Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs

[awakephd]

Rigol DHO804:
+ 250MHz (200MHz in Siglent)
+ Better probes included (correct me if I am wrong?)
+ GUI (somewhat subjective)
+ Easier to start with (somewhat subjective)
+ Size; depth mostly (as I do not have dedicated workbench)

In addition to:
+ Powered by USB-C (ideal for portable use)
+ Dedicated HDMI output

When I was choosing between the Rigol and the Siglent, some of these were matters I fretted about. As it turns out, at least in my specific context, none of these would have been an actual benefit:

• Size/depth and USB-C power - as I set up my Siglent SDS804X, in terms of how it fits onto my "bench" (really a desk), I realized that less depth would not matter one way or the other. What would matter, though, would be having to juggle the external power supply. Obviously, the exact details will depend on any individual setup. That said, I would guess that in general the size savings of the Rigol is washed out by the space needed for power supply. (Just to be clear: in my specific setup, it is not simply a wash; it would be actively problematic to have to figure out where to put the power supply.)
  
  
• USB-C power and portability - I can't remember if someone else said this to me, or if this is just the conclusion I have come to: If I want a portable scope, get a scope that really is made to be portable; if I want a bench-top scope, leave it on the bench. (I'm sure if someone else said it, they worded it much more elegantly!) I do have a hand-held "120MHz" two-channel scope (Zeeweii DSO3D12) that I picked up for under $100; plenty of limitations on this little unit, but it does work within limits, and I am happy to take it into the garage without concern for damaging it. As I imagine trying to use a scope laid out as either the DHO804 or the SDS804 is, out in the garage ... yikes. I'm imagining how many times it would slide off the fender of a car or the edge of an over-crowded workbench ...
  
  
• HDMI output - in my limited space, I can't imagine where I would put a monitor to make use of the HDMI output. What I do use, fairly often, is the web interface. This allows me to sit on the couch with my laptop, running tests or evaluating results on the scope in the other room. I believe the Rigol can do the same, and if so, this (web interface) is not an advantage that either has over the other.  As it stands, however, I don't see it likely that I would ever connect an HDMI monitor to my scope even if it had the interface.
  
  
• GUI / easier to start with - since I wound up going with the Siglent instead of the Rigol, I can't know for sure, not having a way to compare them ... but as best I can tell, any issues I've had in figuring out how to use the Siglent have had to do with learning how to use a DSO in general, rather than any issue with the UI/GUI in particular. FWIW, I have had a chance to compare the Siglent with a Keysight (in the lab for a class I am sitting in on); there are a few things that I think are easier to do on the Keysight than on the Siglent, and vice-versa. Neither seems to hold an edge with regard to UI/GUI ... despite several thousands of dollars of difference in price!
  
  
• I hesitate to weigh in on the issue of BW, since I have not yet needed (and may never need) to explore the upper limits. That said, I do feel more confident about the BW of the Siglent simply because of the much higher sampling rate (2Gs/s vs. 1.25Gs/s). If only using one or two channels, 200MHz (or 250MHz) would be within the Nyquist limits of either scope, but with three or four channels active, my understanding is that the sampling rate of either scope is cut to 1/4 of its maximum - so, 325MHz for the Rigol and 500MHz for the Siglent. I'm much more confident that I could really measure 200MHz signals on the Siglent, but wouldn't trust anything above 150MHz on the Rigol. Again, let me hasten to say, this whole issue of maximum BW is only theoretical for me at the moment, so I apologize if I have gotten this wrong.
  
  

There is one small issue, not listed above, where I think the Rigol somewhat wins: ease of adding WiFi. I would love for it to be as easy as plugging in a USB WiFi dongle on the Siglent (as it is on the Rigol, as I understand it). That said, on the Rigol, once the WiFi dongle is plugged in, one is out of USB ports to plug in, say, a USB drive, so one will have to resort to a USB hub or something like that. And on the Siglent, it was not that hard to set up a mini-WiFi-to-LAN adapter, powered by the back USB port, and once set up, it has worked flawlessly ... and I still have the front USB port for plugging in a USB drive.

