Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs

[ebastler]

So mostly a difference of build quality and usability, but is there also a noticeable difference in signal quality?

The separate LF & HF compensation on the MX probes (250 MHz bandwidth) does let you compensate a bit more accurately, for a well-defined square wave response. Other than that, I have not noticed any difference. But I have never checked e.g. the flatness of frequency response for either of the probes.

[Martin72]

In short, there's no "best".

The problem is that, as always, you only know one side of the coin.
I, for example, know both sides because I bought and tested both scopes.
This is a more significant difference than just watching videos and reading forum posts.
And from this point of view, I can say that there is indeed a better device, and that is the SDS800X HD.
The DHO800 has an undisputedly better user interface and the HDMI output as an advantage.
But that wouldn't be enough for me as a reason to buy it, because those are nice extras and don't get to the heart of the matter.
As I said, if you don't have any major demands on a scope and if the Rigol is permanently significantly cheaper, then you should buy that.
Otherwise, the SDS800X HD is clearly the better choice.
Buy or borrow one and you will quickly see why I think so.
And in general:
I criticize Rigol, but I would never just talk badly about them as a matter of principle.
I owe Rigol far too much for that.
Back in the day with the DS1000Z, Rigol had given me the opportunity to buy a cheap but good 4-channel scope privately.
In 2018, the next step came for me, again through Rigol, with their MSO5000.
100Mpts, 8 GSa/s, 2-channel AWG integrated, almost 10” screen and all for well under €1500, sensational.
But other manufacturers have pulled the same - and have pulled away because Rigol did not do anything in various areas.

[shapirus]

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 

This is why I love forums like this. There's always a chance to learn something unexpected.

[NE666]

If you ask me, and I'll grant that nobody did, but to take this all back to the first paragraph of the OP's original post;

The "best" scope is the one that you own, have learned to understand and use competently, and which allows you to do the work you wish to do. And which didn't cost so much that it limits the work you can now afford to do, or decent/appropriate probing solutions for your use-case(s).

It's not the scope that you spent weeks procrastinating and debating over, and which did nothing of value for you. As a hobbyist, get *something*. Learn, identify deficiencies, and move forward from a more experienced position. There's nothing to be gained in "Waiting For Godscope", not with everything that is available today.

[Fungus]

I criticize Rigol, but I would never just talk badly about them as a matter of principle.
I owe Rigol far too much for that.
Back in the day with the DS1000Z, Rigol had given me the opportunity to buy a cheap but good 4-channel scope privately.

You can thank Rigol for the SDS800X, too.

Before the launch of the Rigol DHO800 they were planning something much more expensive.

[2N3055]

I criticize Rigol, but I would never just talk badly about them as a matter of principle.
I owe Rigol far too much for that.
Back in the day with the DS1000Z, Rigol had given me the opportunity to buy a cheap but good 4-channel scope privately.

You can thank Rigol for the SDS800X, too.

Before the launch of the Rigol DHO800 they were planning something much more expensive.

Of course they did.
They had DHO1000 and DHO4000  a year before DHO800/900 was released...

[ebastler]

You can thank Rigol for the SDS800X, too.

There is probably some truth to that. Over multiple scope generations, Rigol has pushed the envelope in the entry-level scope market. And Siglent has then filled that envelope properly.

Seriously though, in my understanding Rigol has been the "first mover" with dual-channel colour DSOs, then four-channel DSOs with digital phosphor simulation, and then 4-channel 12-bit scopes. And Siglent has followed up with their own, somewhat more powerful implementations in each segment.

[mawyatt]

I criticize Rigol, but I would never just talk badly about them as a matter of principle.
I owe Rigol far too much for that.
Back in the day with the DS1000Z, Rigol had given me the opportunity to buy a cheap but good 4-channel scope privately.

You can thank Rigol for the SDS800X, too.

Before the launch of the Rigol DHO800 they were planning something much more expensive.

That's an interesting perspective from a Rigol fan, but likely somewhat true.

We've had similar thoughts awhile back and suspected Siglent knew about the development of the Rigol 12 bit ADC long before any of us, and also knew about the new entry level 12 bit DSOs Rigol was developing with these new ADCs long before anyone here (industrial spies if you will).

Anyway we're sure this influenced Siglent's next generation lower tier DSO developments, and also accelerated the introduction of such.

Rigol hit a Home Run with the Introduction of the DHO800, maybe a bit too early with the early teething issues since they knew about Siglent's developments (industrial spies again), but still quite an impressive DSO. We have one and it's very nice little DSO, and for the $ an outstanding value!!

