EEVblog® Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: awakephd on March 31, 2024, 02:09:38 pm
-
**** Even as a newbie to this forum, I understand that this is a question which can generate religious fervor and inflammatory rhetoric. I would really, really like to avoid that, and just get some straightforward input. Note that I did not say "objective" or "unbiased," because I assume each person will have some bias towards one or another, but if the input could be focused on features and tradeoffs rather than ad hominem attacks on the character of those who dare to differ, that would be most helpful. ****
On to the question: I am planning to buy my first DSO in the next couple of months, either to supplement or replace my beloved but massive Tektronix 465M. I have been reading extensively (here in the eevblog forum and elsewhere) and watching YouTube videos, seeking to gain a good understanding of the options. For the very modest budget and modest needs that I have, it seems clear that either Rigol or Siglent are the brands to consider. My sense is that a year ago, the choice between the brands was partly driven by price, with the Rigol 1054 slightly less capable than, but also cheaper than, the Siglent 1104. My sense from six months ago is that the then-new Rigol DHO804 was the unit to beat. Today, however, we have competing 804's (Rigol DHO804 and Siglent SDS804) that appear to be appear to be priced identically at $USD 439.
This is where I am thus far in my research, reflecting the fact that the Rigol 804 has been out longer than the Siglent 804:
Rigol DHO804: compact size, possible use on battery, extremely hackable, easily available (e.g., via Amazon); unclear to me how many bugs remain in the firmware or how serious / limiting they are; noisy fan.
Siglent SDS804: brand seems to be slightly more highly regarded, higher sampling rate; not yet as easily available; unclear to me how it compares feature-to-feature with the Rigol; unclear how readily hackable it is; some bugs reported, but again unclear how serious / limiting they are.
What I really could use would be an extended side-by-side comparison of the two, ideally as a YouTube video, ideally with the reviewer offering transparency concerning any bias. I've been searching, but so far I haven't found such a thing.
I am guessing that the definitive answer is always, "it depends on what you need to do." Since I have never used a DSO before, I honestly don't know what I may find useful down the road, but at this stage, I am looking for the basic DSO capabilities to capture and view waveforms in detail. I don't know that I will ever need to use an FFT - maybe? - and I don't even know what a Bode plot is, so pretty sure I won't need that any time soon.
So ... hoping not to open yet another flame war ... can anyone offer some point-by-point comparison or point me to a review? Or does anyone know if such a review is due to arrive "any day now"?
-
**** Even as a newbie to this forum, I understand that this is a question which can generate religious fervor and inflammatory rhetoric. I would really, really like to avoid that, and just get some straightforward input. Note that I did not say "objective" or "unbiased," because I assume each person will have some bias towards one or another, but if the input could be focused on features and tradeoffs rather than ad hominem attacks on the character of those who dare to differ, that would be most helpful. ****
On to the question: I am planning to buy my first DSO in the next couple of months, either to supplement or replace my beloved but massive Tektronix 465M. I have been reading extensively (here in the eevblog forum and elsewhere) and watching YouTube videos, seeking to gain a good understanding of the options. For the very modest budget and modest needs that I have, it seems clear that either Rigol or Siglent are the brands to consider. My sense is that a year ago, the choice between the brands was partly driven by price, with the Rigol 1054 slightly less capable than, but also cheaper than, the Siglent 1104. My sense from six months ago is that the then-new Rigol DHO804 was the unit to beat. Today, however, we have competing 804's (Rigol DHO804 and Siglent SDS804) that appear to be appear to be priced identically at $USD 439.
This is where I am thus far in my research, reflecting the fact that the Rigol 804 has been out longer than the Siglent 804:
Rigol DHO804: compact size, possible use on battery, extremely hackable, easily available (e.g., via Amazon); unclear to me how many bugs remain in the firmware or how serious / limiting they are; noisy fan.
Siglent SDS804: brand seems to be slightly more highly regarded, higher sampling rate; not yet as easily available; unclear to me how it compares feature-to-feature with the Rigol; unclear how readily hackable it is; some bugs reported, but again unclear how serious / limiting they are.
What I really could use would be an extended side-by-side comparison of the two, ideally as a YouTube video, ideally with the reviewer offering transparency concerning any bias. I've been searching, but so far I haven't found such a thing.
I am guessing that the definitive answer is always, "it depends on what you need to do." Since I have never used a DSO before, I honestly don't know what I may find useful down the road, but at this stage, I am looking for the basic DSO capabilities to capture and view waveforms in detail. I don't know that I will ever need to use an FFT - maybe? - and I don't even know what a Bode plot is, so pretty sure I won't need that any time soon.
So ... hoping not to open yet another flame war ... can anyone offer some point-by-point comparison or point me to a review? Or does anyone know if such a review is due to arrive "any day now"?
There was an attempt to make such comparison. It has quickly devolved to something stupid.
Because if you start really showing that one device has some real benefits, fanboys of competition come in hordes and start with personal attacks.
Also such "comparisons" are not really possible in a way.
Just comparing on "number of features" is nonsense because it doesn't take into account if "feature" is really useful and how well it is implemented.
Also, as you astutely point out, not every user needs same capabilities.
Some need only simple device, some want (and know how to use) advanced analytic functions...
So, my advice to you is that, sadly, you will need to do footwork yourself.
Few pointers to help you with process:
- decide what you need.
- if you are such a beginner you don't really know what you need, start small.
- decide how much money you are prepared to give.
- based on needs and budget create small list of possible candidates.
- from list of candidates, decide on device that has local support in your country, and has minimum bugs. That is important because you want device to actually work as expected.
- all the fuss about hackability is mostly irrelevant if you don't need all the features. See the "how much features I need" point. Hackability means nothing if it unlocks features you don't need. And most of the "usual suspects" are hackable anyways.
Good luck.
-
Welcome to the forum - nice first post. Your intro and your observations of the landscape were all very good and well said.
The short answer is that you can’t go wrong with Siglent or Rigol but Siglent has gained very substantial momentum.
In the end it will come down to the criteria that are most important to you, and the Q&A in this thread will help you surface and learn/develop your criteria - so enjoy the Q&A and all your research - it might be almost as much fun as eventually owning the new scope.
Back to the Siglent momentum, while either a Rigol or Siglent scope will open new learning and doing opportunities for you beyond the no doubt excellent experience you have gained from the Tektronix 465M, what I think might tip the scale toward Siglent is the phenomenal user community here. The Rigol users here are also many and outstanding, no doubt. And there are some users who have experience with both - but as you have diagnosed, recent adoption has gone pretty substantially with Siglent.
Net, net: a big part of what makes both Rigol and Siglent scopes excellent is the user community. When you factor in Siglent’s product dev momentum plus the user response around here I think you are likely headed for a Siglent. (fwiw, I have 4 oscilloscopes: 3 analog Tektronix and 1 Rigol - YMMV). Enjoy the journey.
-
If you want to choose between these two,
then, looking at the price/value ratio, I think Siglent is better worth it.
It offers more for less and has some good mini features.
Many useful things are described in the Manuals.
-
Performa01 has made a significant contribution to the Siglent community which is worth your taking a look at:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5422823/#msg5422823 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5422823/#msg5422823)
-
**** Even as a newbie to this forum, I understand that this is a question which can generate religious fervor and inflammatory rhetoric. I would really, really like to avoid that, and just get some straightforward input. Note that I did not say "objective" or "unbiased," because I assume each person will have some bias towards one or another, but if the input could be focused on features and tradeoffs rather than ad hominem attacks on the character of those who dare to differ, that would be most helpful. ****
On to the question: I am planning to buy my first DSO in the next couple of months, either to supplement or replace my beloved but massive Tektronix 465M. I have been reading extensively (here in the eevblog forum and elsewhere) and watching YouTube videos, seeking to gain a good understanding of the options. For the very modest budget and modest needs that I have, it seems clear that either Rigol or Siglent are the brands to consider. My sense is that a year ago, the choice between the brands was partly driven by price, with the Rigol 1054 slightly less capable than, but also cheaper than, the Siglent 1104. My sense from six months ago is that the then-new Rigol DHO804 was the unit to beat. Today, however, we have competing 804's (Rigol DHO804 and Siglent SDS804) that appear to be appear to be priced identically at $USD 439.
You are skipping a step here: tell us what kind of circuits you tend to work on. Neither Rigol and Siglent models you mention are the best choice for every possible use case. Also consider both have 'bugs & issues' threads on this forum for almost every product they put out. That should count as a red flag. Last but not least, 12 bit is not everything so look at other DSOs as well as they might be a better fit for the projects you work on.
-
Neither Rigol and Siglent models you mention are the best choice for every possible use case.
None of the manufacturers have a single product at any price that can be best choice for every possible use case. What kind of statement is that? Truism, but shaped deliberately to look like a failure of specific manufacturers..
Also consider both have 'bugs & issues' threads on this forum for almost every product they put out. That should count as a red flag.
Again, I won't even start to enumerate how many bugs are reported for R&S, Keysight etc.
And, again, deliberate misinformation, using large numbers of posts to prove something is bad.
Fact that people write more on EEVBLOG about bugs of Rigol (or Siglent) than R&S is first and foremost because of price there is factor 1000x more Rigols and Siglent being bought by EEVBLOG community.
And R&S RTB2000 has 17 pages of revision history where full 3 A4 pages are enumerated bugs fixed.
Same with RTM3000.
Are you trying to help here or trying to indoctrinate people to your world view?
I'm all for bug free products. But based on real information, not information warfare..
If you have real exact data, please share with us.
-
If it's the entry line you are wondering about SDS804X HD or DHO804..they are almost the same price atm from European resellers. DHO804 500 € vs SDS804X-HD 510 € (incl VAT)
In that scenario, I don't think it takes a Ph.D. to see that the SDS804X HD is a more mature system all around with stronger fundamentals
The Rigol DHO800 does have some secondary advantages.. fx mobility/ability to run from power-bank, HDMI out etc. and it can be had quite a bit cheaper from abroad... if you are willing to purchase it from Chinese resellers.. it's around 385 € last time I checked (DHO804) and it includes both shipping and 25% DK/EU VAT, where as the Siglent SDS804X-HD is quite a bit more expensive.
I don't have either, Im not in the market for a new scope, but if I were & the price was around the same, I would jump on the Siglent... its also runs the same resolution as the bigger siblings just with a smaller screen, so that could also open up for new sw-features that in the future should see daylight on the bigger models.. being ported down if there ain't hardware restriction.. the same res do make it easier to port across numerous models.
-
Even as a newbie to this forum.......
Welcome !
Since I have never used a DSO before, I honestly don't know what I may find useful down the road, but at this stage, I am looking for the basic DSO capabilities to capture and view waveforms in detail.
:o
A new world awaits you, really it does !
Almost any modern DSO offers features that will shock you vs an old CRO.
Select the best feature set, not to use now but to grow into.
-
Thanks, all, for the warm welcome. A couple of you pointed out my oversight in not specifying the kind of work I might use this for - great question. The two areas where I have played in recent years are 8-16MHz AVR / ATTiny circuits and PWM designs.
Indeed, the current pricing for the Siglent and Rigol seem to be identical, at least from suppliers such as TEquipment and Amazon. The latter is not (yet?) carrying the Siglent SDS804, but since they carry many other models, I am hoping this will change sooner rather than later. That is actually one of the factors that has led to my question - I have a fair bit of Amazon gift card money that would make it convenient to buy there. But based on what seems to be the consensus thus far, I am more inclined to go with the Siglent if the price is comparable.
With respect to the helpful advice from 2N3055:
Few pointers to help you with process:
- decide what you need.
- if you are such a beginner you don't really know what you need, start small.
- decide how much money you are prepared to give.
- based on needs and budget create small list of possible candidates.
- from list of candidates, decide on device that has local support in your country, and has minimum bugs. That is important because you want device to actually work as expected.
- all the fuss about hackability is mostly irrelevant if you don't need all the features. See the "how much features I need" point. Hackability means nothing if it unlocks features you don't need. And most of the "usual suspects" are hackable anyways.
I had meant for my post to address the first several items - I have decided I need (desperately need, if my spouse asks - desperately) a 4-channel DSO; 70MHz is probably more than enough, though I wouldn't object to more; I'd like to spend in the $400 range; thus I have narrowed my focus to the Siglent SDS804 and Rigol DHO804.
The last two items raise a couple of follow-up questions: 1) Can anyone comment on support for either product in the US? and 2) How many folks here have found it helpful to hack for higher bandwidth or other features?
Thanks again for all the help!
-
1) Can anyone comment on support for either product in the US?
https://siglentna.com/contact-us/ is the best place to start and here's the list of all your local suppliers:
https://siglentna.com/how-to-buy/
-
easily available (e.g., via Amazon)
I'd suggest shopping around and not making the decision based on that... there are eevblog discounts (there are threads for each, if you search, with the code or contact info) at several test equipment retailers that will likely match or beat amazon prices.
-
The last two items raise a couple of follow-up questions: 1) Can anyone comment on support for either product in the US? and 2) How many folks here have found it helpful to hack for higher bandwidth or other features?
Siglent support is significantly superior. Rigol scopes come out as bananaware, and you're stuck with alpha level products that even when developed are inferior (spec for spec, bode plot, etc.). This is not just my opinion, if you search the relevant threads, you'll see Rigol users complaining about support and updates. You can also see that the SDS800 series is based on a larger platform, and has already received at least one firmware update since release.
If you review the SDS800X HD thread, you'll see that the 804 has been successfully (and easily) hacked to the 200MHz 824 level.
Yes, I am biased in my general hate for Rigol, but that's because my first scope was a Rigol, and I learn from my mistakes. 😉
-
What I really could use would be an extended side-by-side comparison of the two, ideally as a YouTube video, ideally with the reviewer offering transparency concerning any bias. I've been searching, but so far I haven't found such a thing.
Never going to happen. EVERYBODY is biased.
I am guessing that the definitive answer is always, "it depends on what you need to do."
Yep.
unclear to me how it compares feature-to-feature with the Rigol
That's the wrong thing to focus on, IMHO.
Neither is "best" for everybody.
Since I have never used a DSO before, I honestly don't know what I may find useful down the road
Both would blow your old Tek clean out of the water.
but at this stage, I am looking for the basic DSO capabilities to capture and view waveforms in detail. I don't know that I will ever need to use an FFT - maybe? - and I don't even know what a Bode plot is, so pretty sure I won't need that any time soon.
I own the Rigol.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Rigol is simpler to use and the display/text is much easier on the eyes. When I put my Rigol side by side with my other 'scope the readability of the numbers really leaps out as a feature, it's like a multimeter with low contrast LCD vs. one that's really black and readable.
I think I'm also right in saying the Siglent doesn't do WiFi (correct me if there's been new developments there, I don't follow the Siglent threads). I use WiFi a lot for grabbing screenshots and stuff from my PC.
The Rigol takes up a lot less space, especially if you get a right-angle USB connector so the cable comes out sideways (why didn't Rigol do that?)
There's a lot of junk in the "bug" threads. People are eager to report anything they don't fully understand as a bug. I only know one showstopping bug - the video trigger doesn't work and half a dozen annoyances.
You won't have any problems using it to look at wiggly lines on screen.
-
Hi,
I had meant for my post to address the first several items - I have decided I need (desperately need, if my spouse asks - desperately) a 4-channel DSO; 70MHz is probably more than enough, though I wouldn't object to more; I'd like to spend in the $400 range; thus I have narrowed my focus to the Siglent SDS804 and Rigol DHO804.
The last two items raise a couple of follow-up questions: 1) Can anyone comment on support for either product in the US? and 2) How many folks here have found it helpful to hack for higher bandwidth or other features?
I am one of the few people who had or have both scopes.
I had the DHO804 for 3 months and tested it intensively; I currently have the SDS804X HD, also for testing and as a "break filler" until my new larger scope finally arrives.
The question is actually already answered with the release of the SDS800X HD series - I would normally say.
But since you don't even know what you need yet, except that it should be 4 channels, it looks different.
Basically, both would be suitable for you.
What I like better about the Rigol is the UI, which makes it a bit easier to use.
It is also more compact due to the external power supply.
But that's all the subjective advantages.
Both are easy to hack if you need to.
If even I managed to do that in both cases, then it's easy.
On the subject of bugs:
They both have them, I don't know of any scope that is 100% bug-free.
But what both have in common is that you can still work with them if there is talk of bugs here in the forum, because very rarely in such a form that a scope would not be usable, that does not exist, not even with Rigol.
The SDS800X HD is even better equipped than the DHO800, especially in terms of FFT, but also Bodeplot, Logic Analyzer, frequency generator control (last two as options).
More decoders...
At the moment it doesn't matter for you, because you said you don't know yet if and what functions you will need in the future.
I tend to belong to the "having is better than needing" faction, which saves the hassle of buying/selling in the future.
The general support is much better at Siglent, they are visibly trying to eliminate bugs and what I like is that there are almost always new features with the firmware updates.
Conclusion,
At the moment, it doesn't matter who can/has what better.
However, this can change quickly with use, as I know from my own experience.
Taken on its own, the DHO800 is a good scope for basic applications.
A plus is the successful UI and the video output.
With the release of the SDS800X HD, however, the cards have been reshuffled, it offers more for the same price and the support is also better.
The SDS804 can be hacked to 200Mhz and 100Mpts memory, plus generator and logic analyzer control.
At the moment it wouldn't matter, both scopes would be a leap compared to your old analog ones.
But there's not much to be said for the rigol, I can say that clearly without blushing.
-
I had meant for my post to address the first several items - I have decided I need (desperately need, if my spouse asks - desperately) a 4-channel DSO; 70MHz is probably more than enough, though I wouldn't object to more
70Mhz is more than enough for AVR work.
The "70Mhz" Rigol actually has about 125Mhz measured bandwidth so you wouldn't need to hack it for bandwidth, it might even be an advantage to leave it at 70Mhz.
You'd want to hack it to get the 50M memory though.
-
Basically, both would be suitable for you.
What I like better about the Rigol is the UI, which makes it a bit easier to use.
It is also more compact due to the external power supply.
But that's all the subjective advantages.
The SDS800X HD is even better equipped than the DHO800, especially in terms of FFT, but also Bodeplot
Would you trade that for the Rigol UI/display for "AVR work"?
Logic Analyzer, frequency generator control (last two as options).
I heard the Siglent Logic Analyzer is compromised by doing the decimation inside the logic probe so memory for decoding is very limited.
(correct me if I'm wrong...)
This is probaly moot though as the logic probe is an expensive option so I don't think OP would ever get one.
-
I'd like to spend in the $400 range; thus I have narrowed my focus to the Siglent SDS804 and Rigol DHO804.
The last two items raise a couple of follow-up questions: 1) Can anyone comment on support for either product in the US? and 2) How many folks here have found it helpful to hack for higher bandwidth or other features?
siglent is good because 2GSps, but if you plan to extend to bode plot and LA, you need to add money more than the scope price. rigol is a bit matured in term of hackability and PC softwares and if you think enjoying adventure of tearing down your scope. about local support, siglent maybe better i dont know. if you kinda want to play safe with warranty, i guess you need siglent, ymmv.
-
@Fungus:
Would you trade that for the Rigol UI/display for "AVR work"?
I don't know what exactly you mean by that, but I stand by the fact that I think the rigol user interface is "better" in the sense that you can see and access everything almost simultaneously instead of having to scroll down.
-
What I really could use would be an extended side-by-side comparison of the two, ideally as a YouTube video, ideally with the reviewer offering transparency concerning any bias. I've been searching, but so far I haven't found such a thing.
Never going to happen. EVERYBODY is biased.
Cough cough.
Member Howardlong did a MSO5000 vs SDS2000X Plus comparison vid a year or 3 back.
@awakephd
Patience is a virtue. ;)
-
@ awakephd,
Like you we came here a few years ago looking to acquire our 1st DSO, coming from a pair of Tek 2265s. Our bias from our career was totally HP/AG/KS, Tek, Fluke, and R&S, never even heard of Rigol, Siglent, nor GW Instek!! Our 1st scope was a Knightkit, then Heathkit 65 years ago, so we've used just about every piece of electronic test equipment ever made, and even created some of our own out of need.
So after spending some time watching the various threads, post, rants, flames and such we became somewhat familiar with the various posters knowledge, bias, and credentials.
Our only advise is you should do the same, then come to your own conclusions :-+
Anticipating your question,"so what did you choose", it was the Siglent SDS2000X+, the best valued piece of test equipment we've ever had, only recently superseded by the amazing SDS814X HD!! We have no idea how Siglent can offer the SDS800X HD series at their introductory price point, it's like getting a Stella or Boddington's for the price of a Bud Light ;)
BTW we have a Rigol DHO814, well it's a customers (long story), sitting right next to our SDS814X HD. We did some preliminary testing for our customer when it arrived and it's quite an impressive DSO, very well done, the hardware is top notch, very capable DSO in ever respect. It has some quirks as you can find in the Rigol threads, but so does the Siglent for that matter.
We will not do a direct comparison of the Rigol and Siglent, will let others that thrive on that stuff do such, both are quite capable DSOs at attractive price points!!
Awhile back we were somewhat concerned that Siglent was making too big a jump into the higher end equipments and would be neglecting the baseline foundation that got them to where they were as they would be "spread too thin"!! We've seen this happen before, and with Rigol's 12 bit DSO introduction with custom ADCs and such, Siglent would just concede the lower end DSO market.
Well Siglent has proven us wrong on our concerns, in fact so wrong they've not only stayed with the low end DSO market, but introduced outstanding products to counter Rigol, some may see this as raising the intro DSO bar again :-+
We've mostly chosen the Siglent path here at "The Labs", and no regrets, Siglent just keeps producing impressive equipment while keeping the older equipment in mind with frequency updates!!
Honestly don't listen to us either, we're old and just rambling, but wanted to give you an idea of the path we chose. Do your homework, study carefully, and make your own decisions and you'll always make the proper ones wrt to your needs.
Best,
-
@Fungus:
Would you trade that for the Rigol UI/display for "AVR work"?
I don't know what exactly you mean by that, but I stand by the fact that I think the rigol user interface is "better" in the sense that you can see and access everything almost simultaneously instead of having to scroll down.
I mean would the Siglent's supposed advantages over the Rigol ever come into play for that usage scenario?
eg. Everybody goes on about the Siglent's FFT being more "correct" but I don't see that coming making any difference for AVI work. I find the Rigol FFT perfectly adequate for finding peaks in a signal (and I'll take the much faster update rate over the Siglent's "correctness").
Kind of a difficult question.
I guess what I'm saying is that most of the stuff the EEVBLOG gear-heads obsess over simply doesn't come into play at that level. I know it doesn't bother me in the slightest (and I'm a heavy AVR user with the occasional bit of Audio stuff).
Separate question: How would you rate the Siglent's serial decoders compared to the Rigol?
Edit: And while we're discussing UI pros/cons, I don't think the Siglent does windowing. That seems like a big feature to me.
-
Are you suggesting that there's no point of a Bode plot with AVRs?
-
**** Even as a newbie to this forum, I understand that this is a question which can generate religious fervor and inflammatory rhetoric. I would really, really like to avoid that, and just get some straightforward input. Note that I did not say "objective" or "unbiased," because I assume each person will have some bias towards one or another, but if the input could be focused on features and tradeoffs rather than ad hominem attacks on the character of those who dare to differ, that would be most helpful. ****
On to the question: I am planning to buy my first DSO in the next couple of months, either to supplement or replace my beloved but massive Tektronix 465M. I have been reading extensively (here in the eevblog forum and elsewhere) and watching YouTube videos, seeking to gain a good understanding of the options. For the very modest budget and modest needs that I have, it seems clear that either Rigol or Siglent are the brands to consider. My sense is that a year ago, the choice between the brands was partly driven by price, with the Rigol 1054 slightly less capable than, but also cheaper than, the Siglent 1104. My sense from six months ago is that the then-new Rigol DHO804 was the unit to beat. Today, however, we have competing 804's (Rigol DHO804 and Siglent SDS804) that appear to be appear to be priced identically at $USD 439.
This is where I am thus far in my research, reflecting the fact that the Rigol 804 has been out longer than the Siglent 804:
Rigol DHO804: compact size, possible use on battery, extremely hackable, easily available (e.g., via Amazon); unclear to me how many bugs remain in the firmware or how serious / limiting they are; noisy fan.
Siglent SDS804: brand seems to be slightly more highly regarded, higher sampling rate; not yet as easily available; unclear to me how it compares feature-to-feature with the Rigol; unclear how readily hackable it is; some bugs reported, but again unclear how serious / limiting they are.
What I really could use would be an extended side-by-side comparison of the two, ideally as a YouTube video, ideally with the reviewer offering transparency concerning any bias. I've been searching, but so far I haven't found such a thing.
I am guessing that the definitive answer is always, "it depends on what you need to do." Since I have never used a DSO before, I honestly don't know what I may find useful down the road, but at this stage, I am looking for the basic DSO capabilities to capture and view waveforms in detail. I don't know that I will ever need to use an FFT - maybe? - and I don't even know what a Bode plot is, so pretty sure I won't need that any time soon.
So ... hoping not to open yet another flame war ... can anyone offer some point-by-point comparison or point me to a review? Or does anyone know if such a review is due to arrive "any day now"?
My suggestion is to order both the Rigol and the Siglent. Play with both scopes for 2 – 3 weeks and send the looser back to the vendor.
Unfortunately, the Siglent SDS804 is not available at Amazon, but you could make sure with Saelig, TEquipment or another vendor if you
can return it in period of 30 days without a penalty.
Good luck.
-
Are you suggesting that there's no point of a Bode plot with AVRs?
Post an example scenario, see if OP can relate to it. :-//
-
Post an example scenario, see if OP can relate to it. :-//
The OP had specifically mentioned PWM applications, and the whole point of PWM is to represent analog signals, right? So I can see merit in a good, quantitative FFT; e.g. to look for bleedthrough of the carrier frequency or for distortion/harmonics caused by limited resolution. And when you want to optimize your post-PWM lowpass filter, Bode plots might also come in handy.
If one were purely after digital signals, I would question whether a 12-bit DSO is required at all. A fast 8-bit scope with a good logic analyser option -- or even a pure USB-based logic analyser -- might be the better choice. But I don't think that is the OP's situation. As a hobbyist's "swiss army knife", one of the new entry-level 12-bit DSOs should do the job nicely.
-
You measured more than me, you could tell.
Which is the better case, which gives you more freedom?
when measuring at a workbench.
1. When the AVG and the scope are integrated and the reference point of the AVG is connected to the reference points of the scope's channels.
2. Or when you have separate AVG and scope with separate reference points.
Returning to Siglent, I did not see that anyone mentioned the many little things it contains.
Vertical zoom, a wave displayed as a point or vector, smaller icons, so maybe a bigger workspace, the green channel, I see now that it has sin(x)/x and linear interpolation...
If you need it later, then a more usable FFT.
I cannot comment on the frequency of Siglent updates, Rigol has not been updated for 4 months.
-
Post an example scenario, see if OP can relate to it. :-//
The OP had specifically mentioned PWM applications, and the whole point of PWM is to represent analog signals, right? So I can see merit in a good, quantitative FFT; e.g. to look for bleedthrough of the carrier frequency or for distortion/harmonics caused by limited resolution. And when you want to optimize your post-PWM lowpass filter, Bode plots might also come in handy.
Let's see if OP relates to that.
The thing is... OP might get the idea from that the Rigol doesn't have an FFT, or it's somehow broken, which it isn't. It has a very good FFT and very simple to use.
I've used mine use it to look at PWM-based audio signals, it worked perfectly. It also has a very fast update rate, which is valuable (much faster than Siglent's, AFAIK, unless Siglent has changed anything).
If one were purely after digital signals, I would question whether a 12-bit DSO is required at all. A fast 8-bit scope with a good logic analyser option
Do you know one in this price range? MSO5000 costs around $1000 once you factor in the probes, etc.
-- or even a pure USB-based logic analyser -- might be the better choice.
I wouldn't want anything that doesn't have real time display.
But I don't think that is the OP's situation. As a hobbyist's "swiss army knife", one of the new entry-level 12-bit DSOs should do the job nicely.
Yep. But I don't there's a clear "best".
Me? I'll take a better UI over features I'll probably never use. Optimize the things you do all day, every day... not the things you hardly ever do.
-
Me? I'll take a better UI over features I'll probably never use. Optimize the things you do all day, every day... not the things you hardly ever do.
I agree that this is probably the most significant difference between the DHO800 and the SDS800X HD series: Rigol's DHO is easier to get started with, since the large dialogs present all relevant controls for a given mode at once, where Siglent sometimes has to resort to multi-level menus. Siglent's SDS, on the other hand, is the more "serious" scope, offering some additional functionality which Rigol does not have.
Whether that makes Rigol's UI "better" overall is debatable. Personally, I found that I got used to Siglent's UI very quickly, and I do appreciate that they use the limited display area a bit more space-consciously than Rigol do.
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.)
And regarding the rarely-used features, I do find it reassuring to have them available. It's not so much a matter of "optimizing" these, but of being able to do e.g. automated Bode-Plots at all or not, right?
(Edit: Typos.)
-
The thing is... OP might get the idea from that the Rigol doesn't have an FFT, or it's somehow broken, which it isn't. It has a very good FFT and very simple to use.
Since you specifically brought that up: I'm afraid Rigol's FFT is broken in a few respects.
At least one of the window functions (Flattop, the important one if you want true peak heights) is wrong, resulting in nasty artefacts in the spectrum. And the displayed spectral resolution of the FFT is wrong on multiple counts: It is designated as "RBW" but is actually meant to be a frequency step; it is unclear which unit it is meant to be in; and if you switch your scope's time base back & forth, the "RBW" can get confused and does not return to its previous value. (The last point assumes it behaves the same as on the DHO1074 I had.)
FFT on the DHO (and all other Rigol scopes?) also lacks Averaging and Peak Hold modes. That does not make it "broken", but limits its usefulness.
-
From DS1000Z to MSO8000, all FFT features are the same, even their biggest model (DS70000)do not have averaging or peak.
And that the FFT sometimes doesn't do what it should do is a known fact, at least with the 1000Z, MSO5000 and now DHO.
I don't know whether this is different with the 7000,8000 and DS70000.
But it's doubtful, I'm afraid Rigol hasn't cared that much about the FFT thing for years.
Which is surprising, since they don't offer any (my guess) bad SA.
Maybe this is a different department and they should talk to each other.
-
The thing is... OP might get the idea from that the Rigol doesn't have an FFT, or it's somehow broken, which it isn't. It has a very good FFT and very simple to use.
Since you specifically brought that up: I'm afraid Rigol's FFT is broken in a few respects.
At least one of the window functions (Flattop, the important one if you want true peak heights) is wrong, resulting in nasty artefacts in the spectrum ....
since i suspect this thread is going to be another hanging rig's vs sig's dick contest based on FW bugs/flaws etc that yet to be fixed somewhere soon (or simply dont use flat top window?). at least you can search available open source code FFT library in the net, learn it and hence you got some idea what all these windowing delusion all about. even wiki got good explanation on them without getting into the mess of the C/C++ syntaxes.. heck why do you want flat top so much if you know it has a bug, when you have another windowing option such as backman or hamming etc?
and then if you want to get further... try to implement it from downloadable raw data from scope to PC. this has been proven in rigol and i havent seen someone did it with siglent, the argument i usually heard, heck who want to connect scope with usb cable to PC? the same persons keep playing their scope with even longer and bigger ethernet cable, i'm not sure how people process things :palm: but all these relevant only if, FFT really matter so much, if it does, you can get a decent affordable used SA in ebay up to GHz...
5Mpts FFT from Rigol DHO924S (hacked from DHO804) PC plotted if its really matters.. (what class 1MPts? snort) btw i have no project requiring close inspection of spectral analysis, so i cant prove anything as a case study... only this random noise floor plot with VisaDSO ymmv...
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/?action=dlattach;attach=1907391;image)
-
at least you can search available open source code FFT library in the net, learn it and hence you got some idea what all these windowing delusion all about. even wiki got good explanation on them [...] heck why do you want flat top so much if you know it has a bug, when you have another windowing option such as backman or hamming etc?
I am not sure what this has to do with searching source code libraries, but in any case there is no need for a rant on your part. I explicitly stated in my post why one may prefer (or even need) to use the flattop window: "Flattop, the important one if you want true peak heights." And you can read that in Wikipedia too if you prefer:
Flat-top window
A flat top window is a partially negative-valued window that has minimal scalloping loss in the frequency domain. That property is desirable for the measurement of amplitudes of sinusoidal frequency components.[17][42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function#Flat_top_window
-
I am not sure what this has to do with searching source code libraries
if you diy your own fft app, you can control it and verify signal all you like, more freedom. not relying on toyish implementation of FFT in cheap resource limited scope. ymmv.
Flat-top window
A flat top window is a partially negative-valued window that has minimal scalloping loss in the frequency domain. That property is desirable for the measurement of amplitudes of sinusoidal frequency components.[17][42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function#Flat_top_window
imho you should read all, esp intro at the beginning to get idea of the purpose, pro and con... there are many kind of signal, some signal suitable for different window, and i believe signal attenuation due to windowing can be estimated, esp if you have a known signal source as reference. ymmv.
-
Again, many thanks to all. I appreciate that (at least so far) the posts have not veered too far into flame-war territory. (Only a bit warm from time to time. :))
To further unpack my limited understanding of my needs: I'm not sure if I made it clear that I am operating on a pretty low-level hobby basis. My knowledge of electronics is entirely self-taught, often by trial-and-error as I cobble together a circuit.
Here is a specific example, if you are bored and in need of a good laugh at my feeble efforts. :) My most recent (and still current) project is a replacement for the controller in a "touchless trash can" - specifically an older version of this model: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/insignia-18-gal-automatic-trash-can-with-recycle-and-waste-divider-stainless-steel/6409629.p?skuId=6409629. (https://www.bestbuy.com/site/insignia-18-gal-automatic-trash-can-with-recycle-and-waste-divider-stainless-steel/6409629.p?skuId=6409629.) No, I am not shilling for them; keep in mind that I am making a new controller because the old one died, and while it was very convenient when it was working, it is way too expensive to throw the whole thing away over the failure of $5 worth of electronics - not exactly a ringing endorsement of the product!
I designed a replacement circuit built around an ATTiny84 and an SR602 IR motion sensor. I worked up a PCB design and ordered it from one of the usual suspects - they did a nice job, and I populated it with no trouble. And re-populated it. And did some more re-work, and some more, as I have debugged the design. The main bug was using the wrong footprint for the SOT23 transistors (!!!), but fortunately I am able to turn them upside down to fix that issue. It took several tries to settle on a suitable resistor value to drive the transistors. Did I mention trial-and-error? I kinda, sorta know what I am doing, but especially with anything analog, I generally am partly guessing on the values to use. I'm at the point where I am about ready to send off a revised PCB design - I can almost fudge the first prototype into doing everything I need it to, but I have realized that I really need to reverse the polarity on the switches so that they are normally low rather than normally high - or at least, I think I need to do that in order further to reduce power consumption. The new design will let me jumper-select which polarity to use, so I can try it both ways.
So where might a scope come into play for this example? The lid has a spring on it which allows a relatively low-power gear-reduction motor to open it and close it. To determine how long to apply the motor, there is a sensor wheel that interrupts an led-and-photosensor as the motor spins. The trick is to get the right count of pulses to represent the motion upwards or downwards. With my old Tektronix, I could get a nice square wave off the sensor when the motor was disconnected from the lid - power up the motor and get a continuous pulse train. That let me know the timing I was working with for the pulse train, but it did nothing to help me know how many pulses to count when powering the motor up or down. That's where I was really wishing for a DSO, so that I could manually lift the lid and see how many pulses were generated.
Or at least, I am thinking that a DSO would have helped me do this. Again, I've never used one, so I don't know if my expectations for what it can do are accurate! In the end, I have trial-and-errored until I found a suitable count to use.
Note again that more sophisticated things, such as FFT's and Bode plots and function/waveform generators and logic analyzers, are not even on the horizon for what I have done on this project. I do more-or-less understand what an FFT is, but I don't know of any reason I would need it for this sort of project - though if there is a way that it would be helpful, I definitely want to learn! Meanwhile, I do not know what a Bode plot is, so have absolutely zero clue whether or how it could have been helpful in this example. As several have mentioned above, it is highly unlikely that I will ever spend the considerable extra to add the logic analyzer or waveform generator to any DSO I buy, so for me that potential advantage of the Siglent SDS804 is moot. Of course, if someone wants to give me a fully equipped multi-signal capable scope, I won't turn it down ... :)
I with I could take the advice to buy both scopes and then return one. Three major problems with that approach are 1) convincing my spouse; 2) finding enough time in the first 30 days to do the testing / comparison; and 3) convincing my spouse. :)
If you have read all the way to the bottom of this post, you deserve an award!
-
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!
My impression is that at this point, the 8-bit entry level scopes are either less-favorable brands, some of which I cannot figure out how to pronounce (FNRZKI or something like that?) or models that are 10 years old, and don't offer much if any advantage in price. Is there any reason to buy a Siglent SDS1104X-E instead of the newer, 12-bit, 2G-sample, SDS804X-HD? Especially when, at least from what I'm seeing, the 1104 is 10% more expensive than the 804? And surely even less reason to buy a Rigol 1054 in place of the new DHO804?
Please, please, correct me if I am wrong - that's why I started this thread, because I now know just enough to have some sense of how very much I do not yet know! :)
-
Is there any reason to buy a Siglent SDS1104X-E instead of the newer, 12-bit, 2G-sample, SDS804X-HD? Especially when, at least from what I'm seeing, the 1104 is 10% more expensive than the 804? And surely even less reason to buy a Rigol 1054 in place of the new DHO804?
Only if you are on a very tight budget, and can find a used SDS1104X-E or DS1054Z for a much lower price than new, I would say.
Otherwise I completely agree with you thinking: Get one of the recently introduced 12-bit models. As mentioned earlier, I would consider them the "Swiss army knife" for the hobbyist. They should have you covered not only for today's needs, but also when you take your hobby projects further over the next few years.
-
With my old Tektronix, I could get a nice square wave off the sensor when the motor was disconnected from the lid - power up the motor and get a continuous pulse train. That let me know the timing I was working with for the pulse train, but it did nothing to help me know how many pulses to count when powering the motor up or down. That's where I was really wishing for a DSO, so that I could manually lift the lid and see how many pulses were generated.
Or at least, I am thinking that a DSO would have helped me do this. Again, I've never used one, so I don't know if my expectations for what it can do are accurate! In the end, I have trial-and-errored until I found a suitable count to use.
Many recent models offer a Measure Pulse count, either + and perfect for your needs.
Meanwhile, I do not know what a Bode plot is, so have absolutely zero clue whether or how it could have been helpful in this example.
While not useful for your immediate task Bide plots are useful for filters, stop/pass band etc.
You do need a AWG to provide a frequency sweep for the scope to plot the result of the filter.
This is something you could need further down the track as skill and understanding grows.
-
You're correct to stick with the new 12bit stuff, there's no point in looking at outdated 8bit entry level scopes.
Today, I think you'd be happy with either of the scopes you're looking at. I think Siglent Bodes better for long-term growth if you get interested in learning and having additional potential without needing to replace the scope.
I'm not sure if it applies to this scope or not, but there is a DIY thread for making one of the Siglent logic probes if that's something you'll ever care about.
-
I'm not sure if it applies to this scope or not, but there is a DIY thread for making one of the Siglent logic probes if that's something you'll ever care about.
That would be a DIY of the passive probe used with the higher-end scopes (that have the electronics for the logic analyser built in), right? Or is there actually a DIY version of the active external unit (FPGA-based) which is required for the entry-level SDS scopes?
-
My impression is that at this point, the 8-bit entry level scopes are either less-favorable brands, some of which I cannot figure out how to pronounce (FNRZKI or something like that?)
FNIRSI? dont touch that shit. you created the thread with the right spot already, rigol or siglent, nothing else..
I designed a replacement circuit built around an ATTiny84 and an SR602 IR motion sensor...
your story is not much different than i am, except your is better. i didnt even know what a pcb silkscreen is when i first came here. i suspect when you get your first DSO is like extra excited like a kid get an expensive toy. but this game can be intoxicating, since there are so much more you can do with DSO, stick with what you have now is like only using partially the potential of your DSO. i was with DS1052E back then and its several aspects more crippled than newer DSO, with today possibility, DSO+AFG+LA is cheaper than before... you can use your imagination the level of "toxicity" you are exposing yourself into ;D
another advice. if you get the latest 12bit version, it can do you good in long run. used/older model may have shorter lifetime due to usage by old owner, or simply lack of modern features. sure 8 bit is perfectly fine for the job you described, but if for some reason you want to change mind, you'll regret it if it only can save you a few bucks. ymmv.
what is bode plot? and LA? i dont want to get to it, it probably could harm you financially, or simply you are not ready for it. you can google for yourself if you want to.
-
A few semi-random observations.
Some low-end scopes have a large capture buffer, but the post processing (FFT, digital decode, etc) only operates on what's displayed on the screen. That is a significant limitation.
If FFTs are a significant use case, make sure you understand the significance of the ENOB on the frequency spectrum.
For simple assessment of digital waveform signal integrity, 8 bits is perfectly sufficient. The first 1GHz HP digitising scope I used had, IIRC, 6 bits.,
Some of the low-end digitizing scopes I've played with have GUIs that are appallingly laggy compared with analogue scopes.
-
I was with you up to "ENOB" - I confess that I don't have a clue what that is, nor what its significance is.
I did a little reading on Bode plots just a bit ago - I now see where they could be very useful in some circumstances. Am I correct in thinking that the "magic" of the DSO Bode plot is that it gives you the whole plot across the frequency range automatically? As opposed to measuring amplitude and phase shift at, say, a dozen discrete points along the frequency range, and creating a rough graph? (I may have just revealed how little I understood of what I read ... !)
-
I was with you up to "ENOB" - I confess that I don't have a clue what that is, nor what its significance is.
I did a little reading on Bode plots just a bit ago - I now see where they could be very useful in some circumstances. Am I correct in thinking that the "magic" of the DSO Bode plot is that it gives you the whole plot across the frequency range automatically? As opposed to measuring amplitude and phase shift at, say, a dozen discrete points along the frequency range, and creating a rough graph? (I may have just revealed how little I understood of what I read ... !)
ENOB is effective number of bits, less than the number of bits coming out of the ADC. (See my .sig :) )
You know what a Bode plot is from university lectures: log frequency, log amplitude plus phase. An AWB plus post processing captured signals allows them be calculated and displayed. For an example, download the Digilent Waveforms GUI; you can play with it without having the hardware.
-
I did a little reading on Bode plots just a bit ago - I now see where they could be very useful in some circumstances. Am I correct in thinking that the "magic" of the DSO Bode plot is that it gives you the whole plot across the frequency range automatically? As opposed to measuring amplitude and phase shift at, say, a dozen discrete points along the frequency range, and creating a rough graph? (I may have just revealed how little I understood of what I read ... !)
you can plot bode by hand with eyeballing magnitude and phase. built in bode plot automates that so you are correct, this for area of filters and amplifiers, not cup of tea for many. i made bode plotter PC SW just for experimentation for DS1052E and Hantek DDS3X25 AWG back then, when built in bode plot on cheap DSO was so alien. on latest DHO800, hacking the LA port and probe too is now possible, it wasnt on earlier model, what a wonderful time.
-
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.
-
If FFTs are a significant use case
They aren't!
-
While not useful for your immediate task Bide plots are useful for filters, stop/pass band etc.
Or you can inject white noise and look at the FFT. Much simpler.
Yet another oscilloscope thread derailed by the eternal "FFT" discussion, even though it's stated as NOT a requirement.
-
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.
However, this is not due to the 12Bit, but to the fact that Siglent/Rigol has also introduced a new UI in the low-cost range with the 12Bit.
They could have done the same with 8bit.
-
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.
However, this is not due to the 12Bit
Correct. It's because of the touch screen, etc.
The 12 bits and low noise is just icing on the cake.
-
While not useful for your immediate task Bide plots are useful for filters, stop/pass band etc.
Or you can inject white noise and look at the FFT. Much simpler.
Yet another oscilloscope thread derailed by the eternal "FFT" discussion, even though it's stated as NOT a requirement.
That technique works, within the confines of some significant limitations.
-
Why, that's enough (https://www.ebay.de/itm/335213871452?chn=ps&_ul=DE&var=544470824962&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=707-134425-41852-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=544470824962_335213871452&targetid=1405282543919&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9068361&poi=&campaignid=17935704717&mkgroupid=139162549385&rlsatarget=pla-1405282543919&abcId=9301059&merchantid=5077336686&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwtqmwBhBVEiwAL-WAYepplbnxzEsIzAU7faRr3Lnkh9pHQ-g86tx3SApm8iv4B09XI3U_sRoCx2IQAvD_BwE).... ;)
-
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.
From Rigol or Siglent you mean. But there are many very valid choices beyond those brands!
-
There is literally no point in buying a new 8-bit 'scope now.
From Rigol or Siglent you mean. But there are many very valid choices beyond those brands!
At times, this forum feels like a well-rehearsed play.
"Your cue, mate!" :-DD
-
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.
8 bit or 12 bit.. mehh.. ofcourse if its the same device 8 or 12-bit? it goes without saying that more bits are preferred.
But many other factors that are more critical in my book on a modern scope, beside bw/sr.
One criteria that I value highly, are a generally fast waveform update rate, and a decent amount of memory for all channels.
Also been quite fund of variable filters.
-
What a surprise. ;)
-
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.
8 bit or 12 bit.. mehh.. ofcourse if its the same device 8 or 12-bit? it goes without saying that more bits are preferred.
But many other factors that are more critical in my book on a modern scope, beside bw/sr.
One criteria that I value highly, are a generally fast waveform update rate, and a decent amount of memory for all channels.
Also been quite fund of variable filters.
Yup. I'm using adjustable filtering as much or maybe even more compared to FFT. Ideal to bring out signals buried in other signals (including turning PWM back into an analog signal).
-
This can also be achieved with an appropriate RC combi.
-
What a surprise. ;)
Who are you addressing?
-
This can also be achieved with an appropriate RC combi.
Nope. Digital filters in a DSO like the ones from GW Instek and MicSig (to stay within the same budget range) are much steeper compared to a single RC stage. And you can adjust the frequencies on the fly to really optimise wanted versus unwanted signal. Besides that, an RC filter will deteriorate your signal by loading the circuit and form an extra RC combination with the input capacitance of the scope (or probe). And there is the chance of picking up extra noise.
-
The thing is... OP might get the idea from that the Rigol doesn't have an FFT, or it's somehow broken, which it isn't. It has a very good FFT and very simple to use.
Since you specifically brought that up: I'm afraid Rigol's FFT is broken in a few respects.
At least one of the window functions (Flattop, the important one if you want true peak heights) is wrong, resulting in nasty artefacts in the spectrum.
Only one is weird at the edges, whether it's the most important is arguable.
It can be fixed by replacing a file.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg5202903/#msg5202903 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg5202903/#msg5202903)
-
Nope. Digital filters in a DSO like the ones from GW Instek and MicSig (to stay within the same budget range) are much steeper compared to a single RC stage.
Thanks for making me aware of these other brands. I had not seen / read anything on either brand until now.
Can you point me to specific units and pricing? In my searching thus far, I have not been successful in finding something from either brand that is in the same ball park for price. The 4-channel units I can find for either one seem to be more in the $600 and up range, rather than the $400 range of the Siglent and Rigol.
-
I did a little reading on Bode plots just a bit ago - I now see where they could be very useful in some circumstances. Am I correct in thinking that the "magic" of the DSO Bode plot is that it gives you the whole plot across the frequency range automatically? As opposed to measuring amplitude and phase shift at, say, a dozen discrete points along the frequency range, and creating a rough graph? (I may have just revealed how little I understood of what I read ... !)
Essentially yes.
While everyone refers to Bode plot also consider it more correctly as Frequency Response Analysis. (FRA)
Implications can be fast or slow in that each each measurement point is measured several times and averaged before that single frequency is plotted.
While we might do a wide sweep initially it is more normal to control the range of the frequencies of interest and we have full control to do this within the menu.
Deep investigations of its capabilities with the previous X-E DSO's are here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1x04x-e-bodeplot-ii-(sfra)-features-and-testing-(coming)/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1x04x-e-bodeplot-ii-(sfra)-features-and-testing-(coming)/)
An example testing a passive bandpass filter:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854)
Later in Reply 550 we examine both stages of the same filter.
-
and then here is Bode Plot with DHO804 testing simple RC filter...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-bode-plot/msg5378222/#msg5378222 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-bode-plot/msg5378222/#msg5378222)
when the project finalized, next thing i'm thinking is to revisit my long time dormant Goltek Bode Plotter to work with my new MSO 12bit toy...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/goltek-bode-plotter-pc-sw-(for-ds1000ed-andor-hantek-dds3x25)/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/goltek-bode-plotter-pc-sw-(for-ds1000ed-andor-hantek-dds3x25)/)
some of the applications:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/easy-impedance-(lcr)-measurement-method (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/easy-impedance-(lcr)-measurement-method)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/frequency-response-analzer-proposal-using-a-agilent-20003000-series-scope (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/frequency-response-analzer-proposal-using-a-agilent-20003000-series-scope)
ymmv.
-
and then here is Bode Plot with DHO804 testing simple RC filter...
Is removing the back panel required for Bode plot performance? 😉😉
-
Is removing the back panel required for Bode plot performance? 😉😉
no. in experimental/prototyping/hack stage, yes ;D have you seen DHO804 probing its own internals using LA probe? ;D
-
Nope. Digital filters in a DSO like the ones from GW Instek and MicSig (to stay within the same budget range) are much steeper compared to a single RC stage.
Thanks for making me aware of these other brands. I had not seen / read anything on either brand until now.
I own a Micsig.
It has a very good UI and can do a few things the Rigol DHO804 can't but if I have to choose only one it's an easy choice. I'm keeping the Rigol.
-
The 12 bits and low noise is just icing on the cake.
comparison PC FFT plot real life of same 20MHz signal 8 bit data vs 12 bit data... probably there will be slightly lower noise and artefacts?... but nil input shows about the same noise floor... some mystery.. ::)
-
I was with you up to "ENOB" - I confess that I don't have a clue what that is, nor what its significance is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2vcLvM6H4w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2vcLvM6H4w)
-
Fact that people write more on EEVBLOG about bugs of Rigol (or Siglent) than R&S is first and foremost because of price there is factor 1000x more Rigols and Siglent being bought by EEVBLOG community.
Very true.
And R&S RTB2000 has 17 pages of revision history where full 3 A4 pages are enumerated bugs fixed.
Same with RTM3000.
Also very true, although with two notes: (1) the RTB2000 was released almost 7 years ago (2017) and (2) most of the bugs are pretty minor / rare / obscure
https://scdn.rohde-schwarz.com/ur/pws/dl_downloads/dl_firmware/pdf_3/RTB2000_Release_Notes_v02.400.pdf
-
So I got the SDS804x based on this forum. I am glad I discovered this forum, since I was not aware of these 12 bit (8 ENOB) scopes. I am blown away at the advances in prosumer level scopes. The last scope I owned was the Tektronix 535, which I got cheaply many years ago and used it for a while. Got rid of it because it was too heavy and it used about a KW of power. I recall using the first set of digital scopes by HP - cost over $10k and this Siglent outperforms it for a few hundred. I am teaching myself about power supplies and noise, and got this to get a FFT noise spectrum. Works OK, but I need to get a better 1x probe than what came with the unit. So far what no one has mentioned in terms of usability is that the Siglent doesnt have wifi. I found a workaround so that the time stamp isnt 1969 all the time. Otherwise its great.
-
So far what no one has mentioned in terms of usability is that the Siglent doesnt have wifi. I found a workaround so that the time stamp isnt 1969 all the time. Otherwise its great.
That, and workarounds, have been mentioned in the main thread for the scope. You can use a mini wifi router in bridge mode to give it wifi.
-
Works OK, but I need to get a better 1x probe than what came with the unit.
Why, is it faulty ?
-
Hey there awakephd,
My guess is that there are at least a thousand blog lurkers who have been waiting for this thread. I've been asking myself the same question and have been deliberating for weeks. In the end, I figure if the decision is that hard to make, then the choice probably doesn't really matter, so I let a few superficial things guide me instead. Here's my list of reasons for choosing the Rigol DHO804:
- I don't like black front panels.
- The base model DHO804 comes with 150 MHz probes (with extended 1:1 bandwidth), compared to the 70 MHz probes that come with the SDS804.
- I like the idea of being able to run the scope on a battery and potentially float it at high voltage. (Yes, I know the safety implications....I used to design EHV substation earthing and 500 kV live line working procedures. I also ride motorbikes, windsurf in an area frequented by great whites, swim in an ocean pool that has blue-ringed octopuses, have funnel-web spiders enter my house regularly, and encounter eastern brown snakes from time to time, so having informed access to LV and MV in a controlled environment is low on my risk register.)
Ultimately, the price and availability of the DHO804 are better for me in AUS, so I've ordered it with the view that it is the simplest and cheapest way for me to meet my immediate needs and that in a couple of years, I'm likely to buy something a little more serious when I know just what features and specs I really need. Bode plots are of interest to me, but I'm used to doing them manually and it's an extra cost that I'll save and put toward my 'professional' purchase in a year or two if needed.
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. ;)
Good luck with your decision!!
-
the choice probably doesn't really matter, so I let a few superficial things guide me instead.
:-+
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :palm: HDMI maybe if someone deteriorating eye sight so badly.
-
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.)
-
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? :palm: 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).
-
HDMI maybe if someone deteriorating eye sight so badly.
By a certain age, pretty much all engineers prefer an easier-to-read display :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdYkrkku0eY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdYkrkku0eY)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :-DD
Thanks for sharing :-+
-
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? :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 😉
-
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.
-
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 ... !
-
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... >:D
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 and they both do what you need, but one is cheaper, that could also be a reason to buy it.
If you can get an SDS814 shipped to Australia for AUD$660, please let me know!
Last I heard Appvision was still waiting for stock, as we are.
-
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!
¸
You didn't explain all of that in original post.
But my points are:
- these two scopes are very different. Only superficially they seem similar.
- each person decides what their priorities are in terms of device capabilities.
- if person doesn't plan to use scope for anything but very basic squiggles on the screen then it doesn't matter which one you buy. In that case you can go with cheapest option you can buy...
-
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? :)
It's a reasonable question to ask and people who own or have owned both a Rigol and a Siglent can best answer your question.
As just a Rigol user but a Siglent fan I think the answer is going to be that you are in for a mostly fun but occasionally frustrating learning curve either way. The frustrating part will mostly be driven by trial and error vs RTFM, plus maybe occasionally encountering a bug but not knowing you hit a bug; bugs don't happen often but both Rigol and Siglent have them, and sometimes they acknowledge and respond to them and sometimes they don't right away. Overall, the learning curves are likely to be more similar than different.
To make metaphor, if you have been speaking English and you want to learn French or Spanish there is going to be a learning curve. At the end of the day you should probably consider - based on your research including feedback from other travelers and your own criteria - whether you want to visit France or Spain. I think it's good to enjoy the pre-buying research phase as it offers a chance to learn and enjoy and then you will have another chance to learn and enjoy still more once you get the oscilloscope.
-
You didn't explain all of that in original post.
But my points are:
- these two scopes are very different. Only superficially they seem similar.
- each person decides what their priorities are in terms of device capabilities.
- if person doesn't plan to use scope for anything but very basic squiggles on the screen then it doesn't matter which one you buy. In that case you can go with cheapest option you can buy...
I did, but you had to read all of the post, not just the first half. ;D
If you are talking about capabilities between the two, you also need to talk about cost. For example, to get bode plots with the SDS814 you also need to buy the wave generator, which makes the overall cost more than double for me, so that's the kind of comparison you need to be making. If we want to ignore cost, I'm sure I can find something that makes the SDS800 look like a toy.
-
If you are talking about capabilities between the two, you also need to talk about cost. For example. to get bode plots with the SDS814 you also need to buy a wave generator, which makes the overall cost more than double for me, so that's the kind of comparison you need to be making.
FTFY.
SAG1021I for $165 does not double cost.
-
If you are talking about capabilities between the two, you also need to talk about cost. For example. to get bode plots with the SDS814 you also need to buy a wave generator, which makes the overall cost more than double for me, so that's the kind of comparison you need to be making.
FTFY.
SAG1021I for $165 does not double cost.
Cost of the SDS814 + the waveform generator, (do I also need the software licence for another US$115?), shipped to me and taking into account the exchange rate is near enough to double what I've paid for the Rigol. (I didn't mean it doubles the cost of the Siglent). Might well be a different story once it's available in Australia and other cheaper channels, but that doesn't help me now. I just wanted a basic scope for minimal cost so I can decide exactly what I need in a higher-end scope in about a year's time, so the Rigol ticks that box for me at the moment.
I'm wondering how many sales Rigol managed to get by being first to market....probably quite a lot!
-
If you are talking about capabilities between the two, you also need to talk about cost. For example. to get bode plots with the SDS814 you also need to buy a wave generator, which makes the overall cost more than double for me, so that's the kind of comparison you need to be making.
FTFY.
SAG1021I for $165 does not double cost.
Cost of the SDS814 + the waveform generator (do I also need the software licence?), ........
Not for Bode plot, only for FG functionality if required.
-
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.
If you can wait a couple of weeks, I'll definitely post my experience. For now, I think I'll bow out of the discussion, lol.
-
I did a little reading on Bode plots just a bit ago - I now see where they could be very useful in some circumstances. Am I correct in thinking that the "magic" of the DSO Bode plot is that it gives you the whole plot across the frequency range automatically? As opposed to measuring amplitude and phase shift at, say, a dozen discrete points along the frequency range, and creating a rough graph? (I may have just revealed how little I understood of what I read ... !)
Essentially yes.
While everyone refers to Bode plot also consider it more correctly as Frequency Response Analysis. (FRA)
Implications can be fast or slow in that each each measurement point is measured several times and averaged before that single frequency is plotted.
While we might do a wide sweep initially it is more normal to control the range of the frequencies of interest and we have full control to do this within the menu.
Deep investigations of its capabilities with the previous X-E DSO's are here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1x04x-e-bodeplot-ii-(sfra)-features-and-testing-(coming)/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1x04x-e-bodeplot-ii-(sfra)-features-and-testing-(coming)/)
An example testing a passive bandpass filter:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854)
Later in Reply 550 we examine both stages of the same filter.
Yes, when I learnt about "Bode plots" in the 1980s, it was as a purely theoretical concept.
We were given the transfer function of frequency-v-amplitude or frequency-v- phase & required to draw the response curves.
They didn't resemble a real life frequency response curves very closely, having sharp "break points".
In real life, we measured "swept frequency response" (normally amplitude, unless we had a VNA).
Latterly, the term "Bode plot" seems to have been enlarged to include these measurements.
Maybe because it gives EEs a sort of "woo-woo" factor as compared to the "great unwashed".
-
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.
I looked at it ... the cheapest price I'm seeing for this model is $629, which puts it about 150% of the price of the Rigol and Siglent models I am considering. :(
-
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?
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows, for which the HDMI output to a bigger screen makes a lot of sense. Its XY functionality is also well featured, and the scope fan is not as loud. While the update rate of the FFT is relatively fast, its features could be vastly improved, and I am still hoping that Rigol will see the light and invest the few hours of development work needed to bring it up to par with the competition. (In the meantime, thanks in part to its fast update rate, it is quite easy (but far from ideal of course!) to quickly fetch FFT sample traces with a PC for further processing.)
-
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.
If you can wait a couple of weeks, I'll definitely post my experience. For now, I think I'll bow out of the discussion, lol.
Absolutely. My timeline for purchase is two months out. Oddly enough, that roughly coincides with Father's Day here in the US ... surely just a random coincidence. Ahem.
By then, hopefully the supply for the Siglent is stronger - I've been seeing "out of stock" for the SDS804 on some of the places I've looked. And who knows - maybe by then there will be a huge sale on one or the other ...
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows, for which the HDMI output to a bigger screen makes a lot of sense. Its XY functionality is also well featured, and the scope fan is not as loud. While the update rate of the FFT is relatively fast, its features could be vastly improved, and I am still hoping that Rigol will see the light and invest the few hours of development work needed to bring it up to par with the competition. (In the meantime, thanks in part to its fast update rate, it is quite easy (but far from ideal of course!) to quickly fetch FFT sample traces with a PC for further processing.)
That looks great! The combination of dockable windows and HDMI output to a larger screen was a part of my decision. I'm really looking forward to it after seeing those screenshots.
-
I did a little reading on Bode plots just a bit ago - I now see where they could be very useful in some circumstances. Am I correct in thinking that the "magic" of the DSO Bode plot is that it gives you the whole plot across the frequency range automatically? As opposed to measuring amplitude and phase shift at, say, a dozen discrete points along the frequency range, and creating a rough graph? (I may have just revealed how little I understood of what I read ... !)
Essentially yes.
While everyone refers to Bode plot also consider it more correctly as Frequency Response Analysis. (FRA)
Implications can be fast or slow in that each each measurement point is measured several times and averaged before that single frequency is plotted.
While we might do a wide sweep initially it is more normal to control the range of the frequencies of interest and we have full control to do this within the menu.
Deep investigations of its capabilities with the previous X-E DSO's are here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1x04x-e-bodeplot-ii-(sfra)-features-and-testing-(coming)/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1x04x-e-bodeplot-ii-(sfra)-features-and-testing-(coming)/)
An example testing a passive bandpass filter:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854)
Later in Reply 550 we examine both stages of the same filter.
Yes, when I learnt about "Bode plots" in the 1980s, it was as a purely theoretical concept.
We were given the transfer function of frequency-v-amplitude or frequency-v- phase & required to draw the response curves.
They didn't resemble a real life frequency response curves very closely, having sharp "break points".
In real life, we measured "swept frequency response" (normally amplitude, unless we had a VNA).
Latterly, the term "Bode plot" seems to have been enlarged to include these measurements.
Maybe because it gives EEs a sort of "woo-woo" factor as compared to the "great unwashed".
IMO it's best referred to more accurately as FRA.
Which in itself makes more sense and just is the frequency response/attenuation of a circuit/device.
We can do this easy with an analyzer with TG into the high frequency bands and a FRA capable scope is better suited to LF work to the 120 MHz capability of Siglent DSO's.
Some simple FRA can also be done with a TG equipped analyzer and RLB where results similar to a single port VNA S11 measurements can be obtained.
Only hope we get the chance for a propper meet up next time we visit WA Bryan.
-
afaik, FFT on DHO800/900 is so much better already than DS1000Z
It's orders of magnitude better, it also has tables of the peaks, etc.
It's also fast, much faster than the Siglent, AFAIK.
By a certain age, pretty much all engineers prefer an easier-to-read display :)
Rigol wins there - the text is really, really nice.
If you need a VESA mount and HDMI output, then the Rigol wins. The shallower footprint is also cute.
The UI of the Rigol is better. The windowing system is also a big feature (IMHO) that Siglent doesn't have.
If you live and die by your FFT then it's enough to swing the decision in favor of the Siglent. If you want Bode plot then you obviously only have one choice.
If not... I don't think you can say one is "best". :-//
-
If you need a VESA mount and HDMI output, then the Rigol wins. The shallower footprint is also cute.
The UI of the Rigol is better. The windowing system is also a big feature (IMHO) that Siglent doesn't have.
That's your opinion, and it's valid. OTOH, I personally hate the look of the general UI on the Rigol. To each their own.
I do think the windowing is a cool feature, but it's not something I personally need. Siglent will likely add something like it eventually if enough people request it.
-
The UI of the Rigol is better. The windowing system is also a big feature (IMHO) that Siglent doesn't have.
As mentioned before, I do think that the UI is more beginner-friendly. I am not so excited about the window system on the small screen. ("Small" as in "limited number of pixels", not "small diagonal"; so connecting an external monitor will not change this.)
When I had the DHO1000, which comes with a larger and higher-resolution screen, I felt that the usefulness of the windows was borderline, because they waste so much screen space for frames and titles. Those frames still take up the same number of pixels on the smaller DHO800 screen. Hence they consume an even larger relative share of the screen real estate, leaving rather small areas for the actual traces/FFT spectra/results tables.
Siglent's UI may look a bit drab, but uses less screen space for frames and decorations. It can display more ancillary information (e.g. probe attentuation, trigger counter, details for each math function) while still keeping the trace display area a bit larger than on the Rigol.
-
I had the DHO814, and i was very frustrated:
- At least one crash a day. (gotta love android)
- Waveforms dissappear when scrolling around.
- That UI was rather annoying, and wasted a lot of display area
- settings were not saved after restart.
- Noise from the powersupply
- Ultra acquire is ultra useless (at least for infrequent signals with bigger interval)
- Only 16 characters as filename to save
- FFT cant measure/see much there
- ... and the list goes on
That vesa mount is kind of a fail, as the airflow would be blocked.
But the probes were of quite a good quality, judging from their look and feel.
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows, for which the HDMI output to a bigger screen makes a lot of sense. Its XY functionality is also well featured, and the scope fan is not as loud. While the update rate of the FFT is relatively fast, its features could be vastly improved, and I am still hoping that Rigol will see the light and invest the few hours of development work needed to bring it up to par with the competition. (In the meantime, thanks in part to its fast update rate, it is quite easy (but far from ideal of course!) to quickly fetch FFT sample traces with a PC for further processing.)
That looks great! The combination of dockable windows and HDMI output to a larger screen was a part of my decision. I'm really looking forward to it after seeing those screenshots.
Just so you know:
Make note that window titles are scrambled and partial.
Going to a bigger screen won't give you better resolution, it will rescale current screen. It won't behave like you would expect if you connect second screen on a PC.
What you see on these screenshots is exactly how it will look, just bigger.
If that is what you expect than fine.
As for fixing FFT, it has been in this half cooked state for years now and I wouldn't hold my breath. Nor for any other fixes, to that matters. They sometimes fix some things, but priority and timing seems stochastic. And they take they sweet time.
But sometimes bugs are in parts of software you don't use so it doesn't matter. Sometimes for bugs to show it takes particular workflow so some people have crashes all the time and some almost never.
You will see and decide for yourself.
-
Yes, when I learnt about "Bode plots" in the 1980s, it was as a purely theoretical concept.
We were given the transfer function of frequency-v-amplitude or frequency-v- phase & required to draw the response curves.
They didn't resemble a real life frequency response curves very closely, having sharp "break points".
In real life, we measured "swept frequency response" (normally amplitude, unless we had a VNA).
Latterly, the term "Bode plot" seems to have been enlarged to include these measurements.
Maybe because it gives EEs a sort of "woo-woo" factor as compared to the "great unwashed".
Bode plots have always been log-frequency vs log-amplitude (and phase). Why? Because (for LP filters) the double-log graphs turn an 1/x curve into a straight line, and >> the corner frequency the falloff is 1/f, i.e. 10dB/decade.
The straight lines with a "sharp" corner are - and always have been - simply a convenient approximation, useful for drawing and thinking about a filter's overall characteristic.
There are many many many other useful approximations in engineering that aid thinking about cause and effect.
-
How about someone who has used several scopes commenting on some other relative usability issues, e.g.
- GUI responsiveness. One scope I played with for a short time had an appalling lag between changing the Y offset and the trace on the display moving
- triggering. I'm not thinking about fancy triggers, but how well or poorly they capture waveforms near the scope's performance limit. Low voltages, high frequencies, various types of noise
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows
BTW, Rigol cannot (or I don't know how to make it) render the math waveform in the main waveform window, which defeats half of the purpose: you can't overlay traces on the same scale and you lose half of the screen height by placing the windows one above the other if you want to observe raw and math input aligned horizontally.