I guess, based on all the above, that I might be seen as a Siglent "fanboy." I don't really consider myself such, especially since I have no opportunity to compare them side-by-side, and I apologize if I come across that way. I can only speak to my personal experience, limited to my specific context - and in that context, I am more than satisfied with the choice I made to go with the Siglent, and have had zero regrets in choosing it over the Rigol. As always, YMMV.

[ebastler]

I guess, based on all the above, that I might be seen as a Siglent "fanboy." I don't really consider myself such, especially since I have no opportunity to compare them side-by-side, and I apologize if I come across that way. I can only speak to my personal experience, limited to my specific context - and in that context, I am more than satisfied with the choice I made to go with the Siglent, and have had zero regrets in choosing it over the Rigol. As always, YMMV.

Thanks, awakephd. I agree with most of your comments, and have come to the same conclusion as you for myself -- bought an SDS814X HD earlier this year, as soon as its upgradability had been confirmed here.

Some of your assessments do come across as a bit too clearly pro-Siglent for my taste. Since I also had the opportunity to use the Rigol UI (although on the DHO1074), let me add a few comments of my own:

• External power supply:  I am not a fan either, but don't see why it would be a problem. You can always attach the power brick to the back of the scope using Velcro (or a 3D-printed bracket if that's your thing). The complete unit of Rigol scope + power supply won't be larger than the Siglent scope.
  

• Portability: I don't care about powering the scope from a power bank -- the limited operating time would make me nervous. But "portability" can also mean taking the scope somewhere else where mains power and a desk are available. I take my scope on train trips somewhat regularly and would appreciate if it took less room in my suitcase.
  

• Web interface: Like you, I don't miss the HDMI output but use the web interface regularly. I wish it had a higher frame rate on the Siglent, which Rigol somehow is able to achieve. (Yes, I know -- I am not a "good" Siglent user since I like to look at wiggly lines on the screen rather than setting up proper measurements. Seriously though, interactive use of the scope is important to me. It's totally fine when using the touch screen/knobs/mouse directly, but could be smoother via the web interface.)
  

• User interface: I have certainly struggled with nested side menus on the Siglent (e.g. to set up protocol decoders and triggering) and found that the Rigol UI made the task much easier. On the large screen of the DHO1000 the UI was great -- I wish Rigol did a better job optimizing it for the smaller screen of the DHO800, like with mrisco's tweaked UI. I also liked the dual flex knobs on the Rigol front panel.
  

Long story short: The Siglent, in my view, is the more "serious" scope -- sampling rate, FFT capabilities, Bode plot capability... But I can see that the Rigol's form factor, VESA mountability, HDMI output, and the "friendlier" UI may tip the scale in favor of the Rigol for some users.   The current steep discounts on the DHO800 may also influence the decision.

The DHO900 is a different matter though. Paying extra for its logic analyser capabilities and finding yourself with a scope that has 600 MSa/s left for four analog channels just sucks...

[Martin72]

But I can see that the Rigol's form factor, VESA mountability, HDMI output, and the "friendlier" UI may tip the scale in favor of the Rigol for some users.   The current steep discounts on the DHO800 may also influence the decision.

In my opinion, the decision in favor of rigol can only be made if the price is significantly lower.
Nevertheless, I also think the UI is “better”, as I wrote early on in my review of the DHO800.
But you're right, “neutral” can only highlight the obvious advantages, such as VESA and hdmi, as well as the significantly narrower design factor.
“Personally”, the flawed and poorly equipped FFT (with no prospect of improvement from updates), the missing (and also not really cleanly functioning) Bodeplot, as well as the overly reduced sample rate are killer arguments against the Rigol.
At least for me, they outweigh the undoubted advantages.

