on earth came out with zero bug. ymmv.

[tszaboo]

Oh, I forgot to address one other point - a couple of times posters have mentioned that an 8-bit scope might be more than enough for my needs. Yes, very likely so - I'm open to suggestions!

There is literally no point in buying a new 8-bit 'scope now.

They're not cheaper, and they all feel like antiques compared to this new generation.

There is, if you need more than 200MHz.
The Siglent and Rigol 804s are very good value at the 500 EUR price point, but there will also be people who need just something to look at AC signals. The Rigol 5074 is also good value if you need a bit more speed, it only costs twice as much, plus it has two built in AWG.
And we should always respect that some people are not willing or able to pay 500 EUR for a hobby of theirs.
But you are probably right that at the 400-500 EUR price range, there is no point of getting any of the old 8 bit scopes from Rigol or Siglent.

[KungFuJosh]

If I put my general hate for Rigol aside, I see the two scopes like this:

If your goal is a functional/reliable scope with FFT and Bode plots, then the SDS800XHD wins by far.

If you need a VESA mount and HDMI output, then the Rigol wins. The shallower footprint is also cute.

[Mechatrommer]

If you need a VESA mount and HDMI output, then the Rigol wins.

heck dont get into that, who need it other than marketing/amusement ploy? HDMI maybe if someone deteriorating eye sight so badly.

[ebastler]

Let's not get hung up on FFT and Bode plots. I agree that these may be key for some users, and exotic or irrelevant for others. But as mentioned earlier, I think other functional differences are more important differentiators in favor of the Siglent -- see below.

On the other hand, I would like to re-iterate that I consider the Rigol UI easier to get started with. It typically has all relevant settings for a given mode (measurement, decoder, trigger...) in one large dialog. In contrast, Siglent's UI often relies on nested menus which you need to dig through to find and set all relevant parameters. Again, this may be an important advantage for new or sporadic users, while others will find that they get comfortable with the Siglent UI very quickly.

Regarding the "more serious" functionality, I would not necessarily focus on special modes like Bode plots. Having a trace history always available in the background; being able to capture frames in much more rapid succession; having full control over sampling rates so I can choose to trade time resolution for a much larger number of stored frames; having a high-resolution trigger counter always visible are examples of the differences I consider more important. The Siglent appears better thought-through to me in many little details. (Not surprisingly, since it is built on a software platform that has already gone through a few iterations.)

[KungFuJosh]

If you need a VESA mount and HDMI output, then the Rigol wins.

heck dont get into that, who need it other than marketing/amusement ploy? HDMI maybe if someone deteriorating eye sight so badly.

I don't need it, and clearly you don't...but we're 2 people and don't represent everybody. I've seen photos of users on this site that have their scope mounted on a moveable monitor arm. It's cool if it's something somebody needs. If I was going to get the SDS800XHD as a secondary scope, I would figure out a way to VESA mount it also, as I don't have any other real estate left on my bench.

Let's not get hung up on FFT and Bode plots. I agree that these may be key for some users, and exotic or irrelevant for others. But as mentioned earlier, I think other functional differences are more important differentiators in favor of the Siglent -- see below.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but I'm not hung up on it either. I mention them specifically because for me they're requirements, and also beneficial to the OP (as he started learning in this thread).

[pdenisowski]

HDMI maybe if someone deteriorating eye sight so badly.

By a certain age, pretty much all engineers prefer an easier-to-read display

[Phil1977]

I´m also considering a 12-Bit-scope for some time to upgrade the good old 1054 some day.

I´m still waiting for one use case where the higher vertical resolution really matters. I was spoiled long ago by a Tektronix TDS420 with its incredibly well working "High-Res"-aquisition mode. I always got crazy if someone was in normal "sample"-mode, where low-bit-noise lead to lots of visible noise on the screen. Switching to the "High-Res" mode showed so much cleaner signals, and if I really was interested in the noise then the "Peak2Peak"-mode was not far away.

Somehow the HighRes-Mode of the Rigol 1054 is better than nothing, but signal quality does not come close to the Tek, especially at lower bandwidths. From my point of view the currently sold 12-Bit-scopes give you the best of two worlds: Superclean signals and full bandwidth. That´s extremely nice to have, but for my personal use cases (repairing things, PWM, plausability checks of other test equipment) not yet necessary.

I think I´d go for the Siglent these days. Videos of other users make me feel more comfortable with its design philosophy than with the current Rigols. Anyhow the value-for-money of both instruments is just crazy, and so I think everybody does well if you just follow the instincts after trying out the scope for some time or at least watching some review videos.

[KungFuJosh]

HDMI maybe if someone deteriorating eye sight so badly.

By a certain age, pretty much all engineers prefer an easier-to-read display

I wish Siglent would throw HDMI on all their scopes. I don't usually need it, but I can see the value of it. I use the web console often (and it looks great, even zoomed in on a 27" screen); it's nearly real-time, but the lower framerate can be an issue (though rarely, for me anyway).

You're killing me with all the MXO5 stuff. If I win the lottery, that scope is on top of the list....even though I'm only in my 40s. 😉

ETA: That video is hilarious.

[Mechatrommer]

You're killing me with all the MXO5 stuff. If I win the lottery, that scope is on top of the list....even though I'm only in my 40s. 😉

we buy stuffs based on our needs and competencies, thats the thing i always ring in my head when seeing fantastic toys. those R&S are charming, but need very good reasons and justifications to pay for the price... as i said, polished and charming stuffs got catches. cheers.

[nctnico]

HDMI maybe if someone deteriorating eye sight so badly.