It also cannot use math result waveform as one or more of the X-Y sources. It cannot use math result as a source for another math operation. So the usability of math is quite limited.
Is all of this also the case with Siglent? Or it's a general limitation? If so, is it a limitation in this class only or it applies to all digital scopes?
-
afaik, FFT on DHO800/900 is so much better already than DS1000Z
It's orders of magnitude better, it also has tables of the peaks, etc.
But it cannot, for whatever reason, display the peak values on top of the peaks themselves, right in the FFT window, forcing the user to constantly move the eye from the diagram to the table and back and match the visual peaks with rows in the table by looking for each peak individually. Not to mention that the user has to waste a significant section of the screen for the window with the peaks table.
That's a really big downside and yet another Rigol's UI disaster. I'm not comparing it with previous Rigol models, just evaluating it on its own.
-
- GUI responsiveness. One scope I played with for a short time had an appalling lag between changing the Y offset and the trace on the display moving
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
After the offset encoder stops turning, the waveform update/rendering on DHO800 resumes in what feels to be about 300-400 ms.
p.s. I may have misunderstood the meaning of your question. If you ask how quickly the screen content moves when an offset encoder is turned, then it happens nearly instantly, so in this particular function DHO800 does not suck. With one exception: when you scroll along a large memory buffer with the zoom window turned on, then it becomes somewhat slower (yet still acceptable even to my taste), and sometimes it's glitching when the offset is at the edges of the memory buffer.
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows
BTW, Rigol cannot (or I don't know how to make it) render the math waveform in the main waveform window, which defeats half of the purpose:
good point, i just tried it myself, overlayed display sometime preferable, sometime i wonder the rigol GUI developer is a kid clueless about real life usage of dso... maybe posting in rigol dho800 bug/wishlist if good idea to make rigol aware of this issue..
-
- GUI responsiveness. One scope I played with for a short time had an appalling lag between changing the Y offset and the trace on the display moving
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
After the offset encoder stops turning, the waveform update/rendering on DHO800 resumes in what feels to be about 300-400 ms.
p.s. I may have misunderstood the meaning of your question. If you ask how quickly the screen content moves when an offset encoder is turned, then it happens nearly instantly, so in this particular function DHO800 does not suck. With one exception: when you scroll along a large memory buffer with the zoom window turned on, then it becomes somewhat slower (yet still acceptable even to my taste), and sometimes it's glitching when the offset is at the edges of the memory buffer.
My question was a general one.
The example I hinted at sounds like the DHO800 freeze you mention. Made it very difficult to align a waveform minimum with a graticule line.
-
The example I hinted at sounds like the DHO800 freeze you mention. Made it very difficult to align a waveform minimum with a graticule line.
Not exactly difficult per se. It is easy, but tedious, as it may require multiple steps (turn the dial - see result - repeat if necessary), which take time and effort.
-
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
I think this is the common way of implementing it; certainly all entry-level scopes I have used or seen demonstrated in videos behave the same.
As long as the frozen trace follows the encoder movement smoothly and with little lag, I don't find that too bad: You can still position the frozen trace nicely relative to the grid and to the other traces. It would be much worse if they tried to continue "live" updates of the trace, but with a jerky movement.
-
I think this is the common way of implementing it; certainly all entry-level scopes I have used or seen demonstrated in videos behave the same.
Yeah I realize it may be because of limited hardware capabilities. On the other hand, for a comparison, computers have no issues whatsoever with smoothly playing a movie in a player window that is being moved in any direction on the screen without any freezes and interruptions. They have been able to do so for at least past 20 years, and modern oscilloscopes definitely have much more capable hardware than a 20 year old PC, so I'm inclined to see no plausible excuse here.
I wonder how the more expensive scopes behave in this regard.
-
The example I hinted at sounds like the DHO800 freeze you mention. Made it very difficult to align a waveform minimum with a graticule line.
Not exactly difficult per se. It is easy, but tedious, as it may require multiple steps (turn the dial - see result - repeat if necessary), which take time and effort.
In that case you must think measuring a voltage with a KVD-based null voltmeter is easy but tedious :)
(https://www.radiomuseum.org/images/radio/fluke_john_mfg_co/ac_dc_differential_voltmeter_893a_1681668.jpg)
Personally I think it is difficult but fun, so long as I don't have to do it regularly.
Mind you, it is my only 1kV voltmeter with "infinite" input impedance.
-
Yeah I realize it may be because of limited hardware capabilities. On the other hand, for a comparison, computers have no issues whatsoever with smoothly playing a movie in a player window that is being moved in any direction on the screen without any freezes and interruptions. They have been able to do so for at least past 20 years, and modern oscilloscopes definitely have much more capable hardware than a 20 year old PC, so I'm inclined to see no plausible excuse here.
I wonder how the more expensive scopes behave in this regard.
How many millions of man-years for development went into nowadays GUIs with smooth video playback? How many thousands of man-years are spent for developing test equipment, and how many of these development hours are spent for smooth playback and how many are spent for e.g. signal processing?
I think it´s the same if you compare the UI of an Amazon Fire stick with the UI of a modern car. Though the car costs 1000x more than the fire stick, the UI of the fire stick is smoother and more intuitive and responding quicker etc. And no, the car OEMs do not want to sell bad UI's, but the amount of development budget for these topics is just smaller.
Maybe the numbers I guessed are wrong, but I'm quite sure their general context is not.
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows
BTW, Rigol cannot (or I don't know how to make it) render the math waveform in the main waveform window, which defeats half of the purpose:
good point, i just tried it myself, overlayed display sometime preferable, sometime i wonder the rigol GUI developer is a kid clueless about real life usage of dso... maybe posting in rigol dho800 bug/wishlist if good idea to make rigol aware of this issue..
On DHO1074 you can select overlay on the main window for any Math function.
In the math window config, just move the "Display Area" selector from "Math" to "Main". The Math window will dissapear.
I suppose that DHO800 have this option. Sorry if I am wrong.
-
As far as choosing an entry level DSO, to be honest, either of these two (DHO800 or SDS800) are more than enough for the usual stuff.
If you need more, then you need to spend more (a lot) of money.
There are both advantages and disadvantages on both sides, but not as major as some are letting on. Choose the one you like by taking into account the reviews you can find here and on youtube.
I have scopes from both manufacturers, and I can't say that Siglent is better than Rigol or vice versa. It's just details, and I use both with equal pleasure.
If I were to choose one scope for any task, it would be much more expensive and I don't think it would be worth buying just for the hobby.
-
I think this is the common way of implementing it; certainly all entry-level scopes I have used or seen demonstrated in videos behave the same.
Yeah I realize it may be because of limited hardware capabilities. On the other hand, for a comparison, computers have no issues whatsoever with smoothly playing a movie in a player window that is being moved in any direction on the screen without any freezes and interruptions. They have been able to do so for at least past 20 years, and modern oscilloscopes definitely have much more capable hardware than a 20 year old PC, so I'm inclined to see no plausible excuse here.
I wonder how the more expensive scopes behave in this regard.
They behave mostly the same. Faster than that but in similar fashion.
Let's not forget that scope does many other things in addition to showing stuff on screen.
Moving trace up and down invalidates most measurements etc...
So scope simply waits for a user to make up their mind.
I can understand that this might be something that aesthetically annoys you in comparison to analog scope, but what practical problem does it create for you?
Scope freezes current display that serves as reference of what are you moving up and down.
It is not like it goes blank and you have no idea what are you moving.
And that movement is instantaneous on most new scopes.
So nobody cares. Maybe it might have been done the way you prefer but nobody cares. It is good enough as it is.
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows
BTW, Rigol cannot (or I don't know how to make it) render the math waveform in the main waveform window, which defeats half of the purpose: you can't overlay traces on the same scale and you lose half of the screen height by placing the windows one above the other if you want to observe raw and math input aligned horizontally.
It also cannot use math result waveform as one or more of the X-Y sources. It cannot use math result as a source for another math operation. So the usability of math is quite limited.
Is all of this also the case with Siglent? Or it's a general limitation? If so, is it a limitation in this class only or it applies to all digital scopes?
On Siglent touch scopes, math channels are treated as full channels in main window.
-
I had the DHO814, and i was very frustrated:
- At least one crash a day. (gotta love android)
- Waveforms dissappear when scrolling around.
Firmware 1.0 was a long time ago.
-
I think this is the common way of implementing it; certainly all entry-level scopes I have used or seen demonstrated in videos behave the same.
Yeah I realize it may be because of limited hardware capabilities.
but i think with multicore cpu, it should be possible to dial X or Y offset while signal continue like nothing happens. in my theory, signal stream from FPGA can be assigned to one core, and UI update is assigned to another. maybe they havent figure it out, or maybe its true hardware limitation :-//
-
It's orders of magnitude better, it also has tables of the peaks, etc.
But it cannot, for whatever reason, display the peak values on top of the peaks themselves, right in the FFT window
Can the Siglent? All the screenshots I've seen only show a table overlaid on the display.
Not to mention that the user has to waste a significant section of the screen for the window with the peaks table.
Doesn't seem to be a problem in practice. At least you get to choose where it goes on screen.
Again: If you live and die by FFTs then I don't think either is ideal. Get a proper oscilloscope.
-
I had the DHO814, and i was very frustrated:
- At least one crash a day. (gotta love android)
- Waveforms dissappear when scrolling around.
Firmware 1.0 was a long time ago.
These problems are certainly gone today :-+
-
How many millions of man-years for development went into nowadays GUIs with smooth video playback? How many thousands of man-years are spent for developing test equipment, and how many of these development hours are spent for smooth playback and how many are spent for e.g. signal processing?
its not about man hour, its about HW limitation. my first PC was single core CPU. video a bit laggy when watching, but becomes extra laggy when you move around. today you can play 4-8 movies at the same time without lag... up to date enginner/programmer should get datasheet first hand and know how to utilize multicore to the limit, but i;m not sure whats up with these new fancy dragon multicore android cpu..
-
But it cannot, for whatever reason, display the peak values on top of the peaks themselves, right in the FFT window, forcing the user to constantly move the eye from the diagram to the table and back and match the visual peaks with rows in the table by looking for each peak individually. Not to mention that the user has to waste a significant section of the screen for the window with the peaks table.
You can place windows vertically or horizontally. I prefer horizontal and that's fine.
As for the eye movements, it's very funny ... I don't have any problems.
-
On DHO1074 you can select overlay on the main window for any Math function.
no DHO800/900 dont have that... see attached.
-
On DHO1074 you can select overlay on the main window for any Math function.
no DHO800/900 dont have that... see attached.
That's a pitty, I'm sure it can be done ...
-
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
Do you mean something like this? (apologies for the unprofessional video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI)
Edit: input is a sine wave that is being edge-triggered continuously
-
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
Do you mean something like this? (apologies for the unprofessional video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI)
Edit: input is a sine wave that is being edge-triggered continuously
Maybe one day we'll have one of these ... :-+
-
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
Do you mean something like this? (apologies for the unprofessional video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI)
Edit: input is a sine wave that is being edge-triggered continuously
No not like that. That scope also stops triggering while you are moving waveform up and down. Look at trigger light.
Feed a nonuniform signal (like one of data protocol streams from demo board) and move waveform up and down. Wth stable sine signal you cannot see it stopped changing.
All recent Siglent scopes behave exactly like that R&S you show. Actually, 3000xHD and 6000A restart a smidge faster after you let it go.
But this is exactly what I was arguing all the time: there is no problem.
It it just stubborn nostalgia of "it is not analog" without any usefulness per se.
-
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
Do you mean something like this? (apologies for the unprofessional video)
Edit: input is a sine wave that is being edge-triggered continuously
Yes, but a clean sine wave is not a proper signal to demonstrate it (because it's hard to tell if it's frozen or not -- the trace stays the same): a noisy, ideally jittery, signal would be better, so that it would be easy to see that it's being updated in real time while the offset is being changed.
-
But this is exactly what I was arguing all the time: there is no problem.
It it just stubborn nostalgia of "it is not analog" without any usefulness per se.
Not really nostalgia in my case. I've not had much time spent with analog scopes and mentioned them just as an illustration of an ideal outcome for that particular scenario.
It's not too much of a practical issue, either. It just makes me wonder why it is so. A smartphone that fits in your pocket can easily play a video (or several videos) and do a bunch of other stuff simultaneously. I refuse to believe that the hardware used in oscilloscopes can't handle the tasks of generating the vector data and visualizing that (2d!) data on screen simultaneously without locking. It sounds more like nobody cares to implement a multi-threaded algorithm to achieve this. Of course I may be wrong.
Practical implications are *not* non-existent, however. It is an issue from the UX perspective. As was discussed above, it makes it more difficult (or tedious) to align a certain section (e.g. peaks) of the waveform with a certain graticule line, particularly when the waveform is zoomed into such that it does not fully fit on the screen vertically. Instead of a smooth continuous movement in a single motion it becomes "move - stop to let the waveform be updated - see if it's ok now - repeat if it's not".
-
You can place windows vertically or horizontally. I prefer horizontal and that's fine.
Yes of course I can. Thankfully, they at least allowed us to move windows.
But I'd prefer same-window trace display. Maybe there are use cases when having math in a separate window is better (FFT is an example), but if you use, for example, two channels and A-B math as a poor man's differential probe, then the resulting trace must definitely be drawn in the main window along with the direct input, as you may naturally want to correlate that math waveform with something on the third channel, for example. Having it in a separate window as the only option defeats half the purpose of having the math function.
I'm not even mentioning that the windows borders and titlebars, when they are placed horizontally, consume the precious vertical space, which is already in great shortage with huge sections of the screen dedicated to the upper and lower status/control bars. This makes the useful vertical space of the two windows (main and math) ridiculously small, bordering uselessness.
As for the eye movements, it's very funny ... I don't have any problems.
There's nothing funny. Forcing the user to shift focus, unless it is a natural part of the flow in question, is bad, it's that simple. Good UI designers know this and place related elements in such a way that they are all can be seen and read without a single movement of the eyeball. An example would be the central section of a car's dashboard, a wristwatch, or winamp's main window.
-
But this is exactly what I was arguing all the time: there is no problem.
It it just stubborn nostalgia of "it is not analog" without any usefulness per se.
Not really nostalgia in my case. I've not had much time spent with analog scopes and mentioned them just as an illustration of an ideal outcome for that particular scenario.
It's not too much of a practical issue, either. It just makes me wonder why it is so. A smartphone that fits in your pocket can easily play a video (or several videos) and do a bunch of other stuff simultaneously. I refuse to believe that the hardware used in oscilloscopes can't handle the tasks of generating the vector data and visualizing that (2d!) data on screen simultaneously without mutual locking. It sounds more like nobody cares to implement a multi-threaded algorithm to achieve this. Of course I may be wrong.
Practical implications are *not* non-existent, however. It is an issue from the UX perspective. As was discussed above, it makes it more difficult (or tedious) to align a certain section (e.g. peaks) of the waveform with a certain graticule line, particularly when the waveform is zoomed into such that it does not fully fit on the screen vertically. Instead of a smooth continuous movement in a single motion it becomes "move - stop to let the waveform be updated - see if it's ok now - repeat if it's not".
That video showed acceptable behaviour. That's unsurprising since there is no reason to believe the laggy behaviour is inherent in digitising scopes: it is an artefact of an implementation.
As you say, the laggy behaviour I saw was a pain in the backside. Not insurmountable, just very irritating. The kind of thing you put up with when there is no alternative.
If you don't fit the entire waveform vertically on the display, then that causes other problems. When the input front-ends are overloaded the amplifiers become saturated. Exiting saturation is never timely nor clean. Decent old analogue scopes can be better behaved in that it can take more of an overload to cause saturation; nonetheless it can occur.
The only way to avoid such problems is to have a sampling bridge front end. I have one such scope, and when there is a 1Vpp square wave, I can "zoom in" vertically to see the end-of transition ringing at 1mV/division. Good luck with that with any other type of scope!
One important use case where that is essential was described by Jim Williams in AN47 appendix B: measuring the 0.1% settling time of an amplifier/DAC.
-
As for the eye movements, it's very funny ... I don't have any problems.
There's nothing funny. Forcing the user to shift focus, unless it is a natural part of the flow in question, is bad, it's that simple. Good UI designers know this and place related elements in such a way that they are all can be seen and read without a single movement of the eyeball. An example would be the central section of a car's dashboard, a wristwatch, or winamp's main window.
An extreme example of that is an aircraft cockpit, where the "normal and good" position of all the meter needles is pointing straight up. That makes it possible to spot which of the 100 measured values is a problem with just a glance.
Glass cockpits lose that advantage, and the workarounds lead to the all-too-frequent last words on cockpit voice recorders: "what is it doing now?".
-
If you don't fit the entire waveform vertically on the display, then that causes other problems. When the input front-ends are overloaded the amplifiers become saturated. Exiting saturation is never timely nor clean. Decent old analogue scopes can be better behaved in that it can take more of an overload to cause saturation; nonetheless it can occur.
Admittedly I did not deep dive into the amplifier settling time measurement problem, but what would other situations be where this might be an issue? What you describe can be said in other words as "extreme zoom", correct?
Yes, naturally there is a limit of the maximum vertical offset of a zoomed-in waveform. I don't have other examples, but I tried this with Rigol DHO800. It's not great, but not terrible, either. Probably good enough for a non-specialized scope. I'm attaching an example of the maximum zoom (scale + offset) possible for the upper portion of a 2.4 Vpp (unipolar) square wave's rising edge.
Apart from a limited offset that can be achieved at a given vertical scale, I see no other issues. The trace can be moved, the time base can be changed etc., and the waveform update happens as usual. Yes the trace becomes jittery, I'm not sure why. Probably triggering doesn't cope well at this zoom level.
BTW I have just found a but where the scope shows a bogus trace (going bipolar well outside the visible area) if I exceed a certain vertical zoom level. It happens *only* when the frequency is 1024 kHz, and if I set it to 1 kHz (the other frequency of the two that this generator supports), then it happens in a different manner: the lower part of the pulse is shown correctly, but the vertical scale values are way off: e.g., -770 mV, whereas the pulses don't go below zero, save for some ringing. Attaching these screenshots too.
-
Two issues that have been discussed above, that I want to be sure I am understanding correctly:
1) With respect to the trace freezing when it is being moved - am I understanding that this behavior is more-or-less the same across different brands / models?
2) Is the inability to overlay a math function on the main display a limitation only of the Rigol, or does the Siglent also have this limitation?
Thanks, all, for the continued flow of information. I can't say that I completely understand everything that has been discussed - I suspect I won't / can't until I get my hands on a unit and can try things out for myself - but I do feel that I am learning a lot, and am gaining more confidence in knowing at least some of what I am looking for.
-
An extreme example of that is an aircraft cockpit, where the "normal and good" position of all the meter needles is pointing straight up. That makes it possible to spot which of the 100 measured values is a problem with just a glance.
Glass cockpits lose that advantage, and the workarounds lead to the all-too-frequent last words on cockpit voice recorders: "what is it doing now?".
Another example from the aviation field was described in an article that I read about the F35's touchscreen-infested cockpit which allegedly is (was?) an issue for the pilots who, with switching to this new aircraft, no longer had the tactile feedback that physical buttons and switches provide, which created uncertainty for the pilot with regards to whether he (she?) did actually activate a given control or not. And that's obvious: you don't know if your touchscreen action worked unless you were looking at it when you did it, and sometimes not even then.
-
In some cases you are not interested in amplitude or shape but the time between two edges. In such cases it helps to be able to stretch a signal without causing the amplifiers to overdrive too much so the trigger system gets a steep edge to work with. There are not many oscilloscopes which can do this; typically the ones made for high speed signals work well.
-
As for the eye movements, it's very funny ... I don't have any problems.
There's nothing funny. Forcing the user to shift focus, unless it is a natural part of the flow in question, is bad, it's that simple. Good UI designers know this and place related elements in such a way that they are all can be seen and read without a single movement of the eyeball. An example would be the central section of a car's dashboard, a wristwatch, or winamp's main window.
An extreme example of that is an aircraft cockpit, where the "normal and good" position of all the meter needles is pointing straight up. That makes it possible to spot which of the 100 measured values is a problem with just a glance.
Glass cockpits lose that advantage, and the workarounds lead to the all-too-frequent last words on cockpit voice recorders: "what is it doing now?".
FFT i dont need to be overlayed since it has different axis, frequency vs time domain no point to overlay imho, its just math like A+B or A-B i need to overlay so i can see correlation of magnitude and phase wrt to signal A and B, but to be able to do both split and overlayed display is more clever, it will give freedom to user whichever is convenient... and suck of DHO800, its only plot in Sinc interpolation ON, we cant turn it off we cant switch to Line vector plot or dots... thats why i said DHO800's GUI is probably designed by a kid who is clueless about signal processing... ymmv.
-
If you don't fit the entire waveform vertically on the display, then that causes other problems. When the input front-ends are overloaded the amplifiers become saturated. Exiting saturation is never timely nor clean. Decent old analogue scopes can be better behaved in that it can take more of an overload to cause saturation; nonetheless it can occur.
Admittedly I did not deep dive into the amplifier settling time measurement problem, but what would other situations be where this might be an issue? What you describe can be said in other words as "extreme zoom", correct?
Yes, naturally there is a limit of the maximum vertical offset of a zoomed-in waveform. I don't have other examples, but I tried this with Rigol DHO800. It's not great, but not terrible, either. Probably good enough for a non-specialized scope. I'm attaching an example of the maximum zoom (scale + offset) possible for the upper portion of a 2.4 Vpp (unipolar) square wave's rising edge.
Apart from a limited offset that can be achieved at a given vertical scale, I see no other issues. The trace can be moved, the time base can be changed etc., and the waveform update happens as usual. Yes the trace becomes jittery, I'm not sure why. Probably triggering doesn't cope well at this zoom level.
BTW I have just found a but where the scope shows a bogus trace (going bipolar well outside the visible area) if I exceed a certain vertical zoom level. It happens *only* when the frequency is 1024 kHz, and if I set it to 1 kHz (the other frequency of the two that this generator supports), then it happens in a different manner: the lower part of the pulse is shown correctly, but the vertical scale values are way off: e.g., -770 mV, whereas the pulses don't go below zero, save for some ringing. Attaching these screenshots too.
That particular use-case is indeed fairly specialised; certainly not something for a beginner to worry about :)
Overload recovery is operating outside specifications and hence is very device specific and not predictable; you can't extrapolate from one scope to another. That also implies you have to go looking for problems before you can see whether there are or aren't any. You have to visually check at many timescales and with different waveforms; a triangle wave can be useful since the eye is good at spotting deviations from a straight line.
Those first two traces don't show anything useful, as far as I can see.
The final trace is 60mV/div. I'm talking about 1mV/div :)
0.1% is 1/1000, so if there are 10 divs vertically on the screen, you are overloading the input by a factor of 100.
BTW, my scope is a Philips PM3400: 200ps risetime (1.7GHz), horizontal timebase is 10ps/div to 20µs/div(!), transistors in the signal path are BC107s (fT = 0.2GHz). A very strange beast indeed; it took me a while to realise it wasn't badly broken :) Really good value at £25 :)
-
1) With respect to the trace freezing when it is being moved - am I understanding that this behavior is more-or-less the same across different brands / models?
That behaviour is not inherent in a digital sampling scope; it is an artefact of an implementation. Hence you have to suck-it-and-see.
Nonetheless, manufacturers of expensive scopes make sure you realise their scopes are very responsive :)
-
An extreme example of that is an aircraft cockpit, where the "normal and good" position of all the meter needles is pointing straight up. That makes it possible to spot which of the 100 measured values is a problem with just a glance.
Glass cockpits lose that advantage, and the workarounds lead to the all-too-frequent last words on cockpit voice recorders: "what is it doing now?".
Another example from the aviation field was described in an article that I read about the F35's touchscreen-infested cockpit which allegedly is (was?) an issue for the pilots who, with switching to this new aircraft, no longer had the tactile feedback that physical buttons and switches provide, which created uncertainty for the pilot with regards to whether he (she?) did actually activate a given control or not. And that's obvious: you don't know if your touchscreen action worked unless you were looking at it when you did it, and sometimes not even then.
That's true in modern cars too :( There are serious moves to legally ban touchscreen operation for the principal controls that are needed when driving.
Find a Tesla showroom, tell them you are driving along a road and you need to adjust the ventilation to clear mist on the windscreen. Get them to show you how to do it. What happens is tragic/comic.
They will all fail to do it within a reasonable time/distance; point out that while "heads down" you ploughed into a queue of children at a busstop.
One had to move icons from somewhere to the taskbar(!).
Another failed, said you could use voice commands - and only succeeded on turning on the seat heater!
-
2) Is the inability to overlay a math function on the main display a limitation only of the Rigol, or does the Siglent also have this limitation?
I don't have a Siglent to confirm, but there was one suggestion in one of previous posts that yes it can display a math trace just like a regular channel in the main window.
If this is really so, then it is a big advantage, if you are ever going to use math to correlate a direct input trace with a math trace -- for example, monitoring an IC's input signal on channel 1 and a difference, if you don't have a differential probe, between two nodes in the output section, as an A-B math operation using channel 2 and channel 3 signals as operands (in other words, software emulation of a differential probe).
As a Rigol DHO804 owner, I can say that it creates a feeling of an undercooked prematurely released product to begin with, and of a toy, even if a very capable toy, on top of that. No it's not bad, not even close. It just really sucks that a very decent hardware has been created only to run such a crappy software.
The only reason why I bought it was that getting the Siglent here, at least at even a remotely reasonable price, was and still is not an option, whereas I could get the Rigol for $342 delivered from Aliexpress (sale + publicly available coupons). Frankly, that's about the price higher than which I would not be willing to pay for it (and that on the condition that it is hackable to DHO924 sans the hardware difference), especially now that the Siglent has been released and reviewed.
From what I have read in the respective Siglent review thread, it has its (minor) issues too, but it's a much more mature and serious product overall. Whoever designed the Siglent apparently understood the requirements and expectations of a competent user better than their counterparts at Rigol -- or maybe the latter did not care about that audience at all.
Another nice feature that I'd like to have and that is missing in Rigol, but, I believe, is present in Siglent is that the latter allows you to enter an arbitrary probe multiplier factor. Possible use cases are: 1) DIY probes made of a piece of coax and a resistor (e.g., 21:1 ratio with a 1k resistor and 50 Ohm feed-through terminator); 2) current transformers of whatever mV/A or V/mA ratio; 3) fine tuning of non-ideal 10x or whatever probes to improve amplitude measurement accuracy.
p.s. I am not sure that I would have been fully satisfied with Siglent, either. Reading reviews is one thing, actual usage is another. Take my words with a grain of salt. My critical views are amplified by the fact that I can't stand incompetency in software and UI development, especially in commercial products: do your job well or GTFO. Rigol fails this check.
-
In some cases you are not interested in amplitude or shape but the time between two edges. In such cases it helps to be able to stretch a signal without causing the amplifiers to overdrive too much so the trigger system gets a steep edge to work with. There are not many oscilloscopes which can do this; typically the ones made for high speed signals work well.
The time taken to recover from overload will, in general, depend on the degree of overload and the duration of overload.
You have to be very sure that "slow" recovery hasn't moved the edges.
No point in having a good trigger if the input is so distorted that the edge is in the wrong place.
-
and suck of DHO800, its only plot in Sinc interpolation ON, we cant turn it off we cant switch to Line vector plot or dots... thats why i said DHO800's GUI is probably designed by a kid who is clueless about signal processing... ymmv.
Yes good point! Yet another "toy vs professional tool" aspect: I have no other explanation why Rigol does not have a dot trace visualization mode than that the sofware was designed by someone having no clue what an oscilloscope even is. Hell, the dots are already there, was it really so difficult to add a checkbox that disables the drawing of interpolated curves between them? Is it a competence issue or a political decision?
-
Those first two traces don't show anything useful, as far as I can see.
Their purpose was to demonstrate the bug that I had found. Note the values on the vertical scale. Then, realize that the input signal is a unipolar square wave, never going below zero (except for a small amount of ringing). Beyond a certain zoom level the displayed values on the vertical axis become screwed -- and not only the displayed ones, but the measured ones as well, as demonstrated in the "zoom-bug-1khz.png" screenshot (look at the measurement widget in the sidebar on the right).
-
and suck of DHO800, its only plot in Sinc interpolation ON, we cant turn it off we cant switch to Line vector plot or dots... thats why i said DHO800's GUI is probably designed by a kid who is clueless about signal processing... ymmv.
Yes good point! Yet another "toy vs professional tool" aspect: I have no other explanation why Rigol does not have a dot trace visualization mode than that the sofware was designed by someone having no clue what an oscilloscope even is. Hell, the dots are already there, was it really so difficult to add a checkbox that disables the drawing of interpolated curves between them? Is it a competence issue or a political decision?
either designed by kid, or purposely crippled, but why is beyond my wisdom...
-
Two issues that have been discussed above, that I want to be sure I am understanding correctly:
1) With respect to the trace freezing when it is being moved - am I understanding that this behavior is more-or-less the same across different brands / models?
2) Is the inability to overlay a math function on the main display a limitation only of the Rigol, or does the Siglent also have this limitation?
Thanks, all, for the continued flow of information. I can't say that I completely understand everything that has been discussed - I suspect I won't / can't until I get my hands on a unit and can try things out for myself - but I do feel that I am learning a lot, and am gaining more confidence in knowing at least some of what I am looking for.
1. yes
2 I allready answered that. That is only Rigol limit.
-
Oh and a cherry on the top: yes, DHO800/900 can into NTP. But it can't into setting the time zone via any UI normally accessible by the user: it is hardcoded to Asia/Shanghai!
Yes you can modify the boot script (the good) to set it to whatever time zone you need, but it has been reported at least twice (myself included) to render the device unbootable (the bad), in my case temporarily -- it later resolved on its own, but I've never tried to change the time zone since then. What about the ugly? Well, you'll know when you look inside the boot script.
-
1) With respect to the trace freezing when it is being moved - am I understanding that this behavior is more-or-less the same across different brands / models?
2) Is the inability to overlay a math function on the main display a limitation only of the Rigol, or does the Siglent also have this limitation?
1) Yes.
2) Rigol limitation only.
I highly recommend you thoroughly study @Performa01's excellent thread demonstrating the capabilities of the SDS800XHD series: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/)
-
Oh and a cherry on the top: yes, DHO800/900 can into NTP. But it can't into setting the time zone via any UI normally accessible by the user: it is hardcoded to Asia/Shanghai!
AFAIK the 'scope doesn't make any claims about timekeeping, in fact they removed all time displays in the first firware update (presumably because not many users have their 'scope connected to the network so it was useless).
NTP is just a bonus.
-
I have one such scope, and when there is a 1Vpp square wave, I can "zoom in" vertically to see the end-of transition ringing at 1mV/division. Good luck with that with any other type of scope!
Welcome to 2024. :P
Best you study the thread Josh linked.
Just 1 image from it using vertical zoom with a Math zoom as well.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=2073302)
-
I have one such scope, and when there is a 1Vpp square wave, I can "zoom in" vertically to see the end-of transition ringing at 1mV/division. Good luck with that with any other type of scope!
Welcome to 2024. :P
Best you study the thread Josh linked.
Just 1 image from it using vertical zoom with a Math zoom as well.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=2073302)
Who is Josh?
What thread?
Why does the LHS display show 20mV/div?
Presuming that is a 2.5Vpp signal, 0.02/2.5 is 1%, a factor of 10 worse than 0.1%
How much do you sell that scope for?
-
Who is Josh?
The one that implies he does Kungfoo
What thread?
This post:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5392730/#msg5392730 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5392730/#msg5392730)
How much do you sell that scope for?
They start at $339
-
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
Do you mean something like this? (apologies for the unprofessional video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI)
Edit: input is a sine wave that is being edge-triggered continuously
No not like that. That scope also stops triggering while you are moving waveform up and down. Look at trigger light.
Feed a nonuniform signal (like one of data protocol streams from demo board) and move waveform up and down. Wth stable sine signal you cannot see it stopped changing.
All recent Siglent scopes behave exactly like that R&S you show. Actually, 3000xHD and 6000A restart a smidge faster after you let it go.
But this is exactly what I was arguing all the time: there is no problem.
It it just stubborn nostalgia of "it is not analog" without any usefulness per se.
As the waveform is shifted vertically, the trigger point is lagging the vertical movement of the display, but it does catch up.
An analog 'scope if it is DC coupled & using simple edge triggering will lose triggering if the DC offset control is similarly adjusted.
With the DSO in the video, the display seems to be moving in discrete steps, but fast enough that the waveform appears to be shown twice.
Whether this is just persistence of vision or some artifact of the YouTube video, I have no idea
-
The choice is obvious. The one I choose!!! :-DD
-
I can zoom in on the top corner of a square wave, too...
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2100716;image)
And then add an FFT of that...
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2100722;image)
-
Rigol DHO800 sucks in this respect. My definition of "sucks": the waveform update freezes and remains stopped while the vertical (or horizontal) offset encoder is being turned. Analog scopes do not suck: you can turn the offset dials for as long as you want, and the trace(s) will continue to update in real time as if nothing is happening. Do any digital scopes behave this way too?
Do you mean something like this? (apologies for the unprofessional video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x-ou72dtFI)
Edit: input is a sine wave that is being edge-triggered continuously
No not like that. That scope also stops triggering while you are moving waveform up and down. Look at trigger light.
Feed a nonuniform signal (like one of data protocol streams from demo board) and move waveform up and down. Wth stable sine signal you cannot see it stopped changing.
All recent Siglent scopes behave exactly like that R&S you show. Actually, 3000xHD and 6000A restart a smidge faster after you let it go.
But this is exactly what I was arguing all the time: there is no problem.
It it just stubborn nostalgia of "it is not analog" without any usefulness per se.
As the waveform is shifted vertically, the trigger point is lagging the vertical movement of the display, but it does catch up.
An analog 'scope if it is DC coupled & using simple edge triggering will lose triggering if the DC offset control is similarly adjusted.
With the DSO in the video, the display seems to be moving in discrete steps, but fast enough that the waveform appears to be shown twice.
Whether this is just persistence of vision or some artifact of the YouTube video, I have no idea
Discrete steps are artefact of acceleration. If you turn knob faster it will start going faster.
There are 50-60 refreshes of screen in a second. There is limit how fast can you follow button with that alone.
On Siglent SDS3000xHD and SDS6000A, like I said, it is even smoother a bit. But it is all good and works perfectly well on this R&S scope.
-
I can zoom in on the top corner of a square wave, too...
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2100716;image)
And then add an FFT of that...
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2100722;image)
No you cannot zoom. You can use Math channel. It is something Performa01 had demonstrated, last time when this "can it zoom vertically ?" was discussed.
Math is valid technique and accomplishes the task of "visual magnification" but it is not a part of zoom mode of your scope.
But Performa01 demonstrated this in the view that math can be used to magnify signal vertically without zoom mode, because on Siglent that allows you to show such "magnified" signal in main window with other traces, for comparison.
So this demonstration of yours actually shows two negative points of your scope (and two positive points of Siglent concept):
- It cannot zoom vertically.
- It cannot show math channels in same window, just in separate window, on a very small and crowded screen.
-
No you cannot zoom. You can use Math channel. It is something Performa01 had demonstrated, last time when this "can it zoom vertically ?" was discussed.
Math is valid technique and accomplishes the task of "visual magnification" but it is not a part of zoom mode of your scope.
But Performa01 demonstrated this in the view that math can be used to magnify signal vertically without zoom mode, because on Siglent that allows you to show such "magnified" signal in main window with other traces, for comparison.
So this demonstration of yours actually shows two negative points of your scope (and two positive points of Siglent concept):
- It cannot zoom vertically.
- It cannot show math channels in same window, just in separate window, on a very small and crowded screen.
It also shows another point: how complex such scopes are, and how difficult it is for an experienced engineer/operator to understand exactly what they are and are not showing.
-
I can zoom in on the top corner of a square wave, too...
And then add an FFT of that...
That "vertical zoom" via a math function can be used in a pinch, but it is much less convenient than Siglent's interactive zoom. Siglent lets you use the regular vertical (and horizontal) controls to adjust the magnification and position of the zoomed-in section. And it indicates the zoomed-in area as a nice little "you are here" rectangle in the upper, non-zoomed trace, so you don't lose track of where you are looking.
Combining FFT with Zoom mode is possible in the Siglent UI as well. Let me just say that I have found very few practical use cases where I really want to see the trace in detail and look at the FFT at the same time. To get decent FFT resolution, I typically want to capture a long signal segment, hence can't resolve any detail along the time axis anyway. I merely use the trace display to make sure I have chosen a good vertical amplification -- and then often disable it to see the FFT exclusively. (Not sure whether the Rigol UI allows for that?)
Edit: Adding a screenshot which shows how a combined Zoom + FFT looks on the SDS800X HD, to give a better idea. Note the "you are here" rectangle in the upper trace window.
As a side note: I find it much easier to get meaningful, "clean" axis tick values on the Siglent. The dual Flexknobs in Rigol's UI, with their dynamic assignment of functions, are a great idea IMO. But Rigol implemented them in an awkward way -- they typically change values in very odd increments, often on a scale which does not even include the even values. So you either use the on-screen keyboard a lot to set axis scales and offsets, or you end up with very odd values as shown in Fungus' screenshots above. Easily changed in firmware; I hope Rigol will do that at some point to make the Flexknobs more useful.
-
I can zoom in on the top corner of a square wave, too...
Try to zoom in on a corner of a 2.5 Vpp unipolar square wave to 10 (or at least 20) mV/div without using math.
But, good idea on using math for this. At least it can serve as a workaround.
-
On the other hand, every single screenshot of a trace on the Siglent that I have seen has some weirdly pixelated (or interlaced if you wish) trace rendering, unlike Rigol, where the trace rendering/display engine does its job near perfectly in that regard. I can see how this can be annoying until you get used to it, and some may never do. But that's about the only issue with it that I have noticed so far without owning it, and it still looks much more capable and oriented towards a competent user than the Rigol.
-
On the other hand, every single screenshot of a trace on the Siglent that I have seen has some weirdly pixelated (or interlaced if you wish) trace rendering, unlike Rigol, where the trace rendering/display engine does its job near perfectly in that regard.
Yes, Siglent had to cut corners with the vertical trace resolution, due to FPGA capacity constraints: Vertical pixels are actually grouped in pairs. This only applies to CH1..CH4 traces, not Math functions. It has been discussed at some length in the SDS800X HD thread and Performa01's demo/review thread.
I initially found this a very disappointing design tradeoff. In practice I rarely notice it on the small screen -- but sometimes I do, especially on signals with a flat slope or weak modulation. The SDS1000X HD and 2000X plus apparently have the same constraint, and I would probably be disappointed if I had paid extra for the large screen only to see this resolution compromise better. Larger Siglent SDS models support the full vertical resolution.
-
dho900 can go down to 200uV/div...
-
dho900 can go down to 200uV/div...
Yeah, but the usability of that is questionable because of noise. Everything below 1 mV/div at 1:1 probe ratio or 10 mV/div at 10:1 probe ratio is a software stretch, but that's probably fine with the 12-bit resolution. The noise level, however, limits usability -- yes you can use averaging to cancel the noise, and it can be a good solution in many cases, but not all. There's also a parasitic DC offset, at least in my case, which becomes an issue at those extreme scale levels (but not too big of an issue, since you can move the waveform up and down manually). But yes I did already use the 200 and 500 uV/div scales with success to obverve and even measure very weak signals (e.g. output of a toroidal inductor used as a current transformer measuring low-mA currents without any preamplification).
-
dho900 can go down to 200uV/div...
No, it does not.
Best it can do is 1mV/div, and 500µV/div and 200µV/div is software magnification.
-
dho900 can go down to 200uV/div...
No, it does not.
Best it can do is 1mV/div, and 500µV/div and 200µV/div is software magnification.
As shapirus said, I don't think that is the major limitation. If the preamp and ADC are set to 8 mV full scale (4096 counts), a software magnification by a factor of 5 will still give you more than one ADC count per vertical pixel.
But I wonder how practical 200 µV/div are from a noise perspective. Peak-to-peak noise would easily span a full division, I assume?
-
well magnified or not... imo good enough "bell and whistle" for low noise debugging or measurement for blurry eye (when tired) like me... use averaging to lower the scope's noise ymmv (attached is 50 ohm terminated input)
-
Ok, not quite a full division of peak-to-peak noise, but pretty close. And I guess you chose favorable conditions with the relatively fast timebase, which excludes most of the 1/f noise. Could you show this at a slower time base too, say 10 ms/div?
-
Ok, not quite a full division of peak-to-peak noise, but pretty close. And I guess you chose favorable conditions with the relatively fast timebase, which excludes most of the 1/f noise. Could you show this at a slower time base too, say 10 ms/div?
see attached 01,02,03 (peak, ultra, average 4) input 50 ohm terminated. i also captured my UTG962 AWG output 1mVpp but terminated with 12.5ohm (4x inline 50 ohm) because its not so low noise enough, 50Hz and 100KHz not so stable trigger due to noises (normal acq and average) ymmv. (ps: last image... how to estimate dut noise from combined scope + dut noise ymmv.)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2101778;image)
ps: i didnt notice 20MHz BW limit activated during the capture, it wasnt me! :( well you got the idea...
-
dho900 can go down to 200uV/div...
No, it does not.
Best it can do is 1mV/div, and 500µV/div and 200µV/div is software magnification.
Yes, but those scales make it more visible to the eye.
PS: Hacked DHO800 can do it, too.
-
PS: Hacked DHO800 can do it, too.
all of the screen captures above... ;)
-
Ok, not quite a full division of peak-to-peak noise, but pretty close. And I guess you chose favorable conditions with the relatively fast timebase, which excludes most of the 1/f noise. Could you show this at a slower time base too, say 10 ms/div?
see attached 01,02,03 (peak, ultra, average 4) input 50 ohm terminated. i also captured my UTG962 AWG output 1mVpp but terminated with 12.5ohm (4x inline 50 ohm) because its not so low noise enough, 50Hz and 100KHz not so stable trigger due to noises (normal acq and average) ymmv. (ps: last image... how to estimate dut noise from combined scope + dut noise ymmv.)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2101778;image)
ps: i didnt notice 20MHz BW limit activated during the capture, it wasnt me! :( well you got the idea...
So to make it clear about those images:
- 20MHz BW limit is applied by the scope automatically and you cannot switch it of.
- Scope samples at 6.25 MSps/s (which is good for 3MHz without aliasing, but for noise not important)
- In image 01_peak.png it shows 271µV P-P and 21µV RMS (12x ratio points to non Gausian noise)
- In image 02_ultra.png it shows 226µVP-P and 48µV RMS using same settings for vertical and timebase.
Which result is true ?
-
ps: i didnt notice 20MHz BW limit activated during the capture, it wasnt me! :( well you got the idea...
20MHz BW limit is applied by the scope automatically and you cannot switch it of.
something activated it. i think when i change to Ultra acquisition. i can deactivate it, i just didnt aware it was activated by not me.
Scope samples at 6.25 MSps/s (which is good for 3MHz without aliasing, but for noise not important)
eblaster asked me to do 10ms timescale, so surely sample rate will be reduced to that automatically.
- In image 01_peak.png it shows 271µV P-P and 21µV RMS (12x ratio points to non Gausian noise)
- In image 02_ultra.png it shows 226µVP-P and 48µV RMS using same settings for vertical and timebase.
Which result is true ?
i will look closely in more detail about this later ;) cheers.
-
20MHz BW limit is applied by the scope automatically and you cannot switch it of.
something activated it. i think when i change to Ultra acquisition. i can deactivate it, i just didnt aware it was activated by not me.
It is forced on when vertical scale is set to 200 uV/div, and it's not possible to turn it off for that setting. It's not enforced at 500 uV/div and above.
-
eblaster asked me to do 10ms timescale, so surely sample rate will be reduced to that automatically.
You can set memory to longer...
-
20MHz BW limit is applied by the scope automatically and you cannot switch it of.
something activated it. i think when i change to Ultra acquisition. i can deactivate it, i just didnt aware it was activated by not me.
It is forced on when vertical scale is set to 200 uV/div, and it's not possible to turn it off for that setting. It's not enforced at 500 uV/div and above.
ok confirmed.
eblaster asked me to do 10ms timescale, so surely sample rate will be reduced to that automatically.
You can set memory to longer...
right! :palm: see attached... single capture, and while running.. good enough for 150MHz? what else did i miss? since its 20MHz BW limited, then its good enough to 20MHz without aliasing... correct?
-
20MHz BW limit is applied by the scope automatically and you cannot switch it of.
something activated it. i think when i change to Ultra acquisition. i can deactivate it, i just didnt aware it was activated by not me.
It is forced on when vertical scale is set to 200 uV/div, and it's not possible to turn it off for that setting. It's not enforced at 500 uV/div and above.
ok confirmed.
eblaster asked me to do 10ms timescale, so surely sample rate will be reduced to that automatically.
You can set memory to longer...
right! :palm: see attached... single capture, and while running.. good enough for 150MHz? what else did i miss? since its 20MHz BW limited, then its good enough to 20MHz without aliasing... correct?
You know well what Nyquist is, I know that. I wasn't commenting your knowledge.
But we had show previously that DHO had some bugs with measurements and also some weird inconsistencies in how signal amplitude was shown with different settings(memory lengths for instance).
I believe this is what we see now.
On your last image values are now 273µV P-P and 60µV RMS.
Another different value.
Make note that RMS values of noise of 20MHz BW limited front end should not change, even when undersampled. Frequencies will just fold down but energy stays the same.
-
Make note that RMS values of noise of 20MHz BW limited front end should not change, even when undersampled. Frequencies will just fold down but energy stays the same.
i dont know. if we go back to 1st principle (link below)... lower RMS value means more samples are very near to best fit line vice versa, so i dont know if the noise is "non-random" resulting varying RMS, or implementation is wrong. i dont know which one.. but cases such as switching noise of smps specified in mVpp, we dont need any of RMS formula, just eyeballing down to noise floor say.. 300uVpp, not easy to achieve smps that clean. but for dut with white noise very close to dso noise floor, we need to make assumption, say dso noise is gaussian or white or blue and use appropriate formula to estimate dut noise, no need to rely on dso built-in measurement if suspected to be buggy, they are just bell and whistle. we have cursors that can help to measure Vpp as well... i dont know much details of those statistical measurements. but imho lower uV/div scale can make visual estimation easier for low noise dut. ymmv.
1st principle of ac rms?
https://support.waters.com/KB_Inf/Empower_Tips_of_the_Week/WKB244139_Baseline_Noise_Root_Mean_Squared_Noise_RMS_Calculations
dc and ac rms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square
-
RMS usually includes the DC offset, so better measure standard deviation instead.
-
RMS usually includes the DC offset, so better measure standard deviation instead.
there's a special measurement function called "AC Vrms" or something like that.
-
i was refering to ac rms.. link above corrected.. its possible i was activating dc+ac rms in dho800... ymmv.
1st principle of ac rms: https://support.waters.com/KB_Inf/Empower_Tips_of_the_Week/WKB244139_Baseline_Noise_Root_Mean_Squared_Noise_RMS_Calculations
dc and ac rms wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square
-
Make note that RMS values of noise of 20MHz BW limited front end should not change, even when undersampled. Frequencies will just fold down but energy stays the same.
i dont know. if we go back to 1st principle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square lower RMS value means more samples are very near to best fit line vice versa, so i dont know if the noise is "non-random" resulting varying RMS, or implementation is wrong. i dont know which one.. but cases such as switching noise of smps specified in mVpp, we dont need any of RMS formula, just eyeballing down to noise floor say.. 300uVpp, not easy to achieve smps that clean. but for dut with white noise very close to dso noise floor, we need to make assumption, say dso noise is gaussian or white or blue and use appropriate formula to estimate dut noise, no need to rely on dso built-in measurement if suspected to be buggy, they are just bell and whistle. we have cursors that can help to measure Vpp as well... i dont know much details of those statistical measurements. but imho lower uV/div scale can make visual estimation easier for low noise dut. ymmv.
I'm going to try to explain: if you sample with same ADC, and make no changes in BW before ADC , when undersampling ADC will still sample undersampled frequencies with same amplitude as before, they will just "land" in a "wrong" place.
Undersampling RMS converters have been used for ages.
Your statements about how measurements are "bells and whistle", it doesn't matter if they are buggy and that eyeballing is enough is simply a cope of a person that owns a scope with defect.
Of course measurements are important and useful. What are we going to do, go back to counting lines of graticule?
Maybe problems you have with the scope are result of Frankenstein combination of running it as 900 on 800 hardware? Some people didn't have this problem, their scopes worked well.
-
its possible i was activating dc+ac rms in dho800...
Seems so. The screenshots show VRMS, not AC RMS. Can happen...
-
I'm going to try to explain: if you sample with same ADC, and make no changes in BW before ADC , when undersampling ADC will still sample undersampled frequencies with same amplitude as before, they will just "land" in a "wrong" place....
Maybe problems you have with the scope are result of Frankenstein combination of running it as 900 on 800 hardware? Some people didn't have this problem, their scopes worked well.
i'm not sure why undersampling issue arised... my test was 20MHz limited at 312.5MSps... :-// even if BW limit is not activated, undersampling due to large enough time scale can cause aliasing on any brand dso, we went through this already. i just did what ebastler asked me to do at 10ms/div. but since BW limit is on, there should be no issue.
-
I'm going to try to explain: if you sample with same ADC, and make no changes in BW before ADC , when undersampling ADC will still sample undersampled frequencies with same amplitude as before, they will just "land" in a "wrong" place....
Maybe problems you have with the scope are result of Frankenstein combination of running it as 900 on 800 hardware? Some people didn't have this problem, their scopes worked well.
i'm not sure why undersampling issue arised... my test was 20MHz limited at 312.5MSps... :-// even if BW limit is not activated, undersampling due to large enough time scale can cause aliasing on any brand dso, we went through this already. i just did what ebastler asked me to do at 10ms/div. but since BW limit is on, there should be no issue.
Because you originally undersampled, and when you sampled with higher sampling rate, RMS should not have changed. But in 3 measurements you had 3 different results.
For RMS undersampling doesn't matter.
Your problem is why there is 3x difference in RMS value when you change things. It shouldn't do that.
Small changes yes, but not 3 x.
As GF said, you better check same three settings but making sure you use ACRMS (stdev).
If then these same three are similar, you're OK.
I personally think it probably is something like that. Varying DC offset would explain it and that would be OK.
-
now using AC RMS.. energy not too much changing :P, but i guess Vpp and acRMS not measured synchronously, update rate is quite slow (1-2fps) at this timescale and memory length...
-
What are you measuring here, anyway? I've lost the point.
Same vertical and horizontal scales, same sampling rate, same memory depth, apparently the same signal. Different trigger levels?
-
What are you measuring here, anyway? I've lost the point.
Same vertical and horizontal scales, same sampling rate, same memory depth, apparently the same signal. Different trigger levels?
Lost the point "already". It's still early! We are only on page 9 and we haven't even discussed : using the probes that come with the scope vs aftermarket, high vs low impedanc,e the correct colors coding for each channel and I'm sure a plethora of other off-topic ( the topic being A or B - based on unknown uses I still don't know about yet) derailments.
:popcorn: :horse:
-
What are you measuring here, anyway? I've lost the point.
to fullfill the doubtful eyes... ;D originally to show noise floor, but of course in real measurement we will tune and change setting when result is doubtfull, google theories etc. frankly i never reach this limit since my circuits are too much more noisy but good enough for me cheers...
-
I think this is the common way of implementing it; certainly all entry-level scopes I have used or seen demonstrated in videos behave the same.
As long as the frozen trace follows the encoder movement smoothly and with little lag, I don't find that too bad: You can still position the frozen trace nicely relative to the grid and to the other traces. It would be much worse if they tried to continue "live" updates of the trace, but with a jerky movement.
Interesting, the FNIRSI moves the traces continuously as you turn either the vertical or horizontal encoders with the trace remaining live the whole time with virtually no lag. You just need to keep in mind that the magnitude only has 5% accuracy. ;)
-
Interesting, the FNIRSI moves the traces continuously as you turn either the vertical or horizontal encoders with the trace remaining live the whole time with virtually no lag.
Well, the Finirsi has something of an oscilloscope, so there's hardly anything in it that needs to be controlled.
-
Make note that RMS values of noise of 20MHz BW limited front end should not change, even when undersampled. Frequencies will just fold down but energy stays the same.
i dont know. if we go back to 1st principle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square lower RMS value means more samples are very near to best fit line vice versa, so i dont know if the noise is "non-random" resulting varying RMS, or implementation is wrong. i dont know which one.. but cases such as switching noise of smps specified in mVpp, we dont need any of RMS formula, just eyeballing down to noise floor say.. 300uVpp, not easy to achieve smps that clean. but for dut with white noise very close to dso noise floor, we need to make assumption, say dso noise is gaussian or white or blue and use appropriate formula to estimate dut noise, no need to rely on dso built-in measurement if suspected to be buggy, they are just bell and whistle. we have cursors that can help to measure Vpp as well... i dont know much details of those statistical measurements. but imho lower uV/div scale can make visual estimation easier for low noise dut. ymmv.
I'm going to try to explain: if you sample with same ADC, and make no changes in BW before ADC , when undersampling ADC will still sample undersampled frequencies with same amplitude as before, they will just "land" in a "wrong" place.
Undersampling RMS converters have been used for ages.
Your statements about how measurements are "bells and whistle", it doesn't matter if they are buggy and that eyeballing is enough is simply a cope of a person that owns a scope with defect.
Of course measurements are important and useful. What are we going to do, go back to counting lines of graticule?
Maybe problems you have with the scope are result of Frankenstein combination of running it as 900 on 800 hardware? Some people didn't have this problem, their scopes worked well.
When we see screenshots of DSOs we don't have, often with fussy, cluttered screens, we often have to revert to counting graticule lines to obtain some sort of sane basis to compare them.
-
When we see screenshots of DSOs we don't have, often with fussy, cluttered screens, we often have to revert to counting graticule lines to obtain some sort of sane basis to compare them.
+1 ! It can be surprisingly difficult to locate the sweep speed and vertical sensitivity hiding in the hieroglyphs.
I like the way Horowitz and Hill present oscillograms in all editions of TAoE: the traces, with the time/div and V/div in the figure's text. Very clear to spot and understand the important features they are illustrating/explaining.
For example, compare this with an earlier screendump.
One is clear.
The other has pictures of rulers, calendars, logos, and and half-a dozen hieroglyphs that wouldn't be out of place on an ancient Egyption tomb - and you need a calculator to figure out the scales (i.e. 1.76- -0.24 ns/div and -653.184- -701.784 V/div) :)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2103971)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2099480)
-
When we see screenshots of DSOs we don't have, often with fussy, cluttered screens, we often have to revert to counting graticule lines to obtain some sort of sane basis to compare them.
+1 ! It can be surprisingly difficult to locate the sweep speed and vertical sensitivity hiding in the hieroglyphs.
I like the way Horowitz and Hill present oscillograms in all editions of TAoE: the traces, with the time/div and V/div in the figure's text. Very clear to spot and understand the important features they are illustrating/explaining.
For example, compare this with an earlier screendump.
One is clear.
The other has pictures of rulers, calendars, logos, and and half-a dozen hieroglyphs that wouldn't be out of place on an ancient Egyption tomb...
you are comparing book with years of editing, and quick screendump in forum discussion... if you are comfortable with CRT by all means stick with it, not everybody needs infinite persistence.. if its too difficult to understand, causing a headache etc... then maybe a pause time to rest... ;D cheers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IobNcpiwpSc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IobNcpiwpSc)
-
if you are comfortable with CRT by all means stick with it, not everybody needs infinite persistence..
there's no infinite persistence on CRT lol. Digital scopes, however, can do it :).
But, seriously, that one was a strange comparison. Yes, the figures from the book are obviously easier to read, because there's no unnecessary information, but if you crop the scope screenshot to leave just the central section, then it'll be as easy, if not easier, to see the values indicated right on the graticule. In that particular screenshot that the post includes now (after editing) the values are hard to read, because they aren't round numbers, but the author of the screenshot had no intention to adjust them, as the purpose of the screenshot was only to demonstrate the bug where the scope shows the bottom part of the wave way below zero whereas in reality it was a unipolar signal never going below zero. Once you set them to be round, it's a piece of cake, and ready to be put in a book as is.
-
When we see screenshots of DSOs we don't have, often with fussy, cluttered screens, we often have to revert to counting graticule lines to obtain some sort of sane basis to compare them.
+1 ! It can be surprisingly difficult to locate the sweep speed and vertical sensitivity hiding in the hieroglyphs.
I like the way Horowitz and Hill present oscillograms in all editions of TAoE: the traces, with the time/div and V/div in the figure's text. Very clear to spot and understand the important features they are illustrating/explaining.
For example, compare this with an earlier screendump.
One is clear.
The other has pictures of rulers, calendars, logos, and and half-a dozen hieroglyphs that wouldn't be out of place on an ancient Egyption tomb - and you need a calculator to figure out the scales (i.e. 1.76- -0.24 ns/div and -653.184- -701.784 V/div) :)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2103971)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2099480)
Excellent comparison of apples with crocodiles!!
-
When we see screenshots of DSOs we don't have, often with fussy, cluttered screens, we often have to revert to counting graticule lines to obtain some sort of sane basis to compare them.
+1 ! It can be surprisingly difficult to locate the sweep speed and vertical sensitivity hiding in the hieroglyphs.
I like the way Horowitz and Hill present oscillograms in all editions of TAoE: the traces, with the time/div and V/div in the figure's text. Very clear to spot and understand the important features they are illustrating/explaining.
For example, compare this with an earlier screendump.
One is clear.
The other has pictures of rulers, calendars, logos, and and half-a dozen hieroglyphs that wouldn't be out of place on an ancient Egyption tomb - and you need a calculator to figure out the scales (i.e. 1.76- -0.24 ns/div and -653.184- -701.784 V/div) :)
Excellent comparison of apples with crocodiles!!
It is, isn't it :)
Nonetheless, there is far too much distracting rubbish on that scope display.
Nonetheless, it does "turn up the contrast" on the sheer amount of content-free eye candy on that display. A scope ought to be a tool for giving engineering information, not a visual artwork.
The red airbrush illustrates bits of eye candy that could/should either be omitted or which could be significantly reduced. That would leave more space for the useful information.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2104130)
But then magazine editors wouldn't have so much to witter about, and yoootoob unboxing "reviews" would be much shorter.
-
When we see screenshots of DSOs we don't have, often with fussy, cluttered screens, we often have to revert to counting graticule lines to obtain some sort of sane basis to compare them.
+1 ! It can be surprisingly difficult to locate the sweep speed and vertical sensitivity hiding in the hieroglyphs.
I like the way Horowitz and Hill present oscillograms in all editions of TAoE: the traces, with the time/div and V/div in the figure's text. Very clear to spot and understand the important features they are illustrating/explaining.
For example, compare this with an earlier screendump.
One is clear.
The other has pictures of rulers, calendars, logos, and and half-a dozen hieroglyphs that wouldn't be out of place on an ancient Egyption tomb - and you need a calculator to figure out the scales (i.e. 1.76- -0.24 ns/div and -653.184- -701.784 V/div) :)
Excellent comparison of apples with crocodiles!!
It is, isn't it :)
Nonetheless, there is far too much distracting rubbish on that scope display.
Nonetheless, it does "turn up the contrast" on the sheer amount of content-free eye candy on that display. A scope ought to be a tool for giving engineering information, not a visual artwork.
The red airbrush illustrates bits of eye candy that could/should either be omitted or which could be significantly reduced. That would leave more space for the useful information.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2104130)
But then magazine editors wouldn't have so much to witter about, and yoootoob unboxing "reviews" would be much shorter.
I'm glad you took my joke in good spirit.
Well I agree with you on this one. I think this Rigol interface is not very good, I don't like it either.
-
Nonetheless, there is far too much distracting rubbish on that scope display.
[...]
The red airbrush illustrates bits of eye candy that could/should either be omitted or which could be significantly reduced. That would leave more space for the useful information.
Yes, that's what others and I have mentioned many times: this UI either was designed by a clueless kid or it was done deliberately to attract "outside" audience. It is outrageous how they waste the precious (even more so given the tiny screen size!!) space for useless crap. Especially vertical space! This damn screen is already very narrow, yet when they decide to waste screen space, they waste the vertical space. This is beyond understanding.
Borders, where they are necessary, must be 1 pixel wide. Padding around the borders must be 2-3 px wide.
Windows do not require titlebars: titles and controls can be drawn semi-transparent in the main window area.
Icons serve no purpose here, especially this small icons on a tiny screen, so they can and must be removed without any negative impact to usability.
The bottom bar has extremely thick borders and other crap, yet it lacks essential info: the currently selected probe attenuation ratio (but that's hackable btw). The "start" button could be made 1/4 the size without losing its functionality. Same for the rightmost area with status icons. With proper design, the bottom bar could fit the status panels for all the 4 channels *and* 4 math traces.
I simply don't understand. Does Rigol *really* have no money to hire a couple of decent UI/UX specialists with engineering background? Or was it a deliberate political decision to shove this kind of toy UI into an engineering instrument and they really think it's the way it should be?
-
It is outrageous how they waste the precious (even more so given the tiny screen size!!) space for useless crap. Especially vertical space! This damn screen is already very narrow, yet when they decide to waste screen space, they waste the vertical space. This is beyond understanding.
If you want to waste some horizontal space for better balance, switch on the hardware counter. :P
-
Modern GUI design tends to be crap. Gray characters. Flat, so you can't tell whether a widget is a control or an indicator or neither. Does a white "On" On a black background mean it is on or should be clicked.to turn on?
I haven't bothered to critically examine Siglent screens, but that screen puts me off buying Rigol. That's a shame, because I prefer to select/reject items based on core functions, not on superficial glow such as the colour of the case.
-
The Rigol screenshots looks good from far, but far from good, it is breaking some conventions, like there's no need for the orange text*, it should (if needed) be exactly the same as everything else, because orange sticks out for no reason, it's not a selected item. The text sizes seem unnatural, like the digits 1-4 for the channels, only needed to be slightly larger than the remainder text, and not massively larger, and large+bold combined just feels wrong!
Now that things like custom zoom windows are becoming popular with 12-bit 'scopes, I've noticed some of the same problems regarding quickly identifying the division values. My older 'scope didn't need that since it had no similar zoom windows. And it's especially harder on those without the same 'scope, because you don't want others to waste time scanning all the periphery only to find that information isn't there.
Even though the larger-screen MXO 4 is ordinarily clear to read with very little clutter, when zoom windows are added based on user-defined window sizes (i.e. a dragged custom rectangle) then it can for sure take some mental time to figure out what the scales are. I've taken to manually post-annotating, since then I can make it as clear as I can, or bring things to attention with an arrow etc.
The instrument internally supports annotations, but I prefer some consistent shapes/styles, so I prefer to do it myself in PowerPoint etc. Helps others because they can see the annotations have whatever context you wish to include. I did the same with older 'scopes, i.e. glue a 'scope trace in a lab book, and draw arrows etc manually.
But many people just dump 'scope traces with no markup : (
Maybe instrument built-in preset annotations for time/div and volts/div could be useful though, i.e. allow the user to drag-and-drop the annotations in a clear part of the display, or in a single inset box just listing both of these, e.g. "75 mV/div, 1.16 ns/div". I might raise it as a feature request for MXO anyway, in case it gets taken up.
* Also, H,A,D,T feel meaningless. Takes longer to interpret them as Horizontal, Acquisition, etc., than if they were totally omitted and people could see the meaning from the units alone (e.g. ns/div etc) or smaller full text like the MXO 4, but appreciate that might not be possible on the smaller screen Rigol.
-
Interesting, the FNIRSI moves the traces continuously as you turn either the vertical or horizontal encoders with the trace remaining live the whole time with virtually no lag.
Well, the Finirsi has something of an oscilloscope, so there's hardly anything in it that needs to be controlled.
Haha, yes, I was going to say it's not doing much else so it should be able to manage at least that. ;D
-
* Also, H,A,D,T feel meaningless. Takes longer to interpret them as Horizontal, Acquisition, etc., than if they were totally omitted and people could see the meaning from the units alone (e.g. ns/div etc) or smaller full text like the MXO 4, but appreciate that might not be possible on the smaller screen Rigol.
Squeezing the important information onto a limited display isn't a new issue. It was addressed successfully in the '80s by many pieces of equipment from many manufacturers. Start with scopes, spectrum analysers, logic analysers, ... from LeCroy, TK, HP....The
Why can't today's weenies do better?
-
It is outrageous how they waste the precious (even more so given the tiny screen size!!) space for useless crap. Especially vertical space! This damn screen is already very narrow, yet when they decide to waste screen space, they waste the vertical space. This is beyond understanding.
My guess is that the designer is probably working on their 32-inch monitor and is probably 24 years old, so when they check it on the 7-inch screen and are already familiar with what they are looking at, it looks fine to them. Would also be a product of maintaining 'look and feel' across their product lines that have larger screens?
Unfortunately, marketing has overtaken engineering principles in just about every industry. I bought a kitchen appliance recently that has about 30 presets that are totally useless and just make the device harder to use. Give me two adjustments, temperature and time, to set. But then you couldn't print "30 Presets" on the box to outdo the other brand that only has 25 presets. ::)
Anyway, I'll have the Rigol later this week, so I'll be able to give my unbiased viewpoint very soon. I wonder how it will match up against the FRINSI? ;D
-
Agree. For instance, HP spectrum analyzers packed all manner of useful information within a low-res monochrome printout.
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
-
* Also, H,A,D,T feel meaningless. Takes longer to interpret them as Horizontal, Acquisition, etc., than if they were totally omitted and people could see the meaning from the units alone (e.g. ns/div etc) or smaller full text like the MXO 4, but appreciate that might not be possible on the smaller screen Rigol.
Squeezing the important information onto a limited display isn't a new issue. It was addressed successfully in the '80s by many pieces of equipment from many manufacturers. Start with scopes, spectrum analysers, logic analysers, ... from LeCroy, TK, HP....The
Why can't today's weenies do better?
IMHO you are severely suffering from over-glorifying the past here ;) . Having a 640x480 screen is not enough for having lots of information on your screen. Back in the old days, I'd print output from a logic analyser so I could at least have a readable overview of the signals. And using the first generation mixed signal Megazoom scopes from HP wasn't very joyful either without colors (except green) while having 16 digital + 2 analog traces on screen. The bottom line is that modern day equipment can do much more and thus need to display much more information.
-
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
They could simply open source their API/ABI and allow people to create their own GUI, or, even better, open source the entire GUI app and let the community modify it.
It would only boost their sales.
But no.
-
Unfortunately, marketing has overtaken engineering principles in just about every industry. I bought a kitchen appliance recently that has about 30 presets that are totally useless and just make the device harder to use. Give me two adjustments, temperature and time, to set. But then you couldn't print "30 Presets" on the box to outdo the other brand that only has 25 presets. ::)
No doubt all the presets are hieroglyphs.
I've had similar problems with microwave ovens. I baffle the salesdroids when I ask them how to set it for 22s at 30% power. I refuse to consider buying one where I can't do that basic operation.
You are probably expected to control it from a smartphone app, at least while their servers are still operational.
-
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
They could simply open source their API/ABI and allow people to create their own GUI, or, even better, open source the entire GUI app and let the community modify it.
It would only boost their sales.
But no.
Digilent Analog Discovery has such an API, or you can write JavaScript to control it.
-
Agree. For instance, HP spectrum analyzers packed all manner of useful information within a low-res monochrome printout.
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
Exactly what I was thinking of.
Possibly.
Never underestimate the idiocy of an graphic designer or MBA having control over a product.
-
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
They could simply open source their API/ABI and allow people to create their own GUI, or, even better, open source the entire GUI app and let the community modify it.