[chillidog]

The current steep discounts on the DHO800 may also influence the decision.

This. Just ordered a Rigol DHO804 for €300. As much as I’d like to get the Siglent, I can’t rationally justify spending €200 more for a similar product (in my situation). We’ll see if the interface is as confusing/awkward/odd as the reviews make it seem.

[KungFuJosh]

3D printed VESA mounts are available for the Siglent now.

I agree about the Siglent frame rate on the web interface. They need to make that a user setting up to the full frame rate of the scope.

[Fungus]

a) "Bode plot" isn't really an argument against the DHO800 - people who buy a DHO800 obviously don't want Bode plot in the first place.

b) I'm also unsure how big the famed "sample rate" advantage is a factor in real life. It only comes into play at frequencies above where ordinary probing techniques aren't already a HUGE problem and only when you have more than two channels turned on.

I refuse to believe the Venn diagram of those two things has a deal-breaking amount of overlap.

My limited manual dexterity only lets me use one probe at a time when I'm down to using the springs.

PS: The workaround is trivial - turn off a channel or two and see if the shape of the wave changes much. 

[Fungus]

Just ordered a Rigol DHO804 ... We’ll see if the interface is as confusing/awkward/odd as the reviews make it seem.

A modern 'scope has a lot of abilities. It's complex, there's no way around that.

The Rigol is about as easy as it gets and it's a huge improvement over the previous generation.

[2N3055]

a) "Bode plot" isn't really an argument against the DHO800 - people who buy a DHO800 obviously don't want Bode plot in the first place.

b) I'm also unsure how big the famed "sample rate" advantage is a factor in real life. It only comes into play at frequencies above where ordinary probing techniques aren't already a HUGE problem and only when you have more than two channels turned on.

I refuse to believe the Venn diagram of those two things has a deal-breaking amount of overlap.

My limited manual dexterity only lets me use one probe at a time when I'm down to using the springs.

PS: The workaround is trivial - turn off a channel or two and see if the shape of the wave changes much. 

A: agree
B: it has been explained many (too many ?) times. If you stay with 100MHz DHO800 it should not be big problem.

As for Venn diagram, one set is much larger than the other. So their overlap is going to be large part of DHO800 and small part of SDS800xHD set. And that is actually the point when comparing...

As I said, if you are never going to use any of the advanced features Siglent has, and you are using scope just for basic stuff, and are willing to live with "imperfections" then it might not be worth to pay more for better device.

Situation is actually, again, same as previous generation, where DS1000Z was cheaper and SDS1000X-E was obviously better and more capable and slightly more expensive. And both had their market.

[ebastler]

b) I'm also unsure how big the famed "sample rate" advantage is a factor in real life. It only comes into play at frequencies above where ordinary probing techniques aren't already a HUGE problem and only when you have more than two channels turned on.

I refuse to believe the Venn diagram of those two things has a deal-breaking amount of overlap.

My limited manual dexterity only lets me use one probe at a time when I'm down to using the springs.

I have certainly found myself looking at correlations between three or four channels, where one of them carried a critical signal which I wanted do check for overshoots or glitches. Easy: a few probes clipped on via their hooks and ground clips, one held in place manually and using a ground spring.

I have also found that BNC cables carry high frequency signals quite well, without requiring much manual dexterity on my part once I have locked the plug in place. 

[awakephd]

Thanks, awakephd. I agree with most of your comments, and have come to the same conclusion as you for myself -- bought an SDS814X HD earlier this year, as soon as its upgradability had been confirmed here.

Some of your assessments do come across as a bit too clearly pro-Siglent for my taste. Since I also had the opportunity to use the Rigol UI (although on the DHO1074), let me add a few comments of my own:

• External power supply:  I am not a fan either, but don't see why it would be a problem. You can always attach the power brick to the back of the scope using Velcro (or a 3D-printed bracket if that's your thing). The complete unit of Rigol scope + power supply won't be larger than the Siglent scope.
  