Rigol hit the Home Run and then later Siglent hit a Grand Slam with the introduction of the SDS800X HD. As good as the Rigol DHO800 is, the Siglent is just better in almost all our important use areas.

From an actual professional user and not just a hobbiest (altho we've been regulated to that role after semi-retiring), honestly this DSO is so good it should cost 5 to 6X more

Yes it's that good in our opinion, and please this is not taking anything away from the DHO800 which is a superb DSO in it's own right, we have one and it's really good but doesn't get used much now the Siglent is available

As always YMMV.

Best

[nctnico]

The "best" scope is the one that you own, have learned to understand and use competently, and which allows you to do the work you wish to do. And which didn't cost so much that it limits the work you can now afford to do, or decent/appropriate probing solutions for your use-case(s).

It's not the scope that you spent weeks procrastinating and debating over, and which did nothing of value for you. As a hobbyist, get *something*. Learn, identify deficiencies, and move forward from a more experienced position. There's nothing to be gained in "Waiting For Godscope", not with everything that is available today.

There are always tradeoffs to be made. Buying something random because somebody on a forum recommended it is not the best way (keep in mind that a lot of people seek confirmation of their choice and some may have a commercial interest). A better approach is to take a step back and decide what would fit best given budget and use case. Personally I always make lists with pros and cons when choosing between test equipment. Reading / watching reviews can help a lot.

[2N3055]

You can thank Rigol for the SDS800X, too.

There is probably some truth to that. Over multiple scope generations, Rigol has pushed the envelope in the entry-level scope market. And Siglent has then filled that envelope properly.

Seriously though, in my understanding Rigol has been the "first mover" with dual-channel colour DSOs, then four-channel DSOs with digital phosphor simulation, and then 4-channel 12-bit scopes. And Siglent has followed up with their own, somewhat more powerful implementations in each segment.

Well, that is Rigol strategy lately.
To make product fast, push it to market, and try to sell as much as they can while alone.
Then they drop prices, while already making new product to replace it.
Then a new one...
And instead of having and evolutionary approach, they make it a point to make new one different. So you know it is a new one. Make it flashy.
Rinse and repeat.
They basically have strategy of retail products. They are just like phone manufacturers, except making T&M.

In the olden days, they were more traditional and I liked that company better..

As for being first to market, it has cons and pros.
Until you release to market, all options are open. Sometimes there are few alternative prototypes, you need to make a decision which one will go into mass production.
So when you finally commit and release, there is no turning back. In which case competition can choose which of their internal variants they will release to one up you.... You loose on some very early customers and might gain more in long term...
It is all about how well you played your cards..

And it all depends what are you observing:

DS1000Z was innovation but in price, 4ch 100MHz scope for that price.

SDS1104X-E had 2X ADC for the price that was 1/3 of it's next competitor, a GW Instek scope from 2000E series.
DS1000Z was not comparable scope, GW Instek one was one to compare to.

Or first 12 Bit scope that was not 10000€+ SDS2000xHD. Rigol actually released their first 12 biters (DHO1000/4000) way later than SDS2000xHD was.
Etc.

[2N3055]

I criticize Rigol, but I would never just talk badly about them as a matter of principle.
I owe Rigol far too much for that.
Back in the day with the DS1000Z, Rigol had given me the opportunity to buy a cheap but good 4-channel scope privately.

You can thank Rigol for the SDS800X, too.

Before the launch of the Rigol DHO800 they were planning something much more expensive.

That's an interesting perspective from a Rigol fan, but likely somewhat true.

We've had similar thoughts awhile back and suspected Siglent knew about the development of the Rigol 12 bit ADC long before any of us, and also knew about the new entry level 12 bit DSOs Rigol was developing with these new ADCs long before anyone here (industrial spies if you will).

Anyway we're sure this influenced Siglent's next generation lower tier DSO developments, and also accelerated the introduction of such.

Rigol hit a Home Run with the Introduction of the DHO800, maybe a bit too early with the early teething issues since they knew about Siglent's developments (industrial spies again), but still quite an impressive DSO. We have one and it's very nice little DSO, and for the $ an outstanding value!!

Rigol hit the Home Run and then later Siglent hit a Grand Slam with the introduction of the SDS800X HD. As good as the Rigol DHO800 is, the Siglent is just better in almost all our important use areas.

From an actual professional user and not just a hobbiest (altho we've been regulated to that role after semi-retiring), honestly this DSO is so good it should cost 5 to 6X more

Yes it's that good in our opinion, and please this is not taking anything away from the DHO800 which is a superb DSO in it's own right, we have one and it's really good but doesn't get used much now the Siglent is available

As always YMMV.