It would only boost their sales.
could you ask the same to siglent? maybe only in your wish, rigol has had success without open sourcing... open sourcing it will create another ubuntu red hat gnome and plethora countless number of linux like variant by kids who oh i like this, and then another oh i like that. it will be dizzying to choose. i'd rather one GUI to learn and familiarized with rather than distracted by other aesthetically correct GUI. personally i dont get distracted by toyish GUI of rigol, i know where to look what i want to look, and icons can help recognizing things in case we forget. if they maximize graph display, text will be small and unreadable and it will generate complaints too. well i dont want to get deep into aesthetically correct discussion, its subjective. for anyone with ADD, get black and white screen, done..
-
So topic: "Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs"
what is being discussed:
- that modern shit is useless : buy old crap CRT scope
- that modern shit is useless : buy old crap CRT sampling scope
- all stuff should be Open source. Including toilets. Enough of that tirrany!!
- it is irrelevant which scope you buy. Real man make their own software and scope.
- 20000 USD scopes with 16" screens are better than 400 USD scopes with 7" screens.
- modern shit is crap.
- all advanced features should be ignored and you should not use it. Because they require learning.
- since you are forbidden to use any advanced features or measurements then it doesn't matter which scope is more capable.
- really, just get FINRSI. More than that is just a conspiracy theory to get your money.
- scope color is 80% of choice.
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
-
And using the first generation mixed signal Megazoom scopes from HP wasn't very joyful either without colors (except green) while having 16 digital + 2 analog traces on screen. The bottom line is that modern day equipment can do much more and thus need to display much more information.
Oh I did that. 16 digital channels with the horizontal and vertical 10 tics turned the scope into a checkerboard. Completely unusable. You could fit maybe an SPI and 2 other signals on the screen, otherwise I think it was clear you were supposed to turn off everything and maybe look at the decoded signal of an 8 bit parallel bus max.
-
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
They could simply open source their API/ABI and allow people to create their own GUI, or, even better, open source the entire GUI app and let the community modify it.
GW Instek just released a scope (MPO-2000) where you can program your own signal processing functionality + GUI using Python and LVGL. The programming interface allows full control over remote test equipment over ethernet and/or USB as well.
-
So topic: "Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs"
what is being discussed:
- that modern shit is useless : buy old crap CRT scope
- that modern shit is useless : buy old crap CRT sampling scope
- all stuff should be Open source. Including toilets. Enough of that tirrany!!
- it is irrelevant which scope you buy. Real man make their own software and scope.
- 20000 USD scopes with 16" screens are better than 400 USD scopes with 7" screens.
- modern shit is crap.
- all advanced features should be ignored and you should not use it. Because they require learning.
- since you are forbidden to use any advanced features or measurements then it doesn't matter which scope is more capable.
- really, just get FINRSI. More than that is just a conspiracy theory to get your money.
- scope color is 80% of choice.
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
LOL! Great summation!
-
shit is crap.
Truer words have never been spoken. 😉
-
* Also, H,A,D,T feel meaningless. Takes longer to interpret them as Horizontal, Acquisition, etc., than if they were totally omitted and people could see the meaning from the units alone (e.g. ns/div etc) or smaller full text like the MXO 4, but appreciate that might not be possible on the smaller screen Rigol.
Squeezing the important information onto a limited display isn't a new issue. It was addressed successfully in the '80s by many pieces of equipment from many manufacturers. Start with scopes, spectrum analysers, logic analysers, ... from LeCroy, TK, HP....The
Why can't today's weenies do better?
IMHO you are severely suffering from over-glorifying the past here ;) . Having a 640x480 screen is not enough for having lots of information on your screen. Back in the old days, I'd print output from a logic analyser so I could at least have a readable overview of the signals. And using the first generation mixed signal Megazoom scopes from HP wasn't very joyful either without colors (except green) while having 16 digital + 2 analog traces on screen. The bottom line is that modern day equipment can do much more and thus need to display much more information.
It doesn't need to display every bit of information at the same time.
-
Nonetheless, there is far too much distracting rubbish on that scope display.
:=\ Yawn
Agreed, it can be difficult to teach old dogs new tricks. :P :horse:
So let's examine what we do need:
Trigger channel and type, coupling, position and level
Active channel/s, BW limited ON or OFF, probe/input attenuation, channel 0V level and input impedance
Timebase, s/div, Mem depth and sampling rate
LAN and USB connectivity indication.
Time/date
What's superfluous or missing ?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2104565)
-
Nonetheless, there is far too much distracting rubbish on that scope display.
:=\ Yawn
Agreed, it can be difficult to teach old dogs new tricks. :P :horse:
So let's examine what we do need:
Trigger channel and type, position and level
Active channel/s, BW limited ON or OFF, probe/input attenuation, channel 0V level and input impedance
Timebase, s/div, Mem depth and sampling rate
LAN and USB connectivity indication.
Time/date
What's superfluous or missing ?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2104565)
:=\ Yawn
Agreed, it can be difficult to teach nappy wearers to read and comprehend what was written, and not to construct strawman arguments. And to have to repeatedly remind readers to remember to "follow the money".
That doesn't look like that crap Rigol GUI. How have you got rid of the crap and left more room for the useful information?
-
How have you got rid of the crap and left more room for the useful information?
:=\ Yawn.
By buying a good scope.
-
What's superfluous or missing ?
Only because you asked....a true minimalist might not have that menu permanently across the top of the screen. Instead, a small icon in the corner could bring it up in a jiffy when needed.
-
How have you got rid of the crap and left more room for the useful information?
Zip/nothing/nada !
Default display where everything is user configurable.
This is set almost exactly how we dispatch them.
That's just how I like to have my scopes set when I power them up.
If I want/need further crap I can choose to activate it or not.
All/any menu can be set to autohide 3s-1m or stay visible. Pop down menus can be set to compress or overlay the display. I prefer compress as it doesn't hide any of the trace.
You can see the Ch4 menu tab top right (last menu used) which can be recalled with touch/clicking the tab or pressing the channel button or menu hidden touch/click on it or any vacant portion of the display.
Just ask if you need to see any of this functionality.
-
I got curious how previous-gen (i.e. smaller screen) 'scopes do it, and never noticed before, but the older Tek scopes would push into the trace display area once additional stuff like measurements etc were added. In use to me it felt unobtrusive, there was a button to remove that if the full screen view without the clutter was needed, and then press the button again to bring everything back.
Not saying it's good or bad, just a data point on one way they solved things at that time on the low-res screens.
-
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
They could simply open source their API/ABI and allow people to create their own GUI, or, even better, open source the entire GUI app and let the community modify it.
GW Instek just released a scope (MPO-2000) where you can program your own signal processing functionality + GUI using Python and LVGL. The programming interface allows full control over remote test equipment over ethernet and/or USB as well.
Some context
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNPRGuqg0ew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNPRGuqg0ew)
-
So topic: "Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs"
what is being discussed:
- that modern shit is useless : buy old crap CRT scope
- that modern shit is useless : buy old crap CRT sampling scope
- all stuff should be Open source. Including toilets. Enough of that tirrany!!
- it is irrelevant which scope you buy. Real man make their own software and scope.
- 20000 USD scopes with 16" screens are better than 400 USD scopes with 7" screens.
- modern shit is crap.
- all advanced features should be ignored and you should not use it. Because they require learning.
- since you are forbidden to use any advanced features or measurements then it doesn't matter which scope is more capable.
- really, just get FINRSI. More than that is just a conspiracy theory to get your money.
- scope color is 80% of choice.
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Would it be too conceitful for me to think that as a newcomer, I've managed to contribute to 20% of that list? I feel honoured indeed! ;D
-
(Some screenshots from the video pasted below, to save having to watch it all, although it's interesting).
From the video, the MPO display looks neat, with little wasted space on text that's not needed. It is obvious what the units like pts, MSa/s etc refer to.
The supplied apps displays look as clean as imaginable, with decent axis titles with units. I can't see how those could be improved further.
The Python GUI functionality looks like it can be integrated into the normal instrument controls.
When I first heard of the Rigol, I found the idea that they'd used Android intriguing, and probably a lot can be done with it, but in terms of practicality, I'd much prefer Python integrated into the instrument. (With Rigol, I guess what could be done, is Python as a separate app installed in the instrument, communicating via SCPI? but it's not the same at all, but perhaps a compromise).
I know the MPO-2000 is not 12-bit, but 12-bit takes a super-decent FFT (by that I mean super-usable, fast responding with decoupled controls like start/stop-freq/RBW, unlike the older scopes had) to extract max use of it (since there's only so much to see on a time-domain trace view, even zoomed in), and the MPO actually does have really good spectral analysis (if they have taken their MDO-2xxxEX functionality and reused it). It's a different price-performance of course, since costs are completely different too. But I think it's still reasonable to compare some aspects such as the display/UI.
The Rigol and Siglent, although I know so little about these instruments, are for sure tremendous price-performance (who could have imagined 12-bit scopes at that price!), but that MPO is also highly tempting with the all-round features (including dual AWG and PSU) and (expectedly good) SA and Python capability, everyone is different.
-
This thread is primarily discussing entry-level scopes under $1000 (really under $500). Why are y'all discussing that $2000+ programmable scope?
-
The Rigol display should be able to do far better, I'm speculating, but it's possible they are using GUI frameworks intended for much higher-res larger displays, and that's causing the very awkward look/feel.
They could simply open source their API/ABI and allow people to create their own GUI, or, even better, open source the entire GUI app and let the community modify it.
GW Instek just released a scope (MPO-2000) where you can program your own signal processing functionality + GUI using Python and LVGL. The programming interface allows full control over remote test equipment over ethernet and/or USB as well.
Some context ...
i thought to totally change dso's screen GUI. if to add functionalities like that, thats what i wish to have in my Lecroy SDA scope, and better if its available in these cheap entry scopes discussed in this thread. but python is for new kids, we program in c/c++ well... better something than nothing... but as mentioned it $2K scope. one reason why i became rigol addict, because its the cheapest scope yet decent builtin spec, and more importantly PC Windows API provided, to some extend we can control the scope from PC, but i'm not interested at that, what matters is i can download data to PC, with data in PC, i can do whatever processing i want, similar feature/function/processing as 2K or 10K scope if i want to. i know siglent also provides such API nowadays but they came much later. ymmv.
-
Meh.
It's fun to imagine but you won't even notice the difference in screen height when you're using it.
Horizontal is what counts and they're both the same.
-
Nonetheless, there is far too much distracting rubbish on that scope display.
:=\ Yawn
Agreed, it can be difficult to teach old dogs new tricks. :P :horse:
So let's examine what we do need:
Trigger channel and type, coupling, position and level
Active channel/s, BW limited ON or OFF, probe/input attenuation, channel 0V level and input impedance
Timebase, s/div, Mem depth and sampling rate
LAN and USB connectivity indication.
Time/date
What's superfluous or missing ?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2104565)
It is much less cluttered than the Rigol, & just says "SIGLENT" once, in a small font, unlike Rigol who have to shout "RIGOL" at us & in addition have a large "R" badge.
I'll know if I'm using a Rigol, so why do they have to keep reminding me?
I could use such a device as the Siglent without becoming infuriated more than once or twice a day, & that is pretty good for an "Old man who yells at test equipment"!
Of course, Rigol aren't the only or even the worst offenders, Hantek :-X are repeat offenders!
-
I could use such a device as the Siglent without becoming infuriated more than once or twice a day, & that is pretty good for an "Old man who yells at test equipment"!
;D
Many Siglent products are also rebadged and as such show a different brand name until they might be later flashed with Siglent firmware.....
-
It is much less cluttered than the Rigol, & just says "SIGLENT" once, in a small font, unlike Rigol who have to shout "RIGOL" at us & in addition have a large "R" badge.
I'll know if I'm using a Rigol, so why do they have to keep reminding me?
I'll know if I'm using a Siglent, so why do they have to put the name there? similar to watch and date, its not the job for scope to tell me that (subjective?). the fact is, no its not for you, it just to piss you off when someone link a screencapture here, because you are rigol hater :-DD to take it positively... top and bottom bar already that big, so they have to size accordingly, but many of you got pissed off from afar, amazing!
-
I counted the pixels and Siglent is only 10% more vertically.
In practical terms that's hardly any difference at all.
-
It is much less cluttered than the Rigol, & just says "SIGLENT" once, in a small font, unlike Rigol who have to shout "RIGOL" at us & in addition have a large "R" badge.
I'll know if I'm using a Rigol, so why do they have to keep reminding me?
I'll know if I'm using a Siglent, so why do they have to put the name there? similar to watch and date, its not the job for scope to tell me that (subjective?). the fact is, no its not for you, it just to piss you off when someone link a screencapture here, because you are rigol hater :-DD to take it positively... top and bottom bar already that big, so they have to size accordingly, but many of you got pissed off from afar, amazing!
Indeed, there is no need for any 'scope to have their name on the viewing area----they all have a big logo on the instrument itself.
I don't have any brand of DSO, so am not really a Rigol hater, but I just don't like displays which are cluttered with extra information.
Those who do own a Rigol become adept at ignoring the information they need & mentally "zooming in" on the information & features they are interested in.
-
Indeed, there is no need for any 'scope to have their name on the viewing area----they all have a big logo on the instrument itself.
Screenshots, stored or shared with others?
-
With Lecroy you can at least choose between a screenshot with or without a watermark.
-
Siglent's solution for placing the on-screen logo always looks a bit awkward to me: Jammed in with the trigger state & counter, it looks a bit like an afterthought.
If we assume that the logo is really there to identify the scope in screenshots, wouldn't it be an option to insert it in screenshots only? It could replace items which are of no use and don't carry any information -- e.g. the main menu items in the upper left, which are really only useful for interacting with them, but not in the screenshot. There would even be room for the full model designation of the scope then, next to the Siglent logo.
-
I counted the pixels and Siglent is only 10% more vertically.
In practical terms that's hardly any difference at all.
Indeed. The Rigol may look like it is pushing more information on screen but in reality the difference is minimal (and none if you take into account the Siglent screenshot doesn't show where you are in the acquisition data).
-
Siglent's solution for placing the on-screen logo always looks a bit awkward to me: Jammed in with the trigger state & counter, it looks a bit like an afterthought.
If we assume that the logo is really there to identify the scope in screenshots, wouldn't it be an option to insert it in screenshots only? It could replace items which are of no use and don't carry any information -- e.g. the main menu items in the upper left, which are really only useful for interacting with them, but not in the screenshot. There would even be room for the full model designation of the scope then, next to the Siglent logo.
+1
Having the logo on screen shots stored or shared with others can make sense, but those could be optionally added like a watermark (and optionally a few other pieces of data such as model, date/time). I often wonder what model produced the screen shots we see here. But users should be able to turn such info off to reclaim/declutter display real estate.
-
I counted the pixels and Siglent is only 10% more vertically.
In practical terms that's hardly any difference at all.
Indeed. The Rigol may look like it is pushing more information on screen but in reality the difference is minimal (and none if you take into account the Siglent screenshot doesn't show where you are in the acquisition data).
If you consider Rigol's "navigation" inset in the window frame to be part of the useful net information, it's 442 vs. 484 pixels, the 10% difference claimed by Fungus. If you just look at the main trace display, it's 414 vs. 484. That is quite noticeable in practice, at least for my taste.
And nevertheless Siglent fits more useful information into the bottom bar, e.g. the probe attenuation and detailed settings for each math function and zoom. And they fit in the top menu bar which gives you more direct access to many settings, where Rigol requires an extra tap on the "gearwheel" menu (plus some extra time to get your bearings once that menu opens).
I actually liked the Rigol UI on my DHO1074. The larger screen offers more room, so they do display math function details, and the "decorative" elements take a smaller percentage of the screen real estate. But for my taste, Rigol did not do a good job scaling the UI down to the smaller DHO800/900 screen. They should reduce the size of fonts and icons a bit, and remove or reduce the various trimmings, to leave more net area for traces and results.
-
The grid squares are 100x52 on Rigol and 100x60 on the Siglent.
They both have 8 squares so that gives 64 pixels more vertically.
Not nothing, but I'm not buying that it will stop anybody from doing their job.
-
Indeed, there is no need for any 'scope to have their name on the viewing area----they all have a big logo on the instrument itself.
As someone who has taken a lot of screenshots on a lot of different T&M instruments - I think the logo is mostly there for marketing reasons. You can easily have information such as name, serial number, etc. added to the screenshot (but not appear on the screen) for "documentation" purposes.
I don't find it terribly objectionable as long as it either (a) can be turned off or (b) is not occupying space that could / should be used for other information.
We get a lot of feedback on what people want in screenshots, and the answers are all over the place, so how screenshots get implemented is always something of a compromise.
-
The grid squares are 100x52 on Rigol and 100x60 on the Siglent.
They both have 8 squares so that gives 64 pixels more vertically.
Not nothing, but I'm not buying that it will stop anybody from doing their job.
That is whooping 15% difference....
SDS800xHD has full 70mm vertical waveform space out of display active 85mm vertically.
Rigol has 60mm by that token..
That is full centimeter difference..
But I know that I can enable two rows of measurements and still have same space vertically (60mm)for waveforms as Rigol vertical maximum. And full width of screen horizontally, with not a single pixel taken left and right.
Is that important or not I don't know.
-
Indeed, there is no need for any 'scope to have their name on the viewing area----they all have a big logo on the instrument itself.
I don't find it terribly objectionable as long as it either (a) can be turned off or (b) is not occupying space that could / should be used for other information.
Those are the key points, of course.
As for your screenshots,the first one looks pretty acceptable.
In the second one, why are there useless hieroglyphs "turn left", "dustbin", "target in a circle", "broken comb", "pencil", "cog", "downvoted hamburger" and similar hieroglyphs on the RHS?
They add nothing, except visual noise.
They subtract from the information area.
They should be deleted.
-
But I know that I can enable two rows of measurements and still have same space vertically (60mm)for waveforms as Rigol vertical maximum. And full width of screen horizontally, with not a single pixel taken left and right.
Can you put them vertically at the side? Rigol can.
-
Just a heads-up on Rigol's hackability:
A little preview
(Attachment Link)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXJZxY9YVwE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXJZxY9YVwE)
-
Can you put [measurements] vertically at the side? Rigol can.
"Can" is an interesting way of saying it. They do, always, right? Which is not a bad design choice per se, given that the screen is pretty wide and not very tall.
But again, they use that measurement sidebar in a very wasteful manner. How many measurements can you fit there? And even if you want just one enabled -- say the hardware counter -- the full-height sidebar takes up a lot of screen real estate.
-
But I know that I can enable two rows of measurements and still have same space vertically (60mm)for waveforms as Rigol vertical maximum. And full width of screen horizontally, with not a single pixel taken left and right.
Can you put them vertically at the side? Rigol can.
Point was ("whoosh over your head....") that when I enable measurements I still have same vertical space as you with nothing enabled, and full 155mm of horizontal space.
You have a choice of 10mm vertically less with no measurements or same vertical but 30mm horizontally less with measurements.
So it is a lose-lose proposition.
No matter how you sugar coat it it is less.
Does that make a difference to people, I don't know. But less it is.
-
I'd like to know why the graticules are so rectangular on both the RIGOL and SIGLENT? The FNIRSI has square graticules (with 70mm of vertical waveform space) and I don't know why you'd make them any other shape? You can set the time base to whatever you want to fit a cycle to the visible window, so why are the graticules stretched so much? It looks odd to me.
(You can add it to the list, 2N3055....square graticules. FNIRSI is climbing the list, lol. ;))
-
I'd like to know why the graticules are so rectangular on both the RIGOL and SIGLENT?
Good plotting software developers know that the number of major and minor tics on each of the axes is an important parameter that must be user-configurable.
The answer to your "why" is probably because there are no software developers at either Siglent or Rigol who can into proper plot visualization.
-
I'd like to know why the graticules are so rectangular on both the RIGOL and SIGLENT? The FNIRSI has square graticules (with 70mm of vertical waveform space) and I don't know why you'd make them any other shape? You can set the time base to whatever you want to fit a cycle to the visible window, so why are the graticules stretched so much? It looks odd to me.
Having 10 divisions horizontally is quite convenient: Makes it trivial to know the whole duration of the sweep, and to translate between the sampling rate and the number of data points on the screen. But with the wide-screen displays which are common (read "cost-effective") today, the typical 8*10 divisions will not be square.
Fnirsi has chosen to use 14 horizontal divisions, which I find a bit annoying. For you, it's the non-square graticule which looks odd. We pay our money, we make our choices, I guess...
-
I'd like to know why the graticules are so rectangular on both the RIGOL and SIGLENT?
Depends if you have the menus auto hide or not.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2104565)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2105756)
-
How do you keep graticules perfect square?
By preserving aspect ratio.
When you add anything to the screen, waveform area would shrink by square of linear dimension change..
And also, any plot aspect ratio is irrelevant.
Did nobody notice that when you change timebase or vertical that you distort signal vertically and horizontally.
And signal is not aligned to graticule anyways...
So perfect square graticule is useless anyways...
Graticule is simple visual helper.
Some people use light grid or no grid whatsoever.
-
As for your screenshots,the first one looks pretty acceptable.
In the second one, why are there useless hieroglyphs "turn left", "dustbin", "target in a circle", "broken comb", "pencil", "cog", "downvoted hamburger" and similar hieroglyphs on the RHS?
They add nothing, except visual noise.
They subtract from the information area.
They should be deleted.
I guess you're trying to be funny with the names since the icons have labels: they are "undo" (a really useful function), "delete (a window)", "zoom," "FFT", etc. Users actually really like these.
These are configurable on-screen shortcuts for basic functions. I'm not sure how much additional screen space you could get by deleting them since acquisition, trigger, etc. settings are displayed to the right of them.
Frankly, I think our scope displays are a lot less cluttered than most other scopes, but de gustibus ... :)
-
So perfect square graticule is useless anyways...
Graticule is simple visual helper.
Some people use light grid or no grid whatsoever.
not useless, but we need to think rationally, esp if you are the programmer of dso. today screen is 16:9, not like the old day like what? 3:2? with top and bottom screen already occupied by some technical informations, in order to get old day ratio 3:2, most of the side screen will be empty, filling it with logos and icons will create hatred anyway... its hillarious why people still come up with archaic rule of thumb, maybe its to keep the thread going ;D here are some comparison from old and today screen, pay attention to graph width and height aspect ratio vs LCD screen's aspect ratio....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Tektronix_Oscilloscope_475A.jpg/1920px-Tektronix_Oscilloscope_475A.jpg)
(https://content.instructables.com/FUN/KSMA/IP0925PF/FUNKSMAIP0925PF.png?auto=webp&fit=bounds&frame=1)
(https://rigolshop.eu/pub/media/catalog/product/cache/3c5db292296c284f0fad0df457fa41c1/d/h/dho814-_.png)
talking about wasting screen area, here is $16K scope... you cant win!
(https://www.neoinstruments.com/1165-large_default/tektronix-mso64b-6-bw-10000.jpg)
-
talking about wasting screen area, here is $16K scope... you cant win!
Hint: They have a much larger screen to start with. ::)
-
talking about wasting screen area, here is $16K scope... you cant win!
Hint: They have a much larger screen to start with. ::)
And they still couldn't find a tiny spot on that large screen to put their name/logo on... :D
-
Believe these modern DSOs have become the most complex instruments on our benches, displacing the SA and VNA of old times, and seem to be growing in complexity, performance and features. If someone knows of a more complex lab bench instrument, please enlighten us!!
Now folks have these instruments available at the price of a Lawn Mower instead of a Mercedes, they are complaining about Nit Picking features, like pixel size/shape, text size/shape, screen clutter, boot time, and so on :o
Come on folks, can't the collective great minds here put more effort into Utilizing these Brilliant Instruments rather than Nit Picking them to death, and enlighten those with less experience rather than the continuous pissing stream of mine's better than yours |O
Performa01, pdenisowski, rf-loop, gf and a few select others have provided a means for other less knowledgable folks to learn and understand these wonderful instruments and explore their enlightened feature sets.
Rigol and Siglent seem to be leading the charge with the Introductory "Lawn Mower" 12 Bit DSOs, but with features that were only available in the "Mercedes" class.
So let's quit pissing in the yard, start up that DSO, and mow some grass ;)
Then we can Nit Pick about who's lawn is better ;D
Best,
-
Then we can Nit Pick about who's lawn is better ;D
Get off my lawn! Damn kids. [grumble grumble] 😉😉
-
Come on folks, can't the collective great minds here put more effort into Utilizing these Brilliant Instruments rather than Nit Picking them to death
Why not do both?
Highlighting things that are done well and suggesting possible uses, and criticizing things done poorly (especially where it would have been easy or trivial to do them well!) is equally important.
-
As for your screenshots,the first one looks pretty acceptable.
In the second one, why are there useless hieroglyphs "turn left", "dustbin", "target in a circle", "broken comb", "pencil", "cog", "downvoted hamburger" and similar hieroglyphs on the RHS?
They add nothing, except visual noise.
They subtract from the information area.
They should be deleted.
I guess you're trying to be funny with the names since the icons have labels: they are "undo" (a really useful function), "delete (a window)", "zoom," "FFT", etc. Users actually really like these.
Words are easy to interpret and unambiguous. The words were there , and I understood them.
The pictograms were ambiguous[1]; why were they there? What did they add to the words?
My parents had a microwave oven and an electric oven and nobody could understand what the pictograms/hieroglyphs meant - even after getting out the instruction book and reading that. "Nobody" means half a dozen adults of three generations.
[1]
The "turn left" pictogram is a bastardisation of the some undo/redo symbols.
The delete pictogram is conventional.
The magnifying glass with a cross pictogram is almost the same as the search pictogram. The significance of the small religious symbol is unclear :)
The FFT pictogram is guessable.
There are two cog pictograms. What's the difference?
-
talking about wasting screen area, here is $16K scope... you cant win!
Hint: They have a much larger screen to start with. ::)
Yup; that makes a significant difference :)
-
Believe these modern DSOs have become the most complex instruments on our benches, displacing the SA and VNA of old times, and seem to be growing in complexity, performance and features. If someone knows of a more complex lab bench instrument, please enlighten us!!
Now folks have these instruments available at the price of a Lawn Mower instead of a Mercedes, they are complaining about Nit Picking features, like pixel size/shape, text size/shape, screen clutter, boot time, and so on :o
Come on folks, can't the collective great minds here put more effort into Utilizing these Brilliant Instruments rather than Nit Picking them to death, and enlighten those with less experience rather than the continuous pissing stream of mine's better than yours |O
Performa01, pdenisowski, rf-loop, gf and a few select others have provided a means for other less knowledgable folks to learn and understand these wonderful instruments and explore their enlightened feature sets.
Rigol and Siglent seem to be leading the charge with the Introductory "Lawn Mower" 12 Bit DSOs, but with features that were only available in the "Mercedes" class.
So let's quit pissing in the yard, start up that DSO, and mow some grass ;)
Then we can Nit Pick about who's lawn is better ;D
Best,
Choosing between different entry-level 12-bit DSOs requires nit-pickling.
Overall it is much more important to choose which class of instrument to use - but that's not the subject :)
When the screen is so cluttered that it starts to crowd out the measurement information, it becomes relevant. Doubly so when that is demonstrably unnecessary!
-
Come on folks, can't the collective great minds here put more effort into Utilizing these Brilliant Instruments rather than Nit Picking them to death
Why not do both?
Highlighting things that are done well and suggesting possible uses, and criticizing things done poorly (especially where it would have been easy or trivial to do them well!) is equally important.
Precisely
-
Come on folks, can't the collective great minds here put more effort into Utilizing these Brilliant Instruments rather than Nit Picking them to death
Why not do both?
Highlighting things that are done well and suggesting possible uses, and criticizing things done poorly (especially where it would have been easy or trivial to do them well!) is equally important.
My thoughts exactly. I can easily do both, use the scope productively and report on some aspects I consider done well or less-than-ideal. ;)
The criticism is not meant to take away from the fact that these scopes are amazing value for money. I still have my first CRT scope (1980s, 20 MHz dual channel, more than 3 times the price of a DHO800 or SDS800 today); and even compared to my 9-year-old first DSO the progress is massive. But other potential buyers will benefit from user feedback on the differences and nuances between modern entry-level scopes, so they can make an informed decision based on their preferences. And manufacturers should benefit from knowing what users appreciate or dislike, so they can optimize their products further.
-
My parents had a microwave oven and an electric oven and nobody could understand what the pictograms/hieroglyphs meant - even after getting out the instruction book and reading that. "Nobody" means half a dozen adults of three generations.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally confusing icons for some reason, but it's pretty weird. Everything on Paul's screenshot makes sense to me, and I sure as hell can't afford one of those scopes (though I would love to).
If you want to get to know the nuances of different scopes, there's no better way than to buy one.
-
Then we can Nit Pick about who's lawn is better ;D
in the end, who can produce better circuit/product/design.. sometime to get that, we need to use combination of tools, not dso alone, or probably with no dso at all involved. and some nasty and dirty old age tin can tricks, cheers.
-
My parents had a microwave oven and an electric oven and nobody could understand what the pictograms/hieroglyphs meant - even after getting out the instruction book and reading that. "Nobody" means half a dozen adults of three generations.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally confusing icons for some reason, but it's pretty weird. Everything on Paul's screenshot makes sense to me, and I sure as hell can't afford one of those scopes (though I would love to).
If you want to get to know the nuances of different scopes, there's no better way than to buy one.
You missed the main point. It wasn't about the meaning of the icons. It was about that fact that the icons occupy screen space while creating little or no added value. Text, if written with a well selected font and size, creates most of the control's marking value.
That's, however, not always absolutely true. I'm sure there are people who have difficulties with reading and understanding text at a glance and locating a control they need on the screen if there are only text markings. For them icons (alone or with text) are better. This is why good GUIs designed by people who know what they are doing have a special configuration setting: "show: a) text; b) icons; c) text&icons".
-
My parents had a microwave oven and an electric oven and nobody could understand what the pictograms/hieroglyphs meant - even after getting out the instruction book and reading that. "Nobody" means half a dozen adults of three generations.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally confusing icons for some reason, but it's pretty weird.
Que? Those hieroglyphs confused everybody, without exception.
Since those items have long been consigned to the tip, those hieroglyphs can't be shown, so you can't see how incomprehensible they were.
Everything on Paul's screenshot makes sense to me, and I sure as hell can't afford one of those scopes (though I would love to).
If you want to get to know the nuances of different scopes, there's no better way than to buy one.
How does buying one scope doesn't help you understand the nuances of different scopes?
There are two fundamental problems with hieroglyphs:
- they occupy scarce real estate which would be better used to display the traces and numerical settings
- they duplicate other information on the display, to no advantage
And on top of that they are unclear/ambiguous.
-
Que? Those hieroglyphs confused everybody, without exception.
Are you talking about your anecdote, or the actual screenshots? I found the screenshots perfectly clear.
If you want to get to know the nuances of different scopes, there's no better way than to buy one.
How does buying one scope doesn't help you understand the nuances of different scopes?
That's exactly my point; buy more scopes, learn more nuances.
There are two fundamental problems with hieroglyphs:
- they occupy scarce real estate which would be better used to display the traces and numerical settings
- they duplicate other information on the display, to no advantage
And on top of that they are unclear/ambiguous.
The vertical space isn't wasted; the height of that top bar is already defined by the trigger block etc. on the right side of the screen. It would be wasted space if there was empty space instead of the icons. 🤷
I see an obvious advantage. I wear glasses because I'm nearsighted. I can see the "undo" icon faster than I can squint to read the letters if I don't feel like wearing my glasses (which is often).
None of the icons in Paul's screenshot are unclear or ambiguous to me. They're literally standard icons, seen across millions of products around the world. Icon artwork may subtly change, but what they actually are is clear. And the beauty of it is, you can still read the words if you want to ignore the icons. 😉
-
Many Siglent products are also rebadged and as such show a different brand name until they might be later flashed with Siglent firmware.....
That's interesting. What are some specific examples? Does this happen more at the high end, or down here in the low end of things where I am attempting to swim? :)
-
Many Siglent products are also rebadged and as such show a different brand name until they might be later flashed with Siglent firmware.....
That's interesting. What are some specific examples? Does this happen more at the high end, or down here in the low end of things where I am attempting to swim? :)
Some models from Lecroy are an example. Scopes, DMMs... For example, decide whether you'd prefer the LeCroy T3DMM6-5, or the Siglent SDM3065X.
-
Que? Those hieroglyphs confused everybody, without exception.
Are you talking about your anecdote, or the actual screenshots? I found the screenshots perfectly clear.
I'm talking about the part you responded to in your post.
Why did you choose to remove that context in your question? (There's an obvious disreputable reason you might have done that, but I'll give you a chance to state a reputable reason).
-
I'll start with a disclaimer: I'm not the person who decides what our icons look like or are named. But I'd be happy to share my personal thoughts :)
Words are easy to interpret and unambiguous. The words were there , and I understood them.
The pictograms were ambiguous[1]; why were they there? What did they add to the words?
A few points:
1) For better or for worse, we live in a society that is often symbol-driven, not word-driven. Apple products are an excellent example of this, but it extends well outside of electronics: automobile controls, road signs, etc. For example, the attached lawn mower warning sign: I imagine it's in everyone's best interest to convey this meaning in both words and symbols.
2) The words are there to resolve any ambiguity as to what the icon means. I think the "gear = configuration/settings" convention is pretty universal, but as you say, many icons are not. To continue the lawn mower analogy: I once had a lawn mower with lever that had pictures of a rabbit and a turtle next to it. I used to make the (unfunny) joke that this lever was used adjust for what kinds of animals might be lurking in tall grass. And, of course, there is the classic hand dryer / bacon dispenser meme (attached)
My parents had a microwave oven and an electric oven and nobody could understand what the pictograms/hieroglyphs meant - even after getting out the instruction book and reading that. "Nobody" means half a dozen adults of three generations.
The instruction book for the first microwave oven I ever saw was also the assembly manual (a Heathkit GD-29 microwave) - it didn't have any icons, as far as I remember :)
The magnifying glass with a cross pictogram is almost the same as the search pictogram. The significance of the small religious symbol is unclear :)
I think it's supposed to be a "+" sign for "zoom in / increase" vs. a plain magnifying glass for search. I think these are very common, conventional symbols as well.
There are two cog pictograms. What's the difference?
One is for configuring the instrument, the other is for configuring the icons - I agree that's kind of confusing :)
One of my favorite Latin sayings is "de gustibus (non est disputandum)" which basically means "tastes are not to be debated" There is no "correct" answer as to whether red flowers are "better" than white flowers.
On the other hand, I think it is possible to make value judgements about whether or not a symbol is a "good" symbol or not, that is, whether it effectively and efficiently conveys the desired meaning (for example, most people in Western society would say that red roses are more appropriate as a symbol of romantic love).
Sorry for the long post: in my experience, decisions about what T&M instrument to buy often do come down to which instrument's user-interface is perceived as "better" by the buyer, and like everything else, tastes and preferences in user interfaces change over time as well.
-
I wear glasses because I'm nearsighted. I can see the "undo" icon faster than I can squint to read the letters if I don't feel like wearing my glasses (which is often).
I presume that means the trace is also difficult for you to see, and therefore to interpret and to understand.
When I look at a scope trace, I always want to see all the detail in it. Hence I wear my glasses without fail.
I can't understand someone choosing not to do that.
-
Que? Those hieroglyphs confused everybody, without exception.
Are you talking about your anecdote, or the actual screenshots? I found the screenshots perfectly clear.
I'm talking about the part you responded to in your post.
Why did you choose to remove that context in your question? (There's an obvious disreputable reason you might have done that, but I'll give you a chance to state a reputable reason).
🤣🤣🤣 Guy, so you are still harping on your anecdote then? I thought the context of the story was as to how it applied to the context of this part of the off-topic conversation in the thread.
Since it wasn't clear enough to you, I absolutely do not care in the slightest bit that 3 generations of your family couldn't understand a microwave. I'm still talking about oscilloscope screen utilization. 🙄
-
not useless, but we need to think rationally, esp if you are the programmer of dso. today screen is 16:9, not like the old day like what? 3:2?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Tektronix_Oscilloscope_475A.jpg/1920px-Tektronix_Oscilloscope_475A.jpg)
Not that it matters for the point being made, but since we're picking nits ... :)
I'm thinking that the old Tektronix displays are closer to 4:3, same as the old standard for TVs and other CRTs (e.g., computer monitors).
-
not useless, but we need to think rationally, esp if you are the programmer of dso. today screen is 16:9, not like the old day like what? 3:2?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Tektronix_Oscilloscope_475A.jpg/1920px-Tektronix_Oscilloscope_475A.jpg)
Not that it matters for the point being made, but since we're picking nits ... :)
I'm thinking that the old Tektronix displays are closer to 4:3, same as the old standard for TVs and other CRTs (e.g., computer monitors).
wasn't the older CROs mostly 5:4 ratio
Personally I prefer either 4:3 or 16:10 for oscilloscopes.. same on laptop screen, as I prefer the vertical depth.. if I wanna see a movie and consume media.. then 16:9 makes sense
On laptops, the jump from 16:9 (3200x1800) like on the Porsches Books here to Surface Book2 (3000x2000) the vertical gain are massive, but that is also a 3:2 ratio https://tinyurl.com/yspt9d3v
But its sadly often quite low tier TFT LCD screens that are fitted in modern digital oscilloscopes, even on relatively expensive scopes.
-
I wear glasses because I'm nearsighted. I can see the "undo" icon faster than I can squint to read the letters if I don't feel like wearing my glasses (which is often).
I presume that means the trace is also difficult for you to see, and therefore to interpret and to understand.
When I look at a scope trace, I always want to see all the detail in it. Hence I wear my glasses without fail.
I can't understand someone choosing not to do that.
I can see the traces fine, but I'll just have to buy an MXO5 series scope when it becomes difficult. 🤣
-
Indeed, there is no need for any 'scope to have their name on the viewing area----they all have a big logo on the instrument itself.
I don't find it terribly objectionable as long as it either (a) can be turned off or (b) is not occupying space that could / should be used for other information.
Those are the key points, of course.
As for your screenshots,the first one looks pretty acceptable.
In the second one, why are there useless hieroglyphs "turn left", "dustbin", "target in a circle", "broken comb", "pencil", "cog", "downvoted hamburger" and similar hieroglyphs on the RHS?
They add nothing, except visual noise.
They subtract from the information area.
They should be deleted.
maybe you live too much by reading books (novels?) what you called hieroglyphs are graphical representation of what is intended, surely it can be confusing since different culture will translates them as different meaning, thats why a short text is added there, but once you get to know it, you dont have to read the text anymore, just by looking at the graphics, we can quickly recall what it is... for example your "target in a circle", is a common symbol for zoom in or zoom out in many software disciplines, art such as Photoshop, engineering tools and CADs, OS utilities magnifier etc... without reading the text i can already suspect what it is... "target in a circle"? i never thought of that :palm: here its all about reducing cognitive load https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/user-interface-design-guidelines-10-rules-of-thumb (https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/user-interface-design-guidelines-10-rules-of-thumb) maybe for you bookworm habit, it should be very quickly you can learn the concept and meaning if you RTFM... trust me it will make your life much easier ;) trust me i'm not so young kid myself...
-
I'll start with a disclaimer: I'm not the person who decides what our icons look like or are named. But I'd be happy to share my personal thoughts :)
Words are easy to interpret and unambiguous. The words were there , and I understood them.
The pictograms were ambiguous[1]; why were they there? What did they add to the words?
A few points:
1) For better or for worse, we live in a society that is often symbol-driven, not word-driven.
Yes, too many people are illiterate, or literate in a different language. It frightens me to think that electronic engineers are illiterate!
Apple products are an excellent example of this, but it extends well outside of electronics: automobile controls, road signs, etc. For example, the attached lawn mower warning sign: I imagine it's in everyone's best interest to convey this meaning in both words and symbols.
There's a lot of fascinating history about how the UK road signs were designed in the late 50s. In particular, there was a lot of thought given to ensuring they were distinct and unambiguous and could be understood by people that couldn't read English. A few needed to be explained once, e.g. the man putting up an umbrella meaning "road works ahead" :)
That they have remained unchanged for more than half a century (and that nobody complains about them!) is a testament to their success.
2) The words are there to resolve any ambiguity as to what the icon means. I think the "gear = configuration/settings" convention is pretty universal, but as you say, many icons are not. To continue the lawn mower analogy: I once had a lawn mower with lever that had pictures of a rabbit and a turtle next to it. I used to make the (unfunny) joke that this lever was used adjust for what kinds of animals might be lurking in tall grass. And, of course, there is the classic hand dryer / bacon dispenser meme (attached)
Nice anecdote :)
If the words are there to remove ambiguity, then the icons are - at best - unnecessary.
My parents had a microwave oven and an electric oven and nobody could understand what the pictograms/hieroglyphs meant - even after getting out the instruction book and reading that. "Nobody" means half a dozen adults of three generations.
The instruction book for the first microwave oven I ever saw was also the assembly manual (a Heathkit GD-29 microwave) - it didn't have any icons, as far as I remember :)
I've built HeathKit stuff; the manuals were exemplary. No icons, either :)
The magnifying glass with a cross pictogram is almost the same as the search pictogram. The significance of the small religious symbol is unclear :)
I think it's supposed to be a "+" sign for "zoom in / increase" vs. a plain magnifying glass for search. I think these are very common, conventional symbols as well.
Therefore the icon has failed :)
I would assume a magnifying glass indicated magnify. Using it to mean something else is perverse!
There are two cog pictograms. What's the difference?
One is for configuring the instrument, the other is for configuring the icons - I agree that's kind of confusing :)
One of my favorite Latin sayings is "de gustibus (non est disputandum)" which basically means "tastes are not to be debated" There is no "correct" answer as to whether red flowers are "better" than white flowers.
On the other hand, I think it is possible to make value judgements about whether or not a symbol is a "good" symbol or not, that is, whether it effectively and efficiently conveys the desired meaning (for example, most people in Western society would say that red roses are more appropriate as a symbol of romantic love).
Sorry for the long post: in my experience, decisions about what T&M instrument to buy often do come down to which instrument's user-interface is perceived as "better" by the buyer, and like everything else, tastes and preferences in user interfaces change over time as well.
In what way can icons be configured (other than removing them)?
Fashions (not taste!) do change, not always for the better. Humans and their (limited) cognitive perception are a constant.
And I like that you add caveats such as "Western society". I'm told that in China white is the colour of death, not black.
Even "simple" gestures and pictograms like "thumbs up" are not universal. In large parts of Europe and elsewhere, it is an insult meaning "sit on this thumb"! I expect that in such countries the drink below would be as successful as the Chevrolet Nova was in Spanish speaking countries :)
(https://theindianshop.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/07080_575_1800x1800.jpg)
-
Que? Those hieroglyphs confused everybody, without exception.
Are you talking about your anecdote, or the actual screenshots? I found the screenshots perfectly clear.
I'm talking about the part you responded to in your post.
Why did you choose to remove that context in your question? (There's an obvious disreputable reason you might have done that, but I'll give you a chance to state a reputable reason).
🤣🤣🤣 Guy, so you are still harping on your anecdote then? I thought the context of the story was as to how it applied to the context of this part of the off-topic conversation in the thread.
Since it wasn't clear enough to you, I absolutely do not care in the slightest bit that 3 generations of your family couldn't understand a microwave. I'm still talking about oscilloscope screen utilization. 🙄
OK. We have to assume there was no reputable reason.
-
@ pdenisowski
Snakes in the road :)
Best,
-
@ pdenisowski
Snakes in the road :)
Confession: I had been driving for more than a decade before I realized what those squiggly lines were supposed to mean. Seriously :)
-
@ pdenisowski
Snakes in the road :)
Confession: I had been driving for more than a decade before I realized what those squiggly lines were supposed to mean. Seriously :)
I do like your anecdotes, they are seriously and usefully enlightening :)
-
Many Siglent products are also rebadged and as such show a different brand name until they might be later flashed with Siglent firmware.....
That's interesting. What are some specific examples? Does this happen more at the high end, or down here in the low end of things where I am attempting to swim? :)
The full spectrum of products.
The entry level 12bit models will no doubt follow in due course.
Some rebrands are
LeCroy < long standing collaboration with Siglent
BK Precision
RS Pro
Akip
-
Point was ("whoosh over your head....") that when I enable measurements I still have same vertical space as you with nothing enabled, and full 155mm of horizontal space.
So... given that having measurements on is very common, the Siglent's "extra height" isn't much of an advantage in practice.
Does that make a difference to people, I don't know. But less it is.
Yep.
And that's my point. It's easy to imagine it's "better" but is it really...?
-
I'd like to know why the graticules are so rectangular on both the RIGOL and SIGLENT?
Widescreen formats are always better. :)
-
I'd like to know why the graticules are so rectangular on both the RIGOL and SIGLENT?
Widescreen formats are always better. :)
because of a happy face and the use of BOLD text?
It's far from ideal how little vertical resolution you have left, not least with Rigol's lackluster UI.
How many CM do you actually have vertical waveform present on your DHO800?
Are there any other scopes on the market that cannibalize so much of the vertical area by graphics, borders..secondaries?
Aint it around 35% that is vertically consumed by these factors on the DHO800/900 series.. on many other scopes its down around 15 to 25%, and when you then have a widescreen that is so vertically narrow, from an aspect ratio that were optimised for media, it gets cramped and its not a lot you got left of your precious 12-bit vertical screen/resolution.
I get that Rigol's DHO-UI were clearly targeted bigger screens, but it is an UI that are asking a lot for such a small "widescreen".
-
@ pdenisowski
Snakes in the road :)
Confession: I had been driving for more than a decade before I realized what those squiggly lines were supposed to mean. Seriously :)
Same here. I had to have my father tell me it was advising to avoid the potholes in the road ahead.
-
@ pdenisowski
Snakes in the road :)
Best,
Some versions of this sign show the skid marks crossing each other, which in impossible.
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows, for which the HDMI output to a bigger screen makes a lot of sense. Its XY functionality is also well featured, and the scope fan is not as loud. While the update rate of the FFT is relatively fast, its features could be vastly improved, and I am still hoping that Rigol will see the light and invest the few hours of development work needed to bring it up to par with the competition. (In the meantime, thanks in part to its fast update rate, it is quite easy (but far from ideal of course!) to quickly fetch FFT sample traces with a PC for further processing.)
That looks great! The combination of dockable windows and HDMI output to a larger screen was a part of my decision. I'm really looking forward to it after seeing those screenshots.
When you get your scope, enter "TestModel: On" mode by clicking 3x on Utility/About.
Under Utility/Other you will see you can set the resolution of the HDMI output (which defaults to the max 1920x1080 with my 22 inch monitor). I find that the GUI motifs/text are up-scaled properly, and contrary to rumors, trace resolutions do scale-up to some extent, since I can clearly see traces better (with less pixelation) on the math channels on the monitor vs the scope screen. Insofar as the inability to display math traces on the same waveform window, yes, it would be nice to have that standard option added, but in the meantime, docking math windows vertically with the waveforms (which can also be repeated using AX+B on other math channels) allows for horizontal "phase comparisons" with ease, while displaying amplitudes with properly labeled vertical axes when needed (including the XY window). (Also, needless to say, all traces can be user-labeled on their respective windows.)
The "TestModel: On" mode also enables the "advanced options" on the XY window, including its own persistence options and trace width/intensity.
While the sizes of some of the GUI motifs could be smaller in some places, they seem mostly just right to me for touch-screen operation. (On the other hand, I use a full-HD 22-inch monitor with a wireless mouse, and I don't have issues with trace sizes, icon sizes or lack of resolution for that matter.)
-
Some versions of this sign show the skid marks crossing each other, which in impossible.
Not of the car spins around.
-
Some versions of this sign show the skid marks crossing each other, which in impossible.
Not of the car spins around.
But then the skid marks will be more complex.
-
But then the skid marks will be more complex.
Depending on the terrain ant tire conditions you could be comparing a front wheel mark with a rear wheel mark, in which case they could cross over each other. ::)
eg. BMW X-drive where traction systems are connected diagonally (hence the 'X')
-
Some versions of this sign show the skid marks crossing each other, which in impossible.
Not of the car spins around.
But then the skid marks will be more complex.
Pull the handbrake on hard, then yank the wheel to the right. Your car does a nice handbrake turn and leaves your car pointing in the opposite direction, leaving a skid mark with a single cross just like the sign as only the rear wheels are locked and leaving tyre marks. (SOURCE: Misspent youth. ;))
-
Or do the rear-wheel drive 2-wheel driving stunts and spin a little. We're still on topic, right? Yeah, I think we're still on topic here. 🤣
-
What if you hit a tree stump and it goes up on two wheels?
Lesson: Never say "impossible" or "nobody" on EEVBLOG unless it involves a fundamental law of physics.
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows, for which the HDMI output to a bigger screen makes a lot of sense. Its XY functionality is also well featured, and the scope fan is not as loud. While the update rate of the FFT is relatively fast, its features could be vastly improved, and I am still hoping that Rigol will see the light and invest the few hours of development work needed to bring it up to par with the competition. (In the meantime, thanks in part to its fast update rate, it is quite easy (but far from ideal of course!) to quickly fetch FFT sample traces with a PC for further processing.)
That looks great! The combination of dockable windows and HDMI output to a larger screen was a part of my decision. I'm really looking forward to it after seeing those screenshots.
When you get your scope, enter "TestModel: On" mode by clicking 3x on Utility/About.
Under Utility/Other you will see you can set the resolution of the HDMI output (which defaults to the max 1920x1080 with my 22 inch monitor). I find that the GUI motifs/text are up-scaled properly, and contrary to rumors, trace resolutions do scale-up to some extent, since I can clearly see traces better (with less pixelation) on the math channels on the monitor vs the scope screen.
It looks like Rigol has been reading my comments about using the GPU to render traces. 8) Doing scaling is super easy when using a GPU for rendering where using an FPGA pretty much sucks for that purpose (memory bandwidth and other resources will become critical).
-
Under Utility/Other you will see you can set the resolution of the HDMI output (which defaults to the max 1920x1080 with my 22 inch monitor). I find that the GUI motifs/text are up-scaled properly, and contrary to rumors, trace resolutions do scale-up to some extent, since I can clearly see traces better (with less pixelation) on the math channels on the monitor vs the scope screen
The math channels might be done on the main CPU, not the FPGA.
-
There are some aspects of the Rigol DHO800 that I like and use all the time, like displaying multiple windows, for which the HDMI output to a bigger screen makes a lot of sense. Its XY functionality is also well featured, and the scope fan is not as loud. While the update rate of the FFT is relatively fast, its features could be vastly improved, and I am still hoping that Rigol will see the light and invest the few hours of development work needed to bring it up to par with the competition. (In the meantime, thanks in part to its fast update rate, it is quite easy (but far from ideal of course!) to quickly fetch FFT sample traces with a PC for further processing.)
That looks great! The combination of dockable windows and HDMI output to a larger screen was a part of my decision. I'm really looking forward to it after seeing those screenshots.
When you get your scope, enter "TestModel: On" mode by clicking 3x on Utility/About.
Under Utility/Other you will see you can set the resolution of the HDMI output (which defaults to the max 1920x1080 with my 22 inch monitor). I find that the GUI motifs/text are up-scaled properly, and contrary to rumors, trace resolutions do scale-up to some extent, since I can clearly see traces better (with less pixelation) on the math channels on the monitor vs the scope screen. Insofar as the inability to display math traces on the same waveform window, yes, it would be nice to have that standard option added, but in the meantime, docking math windows vertically with the waveforms (which can also be repeated using AX+B on other math channels) allows for horizontal "phase comparisons" with ease, while displaying amplitudes with properly labeled vertical axes when needed (including the XY window). (Also, needless to say, all traces can be user-labeled on their respective windows.)
The "TestModel: On" mode also enables the "advanced options" on the XY window, including its own persistence options and trace width/intensity.
While the sizes of some of the GUI motifs could be smaller in some places, they seem mostly just right to me for touch-screen operation. (On the other hand, I use a full-HD 22-inch monitor with a wireless mouse, and I don't have issues with trace sizes, icon sizes or lack of resolution for that matter.)
Indeed, it works !
-
The Rigol hacking thread (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5440640/#msg5440640) is getting interesting... people are now running other apps side by side with the 'scope app.
eg. a new FFT
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/?action=dlattach;attach=2109140;image)
-
The Rigol hacking thread (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5440640/#msg5440640) is getting interesting... people are now running other apps side by side with the 'scope app.
Youtube? 😉
-
The Rigol hacking thread (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5440640/#msg5440640) is getting interesting... people are now running other apps side by side with the 'scope app.
Youtube? 😉
It works... but the sound isn't as good as on the Micsig. :P
(maybe we can hack in a mini audio jack...)
-
(maybe we can hack in a mini audio jack...)
I believe someone already got sound on it, in some game or something like that. Probably via a USB sound card. No need to hack in an audio jack.
-
(maybe we can hack in a mini audio jack...)
I believe someone already got sound on it, in some game or something like that. Probably via a USB sound card. No need to hack in an audio jack.
It has a beeper, but... awful for music.
-
I continue to learn from and enjoy the comments. Now I just need the money and the spousal approval. I am leaning towards the Siglent, but so far availability seems to be severely limited. I assume this will get better over the next couple of months?
-
Yup. It's a new product. Rollouts are always like this. Within a couple of months I would expect stock to be normal.
I want the SDS3000XHD, which isn't in stock either. Thankfully, there will be PLENTY of stock and probably discounts by the time I can afford it. 😉
-
This thread has definitely helped me decide. I was leaning Siglent before, but I at least understand why (besides specs). I mostly do repairs so either would more than suit my needs. I am actually really excited about the possibilities of making my own probes. Plus that ui seems much more to my tastes.
-
This thread has definitely helped me decide. I was leaning Siglent before, but I at least understand why (besides specs). I mostly do repairs so either would more than suit my needs. I am actually really excited about the possibilities of making my own probes. Plus that ui seems much more to my tastes.
Most types of probe are difficult to make, requiring special components. They aren't just bits or wire or coax!
Which type are you thinking of making?
-
Basic differential to start with. Also the opportunity to learn how everything works the best way, by doing. But, I feel like I have fallen in the biggest rabbit hole in my life... Any recommendations?
-
I assume this will get better over the next couple of months?
Those of us with backorders certainly hope so. :scared:
-
I want the SDS3000XHD
Aha ?! :D
-
I want the SDS3000XHD
Aha ?! :D
Want, not need. 🤣
-
Oh well... ;D
And I thought you wanted to join the club. ;)
(Currently the waiting club)
-
This thread has definitely helped me decide. I was leaning Siglent before, but I at least understand why (besides specs). I mostly do repairs so either would more than suit my needs. I am actually really excited about the possibilities of making my own probes. Plus that ui seems much more to my tastes.
Your message is a little ambiguous. You were leaning Siglent before.....and still are, or have changed your mind? Which UI is more to your taste?
SDS800/900X now available on Australian websites. Pricing looks lower than Rigol.
-
SDS800/900X now available on Australian websites. Pricing looks lower than Rigol.
That brings up a thought: How much of a price differential would be needed to move someone from one of these units to the other? I realize that this is highly subjective, and maybe won't yield any useful data, but ... I'll throw it out there anyway.
To put this in concrete terms, I was thinking ahead a couple of months, wondering if Rigol will drop the price on the DHO804 when the Siglent SDS804 becomes more widely available. I'm leaning towards the Siglent, but if the Rigol were significantly cheaper, I would really wrestle with the choice. For example, if the Siglent stays at the $439 currently advertised price (advertised, but "out of stock"!), and the Rigol dropped down to, say, $359 ... given that I am a newbie who will probably never use more than 10% of either scopes' full capabilities ... and that this is purely a hobby ... would that differential lead you to go with the Rigol?
-
To put this in concrete terms, I was thinking ahead a couple of months, wondering if Rigol will drop the price on the DHO804 when the Siglent SDS804 becomes more widely available. I'm leaning towards the Siglent, but if the Rigol were significantly cheaper, I would really wrestle with the choice. For example, if the Siglent stays at the $439 currently advertised price (advertised, but "out of stock"!), and the Rigol dropped down to, say, $359 ... given that I am a newbie who will probably never use more than 10% of either scopes' full capabilities ... and that this is purely a hobby ... would that differential lead you to go with the Rigol?
How many channels do you need? The 802X is only $339. Not that I recommend getting less than 4 channels. 😉
-
SDS800/900X now available on Australian websites. Pricing looks lower than Rigol.
That brings up a thought: How much of a price differential would be needed to move someone from one of these units to the other? I realize that this is highly subjective, and maybe won't yield any useful data, but ... I'll throw it out there anyway.
To put this in concrete terms, I was thinking ahead a couple of months, wondering if Rigol will drop the price on the DHO804 when the Siglent SDS804 becomes more widely available. I'm leaning towards the Siglent, but if the Rigol were significantly cheaper, I would really wrestle with the choice. For example, if the Siglent stays at the $439 currently advertised price (advertised, but "out of stock"!), and the Rigol dropped down to, say, $359 ... given that I am a newbie who will probably never use more than 10% of either scopes' full capabilities ... and that this is purely a hobby ... would that differential lead you to go with the Rigol?
Lets not forget that difference is not only in number of features...
But there is difference in software quality too. Namely in how buggy devices are and how good is support effort to fix problems if they are found. So that had to be taken as relevant data point too.
-
SDS800/900X now available on Australian websites. Pricing looks lower than Rigol.
That brings up a thought: How much of a price differential would be needed to move someone from one of these units to the other? I realize that this is highly subjective, and maybe won't yield any useful data, but ... I'll throw it out there anyway.
To put this in concrete terms, I was thinking ahead a couple of months, wondering if Rigol will drop the price on the DHO804 when the Siglent SDS804 becomes more widely available. I'm leaning towards the Siglent, but if the Rigol were significantly cheaper, I would really wrestle with the choice. For example, if the Siglent stays at the $439 currently advertised price (advertised, but "out of stock"!), and the Rigol dropped down to, say, $359 ... given that I am a newbie who will probably never use more than 10% of either scopes' full capabilities ... and that this is purely a hobby ... would that differential lead you to go with the Rigol?
That's a harder to answer than it seems. If the Rigol was less than €300 I'd buy both. I would also pass on the Siglent for sure if it was over €600, and save up for a higher model. At which point I would consider it too expensive, I really don't know.
I will be able to answer the question better when my SDS804X-HD arrives.
I personally would only buy the DHO804 if I already had a higher class oscilloscope. I think the VESA mount and HDMI out are actually quite useful, but that might depend on the state of your bench.
-
How many channels do you need? The 802X is only $339. Not that I recommend getting less than 4 channels. 😉
Need? Why, I need them all. Desperately. Truly, really, urgently need.
At least, that's what I'm telling my spouse. :)
More seriously, I've never used a scope with more than 2 channels, but given my interest in microcontroller projects, I can see where the extra channels could be useful. One possible example would be SPI decoding. I haven't ever "needed" that before, but then again, I haven't used SPI that much until recently, and of course haven't ever had any way to check it before. Another possibility could be tracing PWM signals, comparing the output from the microcontroller with the output from an opto-isolator and from the MOSFET to see propagation delay. (Yes, I do understand the last part of that requires careful consideration depending on voltages involved. I learned this the hard way by popping the fuse a couple of times on my old Tektronix scope. Fortunately, it suffered no harm other than the fuse!)
-
For example, if the Siglent stays at the $439 currently advertised price (advertised, but "out of stock"!), and the Rigol dropped down to, say, $359 ...
I was able to secure my SDS804X-HD for $390 by committing to buy on a back-order. Not sure if this reflects a coming price drop, :-//
Your mileage may vary.
-
I've rarely needed more that 2 channels but, when you do, there is no substitute. It's not only SPI, if you have IR comunications of some sort via I2C, for example, you cannot probe the bus and the LEDs/photodiodes at once to debug, and that's an extremely basic use case.
-
Yes, I do understand the last part of that requires careful consideration depending on voltages involved. I learned this the hard way by popping the fuse a couple of times on my old Tektronix scope. Fortunately, it suffered no harm other than the fuse!)
That is a good reminder that you also need to budget for the appropriate class of probe.
For SPI work, consider a small cheap separate digital-domain tool, e.g. a logic analyser or protocol analyser such as a bus pirate 5.
-
But there is difference in software quality too. Namely in how buggy devices are and how good is support effort to fix problems if they are found. So that had to be taken as relevant data point too.
None is perfect.
I can put up with three of four niggles, which is all there is on my Rigol.
I don't know how many the Siglent has, I don't read those threads. Maybe somebody could let us know.
-
More seriously, I've never used a scope with more than 2 channels, but given my interest in microcontroller projects, I can see where the extra channels could be useful. One possible example would be SPI decoding. I haven't ever "needed" that before, but then again, I haven't used SPI that much until recently, and of course haven't ever had any way to check it before. Another possibility could be tracing PWM signals, comparing the output from the microcontroller with the output from an opto-isolator and from the MOSFET to see propagation delay.
That's the least of it.
I use mine for debugging - use a pin to signal when something happens and watch for it on the 'scope.
Monitor the outputs from sensors.
There's all sorts of uses for those other channels.
-
I can put up with three of four niggles, which is all there is on my Rigol.
I don't know how many the Siglent has, I don't read those threads. Maybe somebody could let us know.
Niggles are in the eye of the beholder .. so to speak.
For instance, I consider the screen display part of the Rigol UI to be a right old mess. You probably don't. I also think the power brick is just as silly as all get out, but someone that has a use case for the compact size will see it differently.
Rigol have just never floated my boat, so that history plays into it too.
There are land mines of all sorts in these threads. People ask for a recommendation, then they get 137 different opinions based on 137 different points of view.
Assess your needs, buy soemthing that meets them. Live with it or sell it and try again. Life is often like that.
No help to be had.
-
I was able to secure my SDS804X-HD for $390 by committing to buy on a back-order. Not sure if this reflects a coming price drop, :-//
Your mileage may vary.
Interesting. I see that you are in Canada; I wonder if there are any USA sources that would do something similar?
-
I was able to secure my SDS804X-HD for $390 by committing to buy on a back-order. Not sure if this reflects a coming price drop, :-//
Your mileage may vary.
Interesting. I see that you are in Canada; I wonder if there are any USA sources that would do something similar?
6% off at Saelig with their discount code would be a good start.
-
Interesting. I see that you are in Canada; I wonder if there are any USA sources that would do something similar?
Probably worth a phone call.
-
6% off at Saelig with their discount code would be a good start.
I have not forgotten that! That doesn't get it all the way down to $390, but it gets part of the way there. Still, I won't have the money until early June, so I will wait a bit.
-
One possible example would be SPI decoding. I haven't ever "needed" that before, but then again, I haven't used SPI that much until recently, and of course haven't ever had any way to check it before.
I have done lots of SPI, Serial and I2C tracing. The logic analysers with normal probes on oscilloscopes are very very weak compared to even the minimal dedicated logic analyser.
You can buy a Salea/SigGrok/pulseview 8 channel simple 24Mhz logic analyser for 10 bucks that completely blows away the DHO800 oscilloscope without the dedicated logic probe. I have never used an oscilloscope with a dedicated logic probe but that's not related to the topic here. I have used professional dedicated logic analysers, but that's many years ago. They were great.
I have the Rigol DHO802 myself as well.
At $100 AUD bucks you can buy the old model 16 channel Dreamsource lab non Plus versions, for $200 you can buy the newer Plus versions. These things are fine for pretty much anything I have done with the esp32 and ARM CPUs. SPI buses are nothing compared to the ability of a Plus. The Dreamsource lab even have a dedicated click pin so 50Mhz is no worries.
TBH, I used the 8 channel one for years, it saved my heaps of time over and over. I'd still reach for it instead of the toy SPI decoder on my Rigol.
-
One possible example would be SPI decoding. I haven't ever "needed" that before, but then again, I haven't used SPI that much until recently, and of course haven't ever had any way to check it before.
I have done lots of SPI, Serial and I2C tracing. The logic analysers with normal probes on oscilloscopes are very very weak compared to even the minimal dedicated logic analyser.
You can buy a Salea/SigGrok/pulseview 8 channel simple 24Mhz logic analyser for 10 bucks that completely blows away the DHO800 oscilloscope without the dedicated logic probe. I have never used an oscilloscope with a dedicated logic probe but that's not related to the topic here. I have used professional dedicated logic analysers, but that's many years ago. They were great.
Just to amplify that, the reason LAs are useful is that they allow you to ignore most of the data, so you can concenrate on the information.
The simplest (but very important) example is of only capturing information when a clock changes, so you see the sequence of states rather than a sequence of samples.
More interesting examples are not starting to capture information until a specific sequence of events/states occurs. That might not be possible with very cheap devices which rely on post-processing captured data.
The same can apply to protocol analysers, at the message level rather than the bit/state level.
One possible advantage of MSOs is easier alignment of the waveforms and digital data, but with a little imagination that can be done with separate instruments.
-
One possible advantage of MSOs is easier alignment of the waveforms and digital data, but with a little imagination that can be done with separate instruments.
This may well be true but the use case is getting pretty slim here and yes I agree, it's no issue at all hooking a line to both the oscilloscope and the LA.
It's also a normal thing to use a GPIO as a trigger for either. Then you have the best of all worlds. You can decide when you want to trigger without using your brain and working out some rando sequence to get the LA to trigger on.
Something to add, I do often use an oscilloscope on a SPI or serial bus. It's often actually the first thing I do, before I reach for the logic analyser.
It's a better instrument to look at the signals, check their existence and levels. Specially with I2C and pull-ups. But once I know they look OK, I don't look at it again.
-
One possible advantage of MSOs is easier alignment of the waveforms and digital data, but with a little imagination that can be done with separate instruments.
This may well be true but the use case is getting pretty slim here and yes I agree, it's no issue at all hooking a line to both the oscilloscope and the LA.
It's also a normal thing to use a GPIO as a trigger for either. Then you have the best of all worlds. You can decide when you want to trigger without using your brain and working out some rando sequence to get the LA to trigger on.
Something to add, I do often use an oscilloscope on a SPI or serial bus. It's often actually the first thing I do, before I reach for the logic analyser.
It's a better instrument to look at the signals, check their existence and levels. Specially with I2C and pull-ups. But once I know they look OK, I don't look at it again.
Agreed.
I wish more people realised the sound technical benefits of (1) using an analogue time domain instrument (a scope) to ensure signal integrity, then (2) flipping to the digital time domain for digital signals (an LA, protocol analysers, printf() etc).
Yes, you can insert screws with a hammer, but it is better to use a screwdriver :)
-
Yes, you can insert screws with a hammer, but it is better to use a screwdriver :)
At the same time it's always worth remembering that there are certain types of screws that are actually designed to be inserted with a hammer.
-
i dont know you people, but for me SPI I2C UART etc is more of software issue. when i looked quickly at oscilloscope for say SPI signal, i can know what issue in software, when software is fixed, there is no more need to look SPI on dso, so i found myself only spent very little time on such mode. different with reverse engineering other product's SPI, we need longer time with dso and probably need to save data in PC too. parallel logic otoh, MSO has its place, things like alignment, delay etc and looking at total 16CH at real time. but DHO900 only provides very basic LA function, i dont think i can trust to look at ns range delay (member reporting only 156.25MSps) and no parallel logic decoding i can see, which is very useful as well, i hope there will be upgrade for that in next FW version. but since i treat the feature as bell and whistle only (i hack dho800 to dho900) i cant hope too much. since i dont have 16CH LA (i only have cloned 8CH salae logic but i barely use) so it encourages me to clone the rigol LA probe to be used on DHO800, why not? major parts already there in FPGA and on PCB! same thing with AFG. legit salae 16CH costs a fortune, maybe like 5-10X the cost of DHO800, i saw some cloned 16CH in aliexpress, but since i dont use LA often i'm not going to buy, and how software is going to looks and functions is also suspect for northen hemisphere cloned products, if it can use salae hacked SW, then thats fine. ymmv.