• Portability: I don't care about powering the scope from a power bank -- the limited operating time would make me nervous. But "portability" can also mean taking the scope somewhere else where mains power and a desk are available. I take my scope on train trips somewhat regularly and would appreciate if it took less room in my suitcase.
  

• Web interface: Like you, I don't miss the HDMI output but use the web interface regularly. I wish it had a higher frame rate on the Siglent, which Rigol somehow is able to achieve. (Yes, I know -- I am not a "good" Siglent user since I like to look at wiggly lines on the screen rather than setting up proper measurements. Seriously though, interactive use of the scope is important to me. It's totally fine when using the touch screen/knobs/mouse directly, but could be smoother via the web interface.)
  

• User interface: I have certainly struggled with nested side menus on the Siglent (e.g. to set up protocol decoders and triggering) and found that the Rigol UI made the task much easier. On the large screen of the DHO1000 the UI was great -- I wish Rigol did a better job optimizing it for the smaller screen of the DHO800, like with mrisco's tweaked UI. I also liked the dual flex knobs on the Rigol front panel.
  

Long story short: The Siglent, in my view, is the more "serious" scope -- sampling rate, FFT capabilities, Bode plot capability... But I can see that the Rigol's form factor, VESA mountability, HDMI output, and the "friendlier" UI may tip the scale in favor of the Rigol for some users.   The current steep discounts on the DHO800 may also influence the decision.

The DHO900 is a different matter though. Paying extra for its logic analyser capabilities and finding yourself with a scope that has 600 MSa/s left for four analog channels just sucks...

Excellent points, and I especially appreciate the insight and correction you bring from having far more experience, including with a Rigol scope.

A bit of further comment / clarification on a couple of points:

With regard to the power supply ... as I said above, for most people it probably is a wash. I still say, for my situation, I am very glad not to be dealing with an external supply. Attaching it to the back might help a little, but still would mean having to deal with two cords instead of one. And it feels like a kludge to have to come up with something that doesn't get knocked loose, while not blocking the ventilation ... but again, I am speaking for my situation; I can certainly understand that it might work out differently for someone else.

With regard to web interface frame rate and UI - I hope I did not sound like I was making any claims about how the Siglent UI compares to the Rigol. I only meant to say that, for me as a newbie, not knowing what I might be missing - having no comparison other than the little bit of experience using the Keysight - I haven't felt disadvantaged by the Siglent UI. And I didn't even know its web interface frame rate was slower, so haven't missed what I didn't know to miss! If I ever have a chance to try out the Rigol, I might well feel very different on both points.

I very much appreciate the balance you have added to what I offered above, and the far greater experience you bring to the question. Things like what else portability can mean - I never thought of needing to travel with the scope (can't imagine that I ever would), but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense: when it comes to packing, smaller and lighter = better!

Bottom line: You and so many others have offered so much insight to me along the way, and have continued to do so, and I very much appreciate it!

[awakephd]

b) I'm also unsure how big the famed "sample rate" advantage is a factor in real life. It only comes into play at frequencies above where ordinary probing techniques aren't already a HUGE problem and only when you have more than two channels turned on.

I really hesitated to say anything about sample rate and bandwidth, and you make an excellent point about other challenges that one is facing when dealing with higher frequencies. (I say this as though I know what I'm talking about ... rather I should say, from my ongoing reading and attempting to learn, I can imagine that one has to be a wee bit more careful in trying to measure a 200MHz signal than the 20MHz max I am likely to use!)

The only reason I added the point about BW and sample rate was to respond to the suggestion in sm_riga's post that 250MHz maximum on the Rigol was an advantage over the 200MHz of the Siglent. If one is going to claim this as an advantage, I do think it is fair to talk about sample rate.