By a certain age, pretty much all engineers prefer an easier-to-read display

This must be the most honest test equipment promotion video ever 

Thanks for sharing 

[awakephd]

On the other hand, I would like to re-iterate that I consider the Rigol UI easier to get started with. It typically has all relevant settings for a given mode (measurement, decoder, trigger...) in one large dialog. In contrast, Siglent's UI often relies on nested menus which you need to dig through to find and set all relevant parameters. Again, this may be an important advantage for new or sporadic users, while others will find that they get comfortable with the Siglent UI very quickly.

I think I have seen this sentiment more than once (not just from ebastler). Let me pose the question this way to see if anyone has further input on the respective UI's:

For someone who has not used a DSO before, who does not yet know all of the possibilities - who doesn't know how much he or she doesn't know! - would the UI of the Rigol (or of the Siglent) be more likely to help this person find / figure out these possibilities? Or does the person really need to learn what capabilities to look for, before trying to find them in the UI?

Not sure how clearly I have asked the above, but I don't know how to clarify it. Have I mentioned that I am operating from a wealth of ignorance?

[ebastler]

For someone who has not used a DSO before, who does not yet know all of the possibilities - who doesn't know how much he or she doesn't know! - would the UI of the Rigol (or of the Siglent) be more likely to help this person find / figure out these possibilities? Or does the person really need to learn what capabilities to look for, before trying to find them in the UI?

With both scopes, using the basic CRO-type functionality is easily figured out without a manual. They both have the familiar vertical, horizontal, and trigger controls.

For the DSO-specific functionality, I would say that you will have an easier start with the Rigol: You will be able to figure many things out without a manual because the settings are right there in the dialog -- and if you can't figure them out, seeing them will at least prompt you to look for them in the manual. It is easier to overlook some settings initially in the Siglent, or you might intitially struggle to remember where to find them.

Two caveats:

(a) Not everything is self-explanatory, even with the Rigol, if you have not used DSOs before. You will need to read the manual for some functionality, especially for things CROs can't do, where you may not even be aware that DSOs offer them.

(b) Some of the simplified operation of the Rigol comes at the cost of having less flexibility. The Rigol simply does not offer some options and settings which the Siglent gives you -- making things easier initially, but at a later stage you might wish for some of the extra control the Siglent offers.

[KungFuJosh]

For someone who has not used a DSO before, who does not yet know all of the possibilities - who doesn't know how much he or she doesn't know! - would the UI of the Rigol (or of the Siglent) be more likely to help this person find / figure out these possibilities? Or does the person really need to learn what capabilities to look for, before trying to find them in the UI?

Honestly, it doesn't matter if you're coming from no experience. You're not used to anything yet, so there will be a learning curve regardless.

On this subject, I would trust @Martin72 the most. He's somebody that tests TE professionally, and has owned both scopes you're looking at. He owned and sold the Rigol, but bought the Siglent despite the fact that he has an SDS3000XHD on the way. Review his posts in this thread; he did mention the parts about the Rigol UI he liked.

[Phil1977]

For someone who has not used a DSO before, who does not yet know all of the possibilities - who doesn't know how much he or she doesn't know! - would the UI of the Rigol (or of the Siglent) be more likely to help this person find / figure out these possibilities? Or does the person really need to learn what capabilities to look for, before trying to find them in the UI?

Honestly, it doesn't matter if you're coming from no experience. You're not used to anything yet, so there will be a learning curve regardless.

And exactly for this reason you should go for the instrument you *feel* comfortable with. Especially test equipment can be well specified, but next to pure specs there´s always some look&feel that you like or like not. And with these two devices you can not get something really wrong.

[KungFuJosh]

And exactly for this reason you should go for the instrument you *feel* comfortable with. Especially test equipment can be well specified, but next to pure specs there´s always some look&feel that you like or like not. And with these two devices you can not get something really wrong.

To truly do that, you need to buy both and return the one that annoys you more. 😉

[nctnico]

And exactly for this reason you should go for the instrument you *feel* comfortable with. Especially test equipment can be well specified, but next to pure specs there´s always some look&feel that you like or like not. And with these two devices you can not get something really wrong.

To truly do that, you need to buy both and return the one that annoys you more. 😉

That is the best thing to do. Create a list with things to test and define some measurements you are likely to make and see which instrument fits best. Specifications are just stuff written on paper by the marketing department. True usefulness can only be assessed by subjecting a piece of equipment to real world test scenarios.

[awakephd]

And which of you is volunteering to convince my wife that I need to buy *two* scopes?

No, she will not be impressed when I tell her that I will return one ... really, I will ... !

[nctnico]

And which of you is volunteering to convince my wife that I need to buy *two* scopes?

No, she will not be impressed when I tell her that I will return one ... really, I will ... !

Just ask her if she has dated another man before she married you. I guess she has, just like you probably dated another lady... 

Seriously, look at MicSig's TO1004 as well. This is a mature, reliable piece of equipment which has been out there for a while already and the display is so much bigger which makes it easier to use. If your wife objects, buy them one-by-one and return. Then buy the one you like if you don't like the last one you are trying.

[Mechatrommer]

And exactly for this reason you should go for the instrument you *feel* comfortable with. Especially test equipment can be well specified, but next to pure specs there´s always some look&feel that you like or like not. And with these two devices you can not get something really wrong.

To truly do that, you need to buy both and return the one that annoys you more. 😉

are you willing to buy returned scope as new price? without knowing its being returned a while ago? if not, dont give such advice.

[Harrow]

This is very, very important point...

If you only look superficially and your only criteria is color, then, really, there is no difference....
And you should go with color that you prefer.
No argument there.

Or if you look at two models in detail and they both do what you need, but one is significantly cheaper and happens to be a colour that you prefer, that could also be a reason to buy it.

Although, if you can get an SDS814 shipped to Australia for AUD$660, please let me know and I'll definitely consider it!