-
Yep. DSO is used to see if the pullups on the I2C bus are adequate and if the devices are responding to messages.
After that it's printf().
I've got one of those cheapo USB devices and I never use it. It's such a pain to press 'record' and wait then stop it and go looking for something useful.
I guess it might be useful if I was reverse engineering a protocol or something where you need to capture data for a long time then go into it. My Rigol has quite a lot of memory at I2C speeds, too, though and can do a full memory decode.
-
FWIW here's my trick for easily finding the frequency of a peak in the Rigol's FFT.
The trick is that the frequency of the FFT at the center of the screen is always shown at the bottom.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2119799;image)
Once you know that you just use your finger to move the FFT left/right and put peaks at the center. You can also pinch-zoom to expand/reduce the FFT. It's really easy.
If you want a table with numbers for printing or whatever, it has it, but... really not needed most of the time.
Just more proof that sometimes you just need to throw the old mentality out when you have a 'scope that's interactive in this way. This sort of thing isn't obvious to people who are "Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs" and only looking at screenshots.
Here's me just swiping left/right on an FFT of the calibration signal, putting different peaks at the center.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aup3t4EAjug (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aup3t4EAjug)
-
@awakephd So, I promised to give you a description of my experience with the Rigol DHO800 once I received it. It's been amusing to watch the Rigol and Siglent factions battle it out here, but I come from a position of total neutrality. I've had it for about a week now and I'm really enjoying it. The last time I'd regularly used a CRO was a 2-tonne Tektronix at university in the 80's. Since then, I've only worked with voltages of 132 kV and above. I've recently set up a modest home lab and I'll mostly be using it for switch mode power supply design and some audio amplifier work (I've already managed to repair two old hi-fi amps for friends). I also wanted a scope that I could easily run off a battery to float. I have a small sealed AGM deep-cycle lead acid battery that will give me around 3 hours of runtime, so with wi-fi remote control, (which works quite well), it will let me safely do a couple of odd things that I have in mind. That was one of the deciding factors that tipped me toward the Rigol, plus the unavailability of the Siglent 800X in Australia when I placed my order.
I know this is something that all modern DSOs would do, but I didn't realise just how useful the measuring functions would be. This week I've been tuning the gate drivers for an SMPS project I'm working on and it has made life so much easier. Having Vmax, rise & fall times, duty cycle, overshoot %, etc, listed to the side of the screen is fantastic. My only gripes so far are some relatively minor things with the screen design. I did a little mock-up that I'll attach below. I'm sure that Rigol will see it and address all my points in the next firmware update. ;D
1. Why do they waste the vertical space of such a small screen with all those grey borders (that I've highlighted in RED), I don't know? I guess it's from carrying the design over from their larger screen models. Anyway, it's not an issue in practice, but sure, it would be nice for the waveform window to have a little extra height.
2. I've edited the image to add the probe ratios. Why on earth haven't they put them there? Instead, the space is used to show the text "20 MHz" when you enable Bandwidth Limiting. I don't know how often people use that, but since it's an ON/OFF thing, it could easily be indicated by a symbol next to the channel number to make room for the probe ratios to be shown.
3. The 'Results' list on the right of the screen could show 8 results instead of 5 if they didn't waste all that vertical space. They could still keep the little graphic by moving it to the right of the text. It's nice that it lets you have items from different channels at the same time, so you could easily make good use of 8 quantities instead of 5. (Does the Siglent allow measurements from multiple channels at the same time? Defpoms review seemed to suggest not, I could be wrong, although it seems to allow you to display more items at once.)
4. I might like the waveform window to contract when the 'Result' list is displayed on the right since I have that displaying pretty much all the time, then again it is transparent and you can see through it. (I believe there is an option to toggle that on and off on the SDS800X).
5. I'm not sold on the idea of 'maths' traces being displayed in individual separate windows. It hasn't been a problem for me yet, but I'm guessing a scenario will come up soon where I'd like to overlay a 'maths' trace on the regular waveform traces, although you can stack the windows vertically with aligned time scales, so that's something at least.
Anyway, that's it. If I got to choose one item on the list to be implemented, it would be number 3, followed by number 5. My needs are pretty basic. I'm doing simple circuit design and just want to see what is happening. There are probably all sorts of nuanced differences in complex functionality between the SDS800X and DHO800 that I have no idea about. I'll need to do some bode plots soon, which I won't be able to automate, but having the ability to display calculated waveform peaks and phase differences between channel traces will make that a piece of cake anyway. The FFT looks good to me, at least at the frequencies I'm interested in. It seems fast enough and the accompanying table you can turn on is nice.
If the Siglent had been available, I might have got it instead. It seems to have been designed to make slightly better use of the screen real estate, whereas the Rigol looks designed to give 'wow' factor at first glance....engineers vs marketers and graphic designers, but I'm sure either would do the job for me just fine...we are really are spoiled for choice and value.
-
3. The 'Results' list on the right of the screen could show 8 results instead of 5 if they didn't waste all that vertical space. They could still keep the little graphic by moving it to the right of the text. It's nice that it lets you have items from different channels at the same time, so you could easily make good use of 8 quantities instead of 5. (Does the Siglent allow measurements from multiple channels at the same time? Defpoms review seemed to suggest not, I could be wrong, although it seems to allow you to display more items at once.)
Yes, SDS800X HD supports different channel measurements, up to 5, simple measurement mode can support dozens of measurement items.
measurement review can refer to:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5293750/#msg5293750 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/msg5293750/#msg5293750)
-
You don't have experience with the device yet, just first impressions..
You call it a draw because you have low expectations and then you immediately make a list of things you don't like..
I would let some time go by before making that conclusion.
-
You don't have experience with the device yet, just first impressions..
You call it a draw because you have low expectations and then you immediately make a list of things you don't like..
I would let some time go by before making that conclusion.
Yep, as I said, I have simple needs and either would be just fine for me. Maybe I'll find myself constrained in the near future, or I might never have the opportunity to find out what I'm missing out on and be happy living in blissful ignorance. (And I do prefer the beige case ;))
-
1. Why do they waste the vertical space of such a small screen with all those grey borders (that I've highlighted in RED), I don't know? I guess it's from carrying the design over from their larger screen models. Anyway, it's not an issue in practice, but sure, it would be nice for the waveform window to have a little extra height.
Yep. It's easy to imagine it will make a difference but it really isn't an issue.
3. The 'Results' list on the right of the screen could show 8 results instead of 5 if they didn't waste all that vertical space.
Somebody already did that in the hacking thread. It turns out a lot of the UI is controlled by XML files.
I think the hacking/extending of the DHO800 is just getting started and we can expect big things in the future.
@awakephd So, I promised to give you a description of my experience with the Rigol DHO800 once I received it. It's been amusing to watch the Rigol and Siglent factions battle it out here, but I come from a position of total neutrality. I've had it for about a week now and I'm really enjoying it.
:-+
-
3. The 'Results' list on the right of the screen could show 8 results instead of 5 if they didn't waste all that vertical space.
Somebody already did that in the hacking thread. It turns out a lot of the UI is controlled by XML files.
I think the hacking/extending of the DHO800 is just getting started and we can expect big things in the future.
Oh, wow, thanks for the heads up. If I can manage that it would really make my day. I'll have to dedicate some time to reading the hacking thread and learn XML (and Android??)...it sounds like there's a lot of fun to be had!
-
3. The 'Results' list on the right of the screen could show 8 results instead of 5 if they didn't waste all that vertical space.
Somebody already did that in the hacking thread. It turns out a lot of the UI is controlled by XML files.
I think the hacking/extending of the DHO800 is just getting started and we can expect big things in the future.
Oh, wow, thanks for the heads up. If I can manage that it would really make my day. I'll have to dedicate some time to reading the hacking thread and learn XML (and Android??)...it sounds like there's a lot of fun to be had!
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5365715/#msg5365715 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5365715/#msg5365715)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/?action=dlattach;attach=2044679;image)
2. I've edited the image to add the probe ratios. Why on earth haven't they put them there?shown.
That's been done, too...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5366141/#msg5366141 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5366141/#msg5366141)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/?action=dlattach;attach=2045054;image)
-
That's been done, too...
thats unofficial hack i dont think its proper to bring it up here, ymmv. the fact still stands that GUI developer is an artist, so much wasted space that can be used for technical infomations. but its minor thing for me, i will concentrate on my subject matter ignoring artistic nature of it.
-
@awakephd So, I promised to give you a description of my experience with the Rigol DHO800 once I received it. It's been amusing to watch the Rigol and Siglent factions battle it out here, but I come from a position of total neutrality. I've had it for about a week now and I'm really enjoying it. The last time I'd regularly used a CRO was a 2-tonne Tektronix at university in the 80's. Since then, I've only worked with voltages of 132 kV and above. I've recently set up a modest home lab and I'll mostly be using it for switch mode power supply design and some audio amplifier work (I've already managed to repair two old hi-fi amps for friends). I also wanted a scope that I could easily run off a battery to float. I have a small sealed AGM deep-cycle lead acid battery that will give me around 3 hours of runtime, so with wi-fi remote control, (which works quite well), it will let me safely do a couple of odd things that I have in mind. That was one of the deciding factors that tipped me toward the Rigol, plus the unavailability of the Siglent 800X in Australia when I placed my order.
I know this is something that all modern DSOs would do, but I didn't realise just how useful the measuring functions would be. This week I've been tuning the gate drivers for an SMPS project I'm working on and it has made life so much easier. Having Vmax, rise & fall times, duty cycle, overshoot %, etc, listed to the side of the screen is fantastic. My only gripes so far are some relatively minor things with the screen design. I did a little mock-up that I'll attach below. I'm sure that Rigol will see it and address all my points in the next firmware update. ;D
1. Why do they waste the vertical space of such a small screen with all those grey borders (that I've highlighted in RED), I don't know? I guess it's from carrying the design over from their larger screen models. Anyway, it's not an issue in practice, but sure, it would be nice for the waveform window to have a little extra height.
2. I've edited the image to add the probe ratios. Why on earth haven't they put them there? Instead, the space is used to show the text "20 MHz" when you enable Bandwidth Limiting. I don't know how often people use that, but since it's an ON/OFF thing, it could easily be indicated by a symbol next to the channel number to make room for the probe ratios to be shown.
3. The 'Results' list on the right of the screen could show 8 results instead of 5 if they didn't waste all that vertical space. They could still keep the little graphic by moving it to the right of the text. It's nice that it lets you have items from different channels at the same time, so you could easily make good use of 8 quantities instead of 5. (Does the Siglent allow measurements from multiple channels at the same time? Defpoms review seemed to suggest not, I could be wrong, although it seems to allow you to display more items at once.)
4. I might like the waveform window to contract when the 'Result' list is displayed on the right since I have that displaying pretty much all the time, then again it is transparent and you can see through it. (I believe there is an option to toggle that on and off on the SDS800X).
5. I'm not sold on the idea of 'maths' traces being displayed in individual separate windows. It hasn't been a problem for me yet, but I'm guessing a scenario will come up soon where I'd like to overlay a 'maths' trace on the regular waveform traces, although you can stack the windows vertically with aligned time scales, so that's something at least.
Anyway, that's it. If I got to choose one item on the list to be implemented, it would be number 3, followed by number 5. My needs are pretty basic. I'm doing simple circuit design and just want to see what is happening. There are probably all sorts of nuanced differences in complex functionality between the SDS800X and DHO800 that I have no idea about. I'll need to do some bode plots soon, which I won't be able to automate, but having the ability to display calculated waveform peaks and phase differences between channel traces will make that a piece of cake anyway. The FFT looks good to me, at least at the frequencies I'm interested in. It seems fast enough and the accompanying table you can turn on is nice.
If the Siglent had been available, I might have got it instead. It seems to have been designed to make slightly better use of the screen real estate, whereas the Rigol looks designed to give 'wow' factor at first glance....engineers vs marketers and graphic designers, but I'm sure either would do the job for me just fine...we are really are spoiled for choice and value.
Harrow, thanks so much for circling back on this. Your first impressions are quite helpful, as it sounds like our interests are not dissimilar. I will admit that I don't typically work with 132kV ... I make it a strict policy to stay under 130kV. :)
thats unofficial hack i dont think its proper to bring it up here, ymmv. the fact still stands that GUI developer is an artist, so much wasted space that can be used for technical infomations. but its minor thing for me, i will concentrate on my subject matter ignoring artistic nature of it.
I am not sure why it would not be proper to bring up the hacks that are available? As the OP, that is one of the things I asked about early on in this thread. Obviously, different folks will have different priorities and needs, but the degree to which either of the scopes in question is hackable is definitely of interest to me. Perhaps I am not understanding what is meant by "unofficial" hack - I would have thought that any hack was, by definition, unofficial? I plead for patience, as I am no doubt further reinforcing my newbie status ...
-
thats unofficial hack i dont think its proper to bring it up here, ymmv. the fact still stands that GUI developer is an artist, so much wasted space that can be used for technical infomations. but its minor thing for me, i will concentrate on my subject matter ignoring artistic nature of it.
I am not sure why it would not be proper to bring up the hacks that are available? As the OP, that is one of the things I asked about early on in this thread. Obviously, different folks will have different priorities and needs, but the degree to which either of the scopes in question is hackable is definitely of interest to me. Perhaps I am not understanding what is meant by "unofficial" hack - I would have thought that any hack was, by definition, unofficial? I plead for patience, as I am no doubt further reinforcing my newbie status ...
I think he means some hacks are "official" in the sense that you enable things by installing license keys (eg. bandwidth upgrade).
I don't see why other hacks are lesser hacks though.
-
I don't see why other hacks are lesser hacks though.
As you know, I hate Rigol...but in this case, the hacking sounds fun, and actually made me consider it for a second. 😉
-
thats unofficial hack i dont think its proper to bring it up here, ymmv. the fact still stands that GUI developer is an artist, so much wasted space that can be used for technical infomations. but its minor thing for me, i will concentrate on my subject matter ignoring artistic nature of it.
I am not sure why it would not be proper to bring up the hacks that are available? As the OP, that is one of the things I asked about early on in this thread. Obviously, different folks will have different priorities and needs, but the degree to which either of the scopes in question is hackable is definitely of interest to me. Perhaps I am not understanding what is meant by "unofficial" hack - I would have thought that any hack was, by definition, unofficial? I plead for patience, as I am no doubt further reinforcing my newbie status ...
I think he means some hacks are "official" in the sense that you enable things by installing license keys (eg. bandwidth upgrade).
I don't see why other hacks are lesser hacks though.
sorry i sometime mixed up english... first unofficial i meant is its not from official FW in rigol website, and secondly, that specific hack only applies to current FW being hacked/hex edited, once the FW is upgraded, its gone and the original creator of the hack has to "re-edit" the newer FW and redistribute it for others to "re-patch". other type of hack like vendor.bin hack which will still valid on newer FW without you doing anything, FWIW... anyway "unofficial" also can mean, you have to work something after you make a purchase and possibly invalidated the warranty, and some people are not comfortable doing it.
if we can include hackability in decision making, i can vote on rigol DHO800 since upgrading AFG and LA is now possible (at cheap cost), even though with charming 2GSps and faster FFT on siglent SDS800X, i think i can squeeze more functionalities out of DHO800 + downloaded data to PC for analysis. charming measurement in SDS800X such as Trend, i can just eyeball or make some simple rig circuit using arduino or something to get the same functionality, i can also learn in the process, albeit waste more time. but for some, they just want everything to be ready in scope in silver plate to save time or whatever reason, which DHO800 is lacking on few aspects compared to SDS800X... so ymmv.
just as analogy, some people like to buy coat or office dressing and hate jungle trekking dressing, because they work in office for living and afraid if even a little scratch got onto their skin. but for some other people, they swear by jungle or army tactical dressing and will put coat dress in dustbin even if someone give to them for free, because their life is in jungle and have no use to office dressing, so people come here to ask what dress to choose? i question back, what type of person are you? where do you work? if they ask what type oscilloscope to buy? i ask, do you enjoy hacking and tearing your scope apart to do "unofficial" hack? or you are type "i dont want to void warranty sticker" i just want it to work out of the box with plenty of fancy bells and whistles. both situations will give different answer. ymmv cheers.
-
sorry i sometime mixed up english... first unofficial i meant is its not from official FW in rigol website, and secondly, that specific hack only applies to current FW being hacked/hex edited, once the FW is upgraded, its gone and the original creator of the hack has to "re-edit" the newer FW and redistribute it for others to "re-patch". other type of hack like vendor.bin hack which will still valid on newer FW without you doing anything, FWIW... anyway "unofficial" also can mean, you have to work something after you make a purchase and possibly invalidated the warranty, and some people are not comfortable doing it.
That is a very helpful distinction. Thanks for clarifying - the possibility of having to re-work a hack (vs. downloading new firmware) does indeed make a difference to me. Thanks!
-
sorry i sometime mixed up english... first unofficial i meant is its not from official FW in rigol website, and secondly, that specific hack only applies to current FW being hacked/hex edited, once the FW is upgraded, its gone and the original creator of the hack has to "re-edit" the newer FW and redistribute it for others to "re-patch". other type of hack like vendor.bin hack which will still valid on newer FW without you doing anything, FWIW... anyway "unofficial" also can mean, you have to work something after you make a purchase and possibly invalidated the warranty, and some people are not comfortable doing it.
That is a very helpful distinction. Thanks for clarifying - the possibility of having to re-work a hack (vs. downloading new firmware) does indeed make a difference to me. Thanks!
Re-hacking after a firmware update is normal on many oscilloscope hacks. The popular ones get scripts to update them - just run the script after a firmware update. It's not as if there's firmware updates every day...
Things like the FFT hack are separate apps and won't be affected.
-
Re-hacking after a firmware update is normal on many oscilloscope hacks.
Not on Siglent. Once a feature is unlocked, it stays that way.
-
Re-hacking after a firmware update is normal on many oscilloscope hacks.
Not on Siglent. Once a feature is unlocked, it stays that way.
"unlocked" features stay unlocked on Rigols, too.
We're talking about modifications
-
Re-hacking after a firmware update is normal on many oscilloscope hacks. The popular ones get scripts to update them - just run the script after a firmware update. It's not as if there's firmware updates every day...
Things like the FFT hack are separate apps and won't be affected.
Also very helpful. Thanks!
-
Not on Siglent. Once a feature is unlocked, it stays that way.
"unlocked" features stay unlocked on Rigols, too.
We're talking about modifications
At least part of what you're talking about are modifications that bring some of the features that can simply be unlocked on the relevant Siglent being discussed in this thread.
The other part would be customizations to the UI.
-
At least part of what you're talking about are modifications that bring some of the features that can simply be unlocked on the relevant Siglent being discussed in this thread.
The other part would be customizations to the UI.
Which features in particular? I ask out of ignorance, since I have yet to get my hands on even a basic DSO.
Are there features on the Rigol that are not on the Siglent, or which would have to be hacked to get on the Siglent? I have gained the impression that the Rigol might have more ability to create side-by-side windows showing different but related data ... ? If that is true - and please forgive my ignorance if it is not! - I'm not sure how useful that is in practice. Again, I plead ignorance - but I do feel a bit less ignorant as a result of the many helpful replies on this thread.
-
If you are highly technical person and dont develop your own tool like app in PC, siglent is more polished. And 2GSps is really something, its should be possible to look at near 1GHz RF, such as 433 or 800MHz china RF module digital ASK modulation, something 1GSps scope is incapable, even if frontend BW is hackable. But then which type of guy are you? :-//
-
its should be possible to look at near 1GHz RF, such as 433 or 800MHz china RF module digital ASK modulation
Which I would never want to do...
-
If you are highly technical person and dont develop your own tool like app in PC, siglent is more polished. And 2GSps is really something, its should be possible to look at near 1GHz RF, such as 433 or 800MHz china RF module digital ASK modulation, something 1GSps scope is incapable, even if frontend BW is hackable. But then which type of guy are you? :-//
I would hope they are they type of guy that would use an appropriate tool.
- for many RF measurements that means a frequency-domain or modulation-domain instrument (a scope is time-domain)
- for amplitude shift keying (ASK), that means an "RF probe"
With one of those they could use any scope with a bandwidth that exceeds the signal bandwidth/baudrate (which has nothing to do with the RF carrier frequency).
Example RF probe: hp11096a/b. While that's only characterised to 700MHz, with modern components it would be trivial for an amateur to build a higher frequency equivalent.
-
And 2GSps is really something, its should be possible to look at near 1GHz RF, such as 433 or 800MHz china RF module digital ASK modulation, something 1GSps scope is incapable, even if frontend BW is hackable. But then which type of guy are you? :-//
I would not stress potential hacked, extreme-bandwidth applications here. Very few users will try to go there. But even without considering hardware hacks, it is worth mentioning that 2 GSa/s (as in the SDS800X HD) are sufficient to support 200 MHz bandwidth in 4-channel mode, while 1.2 GSa/s (DHO800/900) are not.
Also, if one has any plans to use the logic analyser option in the future, the Siglent scopes will still have 2 GSa/s available for the analog channels, while the DHO900 will cut that sampling rate in half. (But the Siglent has other limitations, due to the fact that digital data are acquired by an external FPGA subsystem.)
-
I would hope they are they type of guy that would use an appropriate tool.
- for many RF measurements that means a frequency-domain or modulation-domain instrument (a scope is time-domain)
with what? 30K$ fieldfox? and 5K$ probe or cables? Sometime looking at presence of carrier will help. There's diy open loop antenna to detect rf etc.. and with cheap item we can do relative measurement of rf power, not necessarily absolute traceable measurement. if you cant do more with less like i can i wont force you, cheers.[/list]
That's a classic strawman argument, based on a cherry-picked quote and deliberate omission of the points which respond to your assertion - before you even made your assertion!
Here's the complete post to which you responded, with the relevant bits emphasised so you can't miss them.
I would hope they are they type of guy that would use an appropriate tool.
- for many RF measurements that means a frequency-domain or modulation-domain instrument (a scope is time-domain)
- for amplitude shift keying (ASK), that means an "RF probe"
With one of those they could use any scope with a bandwidth that exceeds the signal bandwidth/baudrate (which has nothing to do with the RF carrier frequency).
Example RF probe: hp11096a/b. While that's only characterised to 700MHz, with modern components it would be trivial for an amateur to build a higher frequency equivalent.
And apart from that, my 21GHz spectrum analysers (plural) only cost £350 each.
Finally, can I suggest you remember what you wrote here https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/why-writing-style-and-grammar-matters-in-posts/msg5461151/#msg5461151 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/why-writing-style-and-grammar-matters-in-posts/msg5461151/#msg5461151) Other people shouldn't bother to follow the link :)
-
That's a classic strawman argument, based on a cherry-picked quote and deliberate omission of the points which respond to your assertion
cherry pick or not, thats what you typed. I dont have to or cant afford to respond to all of your arguments, i'm typing from phone... rather than run away from the point i picked from your post by accusing strawman etc.. why dont you respond with solid technical facts? So i ask again? What appropriate frequency domain tool to use? It is you that strawman, pot talking to kettle. i talked about basic china module for hobby, not emc approved device.
Que?
Read what I wrote, then stop and think and understand. Yet again the answers to your questions are already there.
Nobody cares about you input device "...i'm typing from a phone...". If you do the equivalent of using a hammer to insert screws, is it surprising that the results are sub-optimal?
-
I would not stress potential hacked, extreme-bandwidth applications here. Very few users will try to go there. But even without considering hardware hacks, it is worth mentioning that 2 GSa/s (as in the SDS800X HD) are sufficient to support 200 MHz bandwidth in 4-channel mode, while 1.2 GSa/s (DHO800/900) are not.
I don't see that as much of a problem in practice, especially if you're aware of it. Four simultaneous 200MHz signals aren't easy for hobbyists to find. It's really easy to drop down to two channels if you're in doubt. You'll probably see a difference on the Siglent, too, if it's anything more than a simple sine wave.
If you're always working at 200MHz on four channels then you need a better 'scope than either of these. Probably active probes, too (if you're using probes).
-
very few? i'm not sure in HAM community, but around here is just me.... this was the older model DS1054Z, 400MHz RF detection possible.. we aint talk about 4 channels...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiIr3j_EyLY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiIr3j_EyLY)
-
I would not stress potential hacked, extreme-bandwidth applications here. Very few users will try to go there. But even without considering hardware hacks, it is worth mentioning that 2 GSa/s (as in the SDS800X HD) are sufficient to support 200 MHz bandwidth in 4-channel mode, while 1.2 GSa/s (DHO800/900) are not.
I don't see that as much of a problem in practice, especially if you're aware of it. Four simultaneous 200MHz signals aren't easy for hobbyists to find. It's really easy to drop down to two channels if you're in doubt. You'll probably see a difference on the Siglent, too, if it's anything more than a simple sine wave.
If you're always working at 200MHz on four channels then you need a better 'scope than either of these. Probably active probes, too (if you're using probes).
On simple Arduino, I/O pins have sub 1ns transitions. Spectra of that goes over 1GHz...
If you are always working on 4ch and 200 Mhz you need better scope than Rigol that undersamples.
That better scope IS the SDS824xHD that can do that job competently.
Unlike DHO800/900 that cannot because of violating Nyquist.
-
I don't see that as much of a problem in practice, especially if you're aware of it. Four simultaneous 200MHz signals aren't easy for hobbyists to find. It's really easy to drop down to two channels if you're in doubt. You'll probably see a difference on the Siglent, too, if it's anything more than a simple sine wave.
If you're always working at 200MHz on four channels then you need a better 'scope than either of these. Probably active probes, too (if you're using probes).
It's enough to have one 200 MHz signal, which you need to observe in context with two other (potentially lower-bandwidth) signals. Not that exotic a requirement for those who decided to get a 200 MHz, 4-channel scope. On the DHO800/900, with only 312 MSa/s per channel, you will be out of luck.
-
If you do the equivalent of using a hammer to insert screws, is it surprising that the results are sub-optimal?
OTOH "Hammer Drive Screws" do exist. 😉
-
On the DHO800/900, with only 312 MSa/s per channel, you will be out of luck.
Yes, we know sampling theory, thanks...
-
It's enough to have one 200 MHz signal, which you need to observe in context with two other (potentially lower-bandwidth) signals. Not that exotic a requirement
Why stop at exactly 200MHz? Where did that magic number come from?
Seems to me like you're inventing use cases that just happen to match the Siglent.
eg. What if somebody feeds in a 250MHz signal by mistake?
-
Multi-ADC scopes with higher sampling rate are better for looking at higher frequency signals than single-ADC interleaving scopes with lower sampling rate. Not exactly a surprise.
-
If you are always working on 4ch and 200 Mhz you need better scope than Rigol that undersamples.
Oh, FFS... I knew this was coming, again...
How many people meet that criteria of looking at exactly 200MHz on 4 channels, AND who wouldn't be far better served with (eg.) a 350MHz 'scope?
That's such a narrow user profile that it seems silly to me to even argue about it.
:palm:
-
On the DHO800/900, with only 312 MSa/s per channel, you will be out of luck.
Yes, we know sampling theory, thanks...
Not everybody does. If you know the info in the reply, maybe it wasn't for you? 😉
Why stop at exactly 200MHz? Where did that magic number come from?
Seems to me like you're inventing use cases that just happen to match the Siglent.
Of the 2 scopes in this thread, the max is 200MHz, it seems appropriate to discuss the limits of the scopes considered in the thread, doesn't it? DHO800 maxes at 100MHz, and SDS800X HD maxes at 200MHz. Seems relevant.
Also, didn't you hack your 800 to a 900? How fast can it max out in that case?
-
Why stop at exactly 200MHz? Where did that magic number come from?
From the scope's datasheet (SDS824X HD). The point is that it can actually do what it's specified to do, in contrast to the DHO924 (or an "upgraded" DHO8x4).
Seems to me like you're inventing use cases that just happen to match the Siglent.
Seems to me like you are getting defensive about the Rigol again, trying to rationalize its awkward design compromises. ::)
eg. What if somebody feeds in a 250MHz signal by mistake?
Wouldn't it be cool to have a scope which automatically switches in a proper 200 MHz input lowpass when three or four channels are activated, to avoid aliasing? Want to venture a guess which scope might do that?
-
What if somebody feeds in a 250MHz signal into a Siglent by mistake?
-
What if somebody feeds in a 250MHz signal into a Siglent by mistake?
That's what I just tried to answer with the last paragraph in my previous post. If you have one or two channels active, the Siglent will see the 250 MHz signal just fine and will reconstruct it properly because it's sampling with 1 or 2 GSa/s. If you have three or four channels active, the Siglent will switch in a steeper 200 MHz low-pass filter, and will hence suppress the higher frequency components which would otherwise cause aliasing at 500 MSa/s.
Edit: And yes, this has been measured. Please see the first post of Performa01's review & demonstration thread. (Scroll down to the end of the "table of contents" in that post, to the "Bandwidth" headline.) https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/)
-
That's what I just tried to answer with the last paragraph in my previous post. If you have one or two channels active, the Siglent will see the 250 MHz signal just fine and will reconstruct it properly because it's sampling with 1 or 2 GSa/s.
No it won't Sin(x)/x reconstruction doesn't work above the "2.5x" rule of thumb.
You might be sampling that signal on the peaks, you might be sampling it on the zero-crossing points. It's just luck.
-
No it won't Sin(x)/x reconstruction doesn't work above the "2.5x" rule of thumb.
???
I'm afraid I don't follow. What exactly would go wrong if you sample a 250 MHz signal at 1 GSa/s?
-
That's what I just tried to answer with the last paragraph in my previous post. If you have one or two channels active, the Siglent will see the 250 MHz signal just fine and will reconstruct it properly because it's sampling with 1 or 2 GSa/s.
No it won't Sin(x)/x reconstruction doesn't work above the "2.5x" rule of thumb.
You might be sampling that signal on the peaks, you might be sampling it on the zero-crossing points. It's just luck.
:palm:
-
I'm afraid I don't follow. What exactly would go wrong if you sample a 250 MHz signal at 1 GSa/s?
Does it have 1 GSa/s with 4 channels on?
-
What if somebody feeds in a 250MHz signal into a Siglent by mistake?
Then they've made a mistake and will get mistaken results. This has little to do with the fact that the Siglent is the better scope, regardless what errors are made.
Seems like a pointless discussion anyway. Like splitting hairs. Some people like Rigol, some like Siglent and when they are as close as these two, that's probably going to be the deciding factor.
-
I'm afraid I don't follow. What exactly would go wrong if you sample a 250 MHz signal at 1 GSa/s?
Does it have 1 GSa/s with 4 channels on?
Could you please read my post #396, man? And ideally try to understand it? It's not that long or difficult.
-
Could you please read my post #396, man? And ideally try to understand it? It's not that long or difficult.
It's a simple yes or no question.
-
Seems like a pointless discussion anyway. Like splitting hairs. Some people like Rigol, some like Siglent and when they are as close as these two, that's probably going to be the deciding factor.
To me it seems like BMW vs Mercedes. They're different, for different people.
-
Could you please read my post #396, man? And ideally try to understand it? It's not that long or difficult.
It's a simple yes or no question.
With three or four channels active, the SDS800X HD series samples at 500 MSa/s. But it switches in an additional 200 MHz low-pass filter in its front end in that mode, to ensure that frequency components aboove the Nyquist limit are properly suppressed.
This is the third time I have told you. I have also given you a link to actual measurements. But I have very little hope that you can process that information.
I hate using this icon on others, but it is warranted here: :palm:
-
With three or four channels active, the SDS800X HD series samples at 500 MSa/s. But it switches in an additional 200 MHz low-pass filter in its front end in that mode, to ensure that frequency components aboove the Nyquist limit are properly suppressed.
Ok, thanks for posting that clearly.
I didn't know it had that sample rate with 4 channels on.
But still, near-zero practical difference to most people in this category, and a "Pro" would probably want something with a bigger screen.
-
after the age of CRT era... get a real oscilloscope...
https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/186133520067 (https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/186133520067)
so you wont be bothered by never ending aliasing argumentation nonsense :palm:
-
What if somebody feeds in a 250MHz signal into a Siglent by mistake?
Then they've made a mistake and will get mistaken results. This has little to do with the fact that the Siglent is the better scope, regardless what errors are made.
Seems like a pointless discussion anyway. Like splitting hairs. Some people like Rigol, some like Siglent and when they are as close as these two, that's probably going to be the deciding factor.
If you were discussing look and feel I would agree. If someone says "I understand SDS800xHD has better math but I don't care for that I like that DHO800 has HDMI out" who am I to argue. People know their priorities.
And I did say, on the record, that I do think that DHO800 is potentially nice little 100MHz entry level scope. I think it is buggy as hell and limited, but some people choose to live with bugs and don't need anything more than basic. And hope is (I'm sceptical at this point, but not important) Rigol will eventually iron it out to point of being rid of obvious bugs.
But facts are facts and DHO900 is hardware that is a shame of Rigol and should not have left prototype phase. It is a 250MHz scope (claimed) that in worst case samples at 156MSps/s which is FINRSI type of specmanship.
And since many people hack their DHO800 to 900 that defect is applicable to 800 too.
And then they say it is same as SDS800xHD.
It is not.
SDS800xHD is properly, professionally designed scope.
It is serious instrument.
And then there are people here that try to rewrite science to make complete lies and nonsense true because Rigol must be best... Even if it is a lie.
-
But still, near-zero practical difference to most people in this category, and a "Pro" would probably want something with a bigger screen.
That's a weird response to one of the devices simply having superior hardware. 🤷
-
But still, near-zero practical difference to most people in this category, and a "Pro" would probably want something with a bigger screen.
That's a weird response to one of the devices simply having superior hardware. 🤷
Weird responses are his speciality!!
-
What if somebody feeds in a 250MHz signal into a Siglent by mistake?
Then they've made a mistake and will get mistaken results. This has little to do with the fact that the Siglent is the better scope, regardless what errors are made.
Seems like a pointless discussion anyway. Like splitting hairs. Some people like Rigol, some like Siglent and when they are as close as these two, that's probably going to be the deciding factor.
I hope it has become clear in the exchange with Fungus, but just to be sure:
The thing is that the user will not get mistaken results from the Siglent. The SDS800X HD either has ample sampling rate (1 or 2 GHz in dual or single-channel mode) and reconstructs the 250 MHz signal properly. Or, when it falls back to 500 MSa/s in three or four-channel mode, it activates a dedicated 200 MHz low-pass filter in its front end, to ensure that no frequency components above the Nyquist limit come through and cause aliasing.
-
But still, near-zero practical difference to most people in this category, and a "Pro" would probably want something with a bigger screen.
That's a weird response to one of the devices simply having superior hardware. 🤷
Once there is no further denying that not only the competitor's hardware is better, but they also handle the eventual limitations properly, the second line of defense is to argue that the difference is not important. ::)
Which, by the way, is a pattern I have also seen in discussions about Siglent design limitations, e.g. the paired vertical pixels in the SDS800X HD. Just sayin'...
-
SDS800xHD is properly, professionally designed scope.
It is serious instrument.
And that's why I bought one.
And then there are people here that try to rewrite science to make complete lies and nonsense true because Rigol must be best... Even if it is a lie.
I call this "flat earth type mentality". You see it every where you go. It's basically confirmation bias at a world-view level.
-
The thing is that the user will not get mistaken results from the Siglent. The SDS800X HD either has ample sampling rate (1 or 2 GHz in dual or single-channel mode) and reconstructs the 250 MHz signal properly. Or, when it falls back to 500 MSa/s in three or four-channel mode, it activates a dedicated 200 MHz low-pass filter in its front end, to ensure that no frequency components above the Nyquist limit come through and cause aliasing.
ie. A 250Mhz signal won't be the correct amplitude on your Siglent.
I can leave my Rigol at 125MHz (measured) and it'll be good in all circumstances.
125Mhz is just as arbitrary a number as 200Mhz is.
-
But still, near-zero practical difference to most people in this category, and a "Pro" would probably want something with a bigger screen.
That's a weird response to one of the devices simply having superior hardware. 🤷
Once there is no further denying that not only the competitor's hardware is better, but they also handle the eventual limitations properly, the second line of defense is to argue that the difference is not important. ::)
Which, by the way, is a pattern I have also seen in discussions about Siglent design limitations, e.g. the paired vertical pixels in the SDS800X HD. Just sayin'...
Since it was me I will reply:
We are talking about visual difference that is something that some people don't see.
Compared to violating Nyquist.
One is compromise because of limited resources, other one is failed basic law of sampling.
Those two are nothing like.
And that is also something. Comparing blaring mistakes on one side with minor imperfections on the other side and saying "ha you see they BOTH have mistakes...."
Fact that you don't accept that myself with my glasses and myopia literally didn't see the difference before it was pointed out to me, at which moment I had to come close to screen to actually verify you are correct, is your problem that in that argument you had to win at any cost. Therefore you accused me of lying, instead of thinking that maybe you are shaming me for not having perfect vision...
So yeah not the same, not even close...
-
The thing is that the user will not get mistaken results from the Siglent. The SDS800X HD either has ample sampling rate (1 or 2 GHz in dual or single-channel mode) and reconstructs the 250 MHz signal properly. Or, when it falls back to 500 MSa/s in three or four-channel mode, it activates a dedicated 200 MHz low-pass filter in its front end, to ensure that no frequency components above the Nyquist limit come through and cause aliasing.
ie. A 250Mhz signal won't be the correct amplitude on your Siglent.
I can leave my Rigol at 125MHz (measured) and it'll be good in all circumstances.
125Mhz is just as arbitrary a number as 200Mhz is.
If you use your DHO800 at factory 125Mhz it is all good and well and no problem.
DHO900 is a mess OTOH.
-
The thing is that the user will not get mistaken results from the Siglent.
I agree with you. My point was more, if he measured the wrong signal (the mistake) then he will get the wrong results. I was not actually trying to comment on the scope's capabilities. I admit I was not clear in tis respect.
-
But facts are facts and DHO900 is hardware that is a shame of Rigol and should not have left prototype phase. It is a 250MHz scope (claimed) that in worst case samples at 156MSps/s which is FINRSI type of specmanship.
No disagreement there, but let's not forget the Siglent logic adapter is severely compromised, too.
-
If you use your DHO800 at factory 125Mhz it is all good and well and no problem.
It's enough for me right now.
If I need more bandwidth I can just double-click a .bat file on my PC and I can have 250MHz in 10 seconds.
(nb. You don't need to reboot, just kill/restart the 'scope app).
I'm aware of the limits when I do that. It's very easy to turn channels on/off to check for aliasing.
-
But facts are facts and DHO900 is hardware that is a shame of Rigol and should not have left prototype phase. It is a 250MHz scope (claimed) that in worst case samples at 156MSps/s which is FINRSI type of specmanship.
No disagreement there, but let's not forget the Siglent logic adapter is severely compromised, too.
No it is not severely compromised, it has certain limitations. That are clearly documented, and you actually heard it from "Siglent crowd". There are limitations in real time zoom, and triggering from mixed channels.
But OTOH, it samples at blazing 1GS/s and does not impact scope own sampling or memory.
So limited it is, compromised it is not.
-
So yeah not the same, not even close...
I agree, and did not mean to imply that the two limitations are comparable. Just the pattern of argumentation.
Having used the SDS814X HD for nearly two months now, I can confirm that the resolution limitation is not a problem -- although I do notice it at times, especially with flattish signal slopes. If I had shelled out extra money for the larger screen in a 1000X HD, I would probably be annoyed about it.
-
Compared to violating Nyquist.
please note what you keep talking is a combination of sample rate and Sinc reconstruction. turn off Sinc and your point will become moot, granted signal can be a little weird when spectral content contains element more than half the sampling rate, using "Line" or vector plot. but not as severe when your turn on Sinc. we are waiting Rigol to enable back turning off Sinc feature in newer FW that they should not fucked up with in the first place. otoh if you ask me, if its feasible i'll modify one channel to become 500MHz on DHO900 (hacked DHO800) anytime if i need it to be... or 800MHz BW on SDS824X (if possible hacked from SDS804X) we know what we are dealing with.
-
please note what you keep talking is a combination of sample rate and Sinc reconstruction. turn off Sinc and your point will become moot, granted signal can be a little weird when spectral content contains element more than half the sampling rate, using "Line" or vector plot. but not as severe when your turn on Sinc.
Umm... How would you describe, say, a 170 MHz sine signal sampled at 312 MSa/s, when shown in dot mode or with linear interpolation? It would look severely misleading in my book. Sinc interpolation is not the issue here.
-
So yeah not the same, not even close...
I agree, and did not mean to imply that the two limitations are comparable. Just the pattern of argumentation.
Having used the SDS814X HD for nearly two months now, I can confirm that the resolution limitation is not a problem -- although I do notice it at times, especially with flattish signal slopes. If I had shelled out extra money for the larger screen in a 1000X HD, I would probably be annoyed about it.
And I fully appreciate that you do notice it and that it would bother you.
I, personally, couldn't care less, because when I put my KS MSO-X3104T next to it, SDS800xHD feels like 4K compared to VHS.... :-DD
And because there is always one pixel worth of noise when running, you don't see the difference to SDS2000xHD, 3000xHD. Only when you stop it, then you can see it. And yes it is there. But I didn't notice it before you mentioned it. I blame you ... :-DD
-
please note what you keep talking is a combination of sample rate and Sinc reconstruction. turn off Sinc and your point will become moot, granted signal can be a little weird when spectral content contains element more than half the sampling rate, using "Line" or vector plot. but not as severe when your turn on Sinc.
Umm... How would you describe, say, a 170 MHz sine signal sampled at 312 MSa/s, when shown in dot mode or with linear interpolation? It would look severely misleading in my book. Sinc interpolation is not the issue here.
170 MHz folds back to 142 MHz in the first Nyquist zone. So it looks like you had sampled a 142 MHz sine wave.
-
Umm... How would you describe, say, a 170 MHz sine signal sampled at 312 MSa/s, when shown in dot mode or with linear interpolation? It would look severely misleading in my book. Sinc interpolation is not the issue here.
and you keep showing the worst case scenario to prove your point when user really fucked up trying to probe >170MHz using 4CH cluelessly. in reality we will avoid such test condition. we will turn on only 2 or 1 channel in operation. even if we have to use all 4CH, when in doubt, we can switch to 1CH to probe the suspicious high frequency signal. granted its not foolproof, thats why you have to gain knowledge and theories as you go, otherwise if you keep doing your setup example you mentioned again and again and made mistake again and again, this job is actually not for you, ymmv.
170 MHz folds back to 142 MHz in the first Nyquist zone. So it looks like you had sampled a 142 MHz sine wave.
if you really try to probe 170MHz fundamentals at 312 MSa/s really you have something wrong within you, not the scope, scope is just a tool. usually spectral content in excess of Nyquist limit are harmonics whose magnitudes are much smaller hence aliasing will not affect much the fundamentals shape, unless your circuit is oscillating unexpectedly. ymmv.
analogy is manual transmission car vs automatic transmission car. manual is not foolproof, automatic transmission is, but for some people like us, we still prefer manual and know what we are doing, and also know what we should not do. because we need performance not available in automatic cars. ymmv.
-
and you keep showing the worst case scenario to prove your point when user really fucked up trying to probe >170MHz using 4CH cluelessly. in reality we will avoid such test condition. we will turn on only 2 or 1 channel in operation. even if we have to use all 4CH, when in doubt, we can switch to 1CH to probe the suspicious high frequency signal. granted its not foolproof, thats why you have to gain knowledge and theories as you go, otherwise if you keep doing your setup example you mentioned again and again and made mistake again and again, this job is actually not for you, ymmv.
Not sure where the agitation comes from. Feel free to choose frequencies you consider more realistic. My point was just that aliasing remains aliasing, also in dot mode or with linear interpolation.
-
Not sure where the agitation comes from. Feel free to choose frequencies you consider more realistic. My point was just that aliasing remains aliasing, also in dot mode or with linear interpolation.
sorry sometime i got mixed up with 2n**55 posts, but i read his argument all too often. so its somewhat similar to your post... Sinc reconstruction CAN exaggerate aliasing more than Line plot, that was my point. we discussed Gibbs effect that will not be seen on Line plot, esp on fast rising edge square signal. but my reply still stands, if a user wants to probe fundamentals in violating of nyquist limit, then the user got problem, or he/she may not know enough, not the scope... ymmv. otoh talking about properly designed BW limited scope, it will not be able to see ill behaved oscillation in circuit, sometime aliasing can give enough suspicion something happened, ymmv.
-
But facts are facts and DHO900 is hardware that is a shame of Rigol and should not have left prototype phase. It is a 250MHz scope (claimed) that in worst case samples at 156MSps/s which is FINRSI type of specmanship.
And since many people hack their DHO800 to 900 that defect is applicable to 800 too.
When does it switch to 156Msa/s?
(other than zooming out horizontally to >= 500 us/div)
-
p
But facts are facts and DHO900 is hardware that is a shame of Rigol and should not have left prototype phase. It is a 250MHz scope (claimed) that in worst case samples at 156MSps/s which is FINRSI type of specmanship.
And since many people hack their DHO800 to 900 that defect is applicable to 800 too.
When does it switch to 156Msa/s?
(other than zooming out horizontally to >= 500 us/div)
900 switches when all 4 ch on and MSO
-
But facts are facts and DHO900 is hardware that is a shame of Rigol and should not have left prototype phase. It is a 250MHz scope (claimed) that in worst case samples at 156MSps/s which is FINRSI type of specmanship.
And since many people hack their DHO800 to 900 that defect is applicable to 800 too.
When does it switch to 156Msa/s?
(other than zooming out horizontally to >= 500 us/div)
when you turn on all 4CH and 16bit LA and expect you can probe 250MHz with the setup :palm:
-
Question for those that know.
With the DHO900 (non 'S' model) can you still do automated Bode plots with an external Sig. Gen.?
-
I've mentioned before that I think Rigol should drop to 125Mhz when more than 2 channels are active.
(Probably a very difficult hack...)
-
With the DHO900 (non 'S' model) can you still do automated Bode plots with an external Sig. Gen.?
offically? no. but unofficially, other than hacking it to S model in vendor.bin, you can make PC SW to control both and plot in PC, its possible.
-
900 switches when all 4 ch on and MSO
I see. Yeah that's kinda expected.
A hacked 800 doesn't do it, it stays on 312.5.
It however starts to fail well below Nyquist (which is 156.25 MHz at this sampling rate): the displayed signal begins to have lower frequency noise at about 100 Mhz and it becomes next to useless at ~130 MHz.
Frequency counter works only up to 142 MHz.
Here's a 30s frequency sweep from 70 MHz to 170 MHz. Nevermind the intermittent glitches and some jitter, they may be a result of the signal gen that I'm using (TinySA Ultra). A 50 Ohm feed-through terminator was used on the scope's BNC input.
Memory length was deliberately set to a maximum to get a minimal waveform update rate to get rid of the display persistence effects, which are not desirable in this case.
(the 156.25 MHz point is at ~00:25)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpFiZiBC9bA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpFiZiBC9bA)
-
It however starts to fail well below Nyquist (which is 156.25 MHz at this sampling rate): the displayed signal begins to have lower frequency noise at about 100 Mhz and it becomes next to useless at ~130 MHz.
sin(x)/x will start to go wrong at sample rate / 2.5
That video shows exactly what the math says it should.
-
sin(x)/x will start to go wrong at sample rate / 2.5
That video shows exactly what the math says it should.
Yeah, and it actually works fine up to 500 MHz at 1.25 GSa/s (save for the greatly reduced amplitude because of the input filter).
-
900 switches when all 4 ch on and MSO
I see. Yeah that's kinda expected.
A hacked 800 doesn't do it, it stays on 312.5.
No, it's not really expected. The DHO900 is the only scope I'm aware of which behaves this way.
In typical DSOs, the analog sampling rate is limited by the ADC. (Which is shared across two or four channels, hence sampling rate per channel drops as you activate more analog channels.) But the digital channels are read separately -- they do not need the ADC, and hence don't eat into the ADC bandwidth available for analog sampling.
In contrast, the DHO900 series seems to be limited by the bandwidth of the FPGA/DRAM interface. It uses the same ADC as the larger DHO1000 series, yet runs it at only 1.25 instead of 2 GHz. And when you want to read digital data in parallel, that eats into the available sampling rate.
A hacked DHO800 will behave the same -- as soon as you actually connect and enable a digital probe. Mechatrommer has done that and can comment.
-
I'm using (TinySA Ultra).
The TinySA Ultra (as stated) is not the issue. I had clean signals up to 841MHz on my SDS2504X+.
-
The TinySA Ultra (as stated) is not the issue. I had clean signals up to 841MHz on my SDS2504X+.
With frequency sweeps?
-
The TinySA Ultra (as stated) is not the issue. I had clean signals up to 841MHz on my SDS2504X+.
With frequency sweeps?
Nothing automated, I stepped up 1MHz or 10 MHz at a time until the signal went wonky. Up to 841MHz was fine, it got goofier after that.
-
Nothing automated, I stepped up 1MHz or 10 MHz at a time until the signal went wonky. Up to 841MHz was fine, it got goofier after that.
Try it with a sweep. It seems that it occasionally (maybe between steps) resets to the base 30 MHz frequency.
-
Try it with a sweep. It seems that it occasionally (maybe between steps) resets to the base 30 MHz frequency.
Yes, I found the glitching too.
-
Latest firmware update was 5 days ago on the TinySA Ultra. I wonder if they fixed that bug. There's been significant updates apparently since the version I had. I was using 1.4-120, now they're at 1.4-159.
-
900 switches when all 4 ch on and MSO
I see. Yeah that's kinda expected.
A hacked 800 doesn't do it, it stays on 312.5.
you havent activated the LA in your video. if that D (with number 1-16) button on the bottom screen becomes green and you have many horizontal green lines on the screen, then your sample rate will become halved again iirc (156.25MSps)
It however starts to fail well below Nyquist (which is 156.25 MHz at this sampling rate): the displayed signal begins to have lower frequency noise at about 100 Mhz and it becomes next to useless at ~130 MHz.
sin(x)/x will start to go wrong at sample rate / 2.5
1) to be precise, anything more or equal to Sample rate / 2 will not be reconstructed correctly, i havent found literature saying exactly 2.5, i guess 2.5 figure is just a safer bet from scope manufacturers for Sinc interpolation to be correct, or the right BW limit roll off for anything Sr / 2 and higher to be suppressed to an acceptable level. iirc even signal with Sr / 2.1 can be reconstructed correctly, given the condition... "thou shalt not have any harmonics (higher frequency elements) equals to or more than the sample rate / 2, not even the slightest" which comes to the second statements.
2) we usually try to prove Sinc failure with fundamentals or pure sine signal very close to Sr / 2 but infact if front end BW is not brickwalled at sample rate / X ... (X > 2, eq 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 etc) Sinc will still produce "not exactly the original" signal on screen due to presence of non zero harmonics above nyquist limit, even if fundamentals is way below the limit. its just its not so obvious when harmonics magnitudes are small. a good example is low frequency square wave signal but very high rise/fall time, on larger time scale it seems ok, until we zoom closely into the rise/fall time portion (also read as "artefacts").
so please bear in mind Sinc inaccuracy doesnt only happens at fundamentals near nyquist limit, what matters is the highest frequency content presence, the bigger the magnitude the worst the reconstruction will be. thats why some people swear by the "properly BW limited" scope.
unfortunately they sometime wreak havoc from reality, if your circuit is already BW limited (no oscillation) then it should be fine... but if you expect your circuit to contain higher harmonics at significantly high magnitudes and you choose to probe with <= Sr / 2 anyway, then imho its you that have problem, not the scope. otoh built in properly BW limited scope will not be able to sense circuit misbehavior above Sr / 2, everything will just look fine, until the problem manifests/propagates itself on another portion of the circuit. fwiw.
-
1) to be precise, anything more or equal to Sample rate / 2 will not be reconstructed correctly, i havent found literature saying exactly 2.5
Anything equal to sample rate/2 can NOT be reconstructed.
Think: You might sample on the zero crossing points.
Now work from there to something a tiny bit below that ... you'll go between zero crossings and peaks over time, and get an AM effect as seen in that video.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2143597;image)
2.5 isn't a mathematically derived number, it's what works in practice.
-
Now work from there to something a tiny bit below that ... you'll go between zero crossings and peaks over time, and get an AM effect as seen in that video.
It looks like most interpolation filters are realized as Nyquist Filters, having a symmetric N*SR...(1-N)*SR transition band, where 0<N<0.5, and SR is the sample rate. This is fine for frequencies below N*SR, but leads to the observed "AM effect" for frequencies in the N*SR...0.5*SR range.
An interpolation filter with a N*SR...0.5*SR transition band would avoid that, and only reduce the amplitude of frequencies in the transition band. However, the drawback is that it requires about 4x as many non-zero filter taps as a Nyquist filter with the same N.
And in general, the closer you want to get to 0.5 with N, the more filter taps you need. There is no fixed N set in stone, but there are practical considerations/limits.
-
Yes, but with sin(x)/x filter (a very practical one) the 2.5x rule is about right.
-
Yes, but with sin(x)/x filter (a very practical one) the 2.5x rule is about right.
2.5 (i.e. a transition band of 0.4...0.6 * sample_rate) seems to be a "typical" value for DSOs.
But it is of course possible to design interpolation filters with a narrower or wider transition band.
In the video, a noticeable wobble already started to appear at 100 MHz (or approx. sample_rate/3).
So it seems that the DHO800 uses a softer interpolation filter with a wider transition band (at least at 312 MSa/s -- this may be different at higher sample rates).
-
170 MHz folds back to 142 MHz in the first Nyquist zone. So it looks like you had sampled a 142 MHz sine wave.
if you really try to probe 170MHz fundamentals at 312 MSa/s really you have something wrong within you, not the scope,
There is nothing wrong with bandpass samling if the frequency plan permits it. An ADC can act as a mixer. But you need to know what you are doing. 312 MSa/s is indeed suboptimal for 170 MHz. Better use 156 MSa/s. Then you get 14 MHz and for sample_rate/11, sinc interpolation is expected to work (it's not expected to work for 142 MHz @312 MSa/s).
Edit: Admittedly, bandpass sampling is more interesting in conjunction with frequency domain analysis than with time domain analysis. But it also works in the time domain for periodic non-sinewave signals with a fundamental frequency close to an integral multiple of the sample rate (for example f = N*SR +-0.01*SR).
-
1) to be precise, anything more or equal to Sample rate / 2 will not be reconstructed correctly, i havent found literature saying exactly 2.5
Anything equal to sample rate/2 can NOT be reconstructed.
thank you for re-emphasizing my statement and hence Nyquist Theorem.
Now work from there to something a tiny bit below that ... you'll go between zero crossings and peaks over time, and get an AM effect as seen in that video.
...
2.5 isn't a mathematically derived number, it's what works in practice.
yes 2.5 is not derived from theory, its probably from empirical testing of imperfect sampling mechanism (presence of jitter/harmonics/hi-freq more than nyquist limit)...
-
yes 2.5 is not derived from theory, its probably from empirical testing of imperfect sampling mechanism (presence of jitter/harmonics/hi-freq more than nyquist limit)...
It is primarily a compromise with the computational complexity of the interpolation filter (and consequently, the number of extra samples which need to be acquired in order that the settling phase of the filter can be discarded). For example, the frequency response of a sinc function, truncated to a length of 20 sample intervals, and then windowed with a Kaiser window, happens to start rolling off at approx. 0.4 * sample_rate (or sample_rate / 2.5), see figure3.
Amendment [without figure]: And if I truncate to a length of only 10 sample intervals (which reduces the computational complexity by ~50%), then the roll-off starts at approx. 0.3 * sample_rate (or sample_rate / 3.3).
-
FWIW you'll get the same with a hardware filter, too.
eg. I've seen the "2.5x rule" appear when sending a PWM signal into an RC filter.
My PWM frequency was 31.25kHz and the "AM" effect appeared right around 12.5kHz (31.25/2.5=12.5). :)
This image shows where it comes from - the amplitude changes depending on the phase difference between the samples and the signal:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
Edit: The effect vanishes very quickly below 2.5x. I'm not sure why...
You can see it in that video: The "AM" effect starts around 2.6x (120MHz)
-
This image shows where it comes from - the amplitude changes depending on the phase difference between the samples and the signal:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
by theory, Sinc should be able to reconstruct grey wave (original wave) from blue dots (sampled points) but since we saw AM modulated reconstruction by Sinc interpolation earlier meaning its not perfect according to theory. or possibly nyquist limit was already violated due to presence of harmonics (imperfect BW limited scope). ymmv.
-
since we saw AM modulated reconstruction by Sinc interpolation earlier meaning its not perfect according to theory. or possibly nyquist limit was already violated due to presence of harmonics (imperfect BW limited scope). ymmv.
The thing is: I've seen the same effect in a synthesizer, not a sampler, and with a hardware filter.
-
by theory, Sinc should be able to reconstruct grey wave (original wave) from blue dots (sampled points)
Riddle me this:
Signal theory also says there's only one curve that fits a set of sampled points in a bandwidth limited signal.
The "AM" signal fits perfectly so how can we say it's possible to reconstruct the original sine wave? It contradicts theory.
-
Riddle me this:
Signal theory also says there's only one curve that fits a set of sampled points in a bandwidth limited signal.
The "AM" signal fits perfectly so how can we say it's possible to reconstruct the original sine wave? It contradicts theory.
Perfect reconstruction requires an ideal brickwall interpolation filter (-> infinte length).
With a realizable interpolation filter, the reconstructible bandwidth becomes lower.
For example samle_rate / 2.5. The actual denominator depends on the frequency response of the filter, see my previous message (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5470282/#msg5470282).
The point where the filter starts rolling off is basically the the reconstructability limit.
-
Friends, again I thank you for filling in some of the gaps in my ignorance. I probably will not attempt to keep up in this thread, as the discussion has left me behind - I sorta kinda understand some of what is being discussed, but it is way beyond my current needs and abilities. This is not a complaint - it is the nature of open discussions to go where they will. I just don't want anyone to ask a question to the OP (me), get no response, and think I have taken my marble (only one, and it is cracked!) and gone home. I may start a new thread when I am about to pull the trigger on a purchase - only about a month away, now - can't wait!
-
by theory, Sinc should be able to reconstruct grey wave (original wave) from blue dots (sampled points)
Riddle me this:
Signal theory also says there's only one curve that fits a set of sampled points in a bandwidth limited signal.
The "AM" signal fits perfectly so how can we say it's possible to reconstruct the original sine wave? It contradicts theory.
The theory applies if the reconstruction filter is a perfect low pass filter with regard to the highest frequency component that was present in the original continuous version. (And that the sampling rate was at least twice that of the highest frequency component in the original.) A perfect low pass has a sinc impulse response and that has infinitely long pre and post tails. No practical implementation can achieve that. The '/x' part of sin(x)/x diminishes only slowly as x increases. Truncating or windowing the sinc introduces discrepancies which become more significant as one approaches half sample rate.
That wave which passes through the sample points yet has undulations does contain frequencies above half sample rate. Hint: AM sidebands.
-
Latest firmware update was 5 days ago on the TinySA Ultra. I wonder if they fixed that bug. There's been significant updates apparently since the version I had. I was using 1.4-120, now they're at 1.4-159.
Nope, same exact thing with 1.4-159.
Here's a demonstration with increased persistence (to see the glitches) and the lowest memory length for the max waveform update rate.
First, there's a 20 sec-long frequency sweep from 20 MHz to 120 MHz, then (00:30) frequency is changed manually in +100 kHz steps and finally (01:25) amplitude is changed manually.
As we can see, on any change in frequency or amplitude it has a brief period during which it outputs all sorts of crap. Frequency sweep output is the easiest way of catching it.
It's not the scope: it displays frequency sweeps from a different generator just fine, nice and clean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bADANAvQpc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bADANAvQpc)
-
Latest firmware update was 5 days ago on the TinySA Ultra. I wonder if they fixed that bug. There's been significant updates apparently since the version I had. I was using 1.4-120, now they're at 1.4-159.
We should probably continue this discussion in the TinySA thread, and report the bug to them as well. I'll try recreating it also when I have some time.
-
We should probably continue this discussion in the TinySA thread, and report the bug to them as well. I'll try recreating it also when I have some time.
Makes sense.
Moved it here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tinysa-ultra-launched/msg5470555/#msg5470555 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tinysa-ultra-launched/msg5470555/#msg5470555)
-
Riddle me this:
Signal theory also says there's only one curve that fits a set of sampled points in a bandwidth limited signal.
The "AM" signal fits perfectly so how can we say it's possible to reconstruct the original sine wave? It contradicts theory.
the possibility is i already mentioned...
1) oscilloscope is not properly BW limited, so Sinc filter is unable to reconstruct perfectly, instead of nice sine, it creates AM sine.
2) the filter probably assumes (algorithm used is for) "uniform sampling distance" where in reality is not.
3) or simply, DHO900 is not using proper Sinc filter? (if shapirus can provide me with CSV data of the sampled 142MHz @ 312.5MSps that produced the AM shape on DSO, i may try to replot it in my VisaDSO with its latest implementation of Sinc (internet open source copy pasted implementation) so we can see if same AM shape is produced)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
maybe we can look the same test made by shapirus on SDS800X if scope can produce the same AM shaped signal very near to (but not reaching) Sr / 2. if SDS800X is properly BW limited and Sinc filter/interpolation is implemented correctly i suspect it will not create such AM shape, it should be nice 142MHz sine (constant amplitude on each cycle) unlike the picture you linked earlier (on Rigol DHO900) if sampled at slightly higher than 284MSps (such as 312.5MSps). ymmv.
-
1) oscilloscope is not properly BW limited, so Sinc filter is unable to reconstruct perfectly, instead of nice sine, it creates AM sine.
140MHz is below Nyquist.
-
All 4 channels on.
-
1) oscilloscope is not properly BW limited, so Sinc filter is unable to reconstruct perfectly, instead of nice sine, it creates AM sine.
140MHz is below Nyquist.
Referring to the photo in post #436, one cycle of the undulation frequency occurs every 5 cycles of the varying amplitude 136.17 MHz which makes the undulation 27.234MHz. So one sideband is 136.17 + 23.234 which is 163.40 MHz. That is more than half the 312.5 MHz sample rate.
-
Hello,
The problem here is that the conditions of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem are not fulfilled and therefore it cannot be used. We do not have the required infinite number of sampling points. The infinite number of sampling points is essential in the proof of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
Does anyone know a sampling theorem that only requires a finite number of sampling points?
Best regards
egonotto
-
1) oscilloscope is not properly BW limited, so Sinc filter is unable to reconstruct perfectly, instead of nice sine, it creates AM sine.
140MHz is below Nyquist.
Referring to the photo in post #436, one cycle of the undulation frequency occurs every 5 cycles of the varying amplitude 136.17 MHz which makes the undulation 27.234MHz. So one sideband is 136.17 + 23.234 which is 163.40 MHz. That is more than half the 312.5 MHz sample rate.
If the signal frequency is 136.17 MHz (according to the frequency counter -- don't know if it can be trusted here), then its image in the 2nd Nyquist zone is 176.33 MHz. Ideally, the image should be eliminated by the interpolation filter. But if the interpolation filter does not provide sufficient attenuation at 176.33 MHz, then we see the interference between the two frequencies as "AM". The result is as expected when a Nyquist filter is used as the interpolation filter.
The problem here is that the conditions of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem are not fulfilled and therefore it cannot be used. We do not have the required infinite number of sampling points. The infinite number of sampling points is essential in the proof of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
Does anyone know a sampling theorem that only requires a finite number of sampling points?
A realizable reconstruction filter (with finite length) just lowers the highest frequency which can be reconstructed (almost) exactly.
Instead of sampe_rate / 2, the limit decreases to say samle_rate / 2.5 or samle_rate / 3,... (depending on the filter).
Frequencies beyond this reconstructability imit are either attenuated, or reconstructed with the observed "AM effect" (again, depending on the filter).
-
1) oscilloscope is not properly BW limited, so Sinc filter is unable to reconstruct perfectly, instead of nice sine, it creates AM sine.
140MHz is below Nyquist.
right! and i know. instead of reinforcing my earlier points with "strawman" argument kind of thing, let me do some simulation (i cant operate my DHO800 right now and i dont have pure 142MHz sine source) i simulated 3 signal channel CH1 only fundamentals at 142MHz, CH2 with 2nd harmonics, CH3 including 3rd harmonics, sample rate is 312.5MSps (see attached xlsx and produced CSV file from it for peer checking) and then my VisaDSO Line vs Sinc (Lanczos Resampler) plot. it seems even with pure fundamentals (CH1) can create AM shape, by sampling theory, it should be perfect sine. not sure where's the variables now, probably imperfect Sinc implementation in Lanczos? or conversion/digitization to 8bits values from real values that my App only supports. i wont speculate further, but since it contradicts with theory (CH1 should be able to be reconstructed properly with Sinc to 142MHz pure sine) that means there has to be some imperfection here and there, what exactly? i'm not sure. ymmv.
-
All 4 channels on.
this is what i meant... perfect sine reconstruction.. i tuned my sim files to this setup, 220MHz sampled at 500MSps (f = Sr / 2.27), here is what i come up with. so it seems Rigol and VisaDSO got broken implementation.
-
All 4 channels on.
this is what i meant... perfect sine reconstruction.. i tuned my sim files to this setup, 220MHz sampled at 500MSps (f = Sr / 2.27), here is what i come up with. so it seems Rigol and VisaDSO got broken implementation.
Well, it looks pretty cool anyway! 😉
-
i tuned my sim files to this setup, 220MHz sampled at 500MSps (f = Sr / 2.27), here is what i come up with. so it seems Rigol and VisaDSO got broken implementation.
That interpolation looks broken indeed. It seems to assume that the sampled data points are alway the extrema of the curve. Why would that be the case? Whatever that "smooth" interpolation is, it's not sin(x)/x, I would say.
Edit: Did you ask for a sin(x)/x interpolation through all the linearly interpolated datapoints, by any chance? That might explain the strange results. Of course only the actual sampled points must be fed to the interpolation.
-
i tuned my sim files to this setup, 220MHz sampled at 500MSps (f = Sr / 2.27), here is what i come up with. so it seems Rigol and VisaDSO got broken implementation.
That interpolation looks broken indeed. It seems to assume that the sampled data points are alway the extrema of the curve. Why would that be the case? Whatever that "smooth" interpolation is, it's not sin(x)/x, I would say.
Edit: Did you ask for a sin(x)/x interpolation through all the linearly interpolated datapoints, by any chance? That might explain the strange results. Of course only the actual sampled points must be fed to the interpolation.
i just copied lanczos resampler code lying around in the internet somewhere, i dont have skill to code real Sinc filter nor i know how lanczos resampler is coded/works, assume its a black box functions. and yes i feed it with sampled points visible on screen and it returned like 10X points (sampled + interpolated points) and then plot on screen. i can guarantee those curve will pass through real sampled points... open source code like this... https://gist.github.com/kode54/6338299
-
All 4 channels on.
this is what i meant... perfect sine reconstruction.. i tuned my sim files to this setup, 220MHz sampled at 500MSps (f = Sr / 2.27), here is what i come up with. so it seems Rigol and VisaDSO got broken implementation.
What is the length of your Lanczos filter?
For example, lanczos3 has a reconstructability imit of sample_rate / 3.57, and for lanczos5 it is sample_rate / 2.72.
In order to achieve 2.27, you rather need lanczos10 or lanczos11.
EDIT: Added frequency response plots.
-
What is the length of your Lanczos filter?
well this is quite embarassing ;D iirc i set "wing" length as small as possible due to some complication i encountered earlier, extra ringing? iirc... length only like 2 or 3 :P i dont have indepth knowledge about it and its effect. thanks for your info, i'll looking into it deeper later...