[Fungus]

The only reason I added the point about BW and sample rate was to respond to the suggestion in sm_riga's post that 250MHz maximum on the Rigol was an advantage over the 200MHz of the Siglent. If one is going to claim this as an advantage, I do think it is fair to talk about sample rate.

The practical difference between 200MHz and 250Mhz is tiny.

I have some .bat files on my PC that allow me to switch between models. It takes about 8 seconds to switch the model over WiFi. No reboot is needed.

Only using one or two channels and want full bandwidth? Double-click on "DHO924.bat" 

For daily use I usually set mine to "DHO814" although "DHO804" is plenty for Arduino work.

(nb. DHO814 is still about 200MHz measured bandwidth... Rigol numbers are very underrated)

[2N3055]

The only reason I added the point about BW and sample rate was to respond to the suggestion in sm_riga's post that 250MHz maximum on the Rigol was an advantage over the 200MHz of the Siglent. If one is going to claim this as an advantage, I do think it is fair to talk about sample rate.

The practical difference between 200MHz and 250Mhz is tiny.

I have some .bat files on my PC that allow me to switch between models. It takes about 8 seconds to switch the model over WiFi. No reboot is needed.

Only using one or two channels and want full bandwidth? Double-click on "DHO924.bat" 

For daily use I usually set mine to "DHO814" although "DHO804" is plenty for Arduino work.

(nb. DHO814 is still about 200MHz measured bandwidth... Rigol numbers are very underrated)

Practical difference is that Rigol DHO800 "opened" to 250 MHz (nominal, in practice more than this), will happily show full amplitude 10MHz 146,25MHz signal on a screen when you apply 166,25MHz signal on it's input. It openly, blatantly, violates Nyquist. If we want to go into details, even a 100MHz DHO800 version will have some waveform distortion when fast edge pulse is applied to it's input, but it won't show completely wrong frequency of fundamental signal. So that is acceptable compromise for a such an low priced instrument.

And no, most people don't want to "fiddle" with "switching models" or tampering with scope software innards. I, for one, want my 500€ or 300€ instrument to work flawlessly and perform good quality measurements I can trust. Out of the box.
Even people that buy 70 MHz version of SDS800xHD and "open" it to 200MHz, they do not mess with anything inside the scope in any way(software or hardware), they apply an "unofficially created" fully valid license that widens the BW that is already in scope and fully calibrated. And was designed to not violate Nyquist out of the box, even in it's 200MHz version.

So, if you insist that you want to buy Rigol DHO800 because it is very low price, then get 100MHz version and keep it 100MHz. That is already enough for many things... And keeps this instrument already riddled with all kinds of other compromises and imperfections at least honest in it's basic function.

[shapirus]

I have also found that BNC cables carry high frequency signals quite well

Since we're in a nerdy technical forum here, I find it suitable and necessary to post a clarification: the cables aren't BNC, the cables (which you apparently meant) are called coaxial. BNC is only the connector. The name stands for "bayonet connector", coming from the same style of locking mechanism that's used to attach (some?) bayonets to rifles.

[gf]

Practical difference is that Rigol DHO800 "opened" to 250 MHz (nominal, in practice more than this), will happily show full amplitude 10MHz signal on a screen when you apply 166,25MHz signal on it's input.

Why 10MHz? 166,25MHz folds down to 146.25MHz, at 312.50 MSa/s (4 channels active).

[ebastler]

I have also found that BNC cables carry high frequency signals quite well

Since we're in a nerdy technical forum here, I find it suitable and necessary to post a clarification: the cables aren't BNC, the cables (which you apparently meant) are called coaxial. BNC is only the connector. The name stands for "bayonet connector", coming from the same style of locking mechanism that's used to attach (some?) bayonets to rifles.

Sure, "coaxial cables equipped with BNC connectors" are what I meant. I was just trying to help Fungus solve his dilemma of not being able to establish more than one high-bandwidth connection to his scope by manually juggling probes with ground springs. 