Best

I will just say that whoever thinks that Siglent developed 3 completely new scopes in 3 or so months is not really realistic.
These products have been in development for quite a long time before release.
Release date is just that, date when release was decided to be.

[KungFuJosh]

I will just say that whoever thinks that Siglent developed 3 completely new scopes in 3 or so months is not really realistic.
These products have been in development for quite a long time before release.
Release date is just that, date when release was decided to be.

I think the comparison is more about pricing tiers than product development. I think it's probably also true that the SDS800X HD would have cost up to twice as much if the DHO800 wasn't out at that price point.

[mawyatt]

I will just say that whoever thinks that Siglent developed 3 completely new scopes in 3 or so months is not really realistic.
These products have been in development for quite a long time before release.
Release date is just that, date when release was decided to be.

Agree, just the Rigol ADC chip development alone was likely 3~4 years and a new DSO 3~4 years. These can run in parallel tho, so maybe a total DSO development time scale of ~4 years seems reasonable. You can bet that both Rigol and Siglent knew what their competition was doing, so do believe that Rigol had some positive influence on Siglent's SDS800X HD development and introductory price and Siglent's development probably was partially responsible for Rigol's early release of the DHO800.

Rigol and Siglent competition is good for us bottom dwellers, we get better products, in a shorter timeline, at reduced pricing

Think about the situation we would be in if Rigol and Siglent weren't around, especially with the stance the upper tier folks have recently taken

Best

[Fungus]

These products have been in development for quite a long time before release.
Release date is just that, date when release was decided to be.

I think the comparison is more about pricing tiers than product development. I think it's probably also true that the SDS800X HD would have cost up to twice as much if the DHO800 wasn't out at that price point.

IIRC they were planning something at the $800 mark. There was even threads about it on EEVBLOG.

Then Rigol launched the DHO800 and that model vanished and reappeared with a smaller screen at the same price.

They knew that they would never have sold a single one of the other model.

[KungFuJosh]

These products have been in development for quite a long time before release.
Release date is just that, date when release was decided to be.

I think the comparison is more about pricing tiers than product development. I think it's probably also true that the SDS800X HD would have cost up to twice as much if the DHO800 wasn't out at that price point.

IIRC they were planning something at the $800 mark. There was even threads about it on EEVBLOG.

Then Rigol launched the DHO800 and that model vanished and reappeared with a smaller screen at the same price.

They knew that they would never have sold a single one of the other model.

That's comical speculation. 😉

Nothing changed about the models except the prices. They're not going to spend 4 years developing a product, and then completely change or drop it for a silly reason like that. Simple solution- lower price, done deal.

Anyway, all of that (and this) is uninformed speculation. They could have been planning to release the 800X HD at $500 and then had to drop the price slightly. Or maybe it would have been more. Who knows, it doesn't matter now.

[ebastler]

IIRC they were planning something at the $800 mark. There was even threads about it on EEVBLOG.
Then Rigol launched the DHO800 and that model vanished and reappeared with a smaller screen at the same price.
They knew that they would never have sold a single one of the other model.

I think you got the products mixed up there. Siglent did actually launch a "slightly better SDS800X HD with a larger screen". It's called the SDS1000X HD and came out pretty much at the same time as the 800X HD.

It never was rumoured to cost $800 though, and indeed it does not but is significantly more expensive. I would have bought it in an instant if a 4-channel version were available for $800.

[tautech]

IIRC they were planning something at the $800 mark. There was even threads about it on EEVBLOG.
Then Rigol launched the DHO800 and that model vanished and reappeared with a smaller screen at the same price.
They knew that they would never have sold a single one of the other model.

I think you got the products mixed up there. Siglent did actually launch a "slightly better SDS800X HD with a larger screen". It's called the SDS1000X HD and came out pretty much at the same time as the 800X HD.

It never was rumoured to cost $800 though, and indeed it does not but is significantly more expensive. I would have bought it in an instant if a 4-channel version were available for $800.

Actually SDS800X HD, SDS1000X HD and SDS3000X HD were all released to the west on the same date, 28 Feb 2024.

However the real picture is much larger.....
I had SDS1000X HD beta model almost a year earlier in white clothes which was a little brother to the existing SDS2000X HD and later SDS3000X HD was added as its higher BW brother.
All these 3 share almost the same case and certainly the same front control panel layout.