-
What is the length of your Lanczos filter?
well this is quite embarassing ;D iirc i set "wing" length as small as possible due to some complication i encountered earlier, extra ringing? iirc... length only like 2 or 3 :P i dont have indepth knowledge about it and its effect. thanks for your info, i'll looking into it deeper later...
With a single-sided length of 3 (double-sided length 6), you should be able to reconstruct up to ~140 MHz at 500 MSa/s with less than 1% interferences.
I just don't know if you measure the length in the same way as I do, therefore I have added the plots to show what I mean with lenght 3.
-
I just don't know if you measure the length in the same way as I do, therefore I have added the plots to show what I mean with lenght 3.
you can see in the github code i linked earlier. "width property is half a wing" what wing and internal working of it, i havent dig deeper, maybe later. from your description, lanczos width is 2 * wing size, so my wing is 2 meaning lanczos width is probably 4 or 5? anyway you gave me some idea about lanczos limitation related to its width. i'll keep that in mind. thanks and cheers.
-
What was the topic again?
Question for a friend... ;)
-
Since we are so far off topic, I guess it's okay for me to ask an incidental question. While all this conversation is quite interesting and instructive, I'm curious how many people actually use or need bandwidth or sampling beyond 100 MHz and 312.5 S/s? Presumably, anyone working in comms, but who else? My thought process when buying the DHO800 was that even with 4 channels operating, I still have enough sampling to adequately cover the 100 MHz capability of the scope with the included 150 MHz probes being well clear of having any attenuation effect at 100 MHz.
For example, here are some waveforms from a buck convertor I designed and built this week running at 100 kHz. (Note the oscillations on switching are mostly due to using the clip-on scope probes...when I use the spring and tip, the yellow gate drive signal is clean and the overshoots on the cyan and magenta traces halve.)
My question is....for the kind of work I'm doing (hobbyist audio and SMPS in the 100 W to 5 kW range), what would be the benefits, if any, in me having a more capable scope? (Please excuse my ignorance, as my professional background is 50 Hz HV & EHV transmission)
-
Since we are so far off topic, I guess it's okay for me to ask an incidental question. While all this conversation is quite interesting and instructive, I'm curious how many people actually use or need bandwidth or sampling beyond 100 MHz and 312.5 S/s?
This is a very good question.
Even at 100Mhz the probing method and all those little cables on your breadboard will dominate any measurement and you need knowledge/experience to interpret what's on the screen.
Presumably, anyone working in comms, but who else? My thought process when buying the DHO800 was that even with 4 channels operating, I still have enough sampling to adequately cover the 100 MHz capability of the scope with the 150 MHz probes being well clear of having any attenuation effect at 100 MHz.
You have to be slightly careful here because the measured bandwidth of the Rigols is much higher than what the label says.
In reality the "70Mhz" model has 125Mhz bandwidth and the "100Mhz" model has 200Mhz bandwidth.
The probes have also been tested and are good for both.
My $0.02:
You could easily argue that "125Mhz" is the optimum configuration for a DHO800 and that it's as much as a hobbyist needs.
I wouldn't disagree.
As noted above: Probing dominates, even at these "low" frequencies.
eg. The difference between "probes" and "springs" is huge and I hardly ever use the springs :-// (they're a pain in the ass).
I admit I usually have my DHO804 set to "200Mhz" because ... well ... I'm not sure. It's a head thing, I don't believe there's a practical difference for me in my "Arduino" work. The difference on screen is tiny and mostly swamped by probing (see above).
I'm not saying that nobody needs the extra 75MHz but you have to be into coax cables and 50 Ohm terminators to take advantage of it. If that's your case then fine. People who poke handheld probes at circuits? Not so much.
(I also think "200Mhz" is a very arbitrary number - why does no Siglent owner ever need 300Mhz?)
-
Somebody just added a full screen mode to the Rigol... :popcorn:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5471431/#msg5471431 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5471431/#msg5471431)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/?action=dlattach;attach=2146219;image)
-
Let's see whether they are brave enough to distribute this hack (and other related ones). The DHO1000 hacking took a similar approach of decompiling and patching the executables, back in December. I keenly followed that effort, since I had a DHO1074 at the time and was hoping to see the 50 Ohm inputs and 400 MHz bandwidth enabled.
Back then, the developer(s) never made their modifications available to others and eventually pulled the plug on that effort -- due to legal concerns in my understanding. Rigol does explicitly forbid reverse engineering and decompiling in their license terms. Of course we have not seen them act on this, but who is willing to run the experiment?
-
Let's see whether they are brave enough to distribute this hack (and other related ones). The DHO1000 hacking took a similar approach of decompiling and patching the executables, back in December. I keenly followed that effort, since I had a DHO1074 at the time and was hoping to see the 50 Ohm inputs and 400 MHz bandwidth enabled.
Back then, the developer(s) never made their modifications available to others and eventually pulled the plug on that effort -- due to legal concerns in my understanding. Rigol does explicitly forbid reverse engineering and decompiling in their license terms. Of course we have not seen them act on this, but who is willing to run the experiment?
Distributing patches, at least, should be legally clean. Don't quote me on this, though. Besides, there was a point about GPLed code being used in the apk. I don't know if it is so, but there seem to be a lot of standard android stuff included. Not sure what license it has.
-
Somebody just added a full screen mode to the Rigol... :popcorn:
charming indeed but... the hidden complication is "not signed" app meaning no access to system file, cannot do screen capture. thats why be careful making post like this in beginner section. i know there's post about deactivating signing but i dont want to dig deeper until they finalize it. its still in R&D stage.
What was the topic again?
Question for a friend... ;)
discussion about nyquist, that lead to proper Sinc reconstruction reveals siglent DHO800X can do it properly unlike Rigol, this can also can help user make decision whether this is important or not. this discussion can also make newbie aware of some technical and theory informations. for me Sinc reconstruction is important when signals contains spectral near Sr / 2, let alone if more than that.
Since we are so far off topic, I guess it's okay for me to ask an incidental question. While all this conversation is quite interesting and instructive, I'm curious how many people actually use or need bandwidth or sampling beyond 100 MHz and 312.5 S/s?
you never know what lie ahead of you. not so long ago, i deal with opamp circuit that experience oscillation beyond nyquist limit, granted BW limited siglent may suppressed this signal, but with rigol, i saw some nasty oscillation, but with betterer Sinc reconstruction, it may help distinguish some of signal near nyquist limit. if you can limit yourself to arduino circuit, you may not be aware of this and you are safe with rigol. but if you dont have enough belt color, unaware probing 250MHz spectral at 312.5MSps may bite you. ymmv.
-
Since we are so far off topic, I guess it's okay for me to ask an incidental question. While all this conversation is quite interesting and instructive, I'm curious how many people actually use or need bandwidth or sampling beyond 100 MHz and 312.5 S/s? Presumably, anyone working in comms, but who else? My thought process when buying the DHO800 was that even with 4 channels operating, I still have enough sampling to adequately cover the 100 MHz capability of the scope with the included 150 MHz probes being well clear of having any attenuation effect at 100 MHz.
For example, here are some waveforms from a buck convertor I designed and built this week running at 100 kHz. (Note the oscillations on switching are mostly due to using the clip-on scope probes...when I use the spring and tip, the yellow gate drive signal is clean and the overshoots on the cyan and magenta traces halve.)
My question is....for the kind of work I'm doing (hobbyist audio and SMPS in the 100 W to 5 kW range), what would be the benefits, if any, in me having a more capable scope? (Please excuse my ignorance, as my professional background is 50 Hz HV & EHV transmission)
Back in the late 70s and early 80s 100MHz was suitable for TTL and LSTTL logic. Since then logic speeds have increased "a bit", so the required bandwidth has increased "a bit".
Note that the inputs/outputs of logic gates are analogue signals that are interpreted by the receiver as digital signals. In order for the interpretation to be correct, the analogue waveforms have to meet the specifications, e.g. min/max voltages and over/undershoots, timing (the hold time, tH, is particularly tight), clock edge rates and monotonicity, etc. Ensuring all that is in order is called "signal itegrity", and the required bandwidth depends only on the transition time; a clock/signal period is completely irrelevant.
As others have noted, at such speeds the probes become an integral part of the circuit and measurement. Start by working out the input impedance of a typical 10Mohm/15pF probe at 100MHz; rather than 10000kohms, it is more like 0.1kohms :) Then add the inductance of a 6"/150mm ground lead, and calculate the resonant frequency with the 15pF tip capacitance.
Nowadays jellybean logic has edge rates of 1ns, and faster. That translates to 350MHz, and higher.
-
Somebody just added a full screen mode to the Rigol... :popcorn:
charming indeed but... the hidden complication is "not signed" app meaning no access to system file, cannot do screen capture. thats why be careful making post like this in beginner section.
Screen capture over network still works even on an unsigned app.
-
Screen capture over network still works even on an unsigned app.
not everybody like to connect to network for a mere screen capture, i do it with usb stick. my ethernet cable is super long and its quite a mess trying to run it to my dso, at my lab setup, connecting to usb cable is much easier. and that luckily i have ethernet cable at all so i can do some adb hack albeit a bit inconvenience. ymmv.
-
that lead to proper Sinc reconstruction reveals siglent DHO800X can do it properly unlike Rigol, this can also can help user make decision whether this is important or not.
When was THAT proven?
Siglent has a higher sample rate.
Rigols aren't forced to work at 312.5MS/sec.
-
that lead to proper Sinc reconstruction reveals siglent DHO800X can do it properly unlike Rigol, this can also can help user make decision whether this is important or not.
When was THAT proven?
In reply #465, 2N3055 showed stable reconstruction of a 220 MHz sine which was sampled at 500 MSa/s. So the SDS800X HD can still resonstruct properly at a sampling rate of less than 2.5x of the signal frequency, while the Rigol started to show wobbles at 3x or so.
Let's call it a demonstration, not a "proof", since this was just a quick one-off test.
-
that lead to proper Sinc reconstruction reveals siglent DHO800X can do it properly unlike Rigol, this can also can help user make decision whether this is important or not.
When was THAT proven?
In reply #465, 2N3055 showed stable reconstruction of a 220 MHz sine which was sampled at 500 MSa/s. So the SDS800X HD can still resonstruct properly at a sampling rate of less than 2.5x of the signal frequency, while the Rigol started to show wobbles at 3x or so.
Let's call it a demonstration, not a "proof", since this was just a quick one-off test.
Loot at the post :
********************
When was THAT proven?
Siglent has a higher sample rate.
Rigols aren't forced to work at 312.5MS/sec.
********************
So :
He knows it was proven and when.
He knows Siglent has higher, sufficient sampling as opposed to Rigol.
He knows Rigol does not do it right but "Rigols are not forced to at 312.5MS/sec.", which is absolutely lie for a 4ch version.
All of that mean he knows the truth. He is trying to bend it..
-
Screen capture over network still works even on an unsigned app.
not everybody like to connect to network for a mere screen capture, i do it with usb stick. my ethernet cable is super long and its quite a mess trying to run it to my dso, at my lab setup, connecting to usb cable is much easier. and that luckily i have ethernet cable at all so i can do some adb hack albeit a bit inconvenience. ymmv.
Cable? My WiFi adapter cost me $7...
-
Nowadays jellybean logic has edge rates of 1ns, and faster. That translates to 350MHz, and higher.
Yep. If you're really into "logic" then a Rigol MSO5000 is the way to go.
-
In reply #465, 2N3055 showed stable reconstruction of a 220 MHz sine which was sampled at 500 MSa/s. So the SDS800X HD can still resonstruct properly at a sampling rate of less than 2.5x of the signal frequency, while the Rigol started to show wobbles at 3x or so.
I'd like to see a frequency sweep.
The Rigol is applying the theory correctly and the Siglent can't possibly be doing an infinitely wide reconstruction, so... :-//
-
BTW, speaking of signal integrity, the (unlocked) Rigol can more or less properly show signals at up to 500 MHz at 1.25 Gsa/s (the 2.5x ratio again btw), albeit with a greatly reduced amplitude, apparently because of the hardware low-pass filter on the input.
While not suitable for measurements, it will at least allow to see qualitatively if there are any unwanted oscillations up to 500 Mhz. The frequency counter fails by that time (maybe because of the reduced amplitude), but the waveform looks all right and proper frequency if you measure it using cursors.
I think it may make sense, as was suggested by several people, to mod the input filter on one of the channels (say ch4) and reserve it for the cases when a higher bandwidth input is required. Of course, that, as usual, requires to understand the limitations, knowing how to probe at those frequencies, etc.
-
The Rigol is applying the theory correctly
When was THAT proven? 8)
Rigol have repeatedly cut corners in their signal processing. The sampling rate vs. bandwidth mismatch has been discussed at length here; the very generous inter-channel skew spec, wobbly AC trigger, wonky FFT "resolution bandwidth", incorrect flat-top window function come to mind as well. I would not be surprised at all if they had not gotten the Sinc interpolation quite right.
-
I'd like to see a frequency sweep.
I second this.
@KungFuJosh can you please set the scope to 500 Msa/s, low waveform acquisition rate (to make the TinySA's glitches less visible), low persistence, and record a video of a 30 seconds long frequency sweep from, say, 110 MHz to 270 MHz?
Coax connection with a 50 Ohm feed-through terminator, if possible, to make the test conditions the same as in my test.
It will be interesting to see at what frequencies (and at what ratio relative to the sampling rate) it will become first wobbly and then AM-like (if it will), to compare that to Rigol.
-
Screen capture over network still works even on an unsigned app.
not everybody like to connect to network for a mere screen capture, i do it with usb stick. my ethernet cable is super long and its quite a mess trying to run it to my dso, at my lab setup, connecting to usb cable is much easier. and that luckily i have ethernet cable at all so i can do some adb hack albeit a bit inconvenience. ymmv.
Cable? My WiFi adapter cost me $7...
iircsomeone stated dho800 only works on specific brand. i have few wifi adapter here, maybe later i will try. but still, its a few more steps to do... rather than plugin usb stick and hit capture button. ymmv.
BTW, speaking of signal integrity, the (unlocked) Rigol can more or less properly show signals at up to 500 MHz at 1.25 Gsa/s (the 2.5x ratio again btw), albeit with a greatly reduced amplitude, apparently because of the hardware low-pass filter on the input.
this is +1 imho in rigol, lets not forget, the 2 scopes discussed here got pros and cons.
In reply #465, 2N3055 showed stable reconstruction of a 220 MHz sine which was sampled at 500 MSa/s. So the SDS800X HD can still resonstruct properly at a sampling rate of less than 2.5x of the signal frequency, while the Rigol started to show wobbles at 3x or so.
I'd like to see a frequency sweep.
2n**55 only showed one successsful case at Sr / 2.27, but i bet anything lower freq than that will be better, the only thing is at when higher freq will start wobbly up to extreme 250MHz.
The Rigol is applying the theory correctly and the Siglent can't possibly be doing an infinitely wide reconstruction, so... :-//
i havent seen that proven, in fact shapirus proved that otherwise. dont show too much of fanboyism, we trust more scientific facts rather than sentimental facts ;) we have saying/joke in our medsos group, if we have stupid in ourself, its ok, but dont reveal it too much, keep it some for next generation ;D no pun/insult intended ;D cheers.
-
not everybody like to connect to network for a mere screen capture, i do it with usb stick. my ethernet cable is super long and its quite a mess trying to run it to my dso, at my lab setup, connecting to usb cable is much easier. and that luckily i have ethernet cable at all so i can do some adb hack albeit a bit inconvenience. ymmv.
Well, installing a modded apk already requires a certain level of involvement, way beyond a normal user's one, and of course there's a certain learning curve. Disabling apk signature verification is not much farther than that (especially since a respective modded .jar that can be used without having to build your own is available).
So there's not much more work to do if you want to retain the screenshot functionality after you already know how to change stuff on the file system and install a modded apk (or even rebuild your own).
The overall point is that such mods are possible and they don't require top hacker skills or hardware modifications (not even connecting via the serial port). But opening the case may be necessary: before changing anything on the android file system(s), it is highly recommended to take a backup of the internal SD card to have an image that you can restore to if something goes wrong.
p.s. a significant "+1" for Rigol is that its software is stored on a standard micro SD card. This is great not only for modding, but for creating and restoring backups. But where is the data stored on the Siglent? Some soldered-in flash storage chip?
-
this is +1 imho in rigol, lets not forget, the 2 scopes discussed here got pros and cons.
Since the Siglent can into 2 Gsa/s, it could potentially be modded to support at least 800 MHz single-channel bandwidth, if there are no further limitations in digital signal processing and/or software. I don't recall anyone mentioning or trying this though.
-
this is +1 imho in rigol, lets not forget, the 2 scopes discussed here got pros and cons.
Since the Siglent can into 2 Gsa/s, it could potentially be modded to support at least 800 MHz single-channel bandwidth, if there are no further limitations in digital signal processing and/or software. I don't recall anyone mentioning or trying this though.
i posted this earlier in this thread, some people said its very rare case. now we have 2 person asking for it ;) so i'm not so rare, lets wait HAM fellows (names with numbers and who build their own radio) to chime in what they have to say, cheers.
-
The Rigol is applying the theory correctly and the Siglent can't possibly be doing an infinitely wide reconstruction, so... :-//
But you have the choice to implement either
- a truncated/windowed sinc filter with a n*sampe_rate...(1-n)*sample_rate transition band (symmetrical around 0.5*sample_rate),
- or an ordinary steep lowpass filter with a n*sampe_rate...0.5*sample_rate transition band,
where 0<n<0.5 (for example n=0.4).
Contrary to what you might intuitively believe, it's the latter which does what people here seem to expect when it comes to frequencies beyond the filter's reconstructability limit of n*sample_rate. But it requires more DSP resources.
-
lets wait HAM fellows (names with numbers and who build their own radio) to chime in what they have to say
Depends on the kind of radio you're building (or operating) :) In the United States, there are amateur allocations at 902 MHz and 1240 MHz, and some experimenters go even higher.
https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/Band%20Chart/Band%20Chart%20-%2011X17%20Color.pdf (https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/Band%20Chart/Band%20Chart%20-%2011X17%20Color.pdf)
One of my commercially-produced radios (the Icom 9700) has 144, 440, and 1200 MHz, Icom is also investigating making amateur transceivers for the 2.4 and 5.6 GHz ISM bands
https://www.icomjapan.com/api/download.php?page_id=66&fl=JTJGdXBsb2FkcyUyRmxwJTJGc2hmJTJGU0hGX3Byb2plY3Rfdm9sMV9lbmcucGRm (https://www.icomjapan.com/api/download.php?page_id=66&fl=JTJGdXBsb2FkcyUyRmxwJTJGc2hmJTJGU0hGX3Byb2plY3Rfdm9sMV9lbmcucGRm)
73, Paul, KO4LZ
-
nice story but anything 1GHz and above is not relating to this thread... 140,144,902MHz maybe related. if you have one of this https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/114448357711 (https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/114448357711) it would be nice to see the signal in time domain... ymmv.
-
iircsomeone stated dho800 only works on specific brand. i have few wifi adapter here, maybe later i will try. but still, its a few more steps to do... rather than plugin usb stick and hit capture button. ymmv.
It's literally the most common chipset/brand.
I never take the WiFi dongle out. Apart from the web interface you can save all screen captures, data dumps, etc., to the internal memory and accessed via ftp as if they were local files on my PC.
You also get correct date/time stamps on the files if it's connected to WiFi.
-
@KungFuJosh can you please set the scope to 500 Msa/s, low waveform acquisition rate (to make the TinySA's glitches less visible), low persistence, and record a video of a 30 seconds long frequency sweep from, say, 110 MHz to 270 MHz?
Coax connection with a 50 Ohm feed-through terminator, if possible, to make the test conditions the same as in my test.
It will be interesting to see at what frequencies (and at what ratio relative to the sampling rate) it will become first wobbly and then AM-like (if it will), to compare that to Rigol.
I'd love to play, but I don't have one of these scopes. I have an SDS2504X+ 500MHz scope. I can sweep up to 841MHz on my scope with the TinySA Ultra.
-
I'd love to play, but I don't have one of these scopes. I have an SDS2504X+ 500MHz scope.
Well, it would still be an interesting data point. What's the lowest samples/sec rate it can do? The idea is to set it to the lowest sampling rate and connect it to a source that outputs a frequency sweep in the range from ~20% to ~60% of the sampling rate.
We can then speculate if the Siglent's 800 HD series have the same wave reconstruction implementation as yours, or not :).
I can sweep up to 841MHz on my scope with the TinySA Ultra.
It can actually output up to 5.4 GHz (or at least so the specs say), but it switches from sine to square wave above 800 MHz.
-
I'd like to know what the Siglent does on a real AM waveform, too.
Feed in the 220MHz signal at 500MSamples/sec. but add some AM modulation and see if it reproduces it (eg. 16MHz modulator).
-
I'd love to play, but I don't have one of these scopes. I have an SDS2504X+ 500MHz scope.
Well, it would still be an interesting data point. What's the lowest samples/sec rate it can do? The idea is to set it to the lowest sampling rate and connect it to a source that outputs a frequency sweep in the range from ~20% to ~60% of the sampling rate.
We can then speculate if the Siglent's 800 HD series have the same wave reconstruction implementation as yours, or not :).
I guess, if I feel like procrastinating something else, I could do that. We'll see. 😉
I can sweep up to 841MHz on my scope with the TinySA Ultra.
It can actually output up to 5.4 GHz (or at least so the specs say), but it switches from sine to square wave above 800 MHz.
I meant I get a clean sine wave up to 841MHz.
-
I meant I get a clean sine wave up to 841MHz.
I've been able to do that that too. Well, I only went to 840MHz.
-
I meant I get a clean sine wave up to 841MHz.
I've been able to do that that too. Well, I only went to 840MHz.
I win. 😉
-
I meant I get a clean sine wave up to 841MHz.
Ah, I see. Well, that's just one point in time, and the display persistence hides the deviation of the peaks from the real value. What we're interested in is observing dynamically how the waveform becomes wobbly as the signal frequency increases and gets closer to that point.
It's clearly better than the Rigol, though, which is much worse at 1/2.5x the sampling rate. I wonder how the SDS800X HD scopes perform in this scenario.
Here's, BTW, a 500 MHz sine wave captured at 1.25 GSa/s sampling rate:
-
And here's 625 MHz. Just like the 500 MHz waveform, the scope fails to trigger on it when vertical scale is less than 2 mV/div, so I had to capture it at at least 2 mV/div in single trigger mode and then zoom in.
...frequency counter? What's that? :)
But hey. Really, I can see how modding the input low-pass filter can make sense.
-
I meant I get a clean sine wave up to 841MHz.
Ah, I see. Well, that's just one point in time, and the display persistence hides the deviation of the peaks from the real value. What we're interested in is observing dynamically how the waveform becomes wobbly as the signal frequency increases and gets closer to that point.
It's clearly better than the Rigol, though, which is much worse at 1/2.5x the sampling rate. I wonder how the SDS800X HD scopes perform in this scenario.
Here's, BTW, a 500 MHz sine wave captured at 1.25 GSa/s sampling rate:
You saw what a sweep looks like to 100MHz on mine (I did one with TinySA Ultra, and one with SDG2122X), but that's no challenge for my scope. I could do the extended range to show it get goofy if you want.
Every day I have to resist purchasing the SDS804XHD. It's so cheap I could get it just to mess with it...but I'd rather buy a 2nd 6.5 digit DMM. And long term I want at least the SDS3000XHD, if I can ever afford it.
-
and the display persistence hides the deviation of the peaks from the real value.
Persistence will not hide the peaks, it will tend to broaden the trace to include both peaks and the troughs and everything in between over the period of persistence. Maybe you are thinking of averaging?
-
Exactly. That's why I did 1s persistence to illustrate the glitches better over the limited framerate of the web console.
-
and the display persistence hides the deviation of the peaks from the real value.
Persistence will not hide the peaks, it will tend to broaden the trace to include both peaks and the troughs and everything in between over the period of persistence. Maybe you are thinking of averaging?
We're talking about the same thing, but from different perspective. Yes, the more the amplitude varies, the wider the trace at the peaks becomes. If we want to conveniently see the spread over a period of time, that's where persistence helps. It's like seeing min/max/avg values in the same place.
My screenshots in previous posts show an opposite approach, where a single capture shows how the scope interprets the wave at a single given acquisition.
-
the limited framerate of the web console.
Yeah that can be an unpleasant obstacle to a demonstration of a frequency sweep. What's the frame rate, anyway? Is it worse than 30 fps?
-
the limited framerate of the web console.
Yeah that can be an unpleasant obstacle to a demonstration of a frequency sweep. What's the frame rate, anyway? Is it worse than 30 fps?
Yes, I assume it's around 15 fps, but I don't know. I wish they made the framerate selectable.
-
Yes, I assume it's around 15 fps, but I don't know. I wish they made the framerate selectable.
Hmm... Can you fetch, decompile, modify, recompile and reinstall the web control app? :)
It's a linux-based system, right? I wonder if it's hackable like the DHO800/900 series is, with full access to the file system etc. The stock web control app on the Rigols has some stupid design choices, like the upscaling (in a lossy way!) of the video stream, using jpeg for screenshots and setting quality level below the highest possible for the video stream compression. I spent some time and fixed all of that to use higher quality settings, native resolution and png for screenshots, and it's much better now.
-
That's above my paygrade. 😉
-
I meant I get a clean sine wave up to 841MHz.
Ah, I see. Well, that's just one point in time, and the display persistence hides the deviation of the peaks from the real value. What we're interested in is observing dynamically how the waveform becomes wobbly as the signal frequency increases and gets closer to that point.
It's clearly better than the Rigol, though, which is much worse at 1/2.5x the sampling rate. I wonder how the SDS800X HD scopes perform in this scenario.
Here's, BTW, a 500 MHz sine wave captured at 1.25 GSa/s sampling rate:
I didn't get any wobble within normal range, and then I still don't get anything as crazy as what you showed in your screenshot. It mostly shrinks and the counter gets farther and farther off. Near the end before it resets, it looks a little wonkier.
Let me know if you want different parameters than what I've got here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjTPCIX7awg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjTPCIX7awg)
TSA Ultra set at 800MHz with a 10s 500MHz sweep.
-
I didn't get any wobble within normal range, and then I still don't get anything as crazy as what you showed in your screenshot. It mostly shrinks and the counter gets farther and farther off. Near the end before it resets, it looks a little wonkier.
Yeah looks very reasonable. I think there's no doubt now that the signal processing algorithms are implemented much better in this scope than in the Rigol's DHO800/900.
Now, let's see if someone will be willing to repeat a similar test with the Siglent's SDS800X HD series :).
-
The frequency range of interest for the interpolation test is about 40%...49% of the sample rate (and the way it looks, 30%...49% for the Rigol).
There is no need to sweep. Covering this range with 5 or 10 steps is certainly sufficient. Better try to get a stable view at each frequency. If you get AM, but can't get a stable trigger on the AM envelope, then better capture a single shot at each frequency step.
The timebase should not be faster than about 10/sample_rate (e.g. 5ns/div for 2GSa/s) in order that at least 1 or 2 periods of the AM envelope fit into the screen widht when the signal frequency is 49% of the sample rate. At lower signal frequencies, the envelope period will be shorter.
-
Let me know if you want different parameters than what I've got here:
TSA Ultra set at 800MHz with a 10s 500MHz sweep.
Can the TSA do amplitude modulation?
Put in some AM at about 10% of the frequency.
-
Can the TSA do amplitude modulation?
Put in some AM at about 10% of the frequency.
It only supports a limited number of amplitude levels (I think 8 or so) for the the modulating signal, so it's a "stair step sine wave".
And the modulating signal is limited to 10 kHz.
EDIT: See also Erik's video: https://youtu.be/U2cw0bmuSLM?t=239
-
Well, I had planned to drop out of this discussion, in part because I still had a month to go before I would have funds in hand to make a purchase ... but unexpectedly the funds have arrived early, so now the pressure is on to make a choice ... so I am back to seeing if I have fully understood the pros and cons of each, choosing between the Siglent SDS804X HD and the Rigol DHO804.
There are many things that seem to point to the Siglent SDS804X HD as the obvious choice (2G sample rate; better math functions; more USB ports; fewer bugs?). However, to the extent that I have been able to follow the discussion above, at least some of the advantage of the Siglent seem to be tied to more advanced topics than I expect ever to get into. (Yes? No?)
Meanwhile, there are some features that the Rigol brings to the table that I find attractive, including the slimmer size, possibility of powering from a battery pack, HDMI output, easy addition of wifi capability. VESA mount might also be valuable for my limited workspace.
I am getting ready to read back through the extended threads that detail performance, bugs, desired features, etc. for each of the units, but in the meantime, I have three specific questions:
The last feature I noted for the Rigol leads to the first specific question for this post: Have I understood correctly that there is no way to add wireless to the Siglent other than through the ethernet port?
Second specific question: I seem to recall reading something that suggested that the probes that come with the Rigol 804 are better (? or have a higher BW rating?) than those provided with the Siglent. Is that true, and should I care?
Third specific question: I think I would likely want to "hack" either of these units up to 100MHz and greater memory depth. From what I am seeing, this seems to be easier for the Rigol than for the Siglent - true? (This also connects to the previous question - if I want to hack up to 100Mhz, are the probes going to make that less successful with one vs. the other?)
-
There are many things that seem to point to the Siglent SDS804X HD as the obvious choice (2G sample rate; better math functions; more USB ports; fewer bugs?). However, to the extent that I have been able to follow the discussion above, at least some of the advantage of the Siglent seem to be tied to more advanced topics than I expect ever to get into. (Yes? No?)
Don't think that way. My actual use case is ridiculously simple (compared to the abilities of my scope) audio work. I usually feed a 1kHz sine wave into a piece of audio gear to trace issues (if there are any). Otherwise I will use the Bode function to get details of other audio gear. However, being on this forum, I have learned a LOT more and used significantly more functions that the scope has. People discuss things, I try it out, and if I didn't understand before, chances are now I might understand it a little better. I got the Batronix demo board and learned a lot from that too. There's always potential for more, but only to the limit of the tools you have.
Meanwhile, there are some features that the Rigol brings to the table that I find attractive, including the slimmer size, possibility of powering from a battery pack, HDMI output, easy addition of wifi capability. VESA mount might also be valuable for my limited workspace.
The only two benefits IMO to the Rigol are the VESA mount and the HDMI output. That's it. If those things are more important to you than actual measurement ability, then it's an easy decision. However, even the VESA mount can be done for Siglent with the help of 3D printing and a little creativity.
I am getting ready to read back through the extended threads that detail performance, bugs, desired features, etc. for each of the units, but in the meantime, I have three specific questions:
The last feature I noted for the Rigol leads to the first specific question for this post: Have I understood correctly that there is no way to add wireless to the Siglent other than through the ethernet port?
Incorrect. Almost any wireless bridge adapter can be connected to any device with an ethernet port. There are some specific small wifi bridge adapters which have been tested and work great for scopes without WiFi. There's also the possibility that Siglent might add direct WiFi dongle support in the future after tautech annoys them about it enough.
Second specific question: I seem to recall reading something that suggested that the probes that come with the Rigol 804 are better (? or have a higher BW rating?) than those provided with the Siglent. Is that true, and should I care?
Might be true, depending on which model you get. However, you shouldn't care. I exclusively use 3rd party probes from Probe Master. Some people also like Testec. While the supplied probes are usually sufficient, I like what I like. 😉
Third specific question: I think I would likely want to "hack" either of these units up to 100MHz and greater memory depth. From what I am seeing, this seems to be easier for the Rigol than for the Siglent - true? (This also connects to the previous question - if I want to hack up to 100Mhz, are the probes going to make that less successful with one vs. the other?)
Opposite. It's much easier for the Siglent. Siglent can go up to 200MHz and actually has a high enough sampling rate to support that. Rigol can go to 100MHz (or 125MHz) but is severely limited by its sampling rate. Siglent also has better memory depth.
There are specific posts in this thread covering most of this, but a summary doesn't hurt.
Rigol Pros: HDMI, VESA mount, WiFi built in.
Siglent Pros: Speed, memory, sampling rate, stability, superior Bode and FFT, support, etc. Also amazing documentation in Performa01's demo thread for the SDS800X HD.
VESA mount and WiFi can be added to the Siglent, HDMI cannot.
For adding WiFi, personally I would probably try the GL.iNet GL-MT3000. Others have used the less expensive TP-Link N300 and the TP-Link AC750 would also be an option.
Thanks,
Josh
-
Meanwhile, there are some features that the Rigol brings to the table that I find attractive, including the slimmer size, possibility of powering from a battery pack, HDMI output, easy addition of wifi capability. VESA mount might also be valuable for my limited workspace.
well you've made you choice congratulation! There's nothing wrong really with rigol to begineer, we hope they will fix bugs as before.. even more so with rival appearance from sds800x.
About probe, there's more catch, such as loading at hi freq.. and technique to avoid gnd loop etc. since you dont really concern, built in probe should be fine, you'll learn as you go. I never have a need for fancy 3rd party hi -z passive probe, if i want hi freq i'll go 50ohm 1x coax, or active probe. either way you have to pay extra money. ymmv.
-
Can the TSA do amplitude modulation?
Put in some AM at about 10% of the frequency.
It only supports a limited number of amplitude levels (I think 8 or so) for the the modulating signal, so it's a "stair step sine wave".
And the modulating signal is limited to 10 kHz.
EDIT: See also Erik's video: https://youtu.be/U2cw0bmuSLM?t=239
The TinySA supports 8-point interpolation, while the Ultra can muster up to around 128 points depending on modulaton frequency.
-
Rigol can go to 100MHz (or 125MHz) but is severely limited by its sampling rate.
Incorrect.
It can be unlocked to 250 MHz, which is actually ~290 MHz (-3 dB), and it has no aliasing issues at that frequency in single-channel mode (1.25 GSa/s).
With two channels operating (625 MSa/s), aliasing starts to become noticeable only after 230 MHz, but it remains still usable at 250 MHz.
The 100-125 MHz upper usable limit is only relevant when 3 or 4 channels are enabled (312.5 MSa/s sampling rate).
-
There are specific posts in this thread covering most of this, but a summary doesn't hurt.
Rigol Pros: HDMI, VESA mount, WiFi built in.
Smaller size, battery option, more accessible UI, easy/neat Wifi with web/ftp access to the 'scope...
Rigol can go to 100MHz (or 125MHz) but is severely limited by its sampling rate.
Nope. Rigol can go to 280Mhz measured bandwidth, and shows signal far beyond that.
I wouldn't leave it at that bandwidth for general use but it's there if you need it and it only takes about 10 seconds to switch the model.
There's also 225MHz, 200Mhz and 125MHz options.
The lower sample rate sounds scary but when you're looking at real-life signals with probes clipped onto wires? Not so much.
(And there's no problem at all with 1 or 2 channels)
-
Can the TSA do amplitude modulation?
Put in some AM at about 10% of the frequency.
It only supports a limited number of amplitude levels (I think 8 or so) for the the modulating signal, so it's a "stair step sine wave".
And the modulating signal is limited to 10 kHz.
EDIT: See also Erik's video: https://youtu.be/U2cw0bmuSLM?t=239
The TinySA supports 8-point interpolation, while the Ultra can muster up to around 128 points depending on modulaton frequency.
Ok, no problem.
I'm just wondering how the Siglent is cheating to get that display. The Rigol isn't doing anything wrong, it's doing the correct math for the limited information it has.
The original Signal can be reconstructed with much wider filters but they'll only work if the signal is perfectly periodic.
I was wondering what happens if the signal isn't periodic. It could go very wrong.
-
There are specific posts in this thread covering most of this, but a summary doesn't hurt.
Rigol Pros: HDMI, VESA mount, WiFi built in.
Smaller size, battery option, more accessible UI, easy/neat Wifi with web/ftp access to the 'scope...
Rigol can go to 100MHz (or 125MHz) but is severely limited by its sampling rate.
Nope. Rigol can go to 280Mhz measured bandwidth, and shows signal far beyond that.
I wouldn't leave it at that bandwidth for general use but it's there if you need it and it only takes about 10 seconds to switch the model.
There's also 225MHz, 200Mhz and 125MHz options.
The lower sample rate sounds scary but when you're looking at real-life signals with probes clipped onto wires? Not so much.
(And there's no problem at all with 1 or 2 channels)
Your pointed out that advantages are telling us that it would be better as a portable multimedia device.
Switching the device BW by constantly tinkering with system apps is not same as having device that simply works.
It seems to me that people that own DHO800 Rigol scopes are buying that device to play and tinker with the scope itself, not to use it. There are also people that would buy a scope to work on their projects and want scope to simply work. To each, their own.
And again with channels. If that is your argument then fine.
But that is a 2 ch scope then.
Because with 4 ch it is not working properly.
Or 4 Ch with 70MHz.
But you cannot have it both ways.
Difference is that "the other" scope actually does work as 4ch 200MHz BW scope.
At all times, no special conditions..
So one scope is simple scope with multimedia and tinkering "built in" and the other device is serious instrument, designed to work as proper measurement instrument, with no gizmos and frills.
One is for hackers/makers and people that like to play with things, the other is inexpensive serious instrument (within obvious limits of it's class) for people that need that.
-
Can the TSA do amplitude modulation?
Put in some AM at about 10% of the frequency.
It only supports a limited number of amplitude levels (I think 8 or so) for the the modulating signal, so it's a "stair step sine wave".
And the modulating signal is limited to 10 kHz.
EDIT: See also Erik's video: https://youtu.be/U2cw0bmuSLM?t=239
The TinySA supports 8-point interpolation, while the Ultra can muster up to around 128 points depending on modulaton frequency.
Ok, no problem.
I'm just wondering how the Siglent is cheating to get that display. The Rigol isn't doing anything wrong, it's doing the correct math for the limited information it has.
The original Signal can be reconstructed with much wider filters but they'll only work if the signal is perfectly periodic.
I was wondering what happens if the signal isn't periodic. It could go very wrong.
It is amazing how people project their own mentality to others.
There is no cheating. Just accept it.
It looks exactly the same if you single shot it.
That is your nonrepetitive signal.
It is just done right.
Why the other manufacturer's device doesn't show right? I don't know.
But it is them that, on several occasions, have shown bad reconstruction of data and cheating of all sorts...
-
Meanwhile, there are some features that the Rigol brings to the table that I find attractive, including the slimmer size, possibility of powering from a battery pack, HDMI output, easy addition of wifi capability. VESA mount might also be valuable for my limited workspace.
The last feature I noted for the Rigol leads to the first specific question for this post: Have I understood correctly that there is no way to add wireless to the Siglent other than through the ethernet port?
Second specific question: I seem to recall reading something that suggested that the probes that come with the Rigol 804 are better (? or have a higher BW rating?) than those provided with the Siglent. Is that true, and should I care?
Third specific question: I think I would likely want to "hack" either of these units up to 100MHz and greater memory depth. From what I am seeing, this seems to be easier for the Rigol than for the Siglent - true? (This also connects to the previous question - if I want to hack up to 100Mhz, are the probes going to make that less successful with one vs. the other?)
I don't want to stop you from getting the Siglent because no doubt it's a great little machine, but I'll answer your questions regarding the Rigol, simply because I can. I've been using it for a couple of hours a day for the last few weeks and continue to be happy with it.
1. Wi-Fi - Super simple to enable this and remote web control is pretty good. You can access and adjust pretty much everything you'd want.
2. Bandwidth - the hack to 100 Mhz is equally simple.
3. Sampling rate limitation - I don't think there's any need to worry about all this talk of 4-channel operation being at lower sampling rate. Whenever you want to be sure of something, it only takes a few seconds to switch off the other channels momentarily to get the 1.25 GS/s, which puts you in the realm of 200 MHz, only to find that the waveform doesn't change and then you pull off the probe hooks and start using the spring clip and realise that has 10 times more impact.
4. HDMI - I've done this into my 65-inch flatscreen and it looks pretty impressive, but Wi-Fi web control partly negates the need for the HDMI.
5. Hacking - I'm looking forward to having a poke around just for the fun of it.
6. Size - I didn't even realise it had a slimmer profile than the Siglent, but now I know that, I am happy I have the Rigol as I'm currently using it in an extremely confined space.
-
The original Signal can be reconstructed with much wider filters but they'll only work if the signal is perfectly periodic.
I was wondering what happens if the signal isn't periodic. It could go very wrong.
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
And with a realizable real-world reconstruction/interpolation filter, this bandwidth limit is not 0.5*sample_rate, but lower. For the Rigol, it seems to be about 0.3*sample_rate.
Just make sure that the signal you feed into the ADC does not contain any frequency content above 0.3*sample_rate, and the interpolated waveform you see on the screen will be the same as the waveform sampled by the ADC (at least almost the same -- small residual errors are unavoidable in practice).
If you violate this precondition, perfect reconstruction is not possible and the resulting distortion is implementation-dependent.
-
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
Nope.
The signal in this image is bandwidth limited (5Hz signal, 11Hz sample rate) but sin(x)/x won't reconstruct it unless the filter is infinitely wide and the signal is periodic (which can't happen in practice).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
-
There is no cheating. Just accept it.
It looks exactly the same if you single shot it.
What does single shot have to do with it?
You seem to be saying Rigol don't even know the basics of signal theory.
-
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
Nope. The signal in this image is bandwidth limited (5Hz signal, 11Hz sample rate) but sin(x)/x won't reconstruct it unless the filter is infinitely wide and the signal is periodic (which can't happen in practice).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
man what are you smoking? please focus on gf's word here "realizable real-world reconstruction/interpolation filter"... true Sinc by theory cant be implemented in real world, so professors have to find a way to make it "realizable" or "practical", similar to Fourier Transform, without DFT or FFT, real Fourier Transform will not be "realizable" because real FT is infinitely long. go read some literatures on how to make those "realizable", i cant comprehend them myself but at least i got some idea. the FFT you keep bragging about, is one crippled version of FT that brings some complications with it, ymmv.
-
We have both the Siglent SDS800 and the Rigol DHO800, well the Rigol is a clients that has run into financial difficulty, so likely to remain at "The Labs" for awhile.
We acquired the Rigol for said client and the plan was to teach them the DSO use for a specific application, so spent some time and became familiar with such.
Simply put, Rigol hit a Home Run with the DHO800 introduction, with the custom 12 bit Chip Sets, small form factor, nice screen (altho a bit dim), solid build, excellent UI, VESA, HDMI, nice probes and so on at a price point most could afford. As one popular Rigol Fanboy put it, "Game Changer"!! Which was true, this little Rigol DSO was quite remarkable in every respect, especially considering the price point!!
Needless to say we were impressed with this Rigol DSO, and this was our 1st direct "hands on" with any Rigol product, similar to our experience with our 1st "hands on" with our Siglent SDS2000X+ a few years back, both these folks have really done a superb job :-+
When the SDS800 was available we decided to spend our own nickel, well the Rigol so far has ended up on our nickel as well :o
Simply put, Rigol hit a Home Run with the DHO800 introduction, then Siglent hit a Grand Slam with the SDS800 introduction :clap:
As good as the Rigol DHO800 is, and it's good, really good is every aspect, the Siglent SDS800 is just overall better IMO.
We have no brand preference, just have a preference for the best instrument for the task (know thy instrument so to speak), and when one factors in cost, the best value instrument for the task!!
Bottom line is you can't go WRONG with either the Rigol or Siglent, but as 2N3055 mentioned the Siglent is the more "Pro Like" Instrument, and more in-line with making quality/trustworthy measurement/observations rather than just playing around and tinkering, which is fun BTW ;D
So when we reach for a DSO, now we reach for the SDS800, usually with the Rigol probes tho (these are really good, better than the Siglent IMO) ::)
Anyway, how either one of these can be offered at this price point is remarkable and a tribute to both Rigol and Siglent, but honestly from a well seasoned old Pro who's used every piece of TE imaginable, one would expect the Siglent to cost ~10X......yes it's that good!! Heck one would expect the Rigol to cost ~3X also!!!
BTW we are NOT open for doing direct comparisons, we'll let that reside in the hands of others!!
Of course, as always, YMMV!
Best,
-
Difference is that "the other" scope actually does work as 4ch 200MHz BW scope.
At all times, no special conditions..
Exactly. My comparison was fair, and compared them as 4 channel scopes with what their sampling rates actually allow.
The argument that it's not that hard to disable 3 of the channels on the Rigol to get higher bandwidth is comical, not professional.
one would expect the Siglent to cost ~10X......yes it's that good!! Heck one would expect the Rigol to cost ~3X also!!!
I think that's a great comparison. Both scopes are great at what they do, and cost about the same, but the Siglent is worth 10x what it costs, and the Rigol only 3x what it costs. It's a great value either way, but one is clearly superior...if you want to use it as a tool to do work. If you want to hack and tinker with a the scope as a toy, then YMMV.
-
Simply put, Rigol hit a Home Run with the DHO800 introduction, then Siglent hit a Grand Slam with the SDS800 introduction :clap:
Yep, there's no way the Siglent boys will ever make me regret buying mine or that it's in any way insufficient for my work.
As good as the Rigol DHO800 is, and it's good, really good is every aspect, the Siglent SDS800 is just overall better IMO.
On paper, sure, but my question is how much of that translates into an advantage in practice.
Sure, there's some people who need 4 channels at 200Mhz over 50 Ohm coax that but I'm not buying that every single EEVBLOG member does.
I'm also not buying that those people wouldn't be far better off with a 2000-series 'scope at 350MHz. which seems to be an area where Siglent is supreme. "200Mhz" seems like a very arbitrary number to me.
So let's list the advantages of each and not try to say one is "better". Numbers aren't everything, one size doesn't fit all.
So when we reach for a DSO, now we reach for the SDS800, usually with the Rigol probes tho (these are really good, better than the Siglent IMO) ::)
Rigol has their own ASICS so Siglent's margins are probably a lot thinner to be able to be sell at the same price point. Things like the probes will be the first to suffer.
-
Difference is that "the other" scope actually does work as 4ch 200MHz BW scope.
At all times, no special conditions..
The argument that it's not that hard to disable 3 of the channels on the Rigol to get higher bandwidth is comical, not professional.
comical or not, professional or not, sds800x cannot see 400-500MHz even on one channel active, prove me wrong.
-
comical or not, professional or not, sds800x cannot see 400-500MHz even on one channel active, prove me wrong.
🤣🤣🤣 I don't need to. The FACT of REALITY is that if you're trying to measure outside of the scopes designed bandwidth, then the results simply won't be accepted by any professional. The results shapirus showed of his DHO800 measuring 500MHz were TERRIBLE. If you think that's something to be proud about, I don't know what to tell you.
Do you need to measure a 500MHz signal? Your scope better be CERTIFIED to do so, or you could be subject to legal action when the product you're trying to sell doesn't meet specs, or the device you certified as functional isn't. Standards and reality matter, unless you're talking about a toy.
Are you looking for a toy or a tool?
-
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
Nope.
The signal in this image is bandwidth limited (5Hz signal, 11Hz sample rate) but sin(x)/x won't reconstruct it unless the filter is infinitely wide and the signal is periodic (which can't happen in practice).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
That signal has components above 5.5 Hz.
-
On paper, sure, but my question is how much of that translates into an advantage in practice.
That's the point we don't "practice", we performed in real time, no backups, or woops, or awe sh*its, missed that, our career and reputation were/are on the line in everything we did/do.
Today things are a little less stressful as we are semi-retired, but still adhere to the "no excuses" policy wrt to electronics design, and the Siglent is simply our more Pro Level instrument IMO.
Please remember we have both Rigol & Siglent, and don't need to defend nor exaggerate the performance of either ;)
Of course YMMV :-+
Best,
-
The original Signal can be reconstructed with much wider filters but they'll only work if the signal is perfectly periodic.
I was wondering what happens if the signal isn't periodic. It could go very wrong.
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
And with a realizable real-world reconstruction/interpolation filter, this bandwidth limit is not 0.5*sample_rate, but lower. For the Rigol, it seems to be about 0.3*sample_rate.
Agreed. In addition I'd like to add that sin x / x reconstruction (which is a relatively simple filter to implement) can reconstruct a sine wave little over fs / 2.5 (0.4 * fs). Anything less I consider broken. I have come across a few DSOs which had trouble doing sin x /x reconstruction at fs / 2.5 but their manufacturers fixed the firmware quickly. Bottom line: consider the current Rigol reconstruction as broken and needs fixing.
-
comical or not, professional or not, sds800x cannot see 400-500MHz even on one channel active, prove me wrong.
🤣🤣🤣 I don't need to. The FACT of REALITY is that if you're trying to measure outside of the scopes designed bandwidth, then the results simply won't be accepted by any professional. The results shapirus showed of his DHO800 measuring 500MHz were TERRIBLE. If you think that's something to be proud about, I don't know what to tell you.
Do you need to measure a 500MHz signal? Your scope better be CERTIFIED to do so, or you could be subject to legal action when the product you're trying to sell doesn't meet specs, or the device you certified as functional isn't. Standards and reality matter, unless you're talking about a toy.
Are you looking for a toy or a tool?
Your scope will not be "certified" whatever that means when out of cal either, and I bet most, if not all of your equipment is not calibrated regularly.
Certainly mine isn't, and I intend that to stay that way.
I couldn't care less about 500MHz signals right now, which doesn't mean being able to visualize that signal is completely useless for everybody. Very few people buy either of the scopes discussed in this thread for certification and measurements in which legal liability is involved, and nobody without periodic calibration.
Let's keep the discussion where it belongs. I do agree that the SDS800X-HD is a better oscilloscope overall. I can also see why, for basic use, the DHO800 can be more than enough and in that case in particular it might be a better purchase due to some usability and convenience advantages.
That being said, I just got my SDS800X-HD. I'm thinking of buying a DHO800 just to compare them thoroughly, but it's a bit of an expensive thought.
-
That being said, I just got my SDS800X-HD. I'm thinking of buying a DHO800 just to compare them thoroughly, but it's a bit of an expensive thought.
Go for it, we can compare notes ;D
Edit: You can use the Rigol's better probes as an excuse, need, requirement to acquire such ;)
Best,
-
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
The signal in this image is bandwidth limited (5Hz signal, 11Hz sample rate) but sin(x)/x won't reconstruct it unless the filter is infinitely wide and the signal is periodic (which can't happen in practice).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
For a practical reconstruction you do not need the infinte sequence. However, you must acquire additional samples, in front of the time window you want to reconstruct, and after the time window. For the reconstruction of 5Hz @11Sa/s with 60dB out-of-band attenuation, about 50 extra samples are sufficient (or IOW, a filter with a length of about 50 sampling intervals).
-
comical or not, professional or not, sds800x cannot see 400-500MHz even on one channel active, prove me wrong.
🤣🤣🤣 I don't need to. The FACT of REALITY is that if you're trying to measure outside of the scopes designed bandwidth, then the results simply won't be accepted by any professional. The results shapirus showed of his DHO800 measuring 500MHz were TERRIBLE. If you think that's something to be proud about, I don't know what to tell you.
Do you need to measure a 500MHz signal? Your scope better be CERTIFIED to do so, or you could be subject to legal action when the product you're trying to sell doesn't meet specs, or the device you certified as functional isn't. Standards and reality matter, unless you're talking about a toy.
Are you looking for a toy or a tool?
Your scope will not be "certified" whatever that means when out of cal either, and I bet most, if not all of your equipment is not calibrated regularly.
Certainly mine isn't, and I intend that to stay that way.
You're right about me personally not needing cal certs (though most of my gear is still within cal, and yes, I will send stuff to be calibrated when I deem it needed).
I couldn't care less about 500MHz signals right now, which doesn't mean being able to visualize that signal is completely useless for everybody. Very few people buy either of the scopes discussed in this thread for certification and measurements in which legal liability is involved, and nobody without periodic calibration.
I do sometimes care, and I have a 500MHz scope, so that's pretty easy to visualize ACCURATELY. 😉 Look at shapirus' 500MHz example above. That's absolutely not an accurate visualization of the waveform. If you want to see an accurate visualization of the waveform, see my video that follows the sweep on a 500MHz scope. Pretending they're the same thing doesn't make it so.
Let's keep the discussion where it belongs. I do agree that the SDS800X-HD is a better oscilloscope overall. I can also see why, for basic use, the DHO800 can be more than enough and in that case in particular it might be a better purchase due to some usability and convenience advantages.
Keeping the discussion where it belongs means actually discussing the limits and proper use of both scopes. Yes, that means the reality of what the scopes are capable of. As I said in my summary, accurately, they both have their pros and cons. As you said, the SDS is a better scope overall. I agree. I'm not arguing that the DHO isn't a good scope for what it is. If the SDS didn't exist, and somebody needed a 12-bit scope under $500, I'd tell them to get the DHO, despite me hating Rigol in general. But the fact is, if you don't need HDMI out, there's a better scope available for the same price. 🤷
-
The results shapirus showed of his DHO800 measuring 500MHz were TERRIBLE.
No, they were actually unexpectedly good. Mind you, I was capturing a signal way beyond the scope's claimed specs.
The point of showing that capture was only to demonstrate that the digital backend was capable of visualizing signals of that high a frequency, and if one would wish to modify the input low-pass filter on one of the channels to make it a special high-frequency input, then it would not be pointless at all.
I have no reason to expect that the SDS800X HD will not show an equally terrible, or good (if not better), result in the same test scenario. Might even be much better (because of a higher sampling rate), but it would equally require a modification of the input filter to make it practically useful.
Your comments on the number of channels and effective bandwidth sound somewhat apocalyptic. No, it's nowhere near that in reality.
It's true that the front page specs are somewhat misleading. If we consider DHO924, then the claimed bandwidth (250 MHz) is only usable in single channel mode, and just barely hits it in dual channel. Does it render the scope useless? Of course it doesn't. Is Rigol DHO800/900 worse than the respective Siglent for multi-channel high-frequency measurements (simultaneously)? Yes, apparently so. Is it worse in every other aspect? No it's not. Siglent also has a significant number of things that can be more or less annoying.
It's good to know the instrument's limitations (and bugs/weird design choices), and that's where the forum comes to help, as we can test things to see what practical implications their limitations may create.
-
Keeping the discussion where it belongs means actually discussing the limits and proper use of both scopes. Yes, that means the reality of what the scopes are capable of. As I said in my summary, accurately, they both have their pros and cons. As you said, the SDS is a better scope overall. I agree. I'm not arguing that the DHO isn't a good scope for what it is. If the SDS didn't exist, and somebody needed a 12-bit scope under $500, I'd tell them to get the DHO, despite me hating Rigol in general. But the fact is, if you don't need HDMI out, there's a better scope available for the same price. 🤷
Well, I don't see the problem of talking about what has been achieved, or could be achieved, even if it's outside of claimed specs and done in a hacky way, as long as everyone is clear on how it was done.
The talk about liability, being sued, and certifying specifications for putting a commercial product out to the market is well above the scope of "choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs."
-
The results shapirus showed of his DHO800 measuring 500MHz were TERRIBLE.
No, they were actually unexpectedly good. Mind you, I was capturing a signal way beyond the scope's claimed specs.
i posted ago a guy characterizing ds1054z, multiply by 20x for 400MHz signal... https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5468620/#msg5468620 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5468620/#msg5468620) i have few rf gen here that we know should output 5V square at hi-freq, so we can guestimate how much attenuation going on. so we multiply by a factor in our hobby circuit. i have tight space, i'm not pro... OP has tight space too, hence he's not pro either... rigol is not for pro, hence its for us ;D sometime relative measurement is good enough.. rather than spending 10K just to know accurately what level is 400MHz... it probably just 5V anyway on and off... ymmv.
-
That being said, I just got my SDS800X-HD. I'm thinking of buying a DHO800 just to compare them thoroughly, but it's a bit of an expensive thought.
Go for it, we can compare notes ;D
Edit: You can use the Rigol's better probes as an excuse, need, requirement to acquire such ;)
Best,
Dang it. I was thinking of buying Testec probes, but that would nuke my excuse need requirement ::)
-
Difference is that "the other" scope actually does work as 4ch 200MHz BW scope.
At all times, no special conditions..
The argument that it's not that hard to disable 3 of the channels on the Rigol to get higher bandwidth is comical, not professional.
comical or not, professional or not, sds800x cannot see 400-500MHz even on one channel active, prove me wrong.
It sounds a little bit comical indeed when a 200 MHz instrument is demanded to “see” a 500 MHz signal. But yes, if you don’t care for the true amplitude – why not?
For the screenshot below, a 1.6 Vpp signal has been used, i.e. it fills the screen height at lower frequencies such as 100 MHz.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2152003;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_500MHz_Meas
-
Agreed. In addition I'd like to add that sin x / x reconstruction (which is a relatively simple filter to implement) can reconstruct a sine wave little over fs / 2.5 (0.4 * fs).
Well, there is no such thing as THE sin(x)/x interpolation. In order to make sin(x)/x practically usable, it must be truncated and windowed. And both the truncation length and the window function are still variables which determine the reconstruction limit of the resulting filter. I agree of course that 2.5 can be considered a common value.
-
It sounds a little bit comical indeed when a 200 MHz instrument is demanded to “see” a 500 MHz signal. But yes, if you don’t care for the true amplitude – why not?
For the screenshot below, a 1.6 Vpp signal has been used, i.e. it fills the screen height at lower frequencies such as 100 MHz.
Some conclusions from this screenshot:
- the SDS800X HD can also be modded (provided that the input low-pass filter is a hardware one) to make one of the channels special, dedicated for high-frequency signals;
- the frequency counter does not fail at this out-of-spec frequency, unlike the Rigol's, so such a mod would be more useful than with the Rigol;
- it can perhaps go way above 500 MHz and still show a proper signal (save for the true amplitude, obviously), I would speculate that it can do at least 800 MHz. @Performa01 would you be willing to verify that, if you have a signal source that can go that high?
-
It sounds a little bit comical indeed when a 200 MHz instrument is demanded to “see” a 500 MHz signal.
No, not really ;)
But I'm still wondering how 490 MHz @1GSa/s and 10ns/div look like?
-
For the screenshot below, a 1.6 Vpp signal has been used, i.e. it fills the screen height at lower frequencies such as 100 MHz.
from the screenshot, 0.2Vpp, so its 8X multiplication factor, ok i'm wrong. and i'm glad to know i'm wrong ;) but this fact can also invalidate the claim made by some fans that sds800x is "properly BW limited" scope IF say when 2 channels active (1GSps) the input respond curve is the same as when 1 channel only active. same to 4 channels active. the test will be to look 400MHz's (or 240MHz) attenuation at 1ch active, 2ch active, and 4ch active.
It sounds a little bit comical indeed when a 200 MHz instrument is demanded to “see” a 500 MHz signal.
No, not really ;)
But I'm still wondering how 490 MHz @1GSa/s and 10ns/div look like?
asking Sr / 2.04 maybe too much. i would say 450MHz (Sr / 2.22) i agree, i think i know your intention now.
btw i'm with shapirus. at 2GSps single channel, there probably some 800MHz signal can be seen? at much higher multiplication factor, or probably its front end hackable, but that will be hardcore hack for anyone who seriously in need for it without spending 10K money.. since i already own a 2nd hand lecroy real scope, i'm not the one who need it, but if i want to waste some more money on entry level scope, i'll get sds800x, as i already stated many weeks ago... cheers.
-
If a person really really needs to see uncalibrated 700-800 ish MHz, then just go and buy SDS2000X+.
With 500MHz license, it will "legit" show 650MHz normally and would show 800-900Mhz with amplitude drop.
-
It sounds a little bit comical indeed when a 200 MHz instrument is demanded to “see” a 500 MHz signal. But yes, if you don’t care for the true amplitude – why not?
For the screenshot below, a 1.6 Vpp signal has been used, i.e. it fills the screen height at lower frequencies such as 100 MHz.
Some conclusions from this screenshot:
- the SDS800X HD can also be modded (provided that the input low-pass filter is a hardware one) to make one of the channels special, dedicated for high-frequency signals;
- the frequency counter does not fail at this out-of-spec frequency, unlike the Rigol's, so such a mod would be more useful than with the Rigol;
- it can perhaps go way above 500 MHz and still show a proper signal (save for the true amplitude, obviously), I would speculate that it can do at least 800 MHz. @Performa01 would you be willing to verify that, if you have a signal source that can go that high?
At 800MHz attenuation is too high. At 650MHz reconstruction works just fine. Why wouldn't it?
But it is very attenuated, and inputs gets overdriven if you try to boost it too much.
-
The results shapirus showed of his DHO800 measuring 500MHz were TERRIBLE.
No, they were actually unexpectedly good. Mind you, I was capturing a signal way beyond the scope's claimed specs.
It's good to know the instrument's limitations (and bugs/weird design choices), and that's where the forum comes to help, as we can test things to see what practical implications their limitations may create.
Of course it's a matter of perspective. For me, the asymmetry of the known symmetrical waveform, and the lack of the functional frequency counter means bad results. The fact that it shows anything in that range can certainly be taken as a positive as well. However, compare the results between the 2 scopes at 500MHz, and both the symmetry and freq count (or lack there of) speak for themselves.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2147383;image)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2152003;image)
In my tests on the SDS2504X+, I measured up to 841MHz before the frequency counter freaked out. I guess I should go up much higher and see how long it takes to get the wonky waveform while ignoring the counter. 😉
This is all good fun, sure. But if we're talking about using the info for professional work, it's out the door.
-
- the SDS800X HD can also be modded (provided that the input low-pass filter is a hardware one) to make one of the channels special, dedicated for high-frequency signals;
Since it is not possible to have an effective analog AA-filter in an oscilloscope (which is considered a measurement device and not a consumer gadget), disabling the analog input filter would probably not make much of a difference. It’s the combination of analog and digital filters here. Just look at the frequency response:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1988992;image)
I don’t think that the digital filters in the FPGA would be hackable so easily.
- it can perhaps go way above 500 MHz and still show a proper signal (save for the true amplitude, obviously), I would speculate that it can do at least 800 MHz. @Performa01 would you be willing to verify that, if you have a signal source that can go that high?
From the frequency response plot above, you can see that the regular bandwidth in single channel mode is 244 MHz, and at 500 MHz we get more than 20 dB attenuation already. At frequencies beyond that, the roll-off gets even faster, e.g. another ~20 dB up to 720 MHz. That’s more than 40 dB/octave!
Above 500 MHz, amplitude gets just too low and triggering gets lost pretty quickly. About the highest possible frequency – with increased vertical gain – is 590 MHz.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2152354;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_590MHz_Meas
WWe cannot increase the gain any further, because then the signal vanishes. No wonder – the input buffer does still not attenuate frequencies that high, whereas the analog filter usually sits at the output of the PGA (which probably also has a bandwidth of at least 700 MHz) and the digital filter is only after the ADC of course. The PGA would simply saturate and mess its DC-bias at higher gains, where the final stage is badly overdriven.
But I'm still wondering how 490 MHz @1GSa/s and 10ns/div look like?
490 MHz is a bit nasty – but I’m sure you are aware of that and just want to be mean 😉
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2152360;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_490MHz_1Gsa
A less demanding configuration would be 450 MHz – this time at 2 ns/div, to show the sine wave better. There are no cyclic effects to see anymore. Reconstruction works as it should, but the amplitude is so low that I needed a little help from the vertical gain again – at 120 mV/div the trigger was fully working again, as can be seen from the trigger frequency counter.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2152366;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_450MHz_1Gsa
-
I don’t think that the digital filters in the FPGA would be hackable so easily.
I'm quite sure there are no filters in the FPGA at all. They would consume way too much resources and have no effect on preventing aliasing as they are after the ADC anyway. IF there would be digital filters, the oscilloscope would support having user adjustable filters as these would come with very little extra cost. Bandwidth limiting is always implemented in the analog front-end amplifier because that is the easiest & cheapest place to implement a first order roll-off.
-
Several of you have "hit the nail on the head": a key issue that is making this choice difficult is that I am not a professional.
If you want the TL;DR version of the lengthy exposition below, it is this: what a professional considers to be a "toy" might be the better tool for a hobby user ... and I still find myself going back and forth between these options.
Some of the discussion above, as well as in other threads, greatly reminds me of reading through threads in a forum devoted to metal working - a forum that specifically states that it is oriented to the needs of professional machinists, but does welcome hobby machinists so long as they avoid discussions about hobby-grade tools. At this point, I would consider myself an advanced hobby machinist - far more advanced in that hobby than I am in electronics! - and no little part of that advancement is due to participating in that forum. In particular, I learned to recognize and avoid the sort of mistakes that the typical hobby machinist makes - mistakes that cause problems for which the hobbyist can't pin down the cause, because they don't know where to look, or are looking in all the wrong places, or so on. And yet, at the same time, over many years, I became profoundly aware of the different but equally annoying myopia of the typical professional machinist, e.g., an inability to see that it is quite possible to produce extremely precise work even without machinery costing $250K and weighing 8,000 lbs. The priorities and and mindset of the hobbyist and the professional are very different. The typical professional needs to produce only the required precision - and nothing more - as quickly as possible, and tooling is only a means to that end. The typical hobbyist enjoys the journey as much as or more than the destination, and may enjoy the tools for their own sake; time spent working on the tools may be just as enjoyable as finishing the model IC engine. And of course, the hobby machinist is likely not to have room for the 8,000 lb. machine, and such a machine would be overkill for the projects he or she typically pursues. A "mini-lathe" or "mini-mill" are rightly regarded by the professional as toys compared to the 250K 8,000 lb. behemoth - but those "toys" may be the far better choice for the hobby user, and the hobby user might actually be producing superior work - in terms of precision, or in terms of beauty, or so on - because that is what the hobby user is focused on, without being constrained by the demands of the clock.
No doubt this is an imperfect analogy at best, but hopefully it conveys the point. And it can be extended a bit further. Sometimes the hobby machinist does buy professional grade tools ... especially when they can be acquired at a bargain price ... and of course depending on having the space and power requirements needed. And doing so might well mean giving up some features that are convenient and useful for the hobby user (e.g., variable speed spindle) as a trade-off for the greater rigidity and power of the professional tools. The professional replies, "well, that's stupid - just add a VFD and you'll have the variable speed on the professional tool!" Of course, you'll also have to re-wire the garage to get the 240V 30-amp circuit you need, but hey, that's all part of the overhead for a professional ... ! This is why very often hobby machinists pay more for the hobby-grade tool than he or she would have to spend to get a more capable used-but-still-very-good professional tool.
Again, imperfect analogy, but it does help to illustrate why this choice is proving harder than I thought it would be. Dismissing the Rigol as a toy that can't even do simple RF work misses the point. Everything I'm reading suggests that the Rigol would be more than sufficient for my limited needs. Perhaps I would outgrow it - ? But in the meantime, it seems like it might be an easier entry point. Meanwhile, the Siglent seems to be the better tool in several ways (more like the professional machine tool) ... but as I just now read through the "bugs and firmware" thread on the Siglent, it frankly scared me a bit - more so than reading through the equivalent thread for the Rigol. I'm not entirely sure why ... maybe the Siglent's bugs seem more intimidating to me? As an absolute newbie to the DSO world, I am not sure I even understand what some of the bugs amount to.
I am genuinely struggling between the options. If I had more experience, I would have a better idea of which things I might regret the most if I went with this one vs. that one. If the Rigol were significantly cheaper, it would be easier go that direction, assuring myself that even if it isn't quite the machine the Siglent is, I nonetheless made a prudent choice for a "starter" machine for a hobby user. With no experience, and with them being priced the same ... honestly, I really wish I could find a used SDS1104X-E or DS1054Z for a couple of hundred dollars; that might be the best way to gain experience before buying new. But thus far, the only place I'm seeing used units advertised is on eBay, and the prices they are starting at is equal to or often higher than the cost of the exact same unit new.