[NE666]

BNC is only the connector. The name stands for "bayonet connector".

The name is from the initials of its 'inventors'; Bayonet Neill–Concelman.

This being a nerd forum 

[2N3055]

Practical difference is that Rigol DHO800 "opened" to 250 MHz (nominal, in practice more than this), will happily show full amplitude 10MHz signal on a screen when you apply 166,25MHz signal on it's input.

Why 10MHz? 166,25MHz folds down to 146.25MHz, at 312.50 MSa/s (4 channels active).

Yes you are right, it will fold 10MHz to the left from the right side...... Not enough coffee and phone ringing all the time..  Thanks..

[Fungus]

Practical difference is that Rigol DHO800 "opened" to 250 MHz (nominal, in practice more than this), will happily show full amplitude 10MHz 146,25MHz signal on a screen when you apply 166,25MHz signal on it's input. It openly, blatantly, violates Nyquist.

It has a 1Ghz sample rate, so no, it won't.

PS: I can make a Siglent alias on the 1kHz probe compensation signal if I set it up wrong.

(also a Rigol, or any other 'scope)

[Fungus]

So, if you insist that you want to buy Rigol DHO800 because it is very low price, then get 100MHz version and keep it 100MHz.

Um, no. Get the 70Mhz version and convert it to 100Mhz.

[2N3055]

Practical difference is that Rigol DHO800 "opened" to 250 MHz (nominal, in practice more than this), will happily show full amplitude 10MHz 146,25MHz signal on a screen when you apply 166,25MHz signal on it's input. It openly, blatantly, violates Nyquist.

It has a 1Ghz sample rate, so no, it won't.

PS: I can make a Siglent alias on the 1kHz probe compensation signal if I set it up wrong.

(also a Rigol, or any other 'scope)

It has max sample rate of 1,25GS/s with only one channel active.
With 4 channels on, there is NO settings you can set to make it work right at 250MHZ BW.. No timebase, no memory setting.
And you know this, knew it for a year now, but you are playing coy..

DHO800 and SDS800xHD are not to be directly compared.

Like I sad many times, DHO800 (70 and 100MH BW versions) are not useless. They are good for price they sell for.
And like with previous DS1000Z they have their market.
But like with previous DS1000Z where Siglent SDS1000X-E was much better scope that was worth additional money, if you could afford it, now it is same with comparison of DHO800 to SDS800xHD.

SDS800xHD is more serious instrument worth the money difference, if you can afford it.

[Fungus]

It has max sample rate of 1,25GS/s with only one channel active.

Even better!

With 4 channels on, there is NO settings you can set to make it work right at 250MHZ BW..

So don't do that, then.

I sure hope your beloved Siglent stops at exactly 200Mhz bandwidth and not a single Hz more.

What's the measured bandwidth on those again? Oh yeah, 245MHz... doesn't that break Nyquist?

[2N3055]

It has max sample rate of 1,25GS/s with only one channel active.

Even better!

With 4 channels on, there is NO settings you can set to make it work right at 250MHZ BW..

So don't do that, then.

I sure hope your beloved Siglent stops at exactly 200Mhz bandwidth and not a single Hz more.

What's the measured bandwidth on those again? Oh yeah, 245MHz... doesn't that break Nyquist?

As we have proven (and YOU know it well because you were there when it was discussed) it does not.

But when the truth stopped you from spreading your agenda...

[Fungus]

But when the truth stopped you from spreading your agenda...

Do you see me in any Siglent threads spreading an "agenda"?

Because the Siglent boys are always in Rigol threads spreading theirs.

[2N3055]

But when the truth stopped you from spreading your agenda...

Do you see me in any Siglent threads spreading an "agenda"?

Because the Siglent boys are always in Rigol threads spreading theirs.

And again that stupid paranoid lie.
NEWS FLASH: THIS IS NOT RIGOL DEDICATED THREAD.