Only SDS800X HD retained the compact format in a case and front panel layout very similar to the preexisting 4ch X-E series.
With the success of 12bit models the SDS2000X range was pulled into line and now also wears dark clothes like all the other 12bit models excepting SDS6000A that we in the west only see as 8bit models yet the east get 10 and 12bit models. 

That they all share the same UI is a big plus however as you go up the range the feature set jumps in capability.....

[Martin72]

excepting SDS6000A that we in the west only see as 8bit models yet the east get 10 and 12bit models. 

That's what the 3000X HD is for, it's no secret that it's basically a “half” 6000.
As a consolation for having a significantly lower price, because I don't want to know how much a 6000A Pro H12 would cost on the world market.

[tautech]

excepting SDS6000A that we in the west only see as 8bit models yet the east get 10 and 12bit models. 

That's what the 3000X HD is for, it's no secret that it's basically a “half” 6000.
As a consolation for having a significantly lower price, because I don't want to know how much a 6000A Pro H12 would cost on the world market.

Yet, who's to say it's not the same HW as a 6000A ?
Something about the additional ERES bits available might suggest it is.....

[2N3055]

excepting SDS6000A that we in the west only see as 8bit models yet the east get 10 and 12bit models. 

That's what the 3000X HD is for, it's no secret that it's basically a “half” 6000.
As a consolation for having a significantly lower price, because I don't want to know how much a 6000A Pro H12 would cost on the world market.

Yet, who's to say it's not the same HW as a 6000A ?
Something about the additional ERES bits available might suggest it is.....

It is not...
But it is very powerful platform in it's own right.

[Martin72]

Yet, who's to say it's not the same HW as a 6000A ?
Something about the additional ERES bits available might suggest it is.....

Yes, plus 4 bits ERES “revealed” the fact that there is a relationship.
Possibly they are the same ADCs, although the 6000 series has four of them instead of two as in the 3000 series.
But that alone is not enough to explain the difference in the maximum sample rate, and from there on, at the latest, the 6000 and 3000 go their separate ways.

[awakephd]

As I continue to learn to use my new DSO, I am still unsure about when something I see on the screen may be an artifact of the digital sampling (or for that matter, of the front end circuitry) as opposed to an actual signal.

Here's an example: I was watching Tony Albus' comparison between the Siglent SDS824X-HD and the Rigol DHO924S:

Starting at 11:30 he shows the difference that 12-bit makes with respect to the leading edge of a square wave. When zoomed in, the SDS1202X-E shows a stepped wave form, while both the SDS824X-HD and the DHO924S show a smooth wave form. However, the Rigol shows a much greater "overshoot" than either of the Siglents.

So here's the question: how does one determine whether or how much of that "overshoot" is real, and how much is due to the way a DSO works (sampling, interpolation, etc.)?

[Performa01]

... the Rigol shows a much greater "overshoot" than either of the Siglents.

So here's the question: how does one determine whether or how much of that "overshoot" is real, and how much is due to the way a DSO works (sampling, interpolation, etc.)?

Overshoot is an undesirable pulse distortion, indicating that the frequency response of the frontend is non-Gaussian.

It's the well known old dilemma: people demand an "effective" anti-aliasing filter, while it should be obvious that this is not feasible, because of the inacceptable pulse distortions caused by anything that's considered "effective" by these folks.

DSO designers have to find a compromise. Up to 10% overshoot is considered just about acceptable in the industry - yet there are folks who have rejected popular A-brand DSOs because of high overshoot like this. But if we do accept a distortion of this magnitude, we might get away even with a moderately effective Butterworth filter. Otherwise, Bessel is the filter chractersistic of choice, even though it still causes a slight overshoot of one percent or two. With the artificially bandwidt-limited instruments, using the first order Gaussian bandwidth limiter circuitry integrated in the PGA, we get clean undistorted transitions.

[awakephd]

Performa, thank you for responding. I am afraid that I am still too new to all of this fully to understand. Are you saying that the overshoot is happening in the scope (front end), not actually part of the signal? Again, I know my questions are revealing my ignorance ... but hopefully by asking I will get a little less ignorant!

[gf]

It's the well known old dilemma: people demand an "effective" anti-aliasing filter, while it should be obvious that this is not feasible, because of the inacceptable pulse distortions caused by anything that's considered "effective" by these folks.

The problem is that these folks aren't willing either to accept a sample rate to bandwidth ratio > 7, which would be required for a Gaussian frequency response to provide e.g. -40dB at Nyquist. Then they would complain about the low bandwidth.

And some demand a flat frequency response (Butterworth-like), which is completely incompatible with the requirement for no overshoot.
[A Gaussian response has no flat top at all, but starts to roll off immediately after DC. ]