I also genuinely appreciate all of the comments above. I take those that come from professional EE's (or at least I assume so based on the nature of the comments) to heart, even as I recognize that as a hobbyist, my needs / priorities / approach are of a different nature.
I WILL make a choice, and soon ... but first I'm still wading through some of the lengthier threads to try to get a better feel for how each machine would be to use.
-
machine would be overkill for the projects he or she typically pursues. A "mini-lathe" or "mini-mill" are rightly regarded by the professional as toys compared to the 250K 8,000 lb. behemoth - but those "toys" may be the far better choice for the hobby user, and the hobby user might actually be producing superior work - in terms of precision, or in terms of beauty, or so on - because that is what the hobby user is focused on, without being constrained by the demands of the clock.
But also keep in mind that good tools are more enjoyable to work with. So even for hobby use, the professional tools are worth considering. Basically it all boils down to budget. If you have little to spend then going for cheap options can be a way to get some form of tooling but don't expect great results. But if you have the budget to aim higher, then do so. Cry once and smile forever. Every now and then I do woodworking; the tools from Festool and Makita put a smile on my face every time I put them to use. You can't really put a price on that. Especially since I've tried to use cheap tools for so long and know how mediocre the end result is despite best efforts.
-
However, compare the results between the 2 scopes at 500MHz, and both the symmetry and freq count (or lack there of) speak for themselves.
Frequency counter yes, but otherwise it's not a fair comparison. 500 MHz is exactly 1/4 the sampling rate for the Siglent, so a clean wave is expected. That would correspond to 312.5 MHz for the Rigol:
[attachimg=1]
Here's 490 MHz:
[attachimg=2]
Now, let's pause for a minute and think what are we trying to compare.
Of course, the Siglent will perform better where a higher sampling rate makes a difference.
Perhaps a better question would be whether the Rigol's interpolation implementation is flawed and starts to suffer from aliasing too early. Well, maybe. Is the Siglent's better? Maybe, but I'd say we still don't have enough solid data. There were some decent indications that the Siglent is better, but to properly compare apples to apples we would need to capture signals that have frequencies which are equal not absolutely, but as fractions of the sampling rates of both, and that, ideally, stay within the spec'd bandwidth, for which we would need to reduce the sampling rate artificially. Those could be say 10 frequency values from 1/5 to 1/2.5 the respective sampling rates. If someone's willing to do such a test with SDS800X HD (which goes to min. 500 MSa/s, right?), then I can do it with DHO800.
-
Several of you have "hit the nail on the head": a key issue that is making this choice difficult is that I am not a professional.
If you want the TL;DR version of the lengthy exposition below, it is this: what a professional considers to be a "toy" might be the better tool for a hobby user ... and I still find myself going back and forth between these options.
As far as I am concerned, that is an extremely important point to recognise.
I will generalise it a little to point out that all tools have a learning curve, and a beginner can be confused/daunted by the complexity of unfamiliar tools and subjects.
Sometimes simpler is better; tools should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
A beginner may not need to push a tool to its limits; "over provisioning" can be beneficial.
My analogy would be with cars. An experienced professional can probably understand and make use of complex UI and fearures. A beginner probably wants/needs only the accelerator, break, steering wheel, and speedometer.
Plus, of course, an expert driver can probably use their skill and experience to get a simple basic car to perform better than a wannabe expert with an expensive car. But you can buy expensive cars in shops, unlike experience.
-
I WILL make a choice, and soon ... but first I'm still wading through some of the lengthier threads to try to get a better feel for how each machine would be to use.
Now let's make one thing straight. If you decide to choose the Rigol, then before making the purchase you need to make damn well sure that you do understand, as fully as possible, how the Rigol's fan sounds, and then:
- either decide that you are totally fine with it;
- or have no objection against opening the case to either:
a) reduce the stock fan's RPM by adding inline resistors or replacing one of the resistors in the the respective buck converter's feedback voltage divider, then monitor the resulting CPU temperature (e.g. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5341472/#msg5341472 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5341472/#msg5341472));
b) or remove the stock fan and install an external one (e.g. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5338634/#msg5338634 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5338634/#msg5338634))
To my taste that fan was so loud and, what's much worse, so whiny, that I couldn't stand it and installed an external one. I'm not alone, but some folks apparently seem to not mind it.
The fan issue sort of aligns with the rest of this scope:
- con: it requires hacking for best results
- pro: it's hacking-friendly
As far as the Siglent's fan goes, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that it's much better, as every detail suggests that that scope was developed by proper engineers and not a bunch of marketing jerks. But either way it would be a good idea to check on that one too.
-
But I'm still wondering how 490 MHz @1GSa/s and 10ns/div look like?
490 MHz is a bit nasty – but I’m sure you are aware of that and just want to be mean 😉
Thank you! Yes, of course I wanted to be mean ;D
If you display the same with a single-shot, then I think we would see the same kind of "AM envelope" which was observed on the Rigol.
I think it was just unable to trigger on the envelope, therefore the trace looks so weird.
If we could do an FFT on the interpolated trace, then I'd expect to see peaks at 490 and 510 MHz (image).
[ If I think about it, maybe it is even possible with the Interpolate math function. ]
A less demanding configuration would be 450 MHz – this time at 2 ns/div, to show the sine wave better. There are no cyclic effects to see anymore. Reconstruction works as it should, but the amplitude is so low that I needed a little help from the vertical gain again – at 120 mV/div the trigger was fully working again, as can be seen from the trigger frequency counter.
The trace is still a bit thick. Is this really just noise? Could also be the same effect (but with much lower amplitude and 5x higher frequency of the envelope). Even if it is hardly visible in the time domain, an FFT of the interpolated trace should still reveal the amount of attenuation for the 550 MHz image (ideally it drowns in the noise floor).
-
what a professional considers to be a "toy" might be the better tool for a hobby user ... and I still find myself going back and forth between these options.
Speaking as a (low budget) hobbyist who also has access to all the state-of-the-art tools through his "day job":
I agree that for hobbyist purposes, some professional instruments can be overkill. I don't need a high-end VNA to tune dipoles in my attic - a nanoVNA is usually sufficient :)
That said, there is a range of "professional" tools, and the lower-end of these tools are often just as easy to use as "hobbyist" tools, but with significant advantages in terms of things like specs, usability, etc. To extend the antenna-tuning example: we (R&S) also make handheld VNAs, and if I happen to have one in my office, I would always choose that over my nanoVNA. But these are still well out of the typical hobbyist's price range, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Part of the fun of being a hobbyist (for me, at least) is finding ways of doing things that don't require a big budget :)
-
Perhaps a better question would be whether the Rigol's interpolation implementation is flawed and starts to suffer from aliasing too early. Well, maybe. Is the Siglent's better? Maybe, but I'd say we still don't have enough solid data. There were some decent indications that the Siglent is better, but to properly compare apples to apples we would need to capture signals that have frequencies which are equal not absolutely, but as fractions of the sampling rates of both, and that, ideally, stay within the spec'd bandwidth, for which we would need to reduce the sampling rate artificially.
Staying within the specified bandwidth does not seem critical, as long as we are not interested in measuring absolute amplitude and are not too far out (so we still get s strong-enough signal).
Performa01 has shown a nice and stable reconstruction of a 450 MHz signal with 1 GSa/s sampling rate in the Siglent, i.e. sampled at 2.22 times the signal frequency. For an apples-to-apples comparison, could you check a 562 MHz sine at 1.25 GSa/s, or 281 MHz at 625 MSa/s, or 140 MHz @ 312.5 MSa/s with the DHO800? That should give us a good indication whether the reconstruction (interpolation) algorithms do a comparable job in both scopes.
-
A "mini-lathe" or "mini-mill" are rightly regarded by the professional as toys compared to the 250K 8,000 lb. behemoth - but those "toys" may be the far better choice for the hobby user, and the hobby user might actually be producing superior work - in terms of precision, or in terms of beauty, or so on - because that is what the hobby user is focused on, without being constrained by the demands of the clock.
I disagree with this analogy. Professionals look for quality, size is not relevant in that way. The goal of the professional is to have the higher quality tool for the job, regardless of size. If a "mini table saw" is the appropriate tool, then that's the tool they will use. I have a full size table saw, and a tiny mini table saw that can sit on top of it, without even getting in the way for medium size projects. Both of them are valuable tools with their places. If either one of them was limited in their expected range of usefulness because of quality issues, then that would be a toy the professional wouldn't accept.
If you want to get started with a "toy" scope I have the Fnirsi TC3 ($50). It's 100% a toy, but it's fun, and it can do some of the things it claims. 😉
-
For an apples-to-apples comparison, could you check a 562 MHz sine at 1.25 GSa/s, or 281 MHz at 625 MSa/s, or 140 MHz @ 312.5 MSa/s with the DHO800? That should give us a good indication whether the reconstruction (interpolation) algorithms do a comparable job in both scopes.
Good point. Besides, I had not noticed that the Siglent screenshots were taken at 1 GSa/s rather than 2.
Here you go. I guess this shows enough.
-
Perhaps a better question would be whether the Rigol's interpolation implementation is flawed and starts to suffer from aliasing too early. Well, maybe. Is the Siglent's better? Maybe, but I'd say we still don't have enough solid data. There were some decent indications that the Siglent is better, but to properly compare apples to apples we would need to capture signals that have frequencies which are equal not absolutely, but as fractions of the sampling rates of both, and that, ideally, stay within the spec'd bandwidth, for which we would need to reduce the sampling rate artificially.
Staying within the specified bandwidth does not seem critical, as long as we are not interested in measuring absolute amplitude and are not too far out (so we still get s strong-enough signal).
Performa01 has shown a nice and stable reconstruction of a 450 MHz signal with 1 GSa/s sampling rate in the Siglent, i.e. sampled at 2.22 times the signal frequency. For an apples-to-apples comparison, could you check a 562 MHz sine at 1.25 GSa/s, or 281 MHz at 625 MSa/s, or 140 MHz @ 312.5 MSa/s with the DHO800? That should give us a good indication whether the reconstruction (interpolation) algorithms do a comparable job in both scopes.
If you look carefully at the 450MHz screenshot Performa01 posted, you'll see that the displayed signal can't be right. Just look how the histogram for the frequency measurement shows a wide spread instead of a single frequency! And also look at the amplitude compared to the 408MHz signal. IOW, the screenshot doesn't show what is actually happening. Just stick to testing fs / 2.5 + 2% or so. DSOs can show fantasy signals in such circumstances!
-
Part of the fun of being a hobbyist (for me, at least) is finding ways of doing things that don't require a big budget :)
Precisely :) See my .sig.
Doubly so, since I'm retired and don't have access to modern professional equipment.
Besides, an engineer is someone who can do for £1 what any tool can do for £10.
-
the fact is, if you don't need HDMI out, there's a better scope available for the same price. 🤷
What if bench space is at a premium? The Siglent is much bigger.
What it you need to use it on the go? The Rigol can run from an ordinary powerbank.
-
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
Nope.
The signal in this image is bandwidth limited (5Hz signal, 11Hz sample rate) but sin(x)/x won't reconstruct it unless the filter is infinitely wide and the signal is periodic (which can't happen in practice).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
That signal has components above 5.5 Hz.
How can a 5Hz sine wave have components about 5.5Hz?
-
Part of the fun of being a hobbyist (for me, at least) is finding ways of doing things that don't require a big budget :)
Precisely :) See my .sig.
Doubly so, since I'm retired and don't have access to modern professional equipment.
Besides, an engineer is someone who can do for £1 what any tool can do for £10.
That is true for as long as somebody is dumb enough to pay the engineer £1000 in wages where using the £10 tool costs £100 in wages. Penny wise, pound foolish.
-
For an apples-to-apples comparison, could you check a 562 MHz sine at 1.25 GSa/s, or 281 MHz at 625 MSa/s, or 140 MHz @ 312.5 MSa/s with the DHO800? That should give us a good indication whether the reconstruction (interpolation) algorithms do a comparable job in both scopes.
Good point. Besides, I had not noticed that the Siglent screenshots were taken at 1 GSa/s rather than 2.
Here you go. I guess this shows enough.
The same applies to 490 MHz. It was meant to be 49% of the sample rate, so it would correspond to 612.50 MHz @1.25GSa/s.
If you want to retry it, use 10ns/div do see at least one period of the envelope, and better capture a single shot since I don't expect a stable trigger.
-
Part of the fun of being a hobbyist (for me, at least) is finding ways of doing things that don't require a big budget :)
Precisely :) See my .sig.
Doubly so, since I'm retired and don't have access to modern professional equipment.
Besides, an engineer is someone who can do for £1 what any tool can do for £10.
That is true for as long as somebody is dumb enough to pay the engineer £1000 in wages where using the £10 tool costs £100 in wages. Penny wise, pound foolish.
I think that has been written too quickly and tersely to make a point effectively.
The cost of a tool includes purchase, learning/training, familiarisation, as well as use.
For beginners, which is the immediate context and also the OP's context, the learning/training and familiarisation may well dominate.
-
The same applies to 490 MHz. It was meant to be 49% of the sample rate, so it would correspond to 612.50 MHz @1.25GSa/s.
If you want to retry it, use 10ns/div do see at least one period of the envelope, and better capture a single shot since I don't expect a stable trigger.
600+ MHz isn't really an option, because the amplitude gets too low at this point. We can try 612.5 * 0.49 = 300.1 MHz at 612.5 MSa/s, though. Here you go. And a bonus: 312.5 MHz at 100 us/div.
edit: mistake! that was supposed to be 625, not 612.5. I'll keep that screenshot and attach a new one: 625*0.49 = 306.25 MHz at 625 MSa/s. That's the same thing in principle, though.
-
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
Nope.
The signal in this image is bandwidth limited (5Hz signal, 11Hz sample rate) but sin(x)/x won't reconstruct it unless the filter is infinitely wide and the signal is periodic (which can't happen in practice).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
That signal has components above 5.5 Hz.
How can a 5Hz sine wave have components about 5.5Hz?
I wrote "above", not "about". The wave as shown is not a continuous sine wave. It is a continuous 5Hz sine wave gated on by a pulse 1 second long. That is Amplitude Modulation which produces additional frequencies above and below 5Hz.
-
No, it does not have to be periodic. "Perfect reconstruction" only requires that the original signal sampled by the ADC sampled was bandwidth-limited.
Nope.
The signal in this image is bandwidth limited (5Hz signal, 11Hz sample rate) but sin(x)/x won't reconstruct it unless the filter is infinitely wide and the signal is periodic (which can't happen in practice).
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2144341;image)
That signal has components above 5.5 Hz.
How can a 5Hz sine wave have components about 5.5Hz?
I wrote "above", not "about". The wave as shown is not a continuous sine wave. It is a continuous 5Hz sine wave gated on by a pulse 1 second long. That is Amplitude Modulation which produces additional frequencies above and below 5Hz.
If it is meant to be a one-time burst of 5 cycles (and zero outside the burst), then it is not properly bandwidth-limited and the spectrum has even an infinite extent. The attached plot shows the spectrum up to 100 Hz. Since it violates the sampling theorem it is not reconstructibe exactly from the samples.
-
If you look carefully at the 450MHz screenshot Performa01 posted, you'll see that the displayed signal can't be right. Just look how the histogram for the frequency measurement shows a wide spread instead of a single frequency! And also look at the amplitude compared to the 408MHz signal. IOW, the screenshot doesn't show what is actually happening. Just stick to testing fs / 2.5 + 2% or so. DSOs can show fantasy signals in such circumstances!
I also have the feeling that the interpolation already suffers a bit in the 450 MHz screenshot.
-
edit: mistake! that was supposed to be 625, not 612.5. I'll keep that screenshot and attach a new one: 625*0.49 = 306.25 MHz at 625 MSa/s. That's the same thing in principle, though.
You get the same "AM" effect we've been discussing all along, no surprises there. The trick is not to pass 625MHz/2.5
-
If it is meant to be a one-time burst of 5 cycles (and zero outside the burst)
I don't think it is. It's just illustrating where sample points lie on a sine wave as you approach Nyquist.
-
You get the same "AM" effect we've been discussing all along, no surprises there.
My primary aim why I asked Performa01 for 490 MHz @1GSa/s was to provoke this effect on the Siglent, too.
It is expected to be most pronounced for frequencies slightly below sample_rate/2.
-
If it is meant to be a one-time burst of 5 cycles (and zero outside the burst)
I don't think it is. It's just illustrating where sample points lie on a sine wave as you approach Nyquist.
You don't think? Isn't it your diagram?
-
machine would be overkill for the projects he or she typically pursues. A "mini-lathe" or "mini-mill" are rightly regarded by the professional as toys compared to the 250K 8,000 lb. behemoth - but those "toys" may be the far better choice for the hobby user, and the hobby user might actually be producing superior work - in terms of precision, or in terms of beauty, or so on - because that is what the hobby user is focused on, without being constrained by the demands of the clock.
But also keep in mind that good tools are more enjoyable to work with. So even for hobby use, the professional tools are worth considering. Basically it all boils down to budget. If you have little to spend then going for cheap options can be a way to get some form of tooling but don't expect great results. But if you have the budget to aim higher, then do so. Cry once and smile forever. Every now and then I do woodworking; the tools from Festool and Makita put a smile on my face every time I put them to use. You can't really put a price on that. Especially since I've tried to use cheap tools for so long and know how mediocre the end result is despite best efforts.
Thus the reason I am aiming for one of these two scopes rather than for the Hantek or so on. :) Let me extend the analogy a bit - over 35 years of woodworking, I have found that there is no substitute for good tools ... but also that there are good tools at different price points. For the past 25 years or so, I've used a Craftsman "contractor style" saw. In its original form, it was a vast improvement on the little direct-drive saw that I had ... but after I made a simple dust-collection chute and a t-square style fence for it, it became an exceptional tool. In the past year, I traded it out for a Powermatic 66 - a cabinet saw that was long considered the best-of-breed. It has way more power than the Craftsman ... it's a really nice saw ... but honestly, I haven't found it to be any sort of revolutionary step up. In fact, it is far less efficient at dust collection, despite the enclosed cabinet.
Here's the key: after working with wood for 35 years, I know what makes a saw really, really good ... and what makes it unbearable. With that experience, I can make informed choices about tools that will serve me really, really well, regardless of the brand or price. Sadly, I don't yet have that experience with respect to DSOs. :(
A "mini-lathe" or "mini-mill" are rightly regarded by the professional as toys compared to the 250K 8,000 lb. behemoth - but those "toys" may be the far better choice for the hobby user, and the hobby user might actually be producing superior work - in terms of precision, or in terms of beauty, or so on - because that is what the hobby user is focused on, without being constrained by the demands of the clock.
I disagree with this analogy. Professionals look for quality, size is not relevant in that way. The goal of the professional is to have the higher quality tool for the job, regardless of size. If a "mini table saw" is the appropriate tool, then that's the tool they will use. I have a full size table saw, and a tiny mini table saw that can sit on top of it, without even getting in the way for medium size projects. Both of them are valuable tools with their places. If either one of them was limited in their expected range of usefulness because of quality issues, then that would be a toy the professional wouldn't accept.
Well ... I'm going to have to respectfully disagree as well. :) When it comes to metalworking, size really does matter - or more precisely, rigidity matters, and that is tied to mass, which is tied to size. Lack of size/mass/rigidity not only limits the size of work that can be done, but also the speed and precision of the work. Of course, not every lathe or mill has to be 8,000 lbs; there are some exquisitely made (and exquisitely priced) machine tools, that would be seen as professional grade, that are, relatively speaking, small - but small in this context means "only" 1,000 lbs or so. And even so, no matter how exquisitely made, the smaller size is going to limit the depth of cut; there simply is no way around mass and rigidity.
Of course, there are much lighter mills and lathes available ... they are called "hobby grade." That doesn't necessarily mean poorly made, nor does it necessarily mean inexpensive; it means smaller and lighter and inescapably less capable ... and also typically easier for the hobby user to start with, far easier and less expensive to run, far easier to purchase and install, and on the list goes. No professional machinist would ever describe a Sherline as a professional tool, but it might be the best tool for some hobby users.
I grant that the term "professional" can get fuzzy - someone might make a profession of building very small models on a very small metal lathe & mill ... or for that matter, small wooden projects on a mini table saw. But in general, those who machine for a living are working with larger projects where speed of results matter. Even when it comes to woodworking, I would think professionals would generally not describe a mini-table-saw as a professional tool - though again it might be perfect for the needs of a hobby user. Note that I am thinking of a mini-table-saw as something using a 4" blade as an apt analogy for comparing the mini-lathe to the smallest of professional lathes.
Of course, both metal- and wood-working include a range of smaller tools that would certainly be considered professional. A 7" "skill saw" and a 4.5" angle grinder would be examples from each field. There, I agree that size is not the issue; there are professional-grade, exquisitely made 6" saws that would beat out a multitude of crappy 7" saws, and likewise some 4" grinders that are superior to a multitude of crappy 4.5" grinders. But these are not the tools to use when you are needing to rip a 10' 6/4 oak board perfectly straight and to size, or when you need to shape a piece of metal to within .0005". Yes, a skilled craftsman could do it, with enough time and patience, but for these tasks the larger stationary tools are the best option, and for these size matters.
Sorry ... I think I'm drifting way off topic at this point!
-
Sorry ... I think I'm drifting way off topic at this point!
That didn't disagree with my statement, you simply preferred working on larger stuff. And you know the difference in quality in either case. 😉
I don't think you would use an 8000lb lathe to make a fancy toothbrush. Well, not for a human anyway.
-
I WILL make a choice, and soon ... but first I'm still wading through some of the lengthier threads to try to get a better feel for how each machine would be to use.
"In ancient Rome, there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one, he licked the other
He went in circles, he dropped dead."
- Freedom of choice, DEVO, 1980.
Don't take too long, LOL. ;D
-
A "mini-lathe" or "mini-mill" are rightly regarded by the professional as toys compared to the 250K 8,000 lb. behemoth - but those "toys" may be the far better choice for the hobby user, and the hobby user might actually be producing superior work - in terms of precision, or in terms of beauty, or so on - because that is what the hobby user is focused on, without being constrained by the demands of the clock.
I disagree with this analogy. Professionals look for quality, size is not relevant in that way.
from what i observed, not everytime. pro usually look for time saving, quality maybe "okayish" or "acceptable", but anyone who look for quality will need more time. this what imho make apart name like Porche or Lamborghini with like Ford or Tesla.
I am genuinely struggling between the options. If I had more experience, I would have a better idea of which things I might regret the most if I went with this one vs.
to make it simple, from demonstration made here, if you want a better scope (only looking at, analyzing and debugging signal traces) sds800x will be better. but if you think you want to expand your scope into basic MSO mixed signal and AFG with bode plot (and LA probe ready) at cheap cost (people are working on it. not so easy with siglent), and can accept the fact that you need to probe frequency at lesser or equal to Sr / 2.5 at any configuration, then its dho804. at full channel on and MSO, 156.25MSps meaning to probe 62.5MHz signal. without LA turned on, 312.5MSps ie 125MHz and so on... with sds800x, all 4 channels on, 500MSps ie 200MHz, but if you want to add LA, prepare to pay another half or more the scope's price... want to add bode plot? another half or more the scope's price. we are looking at 2-3X the scope's price if we need full MSO+AFG capability...
during ds1054z age, the choice is easy, even though not easily hackable to full MSO+AFG, but siglent's cheapest price is still 2-3X the rigol's price, so its quite no brainer, but now, its quite challenging not just for you. a piece of advice, please stick to your topic, dont think about getting used ds1054z because its not 12bit, so we have to be clear about it. and you'll risk non 100% functional used scope or short lived one only for saving like $100 or so? you can end up spending more money in the end... cheers.
-
A "mini-lathe" or "mini-mill" are rightly regarded by the professional as toys compared to the 250K 8,000 lb. behemoth - but those "toys" may be the far better choice for the hobby user, and the hobby user might actually be producing superior work - in terms of precision, or in terms of beauty, or so on - because that is what the hobby user is focused on, without being constrained by the demands of the clock.
I disagree with this analogy. Professionals look for quality, size is not relevant in that way.
from what i observed, not everytime. pro usually look for time saving, quality maybe "okayish" or "acceptable", but anyone who look for quality will need more time. this what imho make apart name like Porche or Lamborghini with like Ford or Tesla.
You're right, of course, but we're talking about different types of professionals now. Contractors or laborers vs. specialty stuff like furniture makers, or artiiiists. Some furniture people buy chisel sets that cost more than a full DeWalt set of contractor power tools.
These analogies are getting out of hand lol.
-
If you look carefully at the 450MHz screenshot Performa01 posted, you'll see that the displayed signal can't be right. Just look how the histogram for the frequency measurement shows a wide spread instead of a single frequency! And also look at the amplitude compared to the 408MHz signal. IOW, the screenshot doesn't show what is actually happening. Just stick to testing fs / 2.5 + 2% or so. DSOs can show fantasy signals in such circumstances!
I also have the feeling that the interpolation already suffers a bit in the 450 MHz screenshot.
The 450MHz signal in the 450MHz screenshot definitely is a fantasy signal. The amplitude suddenly gets higher (compared to the 408MHz screenshot) while you'd expect it to be lower. I don't know what the signal amplitude is at the input but likely it is quite high to at least see some signal. When increasing the sensitivity, there will be more gain so likely the front-end is now distorting due to clipping / overdrive recovery / etc. When low-pass filtering the distorted signal from the front-end you still get a sine wave but it has nothing to do with whatever sine wave signal is at the input. And there may be other elements in the signal processing chain as well. I've seen similar behaviour when testing the R&S RTM3004 under similar conditions.
When doing these tests, you need to start with setting the oscilloscope to a v/div setting which does not distort / clip the input signal in the analog front-end and use that v/div setting as the lower limit you can set the sensitivity to at the input signal level. That way you ensure you are always looking at a real signal (if you can see any).
Edit: on closer inspection it is clear Performa01 did take care of not overdriving the front-end. Having different sample rates, v/dviv and t/div settings didn't make the posting very clear though.
-
If it is meant to be a one-time burst of 5 cycles (and zero outside the burst)
I don't think it is. It's just illustrating where sample points lie on a sine wave as you approach Nyquist.
You don't think? Isn't it your diagram?
No, it's from here:
https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/60859/conclusions-of-sampling-around-nyquist-rate
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
Am I going to be blamed for that, too?
FWIW I never even read the page, I just found the image on google image search.
It's a 5Hz sine wave sampled at 11Hz intended to show where the "AM" effect comes from.
That's it... why would anybody even try to complicate things beyond that?
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
Am I going to be blamed for that, too?
FWIW I never even read the page, I just found the image on google image search.
It's a 5Hz sine wave sampled at 11Hz intended to show where the "AM" effect comes from.
I'm not blaming you but the people who posted the graphs on Reddit and commented on it. Drawing a line through sample points as-is is never a natural representation of a sampled signal. You'll need to put the samples through an analog or digital filter in order to reconstruct the resulting signal.
-
The 450MHz signal in the 450MHz screenshot definitely is a fantasy signal. The amplitude suddenly gets higher (compared to the 408MHz screenshot) while you'd expect it to be lower.
The previous one wasn't 408, but 490 MHz (the frequency counter got confused). So the amplitudes are plausible and decrease with increasing frequency.
I don't know what the signal amplitude is at the input but likely it is quite high to at least see some signal. When increasing the sensitivity, there will be more gain so likely the front-end is now distorting due to clipping / overdrive recovery / etc.
The input amplitude was said to be 1.6Vpp, which is ~13 div at 120mV/div, or 1.67x full scale. The amp certainly has some headroom, but I don't know how much. Since Performa01 explicitly mentioned the potential overdrive issue in his post, I assume that he took care not to overdrive the amp :-//
-
No, it's from here:
https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/60859/conclusions-of-sampling-around-nyquist-rate
IMNSHO stackexchange is OK for "which button do I press to frobnitz the splurgle?".
However, stackexchange's decision to prevent multi-level quoting prevents to-and-fro discussions of subtle and interesting points. ISTR they also have downvoting, which has similar consequences. Edaboard is similar.
A derived consequence is that subtle discussions on stackexchange have a higher probablility of being wrong than discussions here.
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
Am I going to be blamed for that, too?
No, but your next statement doesn't look good.
FWIW I never even read the page, I just found the image on google image search.
-
The 450MHz signal in the 450MHz screenshot definitely is a fantasy signal. The amplitude suddenly gets higher (compared to the 408MHz screenshot) while you'd expect it to be lower.
The previous one wasn't 408, but 490 MHz (the frequency counter got confused). So the amplitudes are plausible and decrease with increasing frequency.
I don't know what the signal amplitude is at the input but likely it is quite high to at least see some signal. When increasing the sensitivity, there will be more gain so likely the front-end is now distorting due to clipping / overdrive recovery / etc.
The input amplitude was said to be 1.6Vpp, which is ~13 div at 120mV/div, or 1.67x full scale. The amp certainly has some headroom, but I don't know how much. Since Performa01 explicitly mentioned the potential overdrive issue in his post, I assume that he took care not to overdrive the amp :-//
You are right about that. The screendumps with different time/div and v/div settings don't make the posting very clear though.
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
Am I going to be blamed for that, too?
FWIW I never even read the page, I just found the image on google image search.
It's a 5Hz sine wave sampled at 11Hz intended to show where the "AM" effect comes from.
I'm not blaming you but the people who posted the graphs on Reddit and commented on it. Drawing a line through sample points as-is is never a natural representation of a sampled signal. You'll need to put the samples through an analog or digital filter in order to reconstruct the resulting signal.
Just so.
Why did they decide to use a first-order hold reconstruction (linear interpolation) rather than a zero-order hold (step)? Typically that would be an unwitting default "looks right" choice.
Personally I hate both, and much prefer to see just the samples (i.e. dots).
-
I'm not so sure about the tool analogies that have been made here.
Oscilloscopes being discussed in this thread are general-purpose tools. Up to around ~20K price bracket, and speciality/niche 'scopes notwithstanding, every oscilloscope you might find will do the basic stuff similarly, fit on top of a normal table, and consume less energy than most appliances.
With regards to general-purpose tools, we can generally say that better is just better. The Siglent does more things just better than the Rigol, has more features, and the hardware platform is generally more capable. The learning curve will be steeper, and you will have to RTFM, at least to an extent. I don't think that is a problem for a beginner hobbyist TBH.
The Rigol has a more welcoming UI, I don't have it but it seems to me more intuitive. It also has less functionality. The VESA mount, HDMI, better rendering and much better probes are relevant QOL improvements though.
Just my two cents, but if you don't have any other oscilloscope, I would get the Siglent. It will work perfectly well for basic tasks, it can do Bode plots (with a Siglent AWG) which I find invaluable for learning, and will let you quite a bit more space to grow into. The growing part I only find relevant because they cost roughly the same, otherwise it's a never-ending escalation.
I would certainly have preferred the Siglent to have VESA and HDMI, but I wouldn't base the purchasing decission on that. If you are sure you will be just probing around, decoding the odd I2C/SPI around an MCU etc., then the Rigol is competitive. Or as a second 'scope to complement an older, slower, but more featured device.
-
It's a 5Hz sine wave sampled at 11Hz intended to show where the "AM" effect comes from.
lets ignore wild guess such as pulse nitpick BS by others. its clearly a simple illustration (small set from infinitely long repetitive signal) of 5Hz sampled at 11Sps. yes its good example of how AM modulated like shape is derived without interpolation. but poor interpolation still shows that AM shape, but a good Sinc implementation WILL NOT. a good practical Sinc implementation will get back the gray signal. if its not clear enough for anybody this is the second time i state it.
-
Perhaps a better question would be whether the Rigol's interpolation implementation is flawed and starts to suffer from aliasing too early.
Reconstruction failure and aliasing are different matters. We can never see aliasing with a low distortion sine wave, as long as we stay below Nyquist.
There were some decent indications that the Siglent is better, but to properly compare apples to apples we would need to capture signals that have frequencies which are equal not absolutely, but as fractions of the sampling rates of both, and that, ideally, stay within the spec'd bandwidth, for which we would need to reduce the sampling rate artificially. Those could be say 10 frequency values from 1/5 to 1/2.5 the respective sampling rates. If someone's willing to do such a test with SDS800X HD (which goes to min. 500 MSa/s, right?), then I can do it with DHO800.
That’s a sensible approach. Trying to analyze signals that are heavily attenuated after the PGA might not always lead to meaningful results.
It doesn’t make sense to lower the sample rate on the SDS824X HD by activating more channels, because additional AA-filtering (analog + digital) gets enabled as soon as there are more than two channels active and the sample rate drops down to 500 MSa/s. Thus, anything above 200 MHz gets heavily attenuated in this configuration.
But that’s not a problem, since newer Siglent DSOs have the ability to freely choose the sample rate for all those cases, where it matters – and you’ve just created a use case for this. Of course, for this particular case, you can get away without that on a scope that lacks AA-filtering – and/or is generally undersampling with more than 2 channels active.
I’ve restricted the SDS824X HD to 500 MSa/s, hence a Nyquist frequency of 250 MHz even in single channel mode. The frequency response is the same as shown in an earlier post. The amplitude is 800 mVpp, so the signal would fill the entire screen height at 10 MHz. There is certainly no need for 10 different frequency values – I’ll show a few strategic ones only.
100 MHz = SR/5
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153692;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_100MHz_500MSa
200 MHz = SR/2.5
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153698;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_200MHz_500MSa
210 MHz = SR/2.38
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153704;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_210MHz_500MSa
220 MHz = SR/2.273
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153710;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_220MHz_500MSa
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
Am I going to be blamed for that, too?
FWIW I never even read the page, I just found the image on google image search.
It's a 5Hz sine wave sampled at 11Hz intended to show where the "AM" effect comes from.
I'm not blaming you but the people who posted the graphs on Reddit and commented on it. Drawing a line through sample points as-is is never a natural representation of a sampled signal. You'll need to put the samples through an analog or digital filter in order to reconstruct the resulting signal.
Just so.
Why did they decide to use a first-order hold reconstruction (linear interpolation) rather than a zero-order hold (step)? Typically that would be an unwitting default "looks right" choice.
Personally I hate both, and much prefer to see just the samples (i.e. dots).
And on Siglent you can do just that. It has Dot mode.
-
If you look carefully at the 450MHz screenshot Performa01 posted, you'll see that the displayed signal can't be right. Just look how the histogram for the frequency measurement shows a wide spread instead of a single frequency! And also look at the amplitude compared to the 408MHz signal. IOW, the screenshot doesn't show what is actually happening. Just stick to testing fs / 2.5 + 2% or so. DSOs can show fantasy signals in such circumstances!
The mini histogram icons don't show a scale, so they mainly give qualitative information, e.g. to point out bimodal distributions. You could open the full histogram with axis scales by tapping the icon.
In the screenshot, you can look at the standard deviation of the amplitude and frequency to get an idea of the scale. Both are not concerning in my view. Hence I would stick with my conclusion that we still get a stable interpolation at sampling freq / 2.22.
-
But I'm still wondering how 490 MHz @1GSa/s and 10ns/div look like?
490 MHz is a bit nasty – but I’m sure you are aware of that and just want to be mean 😉
Thank you! Yes, of course I wanted to be mean ;D
If you display the same with a single-shot, then I think we would see the same kind of "AM envelope" which was observed on the Rigol.
I think it was just unable to trigger on the envelope, therefore the trace looks so weird.
Yes, we should not forget what I’m demonstrating here: torturing a dirt-cheap entry-level instrument operating far outside its specifications, with a signal that is ~2.5 times the specified bandwidth. A heavily attenuated signal close to Nyquist, with a remaining amplitude barely high enough to get a solid trigger, sitting right on the edge of a steep AA-filter, is naturally not going to be a benchmark for the scope performance.
Here you go:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153734;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_490MHz_1GSa_Single
If we could do an FFT on the interpolated trace, then I'd expect to see peaks at 490 and 510 MHz (image).
[ If I think about it, maybe it is even possible with the Interpolate math function. ]
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153740;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_490MHz_1GSa_FFT
A less demanding configuration would be 450 MHz – this time at 2 ns/div, to show the sine wave better. There are no cyclic effects to see anymore. Reconstruction works as it should, but the amplitude is so low that I needed a little help from the vertical gain again – at 120 mV/div the trigger was fully working again, as can be seen from the trigger frequency counter.
The trace is still a bit thick. Is this really just noise? Could also be the same effect (but with much lower amplitude and 5x higher frequency of the envelope). Even if it is hardly visible in the time domain, an FFT of the interpolated trace should still reveal the amount of attenuation for the 550 MHz image (ideally it drowns in the noise floor).
Of course it cannot drown in the noise floor. There are no special measures for dual channel mode, hence the frequency response for 2 GSa/s shown earlier still applies. That means “only” some 28 dB difference between 450 and 550 MHz. But it means almost 50 dB attenuation with regard to 200 MHz, hence a respectable amount of aliasing protection. 450 MHz signal frequency on the other hand is just not a valid use case for a 200 MHz instrument.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153746;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_450MHz_1GSa_FFT
Just for comparison purposes: the actual bandwidth of the SDS824X HD in dual channel mode is 245 MHz, so we need to relate the mirrored signal to that:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153752;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_240MHz_1GSa_FFT
Here we see a whooping 91 dB suppression for the mirror signal.
For those thinking and asking themselves how such a good AA-protection can be possible in a serious DSO which has still good pulse response and -fidelity, here’s a tiny hint: the ADCs in this DSO can still work at 4 x 1 GSa/s…
Bottom line: even though we cannot use the high sample rate for acquisition, it’s still not wasted in this instrument (and the SDS1000X HD) 😉
EDIT: legend corrected for the first screenshot.
-
I’ve restricted the SDS824X HD to 500 MSa/s, hence a Nyquist frequency of 250 MHz even in single channel mode. The frequency response is the same as shown in an earlier post. The amplitude is 800 mVpp, so the signal would fill the entire screen height at 10 MHz. There is certainly no need for 10 different frequency values – I’ll show a few strategic ones only.
All right, let's see. My signal is 75 mV p-p at 10 MHz (into a 1 MOhm input after a 50 Ohm feed-through terminator), which fits entire screen height as well.
Sample rate was set to 625 MSa/s.
100 MHz = SR/5
125 MHz:
[attachimg=1]
200 MHz = SR/2.5
250 MHz:
[attachimg=2]
210 MHz = SR/2.38
262.6 MHz:
[attachimg=3]
220 MHz = SR/2.273
275 MHz:
[attachimg=4]
I guess this comparison can now be considered complete. Rigol's interpolation implementation is way worse than that of Siglent.
It looks like a software flaw indeed. There is no other reason why the two scopes would show such strikingly different results given equal conditions and the fact that the processing responsible for this takes place, as far as I understand it, entirely after the ADC stage.
-
Yes, we should not forget what I’m demonstrating here: torturing a dirt-cheap entry-level instrument operating far outside its specifications, with a signal that is ~2.5 times the specified bandwidth. A heavily attenuated signal close to Nyquist, with a remaining amplitude barely high enough to get a solid trigger, sitting right on the edge of a steep AA-filter, is naturally not going to be a benchmark for the scope performance.
At the same time, it doesn't mean that such test is useless. Quite the opposite: it's good to know the actual limits of the instrument's usability. Knowing that helps to use your tools more efficiently.
Besides -- remember what thread we're in! -- it helps potential new users to make informed choices (or no choices at all, lol).
-
I guess this comparison can now be considered complete. Rigol's interpolation implementation is way worse than that of Siglent.
imho screenshots with persistent mode ON is less helpful... other than, "thicker" is worse than "thinner". single line trace display (whether using maximum memory or single trigger mode) can show clearly how Sinc implementation works. but i think we are going round and round, first capture from you and 2n3055 already showed sds800x is better to my eye. ymmv.
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
Am I going to be blamed for that, too?
FWIW I never even read the page, I just found the image on google image search.
It's a 5Hz sine wave sampled at 11Hz intended to show where the "AM" effect comes from.
I'm not blaming you but the people who posted the graphs on Reddit and commented on it. Drawing a line through sample points as-is is never a natural representation of a sampled signal. You'll need to put the samples through an analog or digital filter in order to reconstruct the resulting signal.
Just so.
Why did they decide to use a first-order hold reconstruction (linear interpolation) rather than a zero-order hold (step)? Typically that would be an unwitting default "looks right" choice.
Personally I hate both, and much prefer to see just the samples (i.e. dots).
zero-order hold you mean like stair steps plot? that will be awful in any circumstances in any scope. how do you come up with such an idea?
-
The answers over there are quite wrong.
Am I going to be blamed for that, too?
FWIW I never even read the page, I just found the image on google image search.
It's a 5Hz sine wave sampled at 11Hz intended to show where the "AM" effect comes from.
I'm not blaming you but the people who posted the graphs on Reddit and commented on it. Drawing a line through sample points as-is is never a natural representation of a sampled signal. You'll need to put the samples through an analog or digital filter in order to reconstruct the resulting signal.
Just so.
Why did they decide to use a first-order hold reconstruction (linear interpolation) rather than a zero-order hold (step)? Typically that would be an unwitting default "looks right" choice.
Personally I hate both, and much prefer to see just the samples (i.e. dots).
zero-order hold you mean like stair steps plot? that will be awful in any circumstances in any scope. how do you come up with such an idea?
A step (staircase) plot style is easier to see compared to a single dot and it doesn't pretend to plot a waveform shape that is completely wrong. So there is merit in showing sample values this way. However I have not come across a practical situation where showing samples that way is usefull. But that could be different next week or never.
-
Here you go:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153734;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_450MHz_1GSa_Single
here you demo that at some setup Sr / 2.22, sds800x is unable to reconstruct signal properly? from the look of it, yes it is.
-
A step (staircase) plot style is easier to see compared to a single dot and it doesn't pretend to plot a waveform shape that is completely wrong.
as sample rate is increased, say 10-50 points per cycle, stair step plot will be annoyingly disturbing imho, its not suitable to represent continuous analog signal, for statistics that maybe all right. the purpose of graph plot on dso is try to mimick as close as possible actual signal. highly undersampling such case above Sr / 2.2 Fungus demo'ed surely create distortion when plotted with so called first order (line) but thats not an excuse to use zero order. you can sim sampling at 10-20 points per cycle and try to plot it using stair step and look how bad it is.. i cant imagine how bad it is if lecroy is using such an idea for example in the attached plot
-
262.6 MHz:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=422264.0;attach=2153824;image)
That's just the "AM" signal with persistence.
It looks like a software flaw indeed.
...except that other software does the same thing (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5470711/#msg5470711), and I've seen the exact same effect using hardware reconstruction filters (from a DAC feeding into an RC filter).
What it means is that Siglent is doing something weird. I'd like to see an actual AM signal fed into the Siglent to see what happens.
nb. It doesn't have to be at the outer limits of bandwidth. You can drop the sample rate down by fiddling with the horizontal timebase and figure out a suitable frequency from that.
(I can get aliasing on the 1kHz probe compensation signal by making the sample rate drop low enough)
-
...except that other software does the same thing (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5470711/#msg5470711), and I've seen the exact same effect using hardware reconstruction filters (from a DAC feeding into an RC filter).
What it means is that Siglent is doing something weird.
I'd like to see an actual AM signal fed into the Siglent to see what happens.
I am afraid it's too late, you have already lost all credibility. Comparing Rigol's slightly flawed implementation with Mechatrommer's admittedly wrong first homebrew attempt -- and reaching the conclusion that Siglent's implementation must be "weird"?
:palm:
-
A step (staircase) plot style is easier to see compared to a single dot and it doesn't pretend to plot a waveform shape that is completely wrong.
as sample rate is increased, say 10-50 points per cycle, stair step plot will be annoyingly disturbing imho, its not suitable to represent continuous analog signal, for statistics that maybe all right. the purpose of graph plot on dso is try to mimick as close as possible actual signal. highly undersampling such case above Sr / 2.2 Fungus demo'ed surely create distortion when plotted with so called first order (line) but thats not an excuse to use zero order. you can sim sampling at 10-20 points per cycle and try to plot it using stair step and look how bad it is.. i cant imagine how bad it is if lecroy is using such an idea for example in the attached plot
Almost all DSOs support linear interpolation to connect the dots but you have to be really careful to have enough sample points to make a visual representation which is close to the actual signal. However, In most situations this is not the case. A step-wise signal at least doesn't pretend to be more than it is. I never use linear interpolation mode as it is very easy to get tricked into mis-interpreting the signal.
-
That's just the "AM" signal with persistence.
What it means is that Siglent is doing something weird. I'd like to see an actual AM signal fed into the Siglent to see what happens.
No, the sin x/x interpolation is broken on the Rigol; the screenshots made by shapirus show that clearly. Siglent has implemented sin x/xt correctly. It is simple as that.
-
...except that other software does the same thing (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5470711/#msg5470711), and I've seen the exact same effect using hardware reconstruction filters (from a DAC feeding into an RC filter).
What it means is that Siglent is doing something weird.
I'd like to see an actual AM signal fed into the Siglent to see what happens.
I am afraid it's too late, you have already lost all credibility. Comparing Rigol's slightly flawed implementation with Mechatrommer's admittedly wrong first homebrew attempt -- and reaching the conclusion that Siglent's implementation must be "weird"?
:palm:
i didnt aware he's using my post as example... so i redo sim based on below... 446MHz @ 1GSps...
Here you go:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2153734;image)
SDS824X HD_Sine_450MHz_1GSa_Single
my SW shows AM for each 3-4 cycles. but siglent plotted it like for each 24 cycles, so yeah it weird and why? its kind of aliasing to me. :-//
-
I'd like to see an actual AM signal fed into the Siglent to see what happens.
This is a very good point. It would be interesting to see how the Siglent copes with an AM signal with the carrier frequency same as those used for the screenshots above and the modulation frequency say somewhere around 1/20..1/5 the carrier frequency. It would allow to see if the Siglent applies any special "cheating" for better interpolation. I personally doubt that, but doubts can only serve as a motivation to conduct an experiment.
-
Here you go:
SDS824X HD_Sine_450MHz_1GSa_Single
here you demo that at some setup Sr / 2.22, sds800x is unable to reconstruct signal properly? from the look of it, yes it is.
The image seems to be named incorrectly. This was 490 MHz, or sample_rate / 2.04.
-
Hence I would stick with my conclusion that we still get a stable interpolation at sampling freq / 2.22.
Well, quantify "stable". In the SDS824X HD_Sine_450MHz_1GSa_FFT screenshot, we see a signal to distortion ratio of about 28 dB (about 4% distortion) for f=0.45*sample_rate. Whether you consider that to be good or bad is relative, but it is already perceptible.
-
The image seems to be named incorrectly. This was 490 MHz, or sample_rate / 2.04.
ok i stand corrected. improper reconstruction at very very near to Sr / 2 is of course acceptable. proper reconstruction at Sr / 2.2 is already good.
Hence I would stick with my conclusion that we still get a stable interpolation at sampling freq / 2.22.
Well, quantify "stable". In the SDS824X HD_Sine_450MHz_1GSa_FFT screenshot, we see a signal to distortion ratio of about 28 dB (about 4% distortion) for f=0.45*sample_rate. Whether you consider that to be good or bad is relative, but it is already perceptible.
lets make it "relative measurement" how good sds800x relative to dho800... the answer is quite clear for me.
-
Discussion is going in wrong direction. Beginner that wants entry level scope has no knowledge to understand all DSP stuff being discussed. They need device to simply work. User will bring in enough of it's own confusion into the process.
Rigol (unlocked to to 250 MHz) and applied 200 MHz signal to all enabled channels
1Ch (1,25 GS/s) - OK
2Ch (625 MS/sec) - OK
3Ch (312,5 MS/s) - NOT OK
4Ch (312,5 MS/s) - NOT OK
Siglent (licensed to SDS824xHD) and applied 200 MHz signal to all enabled channels
1Ch (2 GS/s) - OK
2Ch (1 GS/sec) - OK
3Ch (500 MS/s) - OK
4Ch (500 MS/s) - OK
One of these scopes is 4 Ch 200 MHz scope and one is 2Ch 250MHz scope (or 4Ch 100MHz scope).
Guess which one is which.
-
Discussion is going in wrong direction. Beginner that wants entry level scope has no knowledge to understand all DSP stuff being discussed. They need device to simply work. User will bring in enough of it's own confusion into the process.
Rigol UI is better for a beginner so that's probably bad advice. Better to have the stuff they do 99% of the time easy to do than to make life life difficult for some theoretical thing that they might never do.
A "beginner that wants entry level 'scope" probably has no 200Mhz signals lying around anyway.
(I'm not even sure I do...)
Rigol (unlocked to to 250 MHz) and applied 200 MHz signal to all enabled channels
Where's it written that people must do that?
(Be honest, do YOU do that...?)
-
I agree that the machine tool analogy proved to be less than helpful. It was intended to illustrate the different needs and perspectives of hobby users vs. professionals, but seemed to slide off into a discussion about size. Somehow, as a 63-year-old male, it always seems to come back to a debate about size ... :)
I keep wanting to like the Siglent; I really do. It seems so obviously to be the sensible option. But honestly, every time you all post screen shots of the Siglent next to screen shots of the Rigol, I feel like the Siglent is harder to read, as though I will constantly have to be peering closely to distinguish between one measurement and the next. Meanwhile, the Rigol screen seems vibrant, much easier to pick out salient numbers. Is that just my inexperience showing?
Maybe a different analogy will work. The Siglent seems like a Toyota - the reliable, practical, capable choice. But the Rigol seems more like a Miata - looks good, so fun to drive, even if it is a bit cramped and really doesn't have that much power under the hood. Which one is the best choice? If I relied on the vehicle as my primary transportation, I would unquestionably take the Toyota. Since I don't actually need this vehicle ... I don't make a living at this, and will only take it out for a drive on occasion ... it is hard to walk away from the Miata. One seems like it will be work to drive - not hard work, but straightforward, no nonsense, no desire to take it out for a spin just because. The other seems like something I would enjoy taking out for a joy ride.
Feel free to tell me I'm crazy. I certainly have read the comments in other threads that disparage the UI of the Rigol as amateurish, etc. Well ... I'm an amateur ... they sure have caught my eye. But I really don't want to buy, say, a Dodge Charger on its sex appeal, only to find that I can't take it out for a joy ride because it is too unreliable.
Maybe I should give up on trying to generate analogies ... I think I'm going from bad to worse!
-
here you demo that at some setup Sr / 2.22, sds800x is unable to reconstruct signal properly? from the look of it, yes it is.
Not correct. What I've shown is the behavior at SR / 2.04, not 2.22. The input signal was a 490 MHz sine.
-
A "beginner that wants entry level 'scope" probably has no 200Mhz signals lying around anyway.
Really? No risetimes[1] less than 2ns? Must be restricting themselves to early 1980s logic families. By the late 80s several TTL families were below that, and a few were below 1ns. Since then things have got faster :)
Example refs, use gurgle for others: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/complete-pcb-design/9780128176856/xhtml/app003.xhtml (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/complete-pcb-design/9780128176856/xhtml/app003.xhtml) https://ve2zaz.net/referenc/LogicT.htm (https://ve2zaz.net/referenc/LogicT.htm)
[1] No, the period doesn't count; it is completely irrelevant in this context.
-
I agree that the machine tool analogy proved to be less than helpful.
...
Maybe I should give up on trying to generate analogies ... I think I'm going from bad to worse!
That frequently happens with analogies :( Analogies are often dangerous :)
-
I agree that the machine tool analogy proved to be less than helpful. It was intended to illustrate the different needs and perspectives of hobby users vs. professionals, but seemed to slide off into a discussion about size. Somehow, as a 63-year-old male, it always seems to come back to a debate about size ... :)
I keep wanting to like the Siglent; I really do. It seems so obviously to be the sensible option. But honestly, every time you all post screen shots of the Siglent next to screen shots of the Rigol, I feel like the Siglent is harder to read, as though I will constantly have to be peering closely to distinguish between one measurement and the next. Meanwhile, the Rigol screen seems vibrant, much easier to pick out salient numbers. Is that just my inexperience showing?
No it is not you. The Siglent UI is more cluttered compared to Rigol's UI. Rigol has done a better job in that respect (if the rest of the scope would work). Siglent's UI is copied from Lecroy's UI and not necessarily laid out very well. The aim is to cram as much information as possible in one screen without much thought for following good UI design guidelines. IMHO both Rigol and Siglent products are always lacking in one way or another. If you could create a mash-up between the both, you'd end up with a piece of equipment which ticks more boxes.
-
A "beginner that wants entry level 'scope" probably has no 200Mhz signals lying around anyway.
(I'm not even sure I do...)
Rigol (unlocked to to 250 MHz) and applied 200 MHz signal to all enabled channels
Where's it written that people must do that?
(Be honest, do YOU do that...?)
Digital signals from today's logic families easily have edges with much higher frequency content than 200 MHz -- even signals relevant for amateurs.
It's enough to need to look at one fast signal, in the context of (e.g. gated and triggered by) two other signals. E.g. one critical signal where you need to check signal quality -- say a clock -- which may get distorted due to interference from some other lines.
Edit: Or turn the example scenario around, that's probably even more relevant in practice: You have some digital signals which show an unexpected behaviour, and you want to check whether it is caused by a malformed clock, glitches or such. So you need to gate and trigger based on those erroneous signals (but may not need the full bandwidth for these), and at the same time look at the suspected clock with the highest bandwidth you can get.
-
Rigol UI is better for a beginner
It's very subjective. It needs proof/demonstration in the form of describing specific use cases where a beginner would benefit from specific features in the Rigol's UI that are missing or implemented differently in the Siglent's one.
I would argue that the Rigol's UI is bad (note that I'm not making comparisons here) regardless of the user's level.
For one thing, as was mentioned before, it wastes a lot of screen area for displaying elements bearing no practical usefulness. That's only to begin with.
On top of that it has annoying glitches and/or bugs with zooming.
It also doesn't display the currently selected probe attenuation ratio, which is bad for an advanced user, but even more so for a beginner.
The list can go on. It's just what I can immediately point out.
I own a DHO800 and I'm not gonna blindly defend it just because of that. It has a few things implemented better than in the Siglent: the effective display resolution of the waveform trace comes to mind, for example, or the higher refresh rate in the webcontrol app, and those are no tiny things to mention. I would be really pissed off if I bought a 12-bit scope only to discover that the traces it displays were upscaled from a low-res source.
But otherwise, as, again, was already said and discussed in depth, its UI sucks, plain and simple. It was not developed by someone who understood that the target device was one of the test and measurement equipment category.
A "beginner that wants entry level 'scope" probably has no 200Mhz signals lying around anyway.
The frequency is in the transition edges, not (just) in the fundamental. And fast chips are ubiquitous.
Rigol fails miserably at fast edges with more than 1 channel on.
1 channel: good
[attachimg=1]
2 channels: poor
[attachimg=2]
3 channels: terrible
[attachimg=3]
-
Regarding the "beginner/non-beginner" argument: any beginner stops being such very quickly, but the tool tailored for beginners (assuming it is) will remain such forever.
-
I agree that the machine tool analogy proved to be less than helpful. It was intended to illustrate the different needs and perspectives of hobby users vs. professionals, but seemed to slide off into a discussion about size. Somehow, as a 63-year-old male, it always seems to come back to a debate about size ... :)
I keep wanting to like the Siglent; I really do. It seems so obviously to be the sensible option. But honestly, every time you all post screen shots of the Siglent next to screen shots of the Rigol, I feel like the Siglent is harder to read, as though I will constantly have to be peering closely to distinguish between one measurement and the next. Meanwhile, the Rigol screen seems vibrant, much easier to pick out salient numbers. Is that just my inexperience showing?
No it is not you. The Siglent UI is more cluttered compared to Rigol's UI. Rigol has done a better job in that respect. Siglent's UI is copied from Lecroy's UI and not necessarily laid out very well. The aim is to cram as much information as possible in one screen without much thought for following good UI design guidelines.
It is cluttered. Still, that is not a problem for basic probing around, and you can get used to the UI and/or use the web server. I think that being a beginner without previous expectations about how an oscilloscope should work is actually an advantage in this instance, as you are going to have to learn the instrument anyway.
In any case, I don't find the UI bad, quite the opposite, but it certainly looks as if it was designed for a bigger screen. I just rearranged my workbench a bit and put the oscilloscope a bit closer, and the soldering tools further away.
-
honestly, every time you all post screen shots of the Siglent next to screen shots of the Rigol, I feel like the Siglent is harder to read, as though I will constantly have to be peering closely to distinguish between one measurement and the next. Meanwhile, the Rigol screen seems vibrant, much easier to pick out salient numbers. Is that just my inexperience showing?
Nope, I agree 100% (and have said so many times).
The text rendering on the Rigol is amazing. Very, very easy on the eyes. Even better in person than in screenshots posted here.
I haven't seen a Siglent in person but the screenshots don't give me any hope.
-
Really? No risetimes[1] less than 2ns?
Certainly not on an Arduino.
-
Digital signals from today's logic families easily have edges with much higher frequency content than 200 MHz -- even signals relevant for amateurs.
So you need more than the Siglent for "digital".
eg. Something like a Rigol MSO5000 with 350Mhz bandwidth and 8GS/sec sample rates.
I've been saying all along that the "200Mhz" number is very arbitrary, made up by Siglent users because it fits their agenda.
-
Regarding the "beginner/non-beginner" argument: any beginner stops being such very quickly, but the tool tailored for beginners (assuming it is) will remain such forever.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner but I'm happy with my Rigol.
I'm simply never going to connect four 200MHz signals to it.
(because I have no need to)
-
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=422264.0;attach=2154175;image)
Persistance isn't helping your argument.
If I need to measure rise times accurately I can use 1 channel. Not a problem.
And again: Is the Siglent's bandwidth enough? 200Mhz doesn't seem enough for the job you're proposing. Maybe get a Rigol MSO5000 instead.
-
Regarding the "beginner/non-beginner" argument: any beginner stops being such very quickly, but the tool tailored for beginners (assuming it is) will remain such forever.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner but I'm happy with my Rigol.
I'm simply never going to connect four 200MHz signals to it.
(because I have no need to)
You don't need to.
Connecting four 1Hz signals with transition times <2ns is sufficient. Big hint: the circuit neither "knows" nor "cares" when the next transition might occur.
The other issue is ensuring thold requirements are met. Those are fixed for a given logic family, are <<tclock, and reducing the clock frequency doesn't help (unlike tsetup).
-
Regarding the "beginner/non-beginner" argument: any beginner stops being such very quickly, but the tool tailored for beginners (assuming it is) will remain such forever.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner but I'm happy with my Rigol.
I'm simply never going to connect four 200MHz signals to it.
(because I have no need to)
You don't need to.
Connecting four 1Hz signals with transition times <2ns is sufficient.
OK, discussion has been changed from sine waves and Nyquist limits to pulses just for me... got it.
Better questions:
What job can't I do with my Rigol?
ie. What's an example of a showstopping problem where I'd have no choice but to go out and buy a Siglent instead?
-
Really? No risetimes[1] less than 2ns?
Certainly not on an Arduino.
Atmega328 easily creates sub 1ns edges...
Not to mention ARM based Arduinos...
Raspberry PI has sub 500ps edges...
Fact that you think world ends with your Rigol makes no difference to actual facts...
-
Atmega328 easily creates sub 1ns edges...
Not on a wire connected to the output of an Arduino Uno it doesn't.
-
Atmega328 easily creates sub 1ns edges...
Not on a wire connected to the output of an Arduino Uno it doesn't.
How would you know if you didn't try it with 1GHz scope and active probe?
-
Persistance isn't helping your argument.
Persistence was set to the minimum possible value in that screenshot. There's no way to fully disable persistence that I know of, but we can simulate it by reducing the waveform acquisition rate. Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdwF_EU2eFU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdwF_EU2eFU)
Is it better? Maybe, it depends. Both modes suck, each in its own way.
If I need to measure rise times accurately I can use 1 channel. Not a problem.
It's not about (just) measuring rise times. Both the scopes in question are useless for measuring sub-nanosecond rise times anyway.
It's about observing short pulses, or intermittent glitches, or debugging signal integrity issues and visualizing transitions in digital circuits in general, where having to correlate one signal (e.g. clock) to another one or several is a legit and common use case: it requires both looking at transitions and having multiple inputs enabled at the same time.
Is the Rigol's inability to properly display such waveforms fatal? No, by no means it's not: after all, it doesn't fail to display them completely, so you will see it if there is something. Will it prevent the job from being done? No it will not, at least as long as the user is aware of these edge case (pun intended!) shortcomings.
But does it suck? That's subjective, but I say oh yes it sure does, especially because there is a scope at (typically) the same price point which will display such pulses correctly with little or no wobbling like that. How do I know? At this point I'm not gonna bother searching for screenshots proving it, I've already seen enough. I would be very happy to be proven wrong, though.
And again: Is the Siglent's bandwidth enough? 200Mhz doesn't seem enough for the job you're proposing. Maybe get a Rigol MSO5000 instead.
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
-
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
EDIT: Rephrased the question.
@shapirus, assume that you probe an almost ideal square wave and a scope would show you either figure7 or figure8.
Which one would you prefer subjectively? [ I'll explain the difference later in order to get an unbiased vote. ]
-
Regarding the "beginner/non-beginner" argument: any beginner stops being such very quickly, but the tool tailored for beginners (assuming it is) will remain such forever.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner but I'm happy with my Rigol.
I'm simply never going to connect four 200MHz signals to it.
(because I have no need to)
You don't need to.
Connecting four 1Hz signals with transition times <2ns is sufficient.
OK, discussion has been changed from sine waves and Nyquist limits to pulses just for me... got it.
No, the discussion hasn't been changed.
Or perhaps you think the Nyquist limit only applies to sine waves? Hint: it doesn't.
-
It's about observing short pulses, or intermittent glitches, or debugging signal integrity issues and visualizing transitions in digital circuits in general, where having to correlate one signal (e.g. clock) to another one or several is a legit and common use case: it requires both looking at transitions and having multiple inputs enabled at the same time.
Exactly.
It repeatedly surprises me how difficult it is to get people to recognise that.
Is the Rigol's inability to properly display such waveforms fatal? No, by no means it's not: after all, it doesn't fail to display them completely, so you will see it if there is something. Will it prevent the job from being done? No it will not, at least as long as the user is aware of these edge case (pun intended!) shortcomings.
Yup. Any scope is better than none, and you always have to be aware of the limitations of your tools.
A key use case w.r.t. signal integrity is verifying that a received clock signal is monotonic and without overshoot etc. That requires bandwidth plus good probing technique, and nothing else.
For data signals... Well some people claim they aren't repetitive, but clearly such people don't understand eye diagrams. They are much better at detecting signal integrity issues than "repetitive" signals.
And once the signal integrity has been verified, it is often better to flip to the digital domain and use a logic or protocol analyser.
-
Which square wave do you prefer? Figure7, or figure8?
<ignorance alert>Help me to understand what I am seeing in these two diagrams? I don't know enough to predict which is from which scope, or why one is better than the other.</ignorance alert>
-
With respect to some of this recent discussion ... would it be correct to say that a year ago, when it was a choice between 8-bit, 1Gs scopes (i.e., the SDS1104X-E or the DS1054Z), neither would be able to capture / render the finer details of a rapidly rising pulse? Or is there more to this than just the sampling rate?
-
With respect to some of this recent discussion ... would it be correct to say that a year ago, when it was a choice between 8-bit, 1Gs scopes (i.e., the SDS1104X-E or the DS1054Z), neither would be able to capture / render the finer details of a rapidly rising pulse? Or is there more to this than just the sampling rate?
Don't worry. In reality a 100MHz scope is perfectly fine for debugging a microcontroller driving some I2C and / or SPI peripherals (up to 20MHz or so). With SPI you will want to control the drive strength (add series resistors) to slow the edges down and everything will be fine. A 100MHz bandwidth is also perfectly fine for checking SPI setup / hold timing (up to 20MHz) as the interfaces are designed to have plenty of margin. Using discrete logic with flip-flops / counters is extremely rare nowadays. But even if you want to use these in a design, there are free simulators available (like Microcap) where you can check the timing behaviour of your digital design.
-
I keep wanting to like the Siglent; I really do. It seems so obviously to be the sensible option. But honestly, every time you all post screen shots of the Siglent next to screen shots of the Rigol, I feel like the Siglent is harder to read, as though I will constantly have to be peering closely to distinguish between one measurement and the next. Meanwhile, the Rigol screen seems vibrant, much easier to pick out salient numbers. Is that just my inexperience showing?
Yes. Look at shapirus' opinion on the Rigol (he owns one). He doesn't like the UI, and has pointed out some of the issues you will have to deal with using such a buggy scope.
My first scope was a Rigol, which is the only reason I hate the company. It was obnoxiously bad. My next scope was the SDS1104X-E, and my experience was AMAZING by comparison.
Since eyesight is a thing you mentioned, I will say the ONLY benefit to you for the Rigol is the HDMI out. If you connect an external monitor, it will be easier to see. However, you will need to wait a year or two for them to hopefully work out the bugs.
On the Siglent, you can connect via a web browser, and that will allow you to make it larger, however, the web UI on that model is not as good as higher models.
If you can save up a little longer, I highly recommend getting something with a larger screen. The SDS1000XHD would be a good place to look.
-
Using discrete logic with flip-flops / counters is extremely rare nowadays. But even if you want to use these in a design, there are free simulators available (like Microcap) where you can check the timing behaviour of your digital design.
Good point btw. I, for example, tend not to use microcontrollers in my hobby projects when at all possible and prefer to have fun with discrete logic (and mixing digital and analog stuff) instead, and, frankly, I could easily get away with even a very basic handheld scope, which I actually did before I finally couldn't resist buying a decent 4-channel 12-bit scope hackable to 250 MHz (DHO804) for $342 delivered.
One could get away even without any scope at all: simulation software is mostly so good (...when it works, but that's a different topic) that for me, if my circuit works in simulation, then I can be 95% sure that it will work just the same in hardware. Of course it's always good to understand what is not being simulated, but that's second order things.
But getting better gear, as long as we're speaking of hobby applications, is not just a matter of its suitability for the immediate requirements for one's current areas of interest, but also of having capabilities sufficiently beyond that to allow exploring new areas and learning new stuff, which can be quite enjoyable on its own.
The latter, though, can be achieved with both the scopes we're discussing here. Both are good value, even without adding "for the money". Which of them is better overall? I wouldn't venture to say, even after all the comparisons of the interpolation details and all. Would I want to replace my DHO800 with SDS800X HD? No! I would now only agree to change it to something that has at least 4 Gsps and 500 MHz or better 1 GHz BW to make it a worthwhile replacement :).
But which of the two would I buy now, after my experience with the DHO800, if I had to choose one and both would have the same price? I am not sure. I would be struggling to make a choice. But I have to say that I have no problem agreeing to hack a device to change things I don't like. That's an important point when you consider the DHO800.
-
Would I want to replace my DHO800 with SDS800X HD?
Hypothetical:
Your scope is stolen, and your insurance gives you $500 to cover the loss. Do you still buy the same scope?
-
Hypothetical:
Your scope is stolen, and your insurance gives you $500 to cover the loss. Do you still buy the same scope?
I believe I would add another something and buy a more advanced one. But if I had only those same two options, then I'm still not sure. If it were the only option, I'd buy the DHO800 again any time. But if we add the Siglent to the list... I would have to give it a test drive to decide, I think.
-
With respect to some of this recent discussion ... would it be correct to say that a year ago, when it was a choice between 8-bit, 1Gs scopes (i.e., the SDS1104X-E or the DS1054Z), neither would be able to capture / render the finer details of a rapidly rising pulse? Or is there more to this than just the sampling rate?
The only important parameter is the analogue bandwidth. Advertising a samples/s figure much higher than 2.5*BW figure is marketing wank; it merely eases some implementation details inside the scope.
The other issue is the number of bits. 30 years ago I used top-end HP DSOs to measure sub-nanosecond risetimes; they were 6bits at best.
The number of bits is more important if you want to look at the frequency domain version of a signal, since they translate into the noise floor and spurious interpolation products. Here again there can be a lot of marketing want (that's why my .sig is there :) ). The key figure is the ENOB, the effective number of bits. Here 12 is usefully more than 8.
More than 8 bits can be useful in other circumstances, but not really for signal integrity. A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
-
The latter, though, can be achieved with both the scopes we're discussing here. Both are good value, even without adding "for the money". Which of them is better overall? I wouldn't venture to say, even after all the comparisons of the interpolation details and all. Would I want to replace my DHO800 with SDS800X HD? No! I would now only agree to change it to something that has at least 4 Gsps and 500 MHz or better 1 GHz BW to make it a worthwhile replacement :).
But which of the two would I buy now, after my experience with the DHO800, if I had to choose one and both would have the same price? I am not sure. I would be struggling to make a choice. But I have to say that I have no problem agreeing to hack a device to change things I don't like. That's an important point when you consider the DHO800.
Those are very intriguing statements, especially in light of Josh's reminder about your dislike of the UI. In one sense, of course, this doesn't help at all! But in another sense ... I do feel a tiny bit better to hear someone with more experience say that you too would struggle with the choice. :)
-
BTW @awakephd, Dave Jones has received a SDS800X HD (along with one of the 1000x HD series) for review. I would suggest to hold your purchase for a little bit more until he gets better and films that review. I belive it may help in making a decision. He also reviewed the Rigol some time last year, make sure you watch that one too.
-
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
-
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
Not only that, the scopes are so cheap there's no point in getting an 8bit scope unless there's some advanced features or specs needed. Even still, the 12 bit stuff available now is really competitive.
-
Hypothetical:
Your scope is stolen, and your insurance gives you $500 to cover the loss. Do you still buy the same scope?
I believe I would add another something and buy a more advanced one. But if I had only those same two options, then I'm still not sure. If it were the only option, I'd buy the DHO800 again any time. But if we add the Siglent to the list... I would have to give it a test drive to decide, I think.
That is a good, smart answer. :-+
-
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
Pixelation is inevitable with digitizing scopes and digital displays :)
Someone interested in scopes will use any scope regardless of pleasantness.
Someone not interested in scopes will use it for the minimum possible time.
Only a few people are TE addicts :)
A beginner can be overwhelmed by complexity; without a deep interest in the subject, the overwhelmed tend to quickly move elsewhere. Simplicity and a gentle learning curve can pay dividends.
-
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
Not only that, the scopes are so cheap there's no point in getting an 8bit scope unless there's some advanced features or specs needed. Even still, the 12 bit stuff available now is really competitive.
If cost is a dominant concern, then there are much cheaper alternatives than 8bit scopes.
-
If cost is a dominant concern, then there are much cheaper alternatives than 8bit scopes.
You can get a 2 channel 12 bit scope for $390, or 4 channel for $440. True, for some that price is too high, and they'll stick with less expensive 8 bit scopes. But that's a pretty small percentage on the grand scheme of things.
Only a few people are TE addicts :)
A few what? Million? 🤣
I don't know how many people are on this site, but I know a lot of them are either addicts, or they're addicts in denial. 😉
-
If cost is a dominant concern, then there are much cheaper alternatives than 8bit scopes.
You can get a 2 channel 12 bit scope for $390, or 4 channel for $440. True, for some that price is too high, and they'll stick with less expensive 8 bit scopes. But that's a pretty small percentage on the grand scheme of things.
I was thinking of more extreme constraints and radically different solutions.
-
Which square wave do you prefer? Figure7, or figure8?
<ignorance alert>Help me to understand what I am seeing in these two diagrams? I don't know enough to predict which is from which scope, or why one is better than the other.</ignorance alert>
I'll take a guess that the two diagrams represent the displays of two oscilloscopes with slightly different bandwidths...Figure 8 being the higher. The point being that since the Fourier series of a square wave is 1 x fundamental + 1/3 x 3rd harmonic + 1/5 x 5th harmonic + 1/7 x 7th harmonic...etc., then you need a very high bandwidth to accurately display a square wave (or step function) of only modest frequency. When you don't pick up those higher frequencies, that shows in the corners of the trace and the difference in what is displayed by an oscilloscope that samples 60% faster than another is not worth worrying about. If you want an accurate display of a square wave or pulse I'd say you want to talk about how many MULTIPLES faster your sampling is....2X, 5X, 10X, etc, as 60% extra just isn't going to make that much of a difference.
-
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
Pixelation is inevitable with digitizing scopes and digital displays :)
Someone interested in scopes will use any scope regardless of pleasantness.
Someone not interested in scopes will use it for the minimum possible time.
Only a few people are TE addicts :)
A beginner can be overwhelmed by complexity; without a deep interest in the subject, the overwhelmed tend to quickly move elsewhere. Simplicity and a gentle learning curve can pay dividends.
As with any new technology to them, analog or digital.
A scope is a scope is a scope and a DSO is no different to drive yet offers a massive amount of additional features which is entirely up to the user whether they use them or not.
To not have a decent feature set is a significant handicap, if not immediately certainly in the future when skill and knowledge develops.
-
Or perhaps you think the Nyquist limit only applies to sine waves? Hint: it doesn't.
I think a better way to describe it is that Nyquist is about sinewaves and that all other waveforms can be constructed by a Fourier series of sinewaves. Then you think about what those other waveforms look like when the higher frequency components of the Fourier series are attenuated or removed. Having someone understand this goes a long way to them realising why their traces look like they do.
-
I agree that the machine tool analogy proved to be less than helpful.
...
Maybe I should give up on trying to generate analogies ... I think I'm going from bad to worse!
That frequently happens with analogies :( Analogies are often dangerous :)
analogies is good to broaden our perspective. imho awakephd's analogy is valid from his perpective. try to learn to see the world from other people's eye.
The other issue is ensuring thold requirements are met. Those are fixed for a given logic family, are <<tclock, and reducing the clock frequency doesn't help (unlike tsetup).
whats your point? those are specifications available in datasheet. they can add variables into the equation. better set the scew setting in scope right first. with BW limited scope, risetime will be "smoothen" anyway.
You don't need to.
Connecting four 1Hz signals with transition times <2ns is sufficient.
OK, discussion has been changed from sine waves and Nyquist limits to pulses just for me... got it.
No, the discussion hasn't been changed.
Or perhaps you think the Nyquist limit only applies to sine waves? Hint: it doesn't.
practically for square wave, Sinc interpolation failure is to plot only on transition edge. square wave misplot (Gibb's artefacts) is a lot less confusing than sin/analog misplot. if you know what i mean.
It's about observing short pulses, or intermittent glitches, or debugging signal integrity issues and visualizing transitions in digital circuits in general, where having to correlate one signal (e.g. clock) to another one or several is a legit and common use case: it requires both looking at transitions and having multiple inputs enabled at the same time.
Exactly.
It repeatedly surprises me how difficult it is to get people to recognise that.
Is the Rigol's inability to properly display such waveforms fatal? No, by no means it's not: after all, it doesn't fail to display them completely, so you will see it if there is something. Will it prevent the job from being done? No it will not, at least as long as the user is aware of these edge case (pun intended!) shortcomings.
Yup. Any scope is better than none, and you always have to be aware of the limitations of your tools.
A key use case w.r.t. signal integrity is verifying that a received clock signal is monotonic and without overshoot etc. That requires bandwidth plus good probing technique, and nothing else.
For data signals... Well some people claim they aren't repetitive, but clearly such people don't understand eye diagrams. They are much better at detecting signal integrity issues than "repetitive" signals.
And once the signal integrity has been verified, it is often better to flip to the digital domain and use a logic or protocol analyser.
what you type is true but inapplicable if you want to use it on BW crippled scope like both dho800 and sds800x. dho800 maybe less crippled, but can show incorrect signal. with sds800x, you wont see any glitches or overshoots on transition edge due to "proper" BW limiting. anyway, trying to do signal integrity at sub ns risetime, you need more expensive tool. signal integrity is about risetime specification is met, and also no excessive overshoot or reflection, and also prog. delay and jitter etc... imho you need at least 10 points for each ns, and thats 10-20GSps, none dho800 nor sds800x can provide. they only suitable for checking 10-20ns risetime logic, i guestimate 5-10Mbps, "signal integrity" wise. dont think nor expect too much.
fyi, recently i managed to figure out (rev.eng) which one is which on 14 bit DAC lane from FPGA clocked at 150-170MHz with just 4CH scope Rigol DS1054Z. with all the theories, opinions and philosophicals here, i shouldnt be able to. ymmv.
The only important parameter is the analogue bandwidth. Advertising a samples/s figure much higher than 2.5*BW figure is marketing wank; it merely eases some implementation details inside the scope.
are you talking about sds800x? you opinion is partly true but saying its marketing wank is too much imho. trying to ease implementation also can means trying to represent true signal on screen and trying to be honest.
The other issue is the number of bits. 30 years ago I used top-end HP DSOs to measure sub-nanosecond risetimes; they were 6bits at best.
The number of bits is more important if you want to look at the frequency domain version of a signal, since they translate into the noise floor and spurious interpolation products. Here again there can be a lot of marketing want (that's why my .sig is there :) ). The key figure is the ENOB, the effective number of bits. Here 12 is usefully more than 8.
More than 8 bits can be useful in other circumstances, but not really for signal integrity. A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
i cannot brain this... afaik signal integrity, you need more bits and more sample rate because we try to look in analog domain, not digital domain. and super many overlapping traces. if you want to look at digital domain alone, 1 bit scope / LA is enough. and 12 bits is not just for your logic family's application, other people use it for other things like audio? and FFT, so dont assume we are the only batch of breed on earth. and err... whats the cost of your top-end HP DSOs back then? and its equivalent price today?
If cost is a dominant concern, then there are much cheaper alternatives than 8bit scopes.
You can get a 2 channel 12 bit scope for $390, or 4 channel for $440. True, for some that price is too high, and they'll stick with less expensive 8 bit scopes. But that's a pretty small percentage on the grand scheme of things.
I was thinking of more extreme constraints and radically different solutions.
is this what's in your mind? £6 24MHz 8 Channel USB Logic Analyzer 8 CH Logic Analyzer for Arduino MCU (https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/275942918330) this imho is good enough for logic families (but not for signal integrity mind you). please try to be specific instead of open pop quiz statement. this is electronics forum, not philosophical forum.
here you demo that at some setup Sr / 2.22, sds800x is unable to reconstruct signal properly? from the look of it, yes it is.
Not correct. What I've shown is the behavior at SR / 2.04, not 2.22. The input signal was a 490 MHz sine.
but you have the capture title saying 450MHz (now i see you edited it), anyway in my earlier post above you, i said i stand corrected...cheers.
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
Not only that, the scopes are so cheap there's no point in getting an 8bit scope unless there's some advanced features or specs needed. Even still, the 12 bit stuff available now is really competitive.
not to mention he keep confusing beginners that will read this thread with his 70's era's opinion. no insult nor ill-mean intended to him, i only reply to what are ambiguous/confusing, not just from him. cheers.
-
To not have a decent feature set is a significant handicap, if not immediately certainly in the future when skill and knowledge develops.
"Not owning a car is a significant handicap, if not immediatelly certainly in the future when you are old enough to reach the pedals and get a license to drive"
Got it!
-
To not have a decent feature set is a significant handicap, if not immediately certainly in the future when skill and knowledge develops.
"Not owning a car is a significant handicap, if not immediatelly certainly in the future when you are old enough to reach the pedals and get a license to drive"
Got it!
countering argument with wrong analogy, strawman fallacy? got it!
-
To not have a decent feature set is a significant handicap, if not immediately certainly in the future when skill and knowledge develops.
"Not owning a car is a significant handicap, if not immediately certainly in the future when you are old enough to reach the pedals and get a license to drive"
Got it!
Likewise owning a bicycle like the many CRO's I've had and never going back there thanks. Not for anyone and the last scruffy old non working HP I have is to be given away for Defpom to try and fix and make vids doing so.
Rightly these old CRO's belong in the last millennia or with collectors.
-
Which square wave do you prefer? Figure7, or figure8?
<ignorance alert>Help me to understand what I am seeing in these two diagrams? I don't know enough to predict which is from which scope, or why one is better than the other.</ignorance alert>
You are seeing two imperfect reproductions of a square wave as you might see them on a scope. I'm not asking to speculate about the exact differences between them, I'm just asking for a subjective vote on which one you prefer. I'm not even asking why you prefer the one or the other. The question was primarily addressed to @shapiros, in response to his statement I quoted, but of course everyone is welcome to vote.
-
You are seeing two imperfect reproductions of a square wave as you might see them on a scope. I'm not asking to speculate about the exact differences between them, I'm just asking for a subjective vote on which one you prefer. I'm not even asking why you prefer the one or the other. The question was primarily addressed to @shapiros, in response to his statement I quoted, but of course everyone is welcome to vote.
That's a bit strange way of putting it. I would not exactly "prefer" either of them. They are both non-ideal reconstructions, and I would have to interpret either of them given all other circumstances such as the scope's bandwidth and sample rate, probing technique and setup in use, etc., and understand that there is some extent of uncertainty between the actual wave (after it passes the bandwidth limiting filter) and what's displayed on the screen. I would think that the amount of this uncertainty is lower in the second waveform.
-
That's a bit strange way of putting it. I would not exactly "prefer" either of them. They are both non-ideal reconstructions, and I would have to interpret either of them given all other circumstances such as the scope's bandwidth and sample rate, probing technique and setup in use, etc., and understand that there is some extent of uncertainty between the actual wave (after it passes the bandwidth limiting filter) and what's displayed on the screen. I would think that the amount of this uncertainty is lower in the second waveform.
Then it seems that you intuitively prefer the softer, Rigol-like interpolation filter. At least in this particular context. And I think my vote would be the same. I do not see what additional useful information I could obtain from figure7.
To clarify the context: It is a 10MHz square wave with steep edges (like you would get it from a Bodnar pulser), passed through a 4th order maximally flat filter with a -3dB bandwidth of 250 MHz (simulating a frontend), sampled at 312.5 MSa/s, and then interpolated with two different reconstruction filters in order to obtain the two plots. Figure7 uses a sharper filter (more like Siglent) and figure8 uses a softer filter (more like Rigol). The traces calculated for different sampling phases are aligned at the trigger point and overlaid.
-
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
Pixelation is inevitable with digitizing scopes and digital displays :)
Someone interested in scopes will use any scope regardless of pleasantness.
Someone not interested in scopes will use it for the minimum possible time.
Only a few people are TE addicts :)
A beginner can be overwhelmed by complexity; without a deep interest in the subject, the overwhelmed tend to quickly move elsewhere. Simplicity and a gentle learning curve can pay dividends.
As with any new technology to them, analog or digital.
A scope is a scope is a scope and a DSO is no different to drive yet offers a massive amount of additional features which is entirely up to the user whether they use them or not.
To not have a decent feature set is a significant handicap, if not immediately certainly in the future when skill and knowledge develops.
Yes, it applies to any new technology.
That doesn't change certain important considerations as to whether an instrument is more or less complicated and the scope of the learning curve:
- more controls => more difficult
- all controls immediately visible => easier
- some "internal" controls to be discovered and used after multiple user interactions => more difficult
- evident difficulty many people have understanding the core sampling and reconstruction theory => more difficult
- more tools in one box => more difficult
Of course there are compensating advantages; if there weren't tautech would have a much smaller market for his products.
An engineer chooses tools based on their suitability for a specific purpose. Different purposes can lead to a different choice.
For a completely off-topic analogy, consider learning to fly. Modern gliders have high performance laminar flow wings, with flaps, many instruments, radios, navaids, and in a few instances engines. Nonetheless nobody learns to fly in those. Beginners always learn to fly in gliders without flaps, without radios, navaids, engines, and with only an altimeter, ASI and vario[1]. (The 1930s Luftwaffe learned to fly on gliders without fuselages; some are still flying :))
The reasons for learning on simple machines should be obvious - and certainly will be if you learn to fly.
Ditto the reasons for using complex machines for long-distance flights.
Too often salesmen manage to get newly qualified pilots to buy machines that are too complex; the mortality rate amongst middle-aged doctors/lawyers is higher than expected.
[1] It is also good practice to demonstrate flying with all those instruments covered up :)
-
Since eyesight is a thing you mentioned, I will say the ONLY benefit to you for the Rigol is the HDMI out.
The way the text is rendered makes a huge difference.
-
Or perhaps you think the Nyquist limit only applies to sine waves? Hint: it doesn't.
I think a better way to describe it is that Nyquist is about sinewaves and that all other waveforms can be constructed by a Fourier series of sinewaves. Then you think about what those other waveforms look like when the higher frequency components of the Fourier series are attenuated or removed. Having someone understand this goes a long way to them realising why their traces look like they do.
My comment should be read in the context in which it was written (this isn't stackexchange nor edaboard: multilevel quoting is possible).
Apart from that, while your statements are correct, clearly too many people don't understand them. Hence the preponderance of "cargo cult engineering statements" about 5*frequency, and similar.
-
If cost is a dominant concern, then there are much cheaper alternatives than 8bit scopes.
You can get a 2 channel 12 bit scope for $390, or 4 channel for $440. True, for some that price is too high, and they'll stick with less expensive 8 bit scopes. But that's a pretty small percentage on the grand scheme of things.
I was thinking of more extreme constraints and radically different solutions.
I get your point, but I'm not sure it's good advice without someone knowledgeable to help you. My experience wasn't good with analog CRT scopes, even though it's purely anecdotical, might be useful.
When I was just starting out I bought a Tek 466 "untested" (LOL). Unsurprisingly, it did not work. After a long time studying the service manual, I traced a couple failures, on the PSU. The big caps were letting through all the ripple after the rectifier, a couple transistors were blown, and one or two blue "teardrop" caps (tantalum?) were shorted. I did a lousy repair job with my lousy soldering iron and skills.
A few hours later, no trace at all on the screen. I can't remember the details, but I think i traced the failure to the high voltage part on the bottom board, next to the PSU. And that's where the repair ended.
No skills and no HV tools, with my not-too-strong conservation instinct barely holding up.
Next was (I think) a Tek 2465B. Sold as working, and it did work as long as the readout was deactivated. If you activated it, some kind of digital signal appeared to ride on top of the trace, and the readout numbers were "pushed" upwards. After opening it, I saw liquid damage, corrosion and grime, and a resistor was open just before a pair of transistors driving the readout position on the screen. I, again, did a terrible job of removing the opened resistor with my cheap-ass soldering iron. The fact that the liquid damage had left some lime-like residue that could not be cleaned up with isopropanol did not help. Thankfully, I didn't break the pads. Then I found I did not have the right value resistor with the right power rating, but tested it anyway, and everything worked well.
Later on, I found on this forum the usual problems with the Dallas NVRAM, and the custom IC that gets way too hot. Replacing the NVRAM would have meant a desoldering gun (nothing under €100, even second hand), another dallas (€20? plus shipping), and a programmer (~€120 minimum). Plus the €120 of the 'scope. I ended selling it for what it did cost me.
Last try was one of the latest HAMEGs CRO, full SMD. It did cost me 10 bucks, but no schematics and it had been canibalized.
I reckon I made a lot of mistakes, but bear in mind I did know next to nothing about electronics. I learned a lot, too, one of the main ones being that if you need a tool, buy a properly working and supported one. All of this would, most likely, have ended differently if I had someone experienced guiding me a bit, but I didn't and still don't.
Take all of this with a grain of salt, of course, but if you don't have experienced hobbyists/engineers near you willing to help, my recommendation is do not buy an analog CRO. They are proper tools and the service manuals are a thing of beauty, but most of the people recommending them are experienced engineers that know their way around HV and these complex devices.
-
- more controls => more difficult
- more tools in one box => more difficult
I'll disagree with these two.
1) as long as sane defaults are used, that is not true: the user doesn't need to touch the unknown controls until they become required for a specific task;
2) again, the user can use only the familiar tools, keeping the rest aside until it's time to use them.
Then again, we're talking about an electronics test and measurement instrument, the mere fact of using which assumes that the user has at least basic understanding of school-level physics and electricity and can read, and that means that the user can make use of the instruction manual that comes with equipment, which will resolve most of the confusion that may arise from seeing all the controls and menu options.
-
I didn't use to have anything against siglent, but I am slowly developing an aversion.
-
I didn't use to have anything against siglent, but I am slowly developing an aversion.
¿Why? They make rather good TE at a rather good price. Just don't you dare critizise anything about any current Siglent offering on this forum and you are set ::)
-
A beginner is unlikely to require 12 bits for time domain measurements.
The key word here is "require". Yes, true, 12 bits are hardly required, in the strict sense.
However, having 12 bits of vertical resolution (assuming other parameters equal) simply makes the experience of using the scope more enjoyable: less pixelation and all, you know what I mean. That's important. Tools that are more pleasant to use encourage the user to spend more time with them and thus learn more and become more proficient.
Pixelation is inevitable with digitizing scopes and digital displays :)
Someone interested in scopes will use any scope regardless of pleasantness.
Someone not interested in scopes will use it for the minimum possible time.
Only a few people are TE addicts :)
A beginner can be overwhelmed by complexity; without a deep interest in the subject, the overwhelmed tend to quickly move elsewhere. Simplicity and a gentle learning curve can pay dividends.
As with any new technology to them, analog or digital.
A scope is a scope is a scope and a DSO is no different to drive yet offers a massive amount of additional features which is entirely up to the user whether they use them or not.
To not have a decent feature set is a significant handicap, if not immediately certainly in the future when skill and knowledge develops.
Yes, it applies to any new technology.
That doesn't change certain important considerations as to whether an instrument is more or less complicated and the scope of the learning curve:
- more controls => more difficult
- all controls immediately visible => easier
- some "internal" controls to be discovered and used after multiple user interactions => more difficult
- evident difficulty many people have understanding the core sampling and reconstruction theory => more difficult
- more tools in one box => more difficult
Of course there are compensating advantages; if there weren't tautech would have a much smaller market for his products.
An engineer chooses tools based on their suitability for a specific purpose. Different purposes can lead to a different choice.
For a completely off-topic analogy, consider learning to fly. Modern gliders have high performance laminar flow wings, with flaps, many instruments, radios, navaids, and in a few instances engines. Nonetheless nobody learns to fly in those. Beginners always learn to fly in gliders without flaps, without radios, navaids, engines, and with only an altimeter, ASI and vario[1]. (The 1930s Luftwaffe learned to fly on gliders without fuselages; some are still flying :))
The reasons for learning on simple machines should be obvious - and certainly will be if you learn to fly.
Ditto the reasons for using complex machines for long-distance flights.
Too often salesmen manage to get newly qualified pilots to buy machines that are too complex; the mortality rate amongst middle-aged doctors/lawyers is higher than expected.
[1] It is also good practice to demonstrate flying with all those instruments covered up :)
:blah:
Right, daughter is a commercial pilot and would struggle with any scope.
You and your analogies. ::)
I had an interest in scopes at 13 to check the ripple of my valve based HV PSU.
Never used one however as an avid follower of 70's Popular Electronics had some basic idea of how to use one and conned the HS Science teacher to let me use the lab scope....50+ years ago.
Maybe you overlooked where I stated the obvious, a scope is a scope is a scope.
They all operate the same, exactly the same !
V/div and s/div, really how hard is that ?
Certainly not rocket science.
The modern DSO is no different and I still use one eyeballing the graticules for signal levels just as you would with a CRO yet wouldn't dream of ever using one again....clunky knobs, dodgy switches, outta spec timebases and all that obsolete BS.
Repaired enough old clunkers to flick them to well know their weaknesses, some you have probably never heard of, BWD and Bradley as examples.
How one advises the beginner to get some obsolete scope that will need repair is beyond me. :-//
-
I didn't use to have anything against siglent, but I am slowly developing an aversion.
Why?
-
- more controls => more difficult
- more tools in one box => more difficult
I'll disagree with these two...
if Grampy cant fix it, you are screwed..
-
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
EDIT: Rephrased the question.
@shapirus, assume that you probe an almost ideal square wave and a scope would show you either figure7 or figure8.
Which one would you prefer subjectively? [ I'll explain the difference later in order to get an unbiased vote. ]
Neither pictures are correct. They both show Gibbs ears which do not exist in the real world. If you want to prevent seeing Gibbs ears, you need to use extra bandwidth limiting so the sin x/x reconstruction does not add the Gibbs ears. IOW, for the best view of a square wave you need to bandwidth limit it in respect to the oscilloscope's bandwidth.
-
- more controls => more difficult
- all controls immediately visible => easier
- some "internal" controls to be discovered and used after multiple user interactions => more difficult
- evident difficulty many people have understanding the core sampling and reconstruction theory => more difficult
- more tools in one box => more difficult
As illustrated in the responses above, there are always exceptions to any rule-of-thumb list such as this, but in general - as a sample newbie - I agree. A couple of comments, FWIW:
1 - A significant factor that can make a difference in the difficulty of "more controls" is the way the controls are laid out. Visually - which is all I have to go on at the moment - the Rigol wins in this regard. Rather than multiple buttons that all look more-or-less the same, the Rigol has used arrangement, size, and shape to distinguish at least some of the buttons from each other. Again, I stress this is based only on seeing the pictures; it may be that the layout does not match the logic, or some other issue that renders the Rigol's advantage moot. (Note that this comment applies to the on-screen layout as well as the physical controls - again a reason that the Rigol screen seems, to my inexperienced eye, to be far more usable despite the noted limitations.)
3 & 5 - One of the responses rightly points out that appropriate defaults can offset these issues. On the other hand, I have experienced the overwhelming frustration (with other sorts of instruments) of somehow changing one of those settings, and since I don't know enough to even know the setting is there - up to now the default has conveniently hidden it - I spend hours trying to figure what I'm doing wrong. :(
-
3 & 5 - One of the responses rightly points out that appropriate defaults can offset these issues. On the other hand, I have experienced the overwhelming frustration (with other sorts of instruments) of somehow changing one of those settings, and since I don't know enough to even know the setting is there - up to now the default has conveniently hidden it - I spend hours trying to figure what I'm doing wrong. :(
This is why most DSOs have a "Default" button that completely (almost, anyway) restores the scope to an original configuration. I use it routinely when I can't remember what I was using the scope for last and just want to start over. This prevents me missing something like having turned up the holdoff time that won't immediately be obvious but might cause some issues.
-
3 & 5 - One of the responses rightly points out that appropriate defaults can offset these issues. On the other hand, I have experienced the overwhelming frustration (with other sorts of instruments) of somehow changing one of those settings, and since I don't know enough to even know the setting is there - up to now the default has conveniently hidden it - I spend hours trying to figure what I'm doing wrong. :(
This is why most DSOs have a "Default" button that completely (almost, anyway) restores the scope to an original configuration. I use it routinely when I can't remember what I was using the scope for last and just want to start over. This prevents me missing something like having turned up the holdoff time that won't immediately be obvious but might cause some issues.
Good point!
-
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
EDIT: Rephrased the question.
@shapirus, assume that you probe an almost ideal square wave and a scope would show you either figure7 or figure8.
Which one would you prefer subjectively? [ I'll explain the difference later in order to get an unbiased vote. ]
Neither pictures are correct. They both show Gibbs ears which do not exist in the real world. If you want to prevent seeing Gibbs ears, you need to use extra bandwidth limiting so the sin x/x reconstruction does not add the Gibbs ears. IOW, for the best view of a square wave you need to bandwidth limit it in respect to the oscilloscope's bandwidth.
Nobody said they are "correct". Yes, both are imperfect (similarly imperfect as the 3rd screenshot here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5477218/#msg5477218)).
My question was just "which one [of the two imperfect ones] would you prefer subjectively".
-
Since eyesight is a thing you mentioned, I will say the ONLY benefit to you for the Rigol is the HDMI out.
The way the text is rendered makes a huge difference.
Yes, but whether or not that's a pro or con depends on your eyesight. AA can cause text to look blurry. Non-AA may look sharper. Depends on your eyeglasses prescription which you might prefer. 😉
-
VESA solution for the SDS800XHD: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262)
-
HDMI solution for the SDS800XHD: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262)
That link takes me to a solution for the VESA mount. I'm still wading through that thread as (limited) time permits; is there a post in there about HDMI?
-
HDMI solution for the SDS800XHD: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262)
That link takes me to a solution for the VESA mount. I'm still wading through that thread as (limited) time permits; is there a post in there about HDMI?
Wrong 4 letter acronym, I was still waking up. My bad. 😉
-
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
EDIT: Rephrased the question.
@shapirus, assume that you probe an almost ideal square wave and a scope would show you either figure7 or figure8.
Which one would you prefer subjectively? [ I'll explain the difference later in order to get an unbiased vote. ]
Neither pictures are correct. They both show Gibbs ears which do not exist in the real world. If you want to prevent seeing Gibbs ears, you need to use extra bandwidth limiting so the sin x/x reconstruction does not add the Gibbs ears. IOW, for the best view of a square wave you need to bandwidth limit it in respect to the oscilloscope's bandwidth.
Nobody said they are "correct". Yes, both are imperfect (similarly imperfect as the 3rd screenshot here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5477218/#msg5477218)).
My question was just "which one [of the two imperfect ones] would you prefer subjectively".
You need to keep in mind that sin x /x interpolation on the Rigol is broken resulting seriously distorted results. So there is little use in selecting either imperfect one.
-
HDMI solution for the SDS800XHD: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/msg5478262/#msg5478262)
That link takes me to a solution for the VESA mount. I'm still wading through that thread as (limited) time permits; is there a post in there about HDMI?
Wrong 4 letter acronym, I was still waking up. My bad. 😉
I fully understand!
-
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
EDIT: Rephrased the question.
@shapirus, assume that you probe an almost ideal square wave and a scope would show you either figure7 or figure8.
Which one would you prefer subjectively? [ I'll explain the difference later in order to get an unbiased vote. ]
Neither pictures are correct. They both show Gibbs ears which do not exist in the real world. If you want to prevent seeing Gibbs ears, you need to use extra bandwidth limiting so the sin x/x reconstruction does not add the Gibbs ears. IOW, for the best view of a square wave you need to bandwidth limit it in respect to the oscilloscope's bandwidth.
Nobody said they are "correct". Yes, both are imperfect (similarly imperfect as the 3rd screenshot here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5477218/#msg5477218)).
My question was just "which one [of the two imperfect ones] would you prefer subjectively".
You need to keep in mind that sin x /x interpolation on the Rigol is broken resulting seriously distorted results. So there is little use in selecting either imperfect one.
The difference between my two plots is in fact the interpolation filter. Figure7 was calculated with a sharper filter (Siglent-like, about 0.4*fs...0.6*fs), and figure8 uses a filter with a softer transition band (Rigol-like, about 0.3*fs...0.7*fs). The sharper interpolator does not help here. Contrary, I find figure8 a little bit more pleasing. Both suffer severely from aliasing of course.
-
Maybe you overlooked where I stated the obvious, a scope is a scope is a scope.
They all operate the same, exactly the same !
V/div and s/div, really how hard is that ?
Certainly not rocket science.
The modern DSO is no different...
Have you been paying attention to all the discussions in this thread about the theory and practice of sampling?
In general there are many significant erroneous beliefs about sampling, held by far too many people - beginners and professionals alike.
Sampling is not an easy topic to understand; at one of my previous employers we used a very simple question to weed out those that understood it from those that thought they understood it.
-
You need to keep in mind that sin x /x interpolation on the Rigol is broken resulting seriously distorted results. So there is little use in selecting either imperfect one.
At least analogue scopes are repairable >:D
-
This is why most DSOs have a "Default" button that completely (almost, anyway) restores the scope to an original configuration. I use it routinely when I can't remember what I was using the scope for last and just want to start over. This prevents me missing something like having turned up the holdoff time that won't immediately be obvious but might cause some issues.
I must admit to being lazy, and occasionally using the "beam find" button >:D
-
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
EDIT: Rephrased the question.
@shapirus, assume that you probe an almost ideal square wave and a scope would show you either figure7 or figure8.
Which one would you prefer subjectively? [ I'll explain the difference later in order to get an unbiased vote. ]
Neither pictures are correct. They both show Gibbs ears which do not exist in the real world. If you want to prevent seeing Gibbs ears, you need to use extra bandwidth limiting so the sin x/x reconstruction does not add the Gibbs ears. IOW, for the best view of a square wave you need to bandwidth limit it in respect to the oscilloscope's bandwidth.
Nobody said they are "correct". Yes, both are imperfect (similarly imperfect as the 3rd screenshot here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5477218/#msg5477218)).
My question was just "which one [of the two imperfect ones] would you prefer subjectively".
You need to keep in mind that sin x /x interpolation on the Rigol is broken resulting seriously distorted results. So there is little use in selecting either imperfect one.
The difference between my two plots is in fact the interpolation filter. Figure7 was calculated with a sharper filter (Siglent-like, about 0.4*fs...0.6*fs), and figure8 uses a filter with a softer transition band (Rigol-like, about 0.3*fs...0.7*fs). The sharper interpolator does not help here. Contrary, I find figure8 a little bit more pleasing. Both suffer severely from aliasing of course.
The problem isn't in the interpolation filter at all. Rigol implemented the sin x/x reconstruction wrong. That's it. There is no trade-off to be made here.
The real problem is that you can only use Fourier series to construct continuous functions. You can't use Fourier series to construct functions with a step in them like a square wave. However, when sampling a square wave like signal (which in the real world can never be a step function) it can turn into a step function in the digital world due to insufficient samples to follow the edges. And as a result you'll get Gibb's ears when applying the sin x / x filter to the sampled signal.
-
BTW @awakephd, Dave Jones has received a SDS800X HD (along with one of the 1000x HD series) for review. I would suggest to hold your purchase for a little bit more until he gets better and films that review. I belive it may help in making a decision. He also reviewed the Rigol some time last year, make sure you watch that one too.
Yes, I voted for him to do the 800 first! Hopefully he will be able to get to it soon. And yes, I have watched his review of the Rigol - that's actually what led me to this forum!
-
Have you been paying attention to all the discussions in this thread about the theory and practice of sampling?
In general there are many significant erroneous beliefs about sampling, held by far too many people - beginners and professionals alike.
Sampling is not an easy topic to understand; at one of my previous employers we used a very simple question to weed out those that understood it from those that thought they understood it.
I am happy to report that I do not misunderstand it. I simply don't understand it at all! But I'm learning ... :)
-
The problem isn't in the interpolation filter at all. Rigol implemented the sin x/x reconstruction wrong.
The sin(x)/x (in practice an approximation to it) reconstruction is the interpolation filter. Or more strictly it is the impulse response of the interpolation filter. The tap weights in the FIR interpolation filter come directly from that approximated sin(x)/x. Or vice versa if you prefer to look at it that way.
-
The problem isn't in the interpolation filter at all. Rigol implemented the sin x/x reconstruction wrong. That's it. There is no trade-off to be made here.
In the screenshots that have been posted so far, I could not see that it were "wrong". They just seem to truncate the sin(x)/x to a shorter length than others do, which leads to wider transition band (0.3*fs...0.7*fs) and to a lower reconstruction limit of about 0.3*fs. No one can do it "right" and implement an ideal brickwall at 0.5*fs. So anything below 0.5 is just a compromise at the end.
-
The difference between my two plots is in fact the interpolation filter. Figure7 was calculated with a sharper filter (Siglent-like, about 0.4*fs...0.6*fs), and figure8 uses a filter with a softer transition band (Rigol-like, about 0.3*fs...0.7*fs). The sharper interpolator does not help here. Contrary, I find figure8 a little bit more pleasing. Both suffer severely from aliasing of course.
That is theory.
In practice one scope has specified BW of 250MHz, softer transition reconstruction interpolator, and 312.5 MS/s sampling rate.
The other scope has specified BW 200 MHz, (slightly) sharper transition interpolator and minimum sample rate of 500 MS/s.
Which one will alias in practice and have worse waveform representation?
-
The problem isn't in the interpolation filter at all. Rigol implemented the sin x/x reconstruction wrong. That's it. There is no trade-off to be made here.
In the screenshots that have been posted so far, I could not see that it were "wrong". They just seem to truncate the sin(x)/x to a shorter length than others do, which leads to wider transition band (0.3*fs...0.7*fs) and to a lower reconstruction limit of about 0.3*fs. No one can do it "right" and implement an ideal brickwall at 0.5*fs. So anything below 0.5 is just a compromise at the end.
I disagree. All DSOs I've had through my hands have no trouble to show a sine wave to little over fs / 2.5. There is no upside to having a lower upper frequency simply due to less effective reconstruction as it basically reduces the useable bandwidth of a DSO as can be clearly seen from the screenshots.
-
I'm trying to understand the discussion of the two square-ish wave forms, and I'm probably getting it wrong ... I think you all are saying that neither of the wave forms represent the actual signal exactly; both are an approximation of the signal. Yes? Or did I get that totally wrong?
If I'm on the right track ... are the "extra bumps" in the wave form (the little squiggle when it changes from high to low or vice-versa) artifacts caused by the approximation, rather than features of the actual signal?
Again, I may be getting this totally wrong ... I'm trying to follow the discussion, but not sure I am on the right track.
-
If I'm on the right track ... are the "extra bumps" in the wave form (the little squiggle when it changes from high to low or vice-versa) artifacts caused by the approximation, rather than features of the actual signal?
Sorry to be adding even more confusion, but they can be both :)
-
You can't use Fourier series to construct functions with a step in them like a square wave.
not sure what you mean but... with some condition, such as 10 sampling points per rise/fall time.... you can..
However, when sampling a square wave like signal (which in the real world can never be a step function) it can turn into a step function in the digital world due to insufficient samples to follow the edges. And as a result you'll get Gibb's ears when applying the sin x / x filter to the sampled signal.
the problem is not Sinc or interpolation, the problem is lack of sample points, IOW Nyquist limit is violated. remove the BW limiter in siglent, and you'll see gibb's ear in siglent scope. however perfect the Sinc implementation is...
-
You can't use Fourier series to construct functions with a step in them like a square wave.
not sure what you mean but... with some condition, such as 10 sampling points per rise/fall time.... you can..
However, when sampling a square wave like signal (which in the real world can never be a step function) it can turn into a step function in the digital world due to insufficient samples to follow the edges. And as a result you'll get Gibb's ears when applying the sin x / x filter to the sampled signal.
the problem is not Sinc or interpolation, the problem is lack of sample points, IOW Nyquist limit is violated. remove the BW limiter in siglent, and you'll see gibb's ear in siglent scope. however perfect the Sinc implementation is...
That is near what I wrote ;) But the problem isn't Nyquist limit; the problem is the real world square wave becoming a step function in the digital domain.
-
Again, I may be getting this totally wrong ... I'm trying to follow the discussion, but not sure I am on the right track.
read the basic below... dont be deluded by nobody who says only him can understand sampling theory and the rest cant...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon
-
That is near what I wrote ;) But the problem isn't Nyquist limit; the problem is the real world square wave becoming a step function in the digital domain.
and you see a step in digital domain is because lack of sampling rate, we can go round and round egg and chicken thing. but the way i see it, lack of sampling rate is the cause, and step function/sampling (and also violation of nyquist) is the effect, when we violate nyquist, no interpolation theory can work. cause first, effect comes later. ymmv.
-
That is near what I wrote ;) But the problem isn't Nyquist limit; the problem is the real world square wave becoming a step function in the digital domain.
and you see a step in digital domain is because lack of sampling rate, we can go round and round egg and chicken thing. but the way i see it, lack of sampling rate is the cause, and step function/sampling (and also violation of nyquist) is the effect, when we violate nyquist, no interpolation theory can work. cause first, effect comes later. ymmv.
Not quite. You really need to see two seperate problems here. As DSOs have anti-aliasing filters which prevent violating Nyquist, you basically can't violate Nyquist in a DSO (assuming maximum possible sampling frequency). What is left is the effect the signal reconstruction algorithm has on the sampled signal. In the end sin x / x is a fairly crude method for reconstruction a signal so artefacts are to be expected where sine waves and square waves lead to different behaviours. With a better, higher order reconstruction filter you can achieve much better results compared to sin x/x at the expense of computational power (I did some experiments with this a long time ago).
-
With a better, higher order reconstruction filter you can achieve much better results compared to sin x/x at the expense of computational power (I did some experiments with this a long time ago).
i bet your higher order reconstruction filter is one of sin x/x derivative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%80%93Shannon_interpolation_formula
about "anti-aliasing filters which prevent violating Nyquist", we went through that rigol is not properly BW limited at 4CH turned on, and Sinc reconstruction implementation is a bit broken. but your earlier post is too general, so i'm agitated to reply... such as this...
The real problem is that you can only use Fourier series to construct continuous functions. You can't use Fourier series to construct functions with a step in them like a square wave. However, when sampling a square wave like signal (which in the real world can never be a step function) it can turn into a step function in the digital world due to insufficient samples to follow the edges. And as a result you'll get Gibb's ears when applying the sin x / x filter to the sampled signal
some part of it imho is misleading, esp the bolded line. a properly bw limited scope and correct implementation of Sinc derivative filter will not produce gibbs ear, thats not me saying, thats from theory saying (at least what i understand). ymmv.
-
at one of my previous employers we used a very simple question to weed out those that understood it from those that thought they understood it.
Is that why it's a previous employer? 😉😉
-
That is near what I wrote ;) But the problem isn't Nyquist limit; the problem is the real world square wave becoming a step function in the digital domain.
and you see a step in digital domain is because lack of sampling rate, we can go round and round egg and chicken thing. but the way i see it, lack of sampling rate is the cause, and step function/sampling (and also violation of nyquist) is the effect, when we violate nyquist, no interpolation theory can work. cause first, effect comes later. ymmv.
Not quite. You really need to see two seperate problems here. As DSOs have anti-aliasing filters which prevent violating Nyquist, you basically can't violate Nyquist in a DSO (assuming maximum possible sampling frequency). What is left is the effect the signal reconstruction algorithm has on the sampled signal. In the end sin x / x is a fairly crude method for reconstruction a signal so artefacts are to be expected where sine waves and square waves lead to different behaviours. With a better, higher order reconstruction filter you can achieve much better results compared to sin x/x at the expense of computational power (I did some experiments with this a long time ago).
sin(x)/x is the best reconstruction filter wrt accuracy. It is the highest order - infinite. Ideal low pass. Brick wall. Any realisable filter requires less computational power.
-
Have you been paying attention to all the discussions in this thread about the theory and practice of sampling?
In general there are many significant erroneous beliefs about sampling, held by far too many people - beginners and professionals alike.
Sampling is not an easy topic to understand; at one of my previous employers we used a very simple question to weed out those that understood it from those that thought they understood it.
I am happy to report that I do not misunderstand it. I simply don't understand it at all! But I'm learning ... :)
Excellent :)
That is an ideal beginning to a never-ending quest for deep understanding.
Fortunately that quest never ends; there are always new and interesting topics. Hence, in a real sense, I will continue to be a beginner - and love it :)
-
at one of my previous employers we used a very simple question to weed out those that understood it from those that thought they understood it.
Is that why it's a previous employer? 😉😉
Nah! :)
I left them because after >10 years I was in a fur-lined rut, and because the new CEO struck me as someone I didn't believe would be good for the company.
Both judgements turned out to be prescient :)
-
3 & 5 - One of the responses rightly points out that appropriate defaults can offset these issues. On the other hand, I have experienced the overwhelming frustration (with other sorts of instruments) of somehow changing one of those settings, and since I don't know enough to even know the setting is there - up to now the default has conveniently hidden it - I spend hours trying to figure what I'm doing wrong. :(
This is why most DSOs have a "Default" button that completely (almost, anyway) restores the scope to an original configuration. I use it routinely when I can't remember what I was using the scope for last and just want to start over. This prevents me missing something like having turned up the holdoff time that won't immediately be obvious but might cause some issues.
The user definable Default is even more useful so with the press of just one button to have the DSO set up just as you like it.
Further, some DSO's allow internal and/or external saving of a Setup file where you might have the scope configured for specific tasks.
-
With a better, higher order reconstruction filter you can achieve much better results compared to sin x/x at the expense of computational power (I did some experiments with this a long time ago).
i bet your higher order reconstruction filter is one of sin x/x derivative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%80%93Shannon_interpolation_formula
about "anti-aliasing filters which prevent violating Nyquist", we went through that rigol is not properly BW limited at 4CH turned on, and Sinc reconstruction implementation is a bit broken. but your earlier post is too general, so i'm agitated to reply... such as this...
The real problem is that you can only use Fourier series to construct continuous functions. You can't use Fourier series to construct functions with a step in them like a square wave. However, when sampling a square wave like signal (which in the real world can never be a step function) it can turn into a step function in the digital world due to insufficient samples to follow the edges. And as a result you'll get Gibb's ears when applying the sin x / x filter to the sampled signal
some part of it imho is misleading, esp the bolded line. a properly bw limited scope and correct implementation of Sinc derivative filter will not produce gibbs ear, thats not me saying, thats from theory saying (at least what i understand). ymmv.
That is true and I'm not denying that in any way. Actually, I wrote that earlier on. But in the real world DSO manufacturers push the bandwidth up high so you can get as close to Nyquist as possible and still get a decent sine wave. At the cost of some signals getting artefacts (like a square wave getting Gibbs ears). And as I wrote a few posts earlier, if you don't want Gibbs ears, then you need to turn the bandwidth limit on. But this will reduce bandwidth. IOW: the DSO manufacturers leave it up to the user whether they want the most bandwidth or the best signal representation. Given the fixed, maximum samplerate you have to choose between one or the other. And again, sin x / x reconstruction is rather crude so that doesn't help.
-
Again, I may be getting this totally wrong ... I'm trying to follow the discussion, but not sure I am on the right track.
read the basic below... dont be deluded by nobody who says only him can understand sampling theory and the rest cant...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon
The trouble starts because too many people think they understand Shannon/Nyquist, but don't and then mis-apply it in real life situations. Reading and re-reading the definitions rarely helps :(
The interplay between the s-plane and z-plane maths also causes many people difficulties.
OTOH, deep understanding of those topics allows remarkable tools with "baffling" properties to be built.
-
And again, sin x / x reconstruction is rather crude so that doesn't help.
Why do you keep writing that?
-
That is near what I wrote ;) But the problem isn't Nyquist limit; the problem is the real world square wave becoming a step function in the digital domain.
Yes, but not limited to digital. Gibbs ears aren't really a (direct) phenomon of the digital domain or Nyquist issues at all. You can get Gibbs ears in an entirely analog system and although they usually only appear after the transition instead of symmetrically around it (due to causality), with some effort you could make them symmetric. The nature of the Gibbs ears depend on the nature of the filter applied to transition; whether that filter is deliberate or a result of sampling and sinx/x interpolation is another issue.
-
With all this Nyquist, Shannon and Gibbs talk, I wonder what they would think which entry level 12 bit scope was better choice.. >:D
-
Is that why it's a previous employer? 😉😉
Nah! :)
I left them because after >10 years I was in a fur-lined rut, and because the new CEO struck me as someone I didn't believe would be good for the company.
Both judgements turned out to be prescient :)
I was just teasing, but thanks for the phrase; I've never heard "fur-lined rut" before. 😉
-
With all this Nyquist, Shannon and Gibbs talk, I wonder what they would think which entry level 12 bit scope was better choice.. >:D
"Mu", as per the famous Zen koan.
-
The interplay between the s-plane and z-plane maths also causes many people difficulties.
are you mathematician? if i give you any transfer function in laplace domain, can you get it back to time domain from first principle? we engineer/hobby grade aint mathematician, and we will not claim to be... although we are trained basic mathematics. we use professor's implementation/code what is practical. i didnt attend ee course but i bet they will not dig deep enough about laplace transform, only enough as engineer with some commonly used transform in a table. thats how we work. if you claim to be good enough, we would like to see some credentials, proofs or references, cheers.
-
Is that why it's a previous employer? 😉😉
Nah! :)
I left them because after >10 years I was in a fur-lined rut, and because the new CEO struck me as someone I didn't believe would be good for the company.
Both judgements turned out to be prescient :)
I was just teasing, but thanks for the phrase; I've never heard "fur-lined rut" before. 😉
I enjoyed the tease, of course.
I think I invented the phrase, but it may have been dredged up from the depths of my unconscious.
Most of the things I've invented turn out to be "unwitting re-inventions", dammit.
-
And again, sin x / x reconstruction is rather crude so that doesn't help.
Why do you keep writing that?
i guess he has some misunderstanding or using some different definition..
That is near what I wrote ;) But the problem isn't Nyquist limit; the problem is the real world square wave becoming a step function in the digital domain.
Yes, but not limited to digital. Gibbs ears aren't really a (direct) phenomon of the digital domain or Nyquist issues at all. You can get Gibbs ears in an entirely analog system and although they usually only appear after the transition instead of symmetrically around it (due to causality), with some effort you could make them symmetric. The nature of the Gibbs ears depend on the nature of the filter applied to transition; whether that filter is deliberate or a result of sampling and sinx/x interpolation is another issue.
the gibb's ears referred is not your real life pre-ringing and post-ringing circuit. we are talking about gibb's ears produced by mathematics that was not there in real life in the first place, please dont add unnecessary complexity to ever off-derailed entry level topic. cheers.
-
The interplay between the s-plane and z-plane maths also causes many people difficulties.
are you mathematician? if i give you any transfer function in laplace domain, can you get it back to time domain from first principle? we engineer/hobby grade aint mathematician, and we will not claim to be... although we are trained basic mathematics. we use professor's implementation/code what is practical. i didnt attend ee course but i bet they will not dig deep enough about laplace transform, only enough as engineer with some commonly used transform in a table. thats how we work. if you claim to be good enough, we would like to see some credentials, proofs or references, cheers.
It comes as no surprise to hear you haven't got an electronic (or other?) engineering qualification.
I know I'm third rate... I know a few people[1] who I regard as an order of magnitude more competent than me, and who I listen to very carefully when we disagree. I also know they know other people who they regard as an order of magnitude better than them. Hence I am third rate, at best.
[1] one was descended from two people who each had a different Nobel prize; lovely chap.
-
That is near what I wrote ;) But the problem isn't Nyquist limit; the problem is the real world square wave becoming a step function in the digital domain.
Yes, but not limited to digital. Gibbs ears aren't really a (direct) phenomon of the digital domain or Nyquist issues at all. You can get Gibbs ears in an entirely analog system and although they usually only appear after the transition instead of symmetrically around it (due to causality), with some effort you could make them symmetric. The nature of the Gibbs ears depend on the nature of the filter applied to transition; whether that filter is deliberate or a result of sampling and sinx/x interpolation is another issue.
Lots of previous discussion on that at https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/split-from-rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-amp-teardown/. (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/split-from-rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-amp-teardown/.) (And my post with photo of analogue filter response https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/split-from-rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-amp-teardown/msg5140797/#msg5140797 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/split-from-rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-amp-teardown/msg5140797/#msg5140797) .)
-
And again, sin x / x reconstruction is rather crude so that doesn't help.
Why do you keep writing that?
Because it is. As I wrote before you can use much longer filters which result in much better curve fitting so you can reconstruct frequency content very close to Nyquist. The computational power you have available is the limit.
-
With all this Nyquist, Shannon and Gibbs talk, I wonder what they would think which entry level 12 bit scope was better choice.. >:D
"Mu", as per the famous Zen koan.
Such an useful answer... Thank you.
-
With all this Nyquist, Shannon and Gibbs talk, I wonder what they would think which entry level 12 bit scope was better choice.. >:D
"Mu", as per the famous Zen koan.
Such an useful answer... Thank you.
That answer is appropriate in many circumstance, this included. That's why it continues to be relevant after 12 centuries. :)
-
Somehow this has gotten completely out of hand....
That was the first post:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5423063/#msg5423063 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5423063/#msg5423063)
So the topic was which of the two 12-bit entry-level scopes.
Because there are only these two, either DHO800(900) or SDS800X HD.
I think since hardly anyone who posts here can say anything about it because they don't know both of them, this is so off topic.
If I can't say anything about it, I look for and find something I can say something about.
That's not helpful unless the topic creator has found a solution and the topic itself is over.
Is that the case?
Then the topic can be closed here, we have plenty of basic topics on oscilloscopes.
If not, let's start again and point out the advantages/disadvantages of the two scope series.
I could help, as I had both or still have one of them.
-
If not, let's start again and point out the advantages/disadvantages of the two scope series.
I could help, as I had both or still have one of them.
What's your opinion between the two again? 😉
-
It comes as no surprise to hear you haven't got an electronic (or other?) engineering qualification.
i know how to read signal integrity from 1 bit scope, and i'm surprised by how many people who dont understand laplace transform... sorry no link provided :P as i am fourth rank in our junkyard lab crap...
And again, sin x / x reconstruction is rather crude so that doesn't help.
Why do you keep writing that?
Because it is. As I wrote before you can use much longer filters which result in much better curve fitting so you can reconstruct frequency content very close to Nyquist. The computational power you have available is the limit.
you missed our fun with gf providing data to various Lanczos width and its constructability BW :P... i'm still struggling to understand the code though as to where and how to set an optimum width to get constructability level at Sr / 2.2...
-
If not, let's start again and point out the advantages/disadvantages of the two scope series.
I could help, as I had both or still have one of them.
What's your opinion between the two again? 😉
And why. The why is essential.
-
I was having a lot of fun reading the (off) topic.
But you are right, very few posts try to answer the main question, and very few people has had both.
I can only say the SDS800X-HD is surprising me for the better. I think I like it more than the DSOX1204G. I can't really compare it with anything else though.
Also, to the OP, I don't find it problematic, cumbersome, slow or fiddly to do basic probing around, at all. Unless you just don't have space in your bench and need to mount it on a VESA arm, i'd try it. The Bode plot is great, too, although it needs an external AWG (additional expense).
Why don't you ask specific questions? Maybe Martin and others can answer.
-
Somehow this has gotten completely out of hand....
That was the first post:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5423063/#msg5423063 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5423063/#msg5423063)
So the topic was which of the two 12-bit entry-level scopes.
Because there are only these two, either DHO800(900) or SDS800X HD.
I think since hardly anyone who posts here can say anything about it because they don't know both of them, this is so off topic.
If I can't say anything about it, I look for and find something I can say something about.
That's not helpful unless the topic creator has found a solution and the topic itself is over.
Is that the case?
Then the topic can be closed here, we have plenty of basic topics on oscilloscopes.
If not, let's start again and point out the advantages/disadvantages of the two scope series.
I could help, as I had both or still have one of them.
Martin, I posted a question in another thread in response to a statement you made - something to the effect that you would say more (I think about comparing the two?) in another thread, but that your conclusions might be surprising. I can't seem to find where that was; I'll keep looking. But as I recall, my question was whether your conclusions had changed any in the several months since that time.
-
And again, sin x / x reconstruction is rather crude so that doesn't help.
Why do you keep writing that?
Because it is. As I wrote before you can use much longer filters which result in much better curve fitting so you can reconstruct frequency content very close to Nyquist. The computational power you have available is the limit.
How can you have much longer filters than the infinitely long sin(x)/x ? A modified version can be as long as you want within the available computational power. Give us the details of one of your filters and show that it is better than can be achieved with the well-known 'windowed' versions of sin(x)/x allowed the same computational power as yours.
-
looking for "credential", i found an example how BW limited scope can miss things out... you can quick read the possibly fabricated story until the Analog Discovery "recommended for beginners" screen capture... how it missed 96MHz oscillation... the fix? (or verification) use SA (probably an expensive one) and a 300MHz scope... so the conclusion? if you want to see oscillation or something wrong in your circuit, get a SA and 3x the suspected oscillation freq DSO... so for example... if oscillation is at 300MHz, get a 1GHz DSO (and SA too and other TEs mumbo jumbo) one, so your measurement is metrologically sound... thats the (spending) more, for less (novel or fancy technique work) just as we typically did or recommended ;) Practical Traps with a One Transistor Audio Amplifier, Solderless Breadboards, and Oscilloscopes (https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/practical-traps-with-a-one-transistor-audio-amplifier-solderless-breadboards-and-oscilloscopes/) unless your name is Jim William, your tin can novel technique will be commonly accepted as crap by professionals (or retired there is)... ymmv.
(https://entertaininghacks.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/digilentad.jpg)
(https://entertaininghacks.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/saoff.jpg) (https://entertaininghacks.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/saon.jpg)
(https://entertaininghacks.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/2465-2.jpg) (https://entertaininghacks.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/2465-3.jpg)
what could possibly go wrong with emitter follower on breadboard unless purposely impedance mismatch at long input lead, no?
(https://entertaininghacks.files.wordpress.com/2024/03/scb.jpg)
-
looking for "credential", i found an example how BW limited scope can miss things out... you can quick read the possibly fabricated story until the Analog Discovery "recommended for beginners" screen capture... how it missed 96MHz oscillation... the fix? (or verification) use SA (probably an expensive one) and a 300MHz scope... so the conclusion? if you want to see oscillation or something wrong in your circuit, get a SA and 3x the suspected oscillation freq DSO... so for example... if oscillation is at 300MHz, get a 1GHz DSO (and SA too and other TEs mumbo jumbo) one... thats the (spending) more, for less (novel or fancy technique work) just as we typically did or recommended ;) Practical Traps with a One Transistor Audio Amplifier, Solderless Breadboards, and Oscilloscopes (https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2024/03/16/practical-traps-with-a-one-transistor-audio-amplifier-solderless-breadboards-and-oscilloscopes/) unless your name is Jim William, your tin can novel technique will be commonly accepted as crap by professionals (or retired there is)... ymmv.
...
what could possibly go wrong with emitter follower on breadboard unless purposely impedance mismatch at long input lead, no?
...
A few points about that rant:
- that is a complete misrepresentation of the article, in too many ways to bother to describe. One possible reason is that mechatrommer has completely misunderstood the article, but I will leave other people to infer reasons
- the few technical points are wrong:
- DSO-vs-analogue scopes is irrelevant; it is a red herring mechatrommer has invented
- there is no impedance mismatch
- £25 analysers could have been used, but weren't since the £350 SA was easier to use
- what is the benefit of make it difficult to read?
By all means read the article and see whether mechatrommer's points have any validity whatsoever!
-
typical strawman fallacy, taking my words out of context. didnt i use question mark? or words possibly/probably? where did i mentioned "analogue scope"? or even comparing it with DSO? ;) i know the article is about why you should not use breadboard... which to some of us is pretty invalid anyway, just because of one FU scenario. but my highlight is on BW limited scope demonstrated in the article, not really anything to do with the main topic specifically.
-
typical strawman fallacy, taking my words out of context. didnt i use question mark? or words possibly/probably? where did i mentioned "analogue scope"? or even comparing it with DSO? ;) i know the article is about why you should not use breadboard... which to some of us is pretty invalid anyway, just because of one FU scenario. but my highlight is on BW limited scope demonstrated in the article, not really anything to do with the main topic specifically.
Good to see you acknowledge the misrepresentation, even if you don't mention why you decided to do it.
If you specifically mention "DSOs" rather than "scopes", presumably you think the digitisation is important and relevant. It isn't - as I clearly stated in the article.
Why not address the other points I made? On second thoughts, don't; they are too off topic and I doubt anybody will be interested.
If you make something difficult to read then you shouldn't be surprised if people can't work out what you are trying to say. I suggest you reread at least the first post in a thread that was so timely and pointed that it became "sticky" stunningly quickly: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/why-writing-style-and-grammar-matters-in-posts/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/why-writing-style-and-grammar-matters-in-posts/)
-
It's not (only) a bandwidth issue. It's the failure to interpolate the sample data points correctly.
EDIT: Rephrased the question.
@shapirus, assume that you probe an almost ideal square wave and a scope would show you either figure7 or figure8.
Which one would you prefer subjectively? [ I'll explain the difference later in order to get an unbiased vote. ]
Neither pictures are correct. They both show Gibbs ears which do not exist in the real world. If you want to prevent seeing Gibbs ears, you need to use extra bandwidth limiting so the sin x/x reconstruction does not add the Gibbs ears. IOW, for the best view of a square wave you need to bandwidth limit it in respect to the oscilloscope's bandwidth.
Actually, they do, & analog 'scopes also see them.
The group delay for all frequencies which make up the transition varies with real world systems, so they are displaced in time, & some frequency components are time delayed enough w.r.t. others that they produce both overshoots & undershoots.
When we were using older BW type TV transmitters to transmit PAL colour TV signals, we used a sin ^2 pulse & bar to check for such problems, (within a limited bandwidth, this was much more useful than a squarewave).
We had a magic device called a transversal equaliser, which was used to shift the overshoots & undershoots around to fit the specification.
It was a very complex adjustable filter network, & was a pig to adjust.
-
What's your opinion between the two again? 😉
We're only 31 pages into the discussion--it's too early for conclusions. :-DD
-
This is why most DSOs have a "Default" button that completely (almost, anyway) restores the scope to an original configuration. I use it routinely when I can't remember what I was using the scope for last and just want to start over. This prevents me missing something like having turned up the holdoff time that won't immediately be obvious but might cause some issues.
I must admit to being lazy, and occasionally using the "beam find" button >:D
"Real" 'scopes don't need no steenkin' "beam find" button! ;D
-
This is why most DSOs have a "Default" button that completely (almost, anyway) restores the scope to an original configuration. I use it routinely when I can't remember what I was using the scope for last and just want to start over. This prevents me missing something like having turned up the holdoff time that won't immediately be obvious but might cause some issues.
I must admit to being lazy, and occasionally using the "beam find" button >:D
"Real" 'scopes engineers don't need no steenkin' "beam find" button! ;D
FTFY :)
My highest bandwidth scope, a truly strange and wonderful beast, doesn't have a beam find button.
It does have a "samples/cm" control in addition to the normal "time/cm" control, plus a "time magnification" control with a range of 1-100. It also has 200MHz BC107 transistors in the signal chain and a 1.7GHz bandwidth. And GR874 connectors, presumably because they thought that era's BNC connectors/cables weren't good enough for 2GHz.
I ought to do a thread on it, mainly to unsettle some of the more, um, traditional people here >:D
-
Have you been paying attention to all the discussions in this thread about the theory and practice of sampling?
In general there are many significant erroneous beliefs about sampling, held by far too many people - beginners and professionals alike.
Sampling is not an easy topic to understand; at one of my previous employers we used a very simple question to weed out those that understood it from those that thought they understood it.
I am happy to report that I do not misunderstand it. I simply don't understand it at all! But I'm learning ... :)
My attitude is "Bah! Humbug!" It's just mixing in drag! >:(
But then again, RF people see mixers everywhere! :D
-
Have you been paying attention to all the discussions in this thread about the theory and practice of sampling?
In general there are many significant erroneous beliefs about sampling, held by far too many people - beginners and professionals alike.
Sampling is not an easy topic to understand; at one of my previous employers we used a very simple question to weed out those that understood it from those that thought they understood it.
I am happy to report that I do not misunderstand it. I simply don't understand it at all! But I'm learning ... :)
My attitude is "Bah! Humbug!" It's just mixing in drag! >:(
But then again, RF people see mixers everywhere! :D
Yes, I've gradually learned the wisdom of that fact and the observation of the fact!
Multiplication rulez :)
-
When we were using older BW type TV transmitters to transmit PAL colour TV signals, we used a sin ^2 pulse & bar to check for such problems, (within a limited bandwidth, this was much more useful than a squarewave).
We had a magic device called a transversal equaliser, which was used to shift the overshoots & undershoots around to fit the specification.
It was a very complex adjustable filter network, & was a pig to adjust.
In the lab where 'pulse and bar' was invented we called those equalisers 'fairy fingers boxes'.
-
What's your opinion between the two again? 😉
We're only 31 pages into the discussion--it's too early for conclusions. :-DD
Only 16 pages into the discussion with my settings. 😉
We've got to be at least half way there, then Martin can share what he already knows. 🤣
-
When we were using older BW type TV transmitters to transmit PAL colour TV signals, we used a sin ^2 pulse & bar to check for such problems, (within a limited bandwidth, this was much more useful than a squarewave).
We had a magic device called a transversal equaliser, which was used to shift the overshoots & undershoots around to fit the specification.
It was a very complex adjustable filter network, & was a pig to adjust.
In the lab where 'pulse and bar' was invented we called those equalisers 'fairy fingers boxes'.
In the wonderful world of vestigial sideband transmission & reception, they were worth their weight in gold, back in the days of Marconi & AWA high level modulated beasts, as were the other, equally messy tweakers for "Differential Phase & Gain".
Along came the next generation, which were, in the main, NEC low level modulated Tx, & all those wonderful devices were retired.
The NECs were that good that you could receive them, chuck 'em together, install them test them & the results would be "near as dammit" to what NEC got at the factory on their pre-delivery tests.
The LGT ones, were, let's say, not so good, but still had all the tweaks built in.
-
I must admit to being lazy, and occasionally using the "beam find" button >:D
"Real" 'scopes don't need no steenkin' "beam find" button! ;D
at least now i know he got sense of humor.. maybe earlier talk about rigol gui being like ancient egyptian hygrogliphs and too much tools in a toolbix being bad was only meant as a joke... and err, the 'breadboard is bad due to 'purposedly excessive' parasitics inductance' too is a joke that i mistakenly interpreted as seriously written article.. ;D
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
-
https://siglentna.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds1000x-hd-digital-storage-oscilloscope/
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
What do you need most? Vertical resolution (1) or bandwidth (2)?
1) SDS1000X-HD
2) SDS2000X-P
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
So so many things might decide which, display size, mem depth, sampling rate (single or all channels active) and a myriad of other features available beyond entry level DSO's.
And of course budget.
Now we have had a small range of the X HD models on the bench while doing PD checks, SDS1000X HD models are quite nice to use especially with the uprated knobs that offer a quite nice feel however that is of course subjective as others might prefer a different style.
With their 10" display the top ribbon menu layout is the same as the more upmarket models and larger too which makes for a better touch experience......not that we leave fingerprints on the display of a new DSO when we can use a mouse instead. :phew:
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
The feature set of the 800X-HD is virtually identical to the 1000X-HD. The latter is just much nicer AFAIK. Better ADCs (EDIT: I thought that was the case, seems it isn't), screen, encoders and build quality. The 50R input path is integrated and it has more USB ports. It's a bit like a thinkpad (the older models) vs a regular laptop.
The 2000X-Plus is just higher class. Twice the memory, bandwidth, sample rate, true MSO, AWG, better timebase... But older, a bit slower in general and not 12 bits.
The "real" next step is the 2000X-HD, but it's a leap in price.
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
The feature set of the 800X-HD is virtually identical to the 1000X-HD. The latter is just much nicer AFAIK. Better ADCs, screen, encoders and build quality. The 50R input path is integrated and it has more USB ports.
It would be nice if you explain what facts this claim of better ADC's is based on.
Since quite often beliefs start to spread as truths and take on a life of their own, it would be good to mention what the claim is based on, unless it, or the information referring to it, appears in a public datasheet.
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
The feature set of the 800X-HD is virtually identical to the 1000X-HD. The latter is just much nicer AFAIK. Better ADCs, screen, encoders and build quality. The 50R input path is integrated and it has more USB ports.
It would be nice if you explain what facts this claim of better ADC's is based on.
Since quite often beliefs start to spread as truths and take on a life of their own, it would be good to mention what the claim is based on, unless it, or the information referring to it, appears in a public datasheet.
Hello Rf-loop,
I don't know. I thought the 800X-HD had a lower-end ADC and it was shown on a teardown. I cannot find it, and I might have wrongly inferred it. I was "sure" it was the ADC12D500, and the 1000X-HD had the ADC12D1000, like the 2000X-HD.
In any case, the claim is baseless.
¿Could you confirm the 800X-HD also has two ADC12D1000?
I will edit my post removing the claim in any case.
-
Hi,
You may have had this in mind:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-new-sds800x-hd-first-bactch-unboxing-and-noise-compare-with-dho800/msg5248878/#msg5248878 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-new-sds800x-hd-first-bactch-unboxing-and-noise-compare-with-dho800/msg5248878/#msg5248878)
Although a teardown, it was not clarified which ADCs are used.
-
Yes, that had to be it. If the 800X-HD has the same ADC, well, I don't know how Siglent managed to fit the whole package and features on €409.
-
Defpom SDS814X HD teardown:
https://youtu.be/XLC1CPWznTE?t=217
-
Doesn't help the matter either.
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
The feature set of the 800X-HD is virtually identical to the 1000X-HD. The latter is just much nicer AFAIK. Better ADCs, screen, encoders and build quality. The 50R input path is integrated and it has more USB ports.
It would be nice if you explain what facts this claim of better ADC's is based on.
Since quite often beliefs start to spread as truths and take on a life of their own, it would be good to mention what the claim is based on, unless it, or the information referring to it, appears in a public datasheet.
Hello Rf-loop,
I don't know. I thought the 800X-HD had a lower-end ADC and it was shown on a teardown. I cannot find it, and I might have wrongly inferred it. I was "sure" it was the ADC12D500, and the 1000X-HD had the ADC12D1000, like the 2000X-HD.
In any case, the claim is baseless.
¿Could you confirm the 800X-HD also has two ADC12D1000?
I will edit my post removing the claim in any case.
Mouser has the ADC12D1000 @ $1000 each, as mentioned above by Antonio90 how can Siglent sell the SDS800X HD at the price point they offer :clap:
Suspect Siglent has a agreement with all the line up of TI related IC products and gets a really good deal from them, otherwise they'd be heading for Bankruptcy :o
Best,
-
Mouser has the ADC12D1000 @ $1000 each, as mentioned above by Antonio90 how can Siglent sell the SDS800X HD at the price point they offer :clap:
Suspect Siglent has a agreement with all the line up of TI related IC products and gets a really good deal from them, otherwise they'd be heading for Bankruptcy :o
Yeah well if we put 2 and 2 together I believe we have a simple answer.
Data points
Considerable reduction in cost of SDS2000X HD models
Introduction of SDS800X HD and SDS1000X HD
If and if they all use the same 12bit ADC, buy price is not each but by the 1000's or possibly 10k or even larger lots.
Mike, you of anyone will know how large orders of expensive IC's can dramatically reduce BOM costs.
It's all about quantity......
-
Mike, you of anyone will know how large orders of expensive IC's can dramatically reduce BOM costs.
It's all about quantity......
Exactly, but even so, selling a DSO of this calibre and maturity at this price point is like getting a Porsche for the price of a Kia :-+
And we know what the Porsches cost :o
Best,
-
Mike, you of anyone will know how large orders of expensive IC's can dramatically reduce BOM costs.
It's all about quantity......
Exactly, but even so, selling a DSO of this calibre and maturity at this price point is like getting a Porsche for the price of a Kia :-+
Yup.
I was lucky enough to get a SDS814X HD in early Feb and first impressions were WOW, what a step up from the previous X-E and adopting the UI and a large amount of the feature set of the more upmarket models it was obvious that these would be a big hit.....especially at their comparatively low cost. :o
Privileged also to see the beta firmwares under development and all those good things it will bring to us soon.
There's another point I've noticed since very recently getting these in stock that the SN# format has changed a little to now have a last 5 digit numeric system for each production year.
I wonder how high that number has reached and we're not halfway through the year......
-
Privileged also to see the beta firmwares under development and all those good things it will bring to us soon.
Are they going to add the data logger and WiFi anytime soon? I was a bit surprised to not see those (unless I missed them in the manual) as they clearly already have figured out how to do it in the SDS1104X-E.
-
Privileged also to see the beta firmwares under development and all those good things it will bring to us soon.
Are they going to add the data logger and WiFi anytime soon? I was a bit surprised to not see those (unless I missed them in the manual) as they clearly already have figured out how to do it in the SDS1104X-E.
Not immediately it seems however it is on their radar.....a few of us have insisted it is.
I would imagine with the existing SDS800X HD NTP capability, Logging could be enabled and it follows WiFi should be too.
Or just maybe feature sets will not made to overlap to maintain X-E sales. :-//
:popcorn:
-
What's the problem with WiFi in the Siglent, exactly? It can operate as a USB host, right? Then, since it's Linux-based, it should be possible to build a kernel module for any particular WiFi chipset. What then? Lack of userspace software?
Or let's put it this way: has anyone ever attempted modding or at least looking into the scope's operating system?
-
What's the problem with WiFi in the Siglent, exactly? It can operate as a USB host, right? Then, since it's Linux-based, it should be possible to build a kernel module for any particular WiFi chipset. What then? Lack of userspace software?
Or let's put it this way: has anyone ever attempted modding or at least looking into the scope's operating system?
WiFi is only currently supported in the 4ch X-E models using the TP Link TL-WN725N USB dongle which with a good WiFi access point provides many meters of connectivity plus NTP time and negates the need for a wired LAN connection.
The TL-WN725N dongle was supported with its specific driver within the X-E OS on day one release.
The 2ch SDS2000X-E range has this WiFi support also.
However the newer SDS800X HD models use a totally different OS that's based on the more upmarket models so incorporating into the new OS will be somewhat more of a challenge....which is why we have pleaded with Siglent to enable it.
-
However the newer SDS800X HD models use a totally different OS that's based on the more upmarket models so incorporating into the new OS will be somewhat more of a challenge....which is why we have pleaded with Siglent to enable it.
They've yet to do so on the SDS2000X+ models... :(
-
Does anyone have a link to something that specifies what OS is used by model for the current and previous generation(s) of Siglent scopes?
-
What if someone wanted to go one better than the DHO800/900 or SDS800X? What would be the best choice for the next step up?
The feature set of the 800X-HD is virtually identical to the 1000X-HD. The latter is just much nicer AFAIK. Better ADCs, screen, encoders and build quality. The 50R input path is integrated and it has more USB ports.
It would be nice if you explain what facts this claim of better ADC's is based on.
Since quite often beliefs start to spread as truths and take on a life of their own, it would be good to mention what the claim is based on, unless it, or the information referring to it, appears in a public datasheet.
Hello Rf-loop,
I don't know. I thought the 800X-HD had a lower-end ADC and it was shown on a teardown. I cannot find it, and I might have wrongly inferred it. I was "sure" it was the ADC12D500, and the 1000X-HD had the ADC12D1000, like the 2000X-HD.
In any case, the claim is baseless.
¿Could you confirm the 800X-HD also has two ADC12D1000?
I will edit my post removing the claim in any case.
Following up on this, in case anyone cares, Performa01 stated in a previous post that the 800X-HD's ADC is capable of 4x1GS/s. That excludes the ADC12D500/800 (1/1.6 GS/s), and the next step up is the ADC12D1000.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5476771/#msg5476771 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5476771/#msg5476771)
-
Following up on this, in case anyone cares, Performa01 stated in a previous post that the 800X-HD is capable of 4x1GS/s. That excludes the ADC12D500/800 (1/1.6 GS/s), and the next step up is the ADC12D1000.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5476771/#msg5476771 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5476771/#msg5476771)
Err No !
SDS800X HD ADC's are not configured in the same manner as 2000X+ or HD DSO's.
Just 500 MSa/s are available with 3 or 4 channels active. With just 2 channels active, certainly 1 GSa/s is available but in the post you linked 2 Maths channels are also active however they do not affect the acquisition system as additional active channels do.
From the datasheet:
Sample rate
(Max.)
One channel mode: 2 GSa/s,
Two channel mode: 1 GSa/s,
Four channel mode: 500 MSa/s
-
Following up on this, in case anyone cares, Performa01 stated in a previous post that the 800X-HD is capable of 4x1GS/s. That excludes the ADC12D500/800 (1/1.6 GS/s), and the next step up is the ADC12D1000.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5476771/#msg5476771 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/msg5476771/#msg5476771)
Err No !
SDS800X HD ADC's are not configured in the same manner as 2000X+ or HD DSO's.
Just 500 MSa/s are available with 3 or 4 channels active. With just 2 channels active, certainly 1 GSa/s is available but in the post you linked 2 Maths channels are also active however they do not affect the acquisition system as additional active channels do.
From the datasheet:
Sample rate
(Max.)
One channel mode: 2 GSa/s,
Two channel mode: 1 GSa/s,
Four channel mode: 500 MSa/s
Yeah, typo. The ADC present on the 800X-HD is capable of 4x1GS/s. Even though the acquisition is limited to 2GS/s max, the extra sampling rate is not wasted, so somehow still used to avoid aliasing, and reducing tradeoffs of AA filters.
The relevant part of the linked post is the second to last paragraph, which all but settles the matter about the ADC used.
-
i wonder why sds800x is not capable 500MSps CH1,CH2 and 1GSps CH3 (CH4 off) since it has 2x 1GSps ADCs, correct?
-
i wonder why sds800x is not capable 500MSps CH1,CH2 and 1GSps CH3 (CH4 off) since it has 2x 1GSps ADCs, correct?
It could be a bus limitation? That would amount to 3GS/s throughput from the ADCs
-
Privileged also to see the beta firmwares under development and all those good things it will bring to us soon.
Do you know if they plan to enable text anti-aliasing?
-
Privileged also to see the beta firmwares under development and all those good things it will bring to us soon.
Do you know if they plan to enable text anti-aliasing?
Hopefully never as this would make the screen unreadable for people with astigmatism. I can't use Windows 10 and later because of this.
-
Do you know if they plan to enable text anti-aliasing?
Hopefully never as this would make the screen unreadable for people with astigmatism. I can't use Windows 10 and later because of this.
The SDS800X HD already uses anti-aliasig when you enable the larger fonts. Several of the larger SDS scopes (starting with 10" screens) seem to use anti-aliased fonts as well, even with the regular font size.
First time I see the claim that anti-aliased fonts clash with astigmatism. I have astigmatism as well and don't experienca any issues with anti-aliased fonts on any platform. If it's a widespread problem in your opinion, would you have a reference?
-
Do you know if they plan to enable text anti-aliasing?
Hopefully never as this would make the screen unreadable for people with astigmatism. I can't use Windows 10 and later because of this.
The SDS800X HD already uses anti-aliasig when you enable the larger fonts. Several of the larger SDS scopes (starting with 10" screens) seem to use anti-aliased fonts as well, even with the regular font size.
First time I see the claim that anti-aliased fonts clash with astigmatism. I have astigmatism as well and don't experienca any issues with anti-aliased fonts on any platform. If it's a widespread problem in your opinion, would you have a reference?
Just Google for disabling anti-aliasing on Windows. You'll find quite a few discussions and attempts to disable anti-aliasing. If you have astigmatism, then focussing on anti-aliased text causes more strain on your eyes & brain. With astigmatism, you received a blurry image which you brain corrects to a sharp image. But if the image is blurred to begin with, then this process needs more effort or doesn't work at all. On a very high resolution display this is less of a problem but on typical full-HD monitors, it is.
-
I agree with Nico, on small fonts, they are clearer if anti aliasing is NOT used. On large fonts it makes no difference.
-
I agree with Nico, on small fonts, they are clearer if anti aliasing is used. On large fonts it makes no difference.
That is not what I wrote... Unless a high-resolution display is used, anti-aliasing makes things worse instead of better for many people.
-
I agree with Nico, on small fonts, they are clearer if anti aliasing is used. On large fonts it makes no difference.
That is not what I wrote... Unless a high-resolution display is used, anti-aliasing makes things worse instead of better for many people.
Don't be nitpick. I reduced the equation.
Super high density display is NOT used.
So small font's - better with no anti aliasing.
-
I do agree that a minimum resolution (pixels per character) is required to make anti-aliased fonts work really well.
Nevertheless, when I look at screenshots from the SDS2000X plus which people have posted here, they show anti-aliased fonts. Using the same 1024*600 resolution and apparently the same font size as the 800X HD, just a larger display diagonal.
I do find various discussions on the net where people would like to switch off anti-aliasing. I have not found a single one where people connect that wish to astigmatism though. That claimed connection is what I doubt. I think it's just a matter of personal habit and preference whether one prefers "smooth anti-aliased" or "crisp pixels".
-
Here's an example of a properly implemented AA configuration UI. Whenever one wants to implement font AA, it should be at least this configurable. It's a hint for the scope UI devs, if they are reading this.
[attachimg=1]
-
I think it's just a matter of personal habit and preference whether one prefers "smooth anti-aliased" or "crisp pixels".
You might say that my eyes provide "natural" anti aliasing... ;D
I am myopic, and it is not a preference. As fonts go smaller in size, I reach the point where I can clearly read non anti aliased fonts, and those that are anti aliased I have problem.
Seriously, that is a known problem. When image is blurry, eye is confused and think it did not focus properly. So it is "hunting" for focus.
Similar to when camera hunts for focus.
-
Do you know if they plan to enable text anti-aliasing?
Hopefully never as this would make the screen unreadable for people with astigmatism. I can't use Windows 10 and later because of this.
The SDS800X HD already uses anti-aliasig when you enable the larger fonts. Several of the larger SDS scopes (starting with 10" screens) seem to use anti-aliased fonts as well, even with the regular font size.
First time I see the claim that anti-aliased fonts clash with astigmatism. I have astigmatism as well and don't experienca any issues with anti-aliased fonts on any platform. If it's a widespread problem in your opinion, would you have a reference?
I also have astigmatism+diplodia, what is even worse, it is variable, depending on light, my physical condition, etc, so I can’t get corrective optics for it. On a good day I can read fine with just el-cheapo reading glasses, and on a bad day, I just have to give up. Even when I have a good day and I can read fine, the moment ant-aliasing comes into the picture, my eyes just drift out of focus. The same applies to anything low in contrast.
-
<offtopic rant mode on>
Back in the old days I spend quite some effort and money to get really high quality CRT monitors which had a super sharp image. The likes of 21" Eizo models with active deflection to get the image sharp right into the corners and LG Flatron have been on my desk. And ofcourse high quality VGA cables with seperate BNCs for each color. Blessed was the day I got a TFT monitor. Such a nice sharp picture. But then UI graphics designers came in and decided text should be unsharp again like on the worst CRT monitors. FFS! :palm:
-
I'm younger I guess, and only had contact with crappy CRT monitors (and computers) back then. I also have had crappy TFT displays.
The best money invested for my masters and first job was a laptop with a high quality HiDPI display. Nowadays I skimp on anything but a good monitor and good, ergonomic, keyboard/mouse.
Even on Windows 11, a good QHD or UHD flicker-free monitor upscaled is the best thing for long hours working in front of a screen.
Get a high resolution screen, not too big, and upscale everything to 150-200%, configure ClearType properly, and I think you'll be set.
-
Back in the old days I spend quite some effort and money to get really high quality CRT monitors which had a super sharp image. The likes of 21" Eizo models with active deflection to get the image sharp right into the corners and LG Flatron have been on my desk. And ofcourse high quality VGA cables with seperate BNCs for each color. Blessed was the day I got a TFT monitor.
contrary to my experience. i didnt spend high end on CRT, they were all good enough... then came TFT age, CRT almost all (the good and big one) phased out from shop and it sucks, viewing angle of early TFT was too bad, dimmed or change color during photo editing, what made the pro difference though is the weight. but blessed to latest LCD/LED tech that viewing angle problem is no more.
Such a nice sharp picture. But then UI graphics designers came in and decided text should be unsharp again like on the worst CRT monitors. FFS! :palm:
we can make analogy between line/vector plot and Sinc plot, edgy vs smooth. without antialiasing/blurry effect, fonts will visible edge pixelization.. i dont have problem with pixelized font, but i think i prefer smooth edge one.
-
I have been working through the datasheets, user manuals, etc. for each of these units. There are a couple of specifications that I don't fully understand, and don't understand how to compare between the units:
History, waveform recording, sequence, memory depth - I'm not sure if some or all of these are the same thing, or if not, how they relate to each other. The Rigol specs are 25Mpts of memory depth and a max of 500K of frames for "hardware real-time waveform recording"; meanwhile, the Siglent specs are 50Mpts of memory depth and a max of 80K frames for "History" - but also adds up to 80K of "segments" for "Sequence."
Waveform update rate - the Rigol says up to 30k "vector mode" and up to 1M in "UltraAcquire mode"; the Siglent says up to 80K "normal mode" and up to 500K in "sequence mode." Do "vector mode" = "normal mode" and "UltraAquire mode" = "sequence mode"?
For either of these, presumably more is always better ... but how much difference do they make in actual usage, and when / where do they make a difference?
-
Hi,
Waveform update rate - the Rigol says up to 30k "vector mode" and up to 1M in "UltraAcquire mode"; the Siglent says up to 80K "normal mode" and up to 500K in "sequence mode." Do "vector mode" = "normal mode" and "UltraAquire mode" = "sequence mode"?
"Normal Mode" means normal acquisition at siglent.
In this mode, the scope achieves up to 120000 wfs/s under certain conditions (other than specified in the data sheet).
In "Sequence Mode", which is another acquisition mode, it reaches up to over 500000 wfs/s.
"Vector mode" is somewhat misleading, it is also the normal mode that is meant with the rigol.
"Ultra Acquire" is actually the sequence mode.
Unlike the Siglent, the rigol does not allow you to choose between dot and vector mode in the display menu; the rigol always has vector mode active.
The same applies to interpolation.
For either of these, presumably more is always better ... but how much difference do they make in actual usage, and when / where do they make a difference?
In practice, I did not notice any significant benefit when using ultra acquire mode with the rigol.
-
@KungFuJosh
However, even the VESA mount can be done for Siglent with the help of 3D printing and a little creativity.
Here's one: https://www.printables.com/model/863752-siglent-sds8xx-vesa-mount (https://www.printables.com/model/863752-siglent-sds8xx-vesa-mount)
-
"Normal Mode" means normal acquisition at siglent.
In this mode, the scope achieves up to 120000 wfs/s under certain conditions (other than specified in the data sheet).
In "Sequence Mode", which is another acquisition mode, it reaches up to over 500000 wfs/s.
Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but is "sequence mode" the same thing as "segmented memory"? (the way that R&S, Keysight, etc. define it)
The "fast segmentation" mode on some of our scopes can significantly increase waveform acquisition rate, and that's why I'm wondering if "sequence mode" is the same thing
https://youtu.be/7KoMjKwI6qw?t=462
-
"Normal Mode" means normal acquisition at siglent.
In this mode, the scope achieves up to 120000 wfs/s under certain conditions (other than specified in the data sheet).
In "Sequence Mode", which is another acquisition mode, it reaches up to over 500000 wfs/s.
Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but is "sequence mode" the same thing as "segmented memory"? (the way that R&S, Keysight, etc. define it)
The "fast segmentation" mode on some of our scopes can significantly increase waveform acquisition rate, and that's why I'm wondering if "sequence mode" is the same thing
https://youtu.be/7KoMjKwI6qw?t=462
Yes, they talk about segmented memory.
Funny enough, in Sequence menu, you set number of segments .... ;D
There is also always running History mode, where scope also, in a same way, also remembers all previous (to extent of available memory of course) triggered captures from normal running mode.
You can use it same as Segmented mode, except Sequence(Segmented mode) has advantage of much faster triggering.
I believe some R&S scopes have the same feature. ;D
-
I don't know if it is news-worthy or not ... but I have (finally) made my decision and submitted an order. Now anxiously awaiting my new DSO!
-
I don't know if it is news-worthy or not ... but I have (finally) made my decision and submitted an order. Now anxiously awaiting my new DSO!
?
-
I don't know if it is news-worthy or not ... but I have (finally) made my decision and submitted an order. Now anxiously awaiting my new DSO!
And you have asked the seller to decide which model to send you, to keep up the suspense? ;)
-
Maybe I should set up a poll - how many people think I went with the Rigol, and how many think I went with the Siglent?
-
My bet is the MXO 5
Edit: if I had to bet, which I don't, it would be the Rigol. And it would be a good choice. I don't think you can really go wrong here with the two options and your requirements TBH.
-
Here's a hint. I ordered it several days ago, but it hasn't shipped yet. Trying to be patient ...
-
With the release of the SDS800X HD series, there is no longer any reason to choose anything else.
-
Maybe I should set up a poll - how many people think I went with the Rigol, and how many think I went with the Siglent?
Please include option 3 for those of us who just blew in on page 33 and haven't invested any emotions in your predicament whatsoever ;D
Whichever you chose, I'm sure you will enjoy it
-
Maybe I should set up a poll - how many people think I went with the Rigol, and how many think I went with the Siglent?
Please include option 3 for those of us who just blew in on page 33 and haven't invested any emotions in your predicament whatsoever ;D
Whichever you chose, I'm sure you will enjoy it
3. Whatever. Good for you...
-
My apologies - clearly my attempt to be funny (entertaining? cute??) has fallen flat. Ah, well ... my spouse regularly tells me that I'm only half as witty as I think I am. :)
I went with the Siglent. I had hoped to be able to follow up my "announcement" with a picture of the box, but alas, they have yet to ship it.
-
My apologies - clearly my attempt to be funny (entertaining? cute??) has fallen flat. Ah, well ... my spouse regularly tells me that I'm only half as witty as I think I am. :)
I went with the Siglent. I had hoped to be able to follow up my "announcement" with a picture of the box, but alas, they have yet to ship it.
I also hoped to be funny.. So we have common problem... ;D
Seriously, whatever the choice is as long as you are happy with it.
-
Hello,
@awakephd: I would have also ordered an SDS800X HD if I were you, unless your workbench was stable enough to support a heavy Siglent SDS7304A H12.
Have fun with your new device
Best regards
egonotto
-
Hello,
@awakephd: I would have also ordered an SDS800X HD if I were you, unless your workbench was stable enough to support a heavy Siglent SDS7304A H12.
Have fun with your new device
Best regards
egonotto
Certainly 10.6kg is getting up there but lighter than many old boat anchors. :P
-
I wouldn't care how much it weighs, as long as I had one. 8)
-
Somebody just added a full screen mode to the Rigol... :popcorn:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5471431/#msg5471431 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5471431/#msg5471431)
The full screen mod and other additions are now fully functional:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4ivaMY7zg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4ivaMY7zg)
-
Somebody just added a full screen mode to the Rigol... :popcorn:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5471431/#msg5471431 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5471431/#msg5471431)
The full screen mod and other additions are now fully functional:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4ivaMY7zg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4ivaMY7zg)
That's more like an Oscilloscope should look like.
First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
-
The problem isn't in the interpolation filter at all. Rigol implemented the sin x/x reconstruction wrong. That's it. There is no trade-off to be made here.
In the screenshots that have been posted so far, I could not see that it were "wrong".
I agree.
Rigol isn't "wrong" (or showing a "bug"), they're doing what's practical.
PS: I've been away for a few weeks... did anybody ever try putting an actual AM signal into the Siglent?
-
... did anybody ever try putting an actual AM signal into the Siglent?
Of course not. Oscilloscopes are just decorations when furnishing a lab.
(I can't find a suitable smiley after that my statement. But I guess everyone understands that kind of thing.)
-
Certainly 10.6kg is getting up there but lighter than many old boat anchors. :P
Indeed. But even plenty of modern T&M instruments weight significantly more than 10.6 kg. I used to tell people that one of the job requirements for working as an AE in T&M was "Must be able to lift 25 kilograms." :-DD
I feel sorry enough for my FedEx driver that I regularly help him load and unload instruments when he comes to my house.
A good cart is also pretty much a requirement: field T&M professionals talk about and compare carts the same way that most people do with cars or boats :)
https://www.instagram.com/p/C5fxk2Dg3Fk/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/C5fxk2Dg3Fk/)
-
Yeah well you'd be surprised how many instruments are in our 200kg shipments these days @~1.25m3 I can comfortably get all in a 5 door SUV.
A small portion of a dozen or so are going to EMEX for next week's show, along with tables, big screen and a mini PC and assorted other bits and bobs.
https://www.emex.co.nz/ (https://www.emex.co.nz/)
Won't include a 10.6kg SDS7000A DSO unfortunately. :(
Last EMEX pic attached
-
First & foremost, [an oscilloscope] is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
Precisely. Not a difficult concept, really!
-
First & foremost, [an oscilloscope] is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
Precisely. Not a difficult concept, really!
Let's take as an example excellent Tek 485. It has 8mm/div graticule 8x10 grid.
Which makes for an whooping 64x80 mm of active screen size.
In attachment (roughly) sized overlay of 485 screen over SDS800xHD (a tiny 2.5kg scope with 7" screen), and over SDS1000/2000/3000xHD with 10" screen.
Not to mention that on a digital scope you NEED to have data on screen. What is your V/div for CH1? Probe att? Timebase and time delay ?...
On CRT scope you had HUGE front panel with MINISCULE screen and for settings you could look at physical buttons/knobs.
On digital scope you need to have that data on screen.
And since the screen is so much bigger you lose nothing compared to old analog scope.
Some people think feel smart for being able to do the things the hard way.
Some people kinda like to have lots of additional information right there on the screen in the plain sight.
Everybody have their own definition of fun. Or what is a waste of time.
CRT scopes do still have some advantages in certain niches (like scope art) but claiming that they are better because they have small stupid screens with no data whatsoever (except unexplained squigle and a graticule) and claiming that is advantage is very questionable statement......
-
Let's take as an example excellent Tek 485. It has 8mm/div graticule 8x10 grid.
Which makes for an whooping 64x80 mm of active screen size.
In attachment (roughly) sized overlay of 485 screen over SDS800xHD (a tiny 2.5kg scope with 7" screen), and over SDS1000/2000/3000xHD with 10" screen.
You do understand the distinction between size and resolution - don't you?
Apple understood the distinction, and ensured the original Macintosh embodied the distinction quite clearly: smaller than a contemporary IBM PC screen, but looked better.
Then, of course, there are the more nebulous concepts of clarity, readability, and usability.
-
Let's take as an example excellent Tek 485. It has 8mm/div graticule 8x10 grid.
Which makes for an whooping 64x80 mm of active screen size.
In attachment (roughly) sized overlay of 485 screen over SDS800xHD (a tiny 2.5kg scope with 7" screen), and over SDS1000/2000/3000xHD with 10" screen.
You do understand the distinction between size and resolution - don't you?
Apple understood the distinction, and ensured the original Macintosh embodied the distinction quite clearly: smaller than a contemporary IBM PC screen, but looked better.
Then, of course, there are the more nebulous concepts of clarity, readability, and usability.
I do understand the difference.
I also understand when someone violently changes the subject because they are proven wrong, and God forbid they admit it..
-
Having used just about every analog scope Tektronix offered (starting using Tek scopes well over half a century ago), and a few unique scopes that we created based upon the Tek mainframes for specialized cases, the modern DSO/MSO we've experienced far outweigh any of those old analog Tek offerings.
Recall having to use the Polaroid cameras for capturing screen traces, using the scope vertical output to an HP Spectrum Analyzer for Frequency Domain work, separate instruments for Bode Analysis FRA, the size, weight and portability and so on. The only area I recall the old analog Tek scopes had a significant advantage was their trigger performance in specialized cases. Being a true "analog trigger" it had advantages the DSO/MSO lack considering these are usually after the ADC conversion, however the DSO/MSO have trigger options that no analog scope can compete with.
Comparing an Analog Scope to a modern DSO/MSO is like comparing old film Cameras to modern Digital Cameras!!
As much I we don't like stating such, being and old analog type, the digital revolution has pretty much relegated the older analog instruments, such as VOM (Simpsons, Triplett), function generators and scopes to museums. Same goes for communications, most everything is digital.
Best,
-
.. older analog instruments, such as VOM (Simpsons, Triplett)
There are still use cases for these that digital has yet to touch and may never touch. It remains to be seen.
-
Having used just about every analog scope Tektronix offered (starting using Tek scopes well over half a century ago), and a few unique scopes that we created based upon the Tek mainframes for specialized cases, the modern DSO/MSO we've experienced far outweigh any of those old analog Tek offerings.
Recall having to use the Polaroid cameras for capturing screen traces, using the scope vertical output to an HP Spectrum Analyzer for Frequency Domain work, separate instruments for Bode Analysis FRA, the size, weight and portability and so on. The only area I recall the old analog Tek scopes had a significant advantage was their trigger performance in specialized cases. Being a true "analog trigger" it had advantages the DSO/MSO lack considering these are usually after the ADC conversion, however the DSO/MSO have trigger options that no analog scope can compete with.
Comparing an Analog Scope to a modern DSO/MSO is like comparing old film Cameras to modern Digital Cameras!!
As much I we don't like stating such, being and old analog type, the digital revolution has pretty much relegated the older analog instruments, such as VOM (Simpsons, Triplett), function generators and scopes to museums. Same goes for communications, most everything is digital.
As someone using scopes since the 70s and digitising scopes since the 80s, I tend to agree. But I would modulate those statements:
- digitising scopes >25 years ago all had significant disadvantages
- 10 years ago decent digitising scopes (i.e. not Rigol/Siglent/etc) were pretty good, but also pretty expensive
- current digitising scopes are good (providing their firmware works), but complex[1]
- analogue scopes can still be used and still be useful. Any scope is better than none
Analogue meters are still better where it is necessary to rapidly notice and assess changes, and or to spot outliers at a glance.
[1] that's based on the astounding progress in ADCs/DACs since the 80s; it is more impressive and revolutionary than the steady smaller-faster-cheaper steps of processors/memory
-
First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."
-
First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."
Speaking as someone with an 8 digit DVD and 14 (IIRC) digit frequency counter, that's usually sufficient. A scopes' USP is the shape of the waveform.
-
Speaking as someone with an 8 digit DVD and 14 (IIRC) digit frequency counter, that's usually sufficient. A scopes' USP is the shape of the waveform.
Are you saying you NEVER use measurements on your oscilloscope?
I don't have a separate frequency counter so I find it handy to have that ability.
-
Speaking as someone with an 8 digit DVD and 14 (IIRC) digit frequency counter, that's usually sufficient. A scopes' USP is the shape of the waveform.
Are you saying you NEVER use measurements on your oscilloscope?
I don't have a separate frequency counter so I find it handy to have that ability.
I responded to your specific point. Here it is again, for reference: "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."
You change to a different specific point.
I did have an analogue scope[1] which measured time/frequency to (IIRC) 9 digits. It wasn't useful, so I sold it. I've had various analogue scopes which measure voltage to 3.5 digits, and still have one to sell.
If you are observing voltages on any scope, you should understand all the parts of the Y specification before assessing the valid number of digits in a voltage measurement.
I very rarely need scope measurements to 3 digits, but do occasionally use the cursors to sanity check my mental measurements.
OTOH I frequently use my scope to check signal integrity, i.e. monotonic transitions, tolerable overshoot, and similar. Even 1 digit is sufficient for that!
[1] Tek 2465CTS.
-
The (older, high-end) Lecroy scope I have is better at measuring phase offsets between two signals compared to any time-interval counter you can buy for the same amount of money. And it can do an awfull lot of signal analysis functions. Like measuring min / max / average period and showing the difference as a math trace. Super handy to measure subtile phase jumps in a signal.
-
I've given up wondering why our 30-year-old Lecroy 9XXXs still have and can do more than some current DSOs costing up to €5,000.
It's in the same league as the question of why it was possible to fly to the moon in 1969 with technology that is so incredibly inferior to today's €200 smartphone.
(I know, I know...but it serves to dramatize)
-
The (older, high-end) Lecroy scope I have is better at measuring phase offsets between two signals compared to any time-interval counter you can buy for the same amount of money. And it can do an awfull lot of signal analysis functions. Like measuring min / max / average period and showing the difference as a math trace. Super handy to measure subtile phase jumps in a signal.
I wonder if it is better than an HP/Agilent 53310 modulation domain analyser. Or, more realistically, what can one do that the other can't.
One day I might get around to thinking about why HPAK stopped making them. First port of call will be modern sampling frequency counters.
Surprisingly the MDA can also measure risetimes well under 500ps. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hpagilent-53310a-modulation-domain-analyser-frequency-time-interval-analyser/msg3194292/#msg3194292 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hpagilent-53310a-modulation-domain-analyser-frequency-time-interval-analyser/msg3194292/#msg3194292)
-
I've given up wondering why our 30-year-old Lecroy 9XXXs still have and can do more than some current DSOs costing up to €5,000.
It's in the same league as the question of why it was possible to fly to the moon in 1969 with technology that is so incredibly inferior to today's €200 smartphone.
(I know, I know...but it serves to dramatize)
Sometimes it is beneficial to counter the ignorance of youngsters and any marketing assertion that "it is new therefore it is better". Sometimes people's lazy preconceptions need a kick up the backside.
-
I've lurked long enough.
I finally purchased my first scope (I don't count the 40-dollar single-channel toy I bought a year or two ago).
I chose to go with the Siglent SDS824X HD. It's overkill for my hobbies, but I look forward to exploring and learning with it.
Most of the time, it will be lab shelf decorations as I do my real-life job in network technology.
Now, I've got to decide on a proper bench dmm.
You folks can get pretty deep and fairly heated. But I'd like to let everyone know I appreciate your passion and wealth of knowledge!
-
The (older, high-end) Lecroy scope I have is better at measuring phase offsets between two signals compared to any time-interval counter you can buy for the same amount of money. And it can do an awfull lot of signal analysis functions. Like measuring min / max / average period and showing the difference as a math trace. Super handy to measure subtile phase jumps in a signal.
I wonder if it is better than an HP/Agilent 53310 modulation domain analyser. Or, more realistically, what can one do that the other can't.
The 53310A specification says 125ps RMS resolution for time interval so no. And averaging doesn't always improve the result when the signals under test have very little noise in them. The Lecroy scope can resolve low tens of picoseconds.
-
First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."
My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
I have no argument with showing measurements, but I do have with Rigol's standard UI, with its very dominant slabs of colour, mismatched fonts, & so on.
Siglent's display is much less "in your face"!
A disclaimer, here---I don't have either DSO brand, or any DSO for that matter, as with the current exchange rate, they are out of my budget.
For "one bright, shining moment" back in the early/mid 2000s, the $A was at better than parity with the mighty greenback, so earlier versions of Rigol, etc DSOs really were cheap.
Sadly, that time is long past, with those old models costing more on eBay secondhand than their new price back then,
Even oldsters like the Tek TDS 210/220 are being offered for around $A400.
When "well heeled Noobs" pose questions in the beginner's section & post screenshots from their "all singing, all dancing" DSOs, those of us who don't own exactly the same device, so they can "play along at home" have perforce, to "count squares".
I have found that the Rigol, Hantek, etc screenshots are much harder to navigate than the Siglent ones.
-
First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."
My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
I have no argument with showing measurements, but I do have with Rigol's standard UI, with its very dominant slabs of colour, mismatched fonts, & so on.
Siglent's display is much less "in your face"!
A disclaimer, here---I don't have either DSO brand, or any DSO for that matter, as with the current exchange rate, they are out of my budget.
For "one bright, shining moment" back in the early/mid 2000s, the $A was at better than parity with the mighty greenback, so earlier versions of Rigol, etc DSOs really were cheap.
Sadly, that time is long past, with those old models costing more on eBay secondhand than their new price back then,
Even oldsters like the Tek TDS 210/220 are being offered for around $A400.
When "well heeled Noobs" pose questions in the beginner's section & post screenshots from their "all singing, all dancing" DSOs, those of us who don't own exactly the same device, so they can "play along at home" have perforce, to "count squares".
I have found that the Rigol, Hantek, etc screenshots are much harder to navigate than the Siglent ones.
Is this a hint to bring one over next time we visit our Larry Major in Perth ?
Maybe we can finally get to have a good old yarn.
-
I've lurked long enough.
I finally purchased my first scope (I don't count the 40-dollar single-channel toy I bought a year or two ago).
Excellent. Have fun, safely :)
-
The 53310A specification says 125ps RMS resolution for time interval so no. And averaging doesn't always improve the result when the signals under test have very little noise in them. The Lecroy scope can resolve low tens of picoseconds.
The Tek 465 CTT option resolves 1fs in 10ns, with timebase error of 10ppm +5ppm/year :)
-
...
...
My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
...
That's the second time in this thread that fungus has snipped so much from the conversations that his reply has distorted the point someone was making. Having to go back and re-insert the context wastes everybody's time and attention.
In order to avoid making strawman arguments, it is usually necessary to quote the context. Anybody that doesn't like quoting the context might prefer stackexchange or edaboard. However conversations there are boring and limited to "which button do I press to flaim the splurgle".
Yes, it is possible to quote too much context; as with everything in life, judgement and good taste are helpful.
-
I have found that the Rigol, Hantek, etc screenshots are much harder to navigate than the Siglent ones.
Aren't you confusing something here?
The Hantek (DSO2000) display really has nothing to do with the Rigol DHO800/900. (Not meant to be judgmental, just a fact).
It is very simple and straightforward and leaves plenty of room for the signal.
It's certainly not that rich and nice, but I can't see what you don't understand about it.
H: Time base; D: Horizontal trigger time; T: Vert. trigger offset; BW: Bandwidth limitation
G: Signal Generator
-
First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".
Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."
My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
I have no argument with showing measurements, but I do have with Rigol's standard UI, with its very dominant slabs of colour, mismatched fonts, & so on.
Siglent's display is much less "in your face"!
That's easy to say from random screenshot viewing but in reality you won't notice it after a day or so.
Same goes for the "smaller working area" on the Rigol. It's easy to sit in an armchair saying "more is better!" but the difference in practice is very small. I don't recall ever thinking "Damn, if only it had one more square!!!"
What does count is speed of navigation, depth of menu dives, etc. The things you do most often should be very easy/fast and the Rigol gets a high score for that.
-
I'll say that after using the DHO800 for a couple of months now, a few hours a day, I've long forgotten about the things I thought would annoy me. The vertical screen thing is an absolute non-issue. The only thing I still want to change is to remove the little icons on the vertical 'measurements' window on the right of the screen so that I can see 8 or 9 items at once instead of 5. Not that it's that much of a deal to scroll it up and down with your finger, but I'll get around to moding it one day. Other than that, I'm a happy camper.
-
Well, look what finally showed up late yesterday. I've unboxed it, read through the quick-start manual (very well written), calibrated a probe, and played around just a little. I have questions ... lots and lots of questions ... but I will start a new thread for that.
-
Hello,
congratulations and have fun.
Best regards
egonotto
-
In case anyone reads back through this thread - especially a newbie like myself, wrestling with the same question that I posed at the beginning of this thread - I thought it might be good to add a bit of update.
I have been learning and using the Siglent SDS804X-HD now for nearly 6 months. In that time, I have had *zero* regrets in choosing the Siglent over the Rigol. Some things to note in particular:
1) Size / footprint - though the Rigol is slimmer than the Siglent, I have not had any concerns about the size of the latter; it is still a relatively small footprint on my limited "bench" (actually a desktop) ... and I have appreciated the fact that the power supply is internal, needing only the mains connection. As I have developed a layout on my desktop that seems to be working really well, I am glad that I am not having to figure out where to put an external power supply.
2) UI - I was concerned about whether I would regret not having the "easier-for-newbies" UI of the Rigol, but honestly, I have not missed it. No doubt some of that is because I never had it, other than what I saw in pictures on the forum ... but my sense is that the real learning curve for me has been learning what a DSO can do; learning the UI of the Siglent (or of any DSO I might have bought) has been a negligible part of this learning curve.
3) Fan noise - by all accounts, the Rigol is noisier than the Siglent, but I have seen comments from time to time that suggest frustration with the latter. I can only report my own experience, which is that I do not find the noise of the Siglent to be either loud or distracting. I generally am completely oblivious to it unless I read something about it, at which point I think, "oh, yeah, I guess there is some fan noise" - and then I go merrily on my way.
4) Advanced features, especially Bode plots - I just have to say "thank you" to all those who responded to my many, many newbie questions in this thread. At the time I felt that you were patient and gracious, but looking back now, with what I have learned in the last 6 months ... wow, you all were *really* patient with me!! Now that I have learned what a Bode plot is, and figured out how to do them - without spending twice the cost of the scope, but rather using an $80 FeelTech FY6900 and a $2 ESP-01 module! - I have to say that I am delighted to have this capability. To be fair, I don't know that I really need it, but ... I don't know that I really needed a DSO (don't tell my wife!). I wanted a DSO to expand my capabilities and understanding, and this is a capability that I am now really, really glad to have.
In the same way that I began this thread, I have no interest in contributing to any religious battles between the brands. For anyone working through the same decision, keep in mind that I have only used the Siglent; I have not compared them side-by-side. Had I bought the Rigol instead, I might very well be patting myself on the back for having made such a wise choice! So take this "wrap-up" report for what it is, but not more: I merely am reporting that this particular newbie has been more than satisfied with the choice of the Siglent.
-
Don't forget the FFT with cursors! Very useful for tuning. My experience is limited to the SDS804 and CRT scopes. The Festures on the Siglent are simply astounding
-
I have played just a tiny bit with FFT - I can definitely see where it can be useful, but haven't yet gotten very far with it. Definitely looking forward to exploring its capability!
-
I bought a SDS824X HD for work, to see if it was a direction we wanted to go and to help decide if I wanted one for home. So far I'm mostly delighted with it and would never consider an 8-bit scope. No problem with the UI or general functions. Math and FFT are good. The one huge issue for me is the lack of a battery-backed real time clock. I save a lot of files and having the correct time and date is essential. And no, I don't want to hook up to a network to accomplish this. If it weren't for that one stupid thing, I'd already have one on my bench at home. Hint- having fat fingers, I tied a nice rubber tipped stylue to the scope with a string so it's always there when needed.
-
The one huge issue for me is the lack of a battery-backed real time clock.
The SDS1000X HD series has a RTC and a nicer screen.
-
I bought a SDS824X HD for work, to see if it was a direction we wanted to go and to help decide if I wanted one for home. So far I'm mostly delighted with it and would never consider an 8-bit scope. No problem with the UI or general functions. Math and FFT are good. The one huge issue for me is the lack of a battery-backed real time clock. I save a lot of files and having the correct time and date is essential. And no, I don't want to hook up to a network to accomplish this. If it weren't for that one stupid thing, I'd already have one on my bench at home. Hint- having fat fingers, I tied a nice rubber tipped stylue to the scope with a string so it's always there when needed.
Some allergy to a USB mouse ? :-//
-
Some allergy to a USB mouse ? :-//
Actually two allergies for me, in two different settings: Either my "bench" is too small and cluttered, and pushing a mouse around would be bound to knock some cables or probes out of position. Or I am working on a more generous desk, using the scope and a computer in parallel, and find it really annoying when I always grab the wrong mouse.
We know that you like to use a mouse on oscilloscopes. I can see it working very well when demoing a scope, with just a test signal source on an otherwise tidy desk. Much better than using your finger because nothing gets in the way of everybody seeing the screen. But please accept the fact that this is not the typical use case for many of us.
Edit: You might consider changing your signature to "Use a mouse! Use trigger holdoff!" ;)
-
Or I am working on a more generous desk, using the scope and a computer in parallel, and find it really annoying when I always grab the wrong mouse.
I might have done that a few times.
Edit: You might consider changing your signature to "Use a mouse! Use trigger holdoff!" ;)
:-DD
-
Some allergy to a USB mouse ? :-//
Actually two allergies for me, in two different settings: Either my "bench" is too small and cluttered, and pushing a mouse around would be bound to knock some cables or probes out of position. Or I am working on a more generous desk, using the scope and a computer in parallel, and find it really annoying when I always grab the wrong mouse.
We know that you like to use a mouse on oscilloscopes. I can see it working very well when demoing a scope, with just a test signal source on an otherwise tidy desk. Much better than using your finger because nothing gets in the way of everybody seeing the screen. But please accept the fact that this is not the typical use case for many of us.
:blah:
There are solutions to all your concerns.....
A mouse you don't have to move....
WiFi connection......
Ability to control 3 devices with 1 mouse.....
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/Sbca2292d28b140e2822d0e5473c27306t.jpg)
-
:blah:
There are solutions to all your concerns.....
A mouse you don't have to move....
WiFi connection......
Ability to control 3 devices with 1 mouse.....
Have you tried that device on a Siglent scope? I routinely use a Logitech wireless mouse which can be switched between two devices (and like it a lot when I have to go back & forth between two computers). But the Siglent scope does not accept it.
Also, I have tried trackballs and find them much less satisfying to use than a mouse. The intuitive "move the pointer to this absolute position" is replaced by "move the pointer up, up, up -- there we are".
See how I managed to provide feedback to your suggestion without relying on an insulting emoji? It can be done; you can do it too.
-
:blah:
There are solutions to all your concerns.....
A mouse you don't have to move....
WiFi connection......
Ability to control 3 devices with 1 mouse.....
Have you tried that device on a Siglent scope?
No.....it's not a Logitech but cheap enough to take a punt on.
Just recently found so will probably get a couple to try....
Don't own that exact one yet but need another Trackman type mouse after surrendering my spare Logitech Trackman to the home office as its decades old one spat the dummy.
4 pin LED trackball receiver seems to given up.....
I routinely use a Logitech wireless mouse which can be switched between two devices (and like it a lot when I have to go back & forth between two computers). But the Siglent scope does not accept it.
Hmmm :-//
Also, I have tried trackballs and find them much less satisfying to use than a mouse. The intuitive "move the pointer to this absolute position" is replaced by "move the pointer up, up, up -- there we are".
Trackball and Trackman mice are distinctly different in that a Trackman uses the thumb for cursor control.
While neither are everyone's cup of tea I've used Trackman mice for decades and prefer them for any mouse work.
See how I managed to provide feedback to your suggestion without relying on an insulting emoji? It can be done; you can do it too.
You chimed in with your allergies in my reply to Conrad....
:-//
Whom brought up an excellent point......we need simple WiFi capability in SDS800X HD for the home user.
Annoyed Siglent again to add it.....
-
You chimed in with your allergies in my reply to Conrad....
:-//
It was you who brought up the "allergies", implying -- tongue-in-cheek I assume -- that a refusal to use a mouse must be based on some irrational or pathological condition. And you have suggested using a mouse so many times that I considered it a general comment and provided some feedback regarding the downsides. I can't see how that deserved a "Blah!" response.
By the way, the trackball you suggested does not support WiFi in any way. 2.4 GHz is also the frequency band used by the various proprietary wireless USB dongles for HID devices. So this trackball can either use Bluetooth (if that's already built into your computer) or a proprietary USB dongle (which is probably included in the package) for its wireless connection.
-
By the way, the trackball you suggested does not support WiFi in any way. 2.4 GHz is also the frequency band used by the various proprietary wireless USB dongles for HID devices. So this trackball can either use Bluetooth (if that's already built into your computer) or a proprietary USB dongle (which is probably included in the package) for its wireless connection.
It is.
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/Sc8fe6223194d4f318e1b6a2eba32feecp.jpg)
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005748360912.html (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005748360912.html)
-
Have you tried that device on a Siglent scope? I routinely use a Logitech wireless mouse which can be switched between two devices (and like it a lot when I have to go back & forth between two computers). But the Siglent scope does not accept it.
Do you have the dongle that came with the mouse? I've never had a problem with a Siglent accepting the USB dongle from Logitech. I currently use different versions of the MX Master series, and the dongle that comes with it has worked in my Plus and HD Siglent scopes. I connect the mouse to the computer's Bluetooth directly. Granted, I don't have an 800X series to test on, but I don't see why it would be excluded from that one.
-
You chimed in with your allergies in my reply to Conrad....
:-//
It was you who brought up the "allergies", implying -- tongue-in-cheek I assume -- that a refusal to use a mouse must be based on some irrational or pathological condition. And you have suggested using a mouse so many times that I considered it a general comment and provided some feedback regarding the downsides. I can't see how that deserved a "Blah!" response.
I'm also wondering how to do typical touch screen multi-finger gestures using a mouse? Do you connect two mice and use left & right hands? IIRC Micsig even uses 3 finger gestures.
-
Do you have the dongle that came with the mouse? I've never had a problem with a Siglent accepting the USB dongle from Logitech. I currently use different versions of the MX Master series, and the dongle that comes with it has worked in my Plus and HD Siglent scopes. I connect the mouse to the computer's Bluetooth directly. Granted, I don't have an 800X series to test on, but I don't see why it would be excluded from that one.
Yes, the dongle is sitting in its storage recess inside the mouse, since I also use Bluetooth only for the PC connections. The mouse is a Logitech M590, it supports either Bluetooth and/or proprietary dongle wireless connections.
It seems that the device driver on the PC side must do something to pair one of the mouse's two logical channels with the USB dongle, and the Siglent driver does not play along. Couldn't get the scope to respond to this mouse at all. I have connected a no-name, wireless dongle mouse to the scope without problems -- but don't use it much due to the handling issues mentioned earlier.
-
I'm also wondering how to do typical touch screen multi-finger gestures using a mouse? Do you connect two mice and use left & right hands? IIRC Micsig even uses 3 finger gestures.
Good point, you can't.
That's one use case where touch will always beat front panel or mouse use.....when you need to use a scope like that.
Each to their own I guess.
-
I'm also wondering how to do typical touch screen multi-finger gestures using a mouse? Do you connect two mice and use left & right hands? IIRC Micsig even uses 3 finger gestures.
Good point, you can't.
That's one use case where touch will always beat front panel or mouse use.....when you need to use a scope like that.
Each to their own I guess.
Mice bugger your wrists.
Trackballs bugger your thumbs.
Touchscreens (and light pens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pen)!) bugger your shoulders and give you gorilla arms (not to be confused with Popeye arms (https://physical-therapy.us/popeye-deformity/))
Choose wisely ;D
-
Mice bugger your wrists.
Trackballs bugger your thumbs.
Touchscreens (and light pens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pen)!) bugger your shoulders and give you gorilla arms (not to be confused with Popeye arms (https://physical-therapy.us/popeye-deformity/))
Best not get out of bed! :-DD
-
Yes, the dongle is sitting in its storage recess inside the mouse, since I also use Bluetooth only for the PC connections. The mouse is a Logitech M590, it supports either Bluetooth and/or proprietary dongle wireless connections.
It seems that the device driver on the PC side must do something to pair one of the mouse's two logical channels with the USB dongle, and the Siglent driver does not play along. Couldn't get the scope to respond to this mouse at all. I have connected a no-name, wireless dongle mouse to the scope without problems -- but don't use it much due to the handling issues mentioned earlier.
The trick is to get the mouse connected to the dongle using the PC first. Then you can plug the dongle into the scope after you confirm the dongle works as it should. If you override whatever position the dongle was associated with, it needs to be reassociated before it will work in the scope.
-
The trick is to get the mouse connected to the dongle using the PC first. Then you can plug the dongle into the scope after you confirm the dongle works as it should. If you override whatever position the dongle was associated with, it needs to be reassociated before it will work in the scope.
Thanks. I am pretty sure that's what I tried last time, but will try it again occasionally. Currently that mouse is assigned to two notebooks which I use heavily, so I can't dedicate one of its channels to the scope for now.
-
Thanks. I am pretty sure that's what I tried last time, but will try it again occasionally. Currently that mouse is assigned to two notebooks which I use heavily, so I can't dedicate one of its channels to the scope for now.
Your mouse only does 2 devices? I mostly use the MX Master 2S, and it supports 3 devices...and I only use it on one. lol
-
Your mouse only does 2 devices? I mostly use the MX Master 2S, and it supports 3 devices...and I only use it on one. lol
Yup, only two devices are supported. The M590 is a few years old already, may have been one of the first multi-device mice they sold. I like it because of the "silent" buttons. (Although my wife and I have already worn out the left buttons on two of these mice. But replacement 'Kailh' switches are available on AliExpress.)
-
I've nothing against mice, save for the live ones in the house. But, I'm sitting here at my desk with a test setup right to the right of me. There's barely room for the scope and DUT, much less any mouse. Sure there's the one at the computer, but it's on the wrong side for using with the scope. Anything can be made to work, but with a little better planning like built in wireless and an RTC, life would be easier. OTOH, the big selling point of these scopes is the price. Add features and the price goes out of my range. It seems like a RTC would have near zero effect on price, being as ubiquitous as they are in other devices.
-
Hello and many thanks to all the gurus here for sharing their knowledge and competence!
Context:
I am on the market for my first scope ever with no previous experience/expertise in analog/digital circuits, though willing to learn new things. So, as of now, I don't have any specific use case for the scope, I believe I will be glad to try all possible use cases :) Owing to the information provided in this and related topics, the choice, obviosuly, is between Rigol DHO804 and Siglent SDS804X. As I see it now (with possible 'hack' to DHO824 DHO924 and SDS824X):
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)
Siglent SDS804X:
+ 2 GSa/s (1.25 GSa/s in Rigol)
+ 100 MPts max (50 MPTs in Rigol)
+ FFT and Bode Plots (now I am only grasping a concept here, but can be useful in the future)
+ Easy to upgrade with external Logic Analyzer module (Rigol 800 series needs major hack, front panel needs to be altered to add LA socket)
+ Firmware quality
+ Black color (totaly subjective)
While I am on Siglent side and with similar prices this question would never arise, as of today I can order DHO804 in Europe for 279 EUR wo VAT (https://rigolshop.eu/dho804.html (https://rigolshop.eu/dho804.html)) and SDS804X for 409 EUR wo VAT (https://www.siglent.eu/product/13555385/siglent-sds804x-hd-4ch-70mhz-12bit-oscilloscope (https://www.siglent.eu/product/13555385/siglent-sds804x-hd-4ch-70mhz-12bit-oscilloscope))
So here comes the question: Given current prices, I can not truly justify 30% price difference for, to be honest, new interesting toy. Based on previous experience, is there a chance, that Siglent offers some discounts on Christmas/New Year or price always stays the same? I see that Siglent offers 10% only for North America, but what is exprerience for Europe?
EDIT: Added Logic Analyzer entry to SDS804X Pros list, thanks to @ebastler
-
So here comes the question: Given current prices, I can not truly justify 30% price difference for, to be honest, new interesting toy. Based on previous experience, is there a chance, that Siglent offers some discounts on Christmas/New Year or price always stays the same? I see that Siglent offers 10% only for North America, but what is exprerience for Europe?
I don't think Siglent is running similar discounts. They have had some bundle offers occasionally (e.g. including the logic probe for a better price when you buy it together with a new scope), but nothing like a 30% discount.
batterfly.com, a distributor based in Italy and shipping to all of Europe (I believe), currently has a 10% "Black November" discount on all products. Last day today!
Speaking of logic probes -- I did not see the option to add a logic analyser module mentioned in your pros & cons list. If that could become relevant for you in the future, all SDS8..X HD models have the connector for the external logic analyser module, whereas the DHO8.. can only be upgraded with major hacking (including cutting a hole into the front panel).
-
While I am on Siglent side and with similar prices this question would never arise, as of today I can order DHO804 in Europe for 279 EUR wo VAT (https://rigolshop.eu/dho804.html (https://rigolshop.eu/dho804.html)) and SDS804X for 409 EUR wo VAT (https://www.siglent.eu/product/13555385/siglent-sds804x-hd-4ch-70mhz-12bit-oscilloscope (https://www.siglent.eu/product/13555385/siglent-sds804x-hd-4ch-70mhz-12bit-oscilloscope))
So here comes the question: Given current prices, I can not truly justify 30% price difference for, to be honest, new interesting toy. Based on previous experience, is there a chance, that Siglent offers some discounts on Christmas/New Year or price always stays the same? I see that Siglent offers 10% only for North America, but what is exprerience for Europe?
You can use the coupon "SIGLENT5PERCENT" at siglent.eu (=€388.55 without VAT)
-
It's 368.1 on batterfly.com with BN10 coupon code (VAT excluded).
-
I can order DHO804 in Europe for 279 EUR wo VAT
So here comes the question: Given current prices, I can not truly justify 30% price difference for, to be honest, new interesting toy.
For that price? Get the Rigol for sure.
You can probably sell it later and not lose a penny.
And... you might even find that those differences on paper aren't as big a deal as the Siglent boys say they are.
-
And... you might even find that those differences on paper aren't as big a deal as the Siglent boys say they are.
Those features only matter when you need them to work. 😉😉
-
I can order DHO804 in Europe for 279 EUR wo VAT
So here comes the question: Given current prices, I can not truly justify 30% price difference for, to be honest, new interesting toy.
For that price? Get the Rigol for sure.
You can probably sell it later and not lose a penny.
And... you might even find that those differences on paper aren't as big a deal as the Siglent boys say they are.
Is your DHO800 still back for repair after failed FW update?
-
And... you might even find that those differences on paper aren't as big a deal as the Siglent boys say they are.
It should be clear even to “non-Siglent boys” that there is currently no serious competition to the SDS800 series.
Rigol could only score points with a permanently significantly lower price for the DHO800 and 900 series.
-
What is the BW of the stock DHO804 probes?
-
What is the BW of the stock DHO804 probes?
Enough.
-
What is the BW of the stock DHO804 probes?
Enough.
I am considering to buy it (2d left). Is that 70 or 100 or 150 or 200 or 250? Afaik they supplied the max BW with scopes in past. I need a number, not a discussion..
-
What is the BW of the stock DHO804 probes?
Enough.
I am considering to buy it (2d left). Is that 70 or 100 or 150 or 200 or 250? Afaik they supplied the max BW with scopes in past. I need a number, not a discussion..
Batronix specifies 4x Rigol PVP3150 (150 MHz) probes with DHO804. I don't know if that is still so.
-
Batronix specifies 4x Rigol PVP3150 (150 MHz) probes with DHO804. I don't know if that is still so.
As usual, the number on the packet doesn't tell the whole story.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/comparison-of-oscilloscope-probes-pvp2350-vs-pvp3150-vs-lf312-vs-hv150/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/comparison-of-oscilloscope-probes-pvp2350-vs-pvp3150-vs-lf312-vs-hv150/)
Rise time 1.4ns
-
Batronix specifies 4x Rigol PVP3150 (150 MHz) probes with DHO804. I don't know if that is still so.
As usual, the number on the packet doesn't tell the whole story.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/comparison-of-oscilloscope-probes-pvp2350-vs-pvp3150-vs-lf312-vs-hv150/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/comparison-of-oscilloscope-probes-pvp2350-vs-pvp3150-vs-lf312-vs-hv150/)
Rise time 1.4ns
If you DO read that topic you will find that that was with different scope with completely different front end and also measured incorrectly.
PVP3150 will have different response on DHO800. What will response be needs to be measured in situ.
-
If you DO read that topic you will find that that was with different scope with completely different front end and also measured incorrectly.
PVP3150 will have different response on DHO800. What will response be needs to be measured in situ.
Thus proving my point that the number on the packet doesn't tell the whole story.
-
I am on the market for my first scope ever with no previous experience/expertise in analog/digital circuits, though willing to learn new things. So, as of now, I don't have any specific use case for the scope, I believe I will be glad to try all possible use cases :) Owing to the information provided in this and related topics, the choice, obviosuly, is between Rigol DHO804 and Siglent SDS804X. As I see it now (with possible 'hack' to DHO824 DHO924 and SDS824X):
I'm on the same boat, in my case the smaller size and the lower price were the deciding factors for the DHO804, and I'm very pleased with it.
-
If you DO read that topic you will find that that was with different scope with completely different front end and also measured incorrectly.
PVP3150 will have different response on DHO800. What will response be needs to be measured in situ.
Thus proving my point that the number on the packet doesn't tell the whole story.
I think PVP3150 might be decent entry level probes, electrically. How good quality is I don't know.
Probes are expendable long term, anyways.
Probes for DS1000Z had good electrical characteristics, but were mechanically complete crap. Switches fell apart even if I kept them on 10X all the time.
When I was selling it, I bought inexpensive Testec probes to sell it with, because probes that came with the scope were flaky (3 out of 4).
And I am very gentle with equipment.
-
I think PVP3150 might be decent entry level probes, electrically. How good quality is I don't know.
I've seen a few people saying they're better than Siglent probes, eg.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWR4RQPzB6U&t=129s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWR4RQPzB6U&t=129s)
According to this the Siglent PB470 probes don't even come with ground springs. :-- :--
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/)
-
I think PVP3150 might be decent entry level probes, electrically. How good quality is I don't know.
I've seen a few people saying they're better than Siglent probes, even Dave:
Dave vid....
According to this the Siglent PP470 probes don't even have ground springs. :-- :--
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/)
FTFY
None of the low BW probes come with springs but you can get them if required:
https://siglentna.com/product/probe-accessory-kit-pak1/ (https://siglentna.com/product/probe-accessory-kit-pak1/)
BNC to probe adapters only get supplied with 200+ MHz probes, PP215 and up but you can get adapters in this kit:
https://siglentna.com/product/probe-accessory-kit-pak2/ (https://siglentna.com/product/probe-accessory-kit-pak2/)
You can see all the probes available and the accessories that come with them here:
https://siglentna.com/products/accessories/probes/passive-probes/ (https://siglentna.com/products/accessories/probes/passive-probes/)
-
According to this the Siglent PP470 probes don't even have ground springs. :-- :--
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/)
FTFY
I only copied what was in that post.
But still, talking about "probe bandwidth" and not having ground springs is a bit moot. They make a huge difference to high bandwidth measurements.
-
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
-
According to this the Siglent PP470 probes don't even have ground springs. :-- :--
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/1350/)
FTFY
I only copied what was in that post.
But still, talking about "probe bandwidth" and not having ground springs is a bit moot. They make a huge difference to high bandwidth measurements.
So does scope BW when it's appropriate to the task.
Once 10x signal speed was the accepted means to select scope BW and many still abide by that rule.
-
I am on the market for my first scope ever with no previous experience/expertise in analog/digital circuits, though willing to learn new things. So, as of now, I don't have any specific use case for the scope, I believe I will be glad to try all possible use cases :)
My situation is similar. I chose the siglent.
As my first (and probably only) proper bench scope, it should serve as a 'reference' for my humble home lab.
So I preferred reliability and stability over the slight price difference.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :-//
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 8)
-
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!
-
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. :)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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. :)
-
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 ;)
-
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..
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
NEWS FLASH: THIS IS NOT RIGOL DEDICATED THREAD.
Correct.
If it was, I wouldn't be here, would I?
If you want me to post links to some recent "pro-Siglent" posts of yours in Rigol threads I can do it, no problem...
-
NEWS FLASH: THIS IS NOT RIGOL DEDICATED THREAD.
Correct.
If it was, I wouldn't be here, would I?
If you want me to post links to some recent "pro-Siglent" posts of yours in Rigol threads I can do it, no problem...
You want to do this again?
You wouldn't post if it was Rigol dedicated thread?
Confused much?
My last few posts in Rigol related threads:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5723181/#msg5723181 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5723181/#msg5723181)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5723385/#msg5723385 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5723385/#msg5723385)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5723495/#msg5723495 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5723495/#msg5723495)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5725033/#msg5725033 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5725033/#msg5725033)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5725077/#msg5725077 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-new-firmware-1-03/msg5725077/#msg5725077)
Which one is factually incorrect, or which one I mentioned other manufacturers by name?
Or in Rigol threads truth and facts are not allowed?
-
:popcorn:
-
You want to do this again?
No, I don't.
You started it. Again.
I'm done for this round. Don't bother replying.
-
This got silly fast. :-DD
There's nothing wrong with liking the Rigol. But it is a lesser scope, now at a lesser price. If it really could hold it's own against the superior product, they wouldn't have changed the price. 🤷
-
There's nothing wrong with liking the Rigol.
Exactly.
And not being able to see four 250Mhz signals simultaneously doesn't seem like a deal-breaker to me. I can't imagine the average Arduino hacker will ever do that.
I'm fairly sure I never will.
OTOH I appreciate the easy WiFi, the half-size form factor, etc.
I haven't seen it in real life but, judging from screenshots the text rendering on the Rigol is also far easier on the eyes (probably due to Android). I appreciate that, too.
In short, I have no compelling reason to switch even if you offered me a free swap for a Siglent.
And I can't be the only one.
-
You're being specific to your needs, which is fine for you. But other people are talking about fair comparisons between two devices, and considering other people's needs.
Yes, it meets your needs, and it costs less.
No, it is not as good as the more expensive scope that you don't need.
Simple enough. 😉
-
No, it is not as good as the more expensive scope that you don't need.
Simple enough. 😉
I'm guessing you missed this part:
I appreciate the easy WiFi, the half-size form factor, etc.
I haven't seen it in real life but, judging from screenshots the text rendering on the Rigol is also far easier on the eyes (probably due to Android). I appreciate that, too.
In short, there's no "best".
-
In short, there's no "best".
From one troll to another, Respect. 😉
That's some straight bullshit though. :-DD
-
There's nothing wrong with liking the Rigol. But it is a lesser scope, now at a lesser price. If it really could hold it's own against the superior product, they wouldn't have changed the price.
Actually the price didn't change, there was a temporary 30% discount for the Black Friday and the price is now back to normal, at least on Amazon.
-
There's nothing wrong with liking the Rigol. But it is a lesser scope, now at a lesser price. If it really could hold it's own against the superior product, they wouldn't have changed the price.
Actually the price didn't change, there was a temporary 30% discount for the Black Friday and the price is now back to normal, at least on Amazon.
It's still $70 less on Amazon here. I guess they're trying to remove the only real benefit it had. 😉
-
It's still $70 less on Amazon here. I guess they're trying to remove the only real benefit it had. 😉
The DHO804 with 150MHz probes is back to 480€ here, compared to the SDS814X with 100MHz probes at 600€. The improved sampling rate of the Siglent still comes at a price.
-
It's still $70 less on Amazon here. I guess they're trying to remove the only real benefit it had. 😉
The DHO804 with 150MHz probes is back to 480€ here, compared to the SDS814X with 100MHz probes at 600€. The improved sampling rate of the Siglent still comes at a price.
That's a silly combination. Why waste money for branded probes? Get TesTec or ProbeMaster probes. A ProbeMaster multi-probe kit with accessories costs less than that price jump, and is better quality than either scope. 😉
The DHO804 here is $370 on Amazon. $440 for the SDS804X HD. About the same prices on Saelig.
-
It's still $70 less on Amazon here. I guess they're trying to remove the only real benefit it had. 😉
The DHO804 with 150MHz probes is back to 480€ here, compared to the SDS814X with 100MHz probes at 600€. The improved sampling rate of the Siglent still comes at a price.
That's a silly combination. Why waste money for branded probes? Get TesTec or ProbeMaster probes. A ProbeMaster multi-probe kit with accessories costs less than that price jump, and is better quality than either scope. 😉
Yep. The obsession people have on getting probes with a scope never ceases to amaze me. When I sell an oscilloscope I make sure to include a set of probes I bought for 5 euro (per 4 pieces) on Aliexpress. Gets me at least 100 euro more for the scope... ??? The bottom line is: the probes which come with cheap scopes are crap. So better buy quality ones from Testec. They don't cost much and will be useful until you wear them out.
-
The DHO804 here is $370 on Amazon
Here the DHO804 still costs €475...
-
Why waste money for branded probes? Get TesTec or ProbeMaster probes. A ProbeMaster multi-probe kit with accessories costs less than that price jump, and is better quality than either scope. 😉
ProbeMaster 4901-2 150MHz is sold $60, $240 for a set of four, a bit more with taxes and shipping.
TesTec TT-LX 312 150MHz is cheaper, about 35€ per probe, looks like a better deal.
So let's pick the SDS804X at 490€ (with VAT) and 4 x TesTec TT-LX 312, that's 630€. The SDS814X is cheaper than the SDS804X with other probes.
-
The bottom line is: the probes which come with cheap scopes are crap. So better buy quality ones from Testec. They don't cost much and will be useful until you wear them out.
Do we know how the Rigol and Siglent probes compare to the ProbeMaster and TesTec probes?
-
ProbeMaster 4901-2 150MHz is sold $60, $240 for a set of four, a bit more with taxes and shipping.
TesTec TT-LX 312 150MHz is cheaper, about 35€ per probe, looks like a better deal.
In Europe, the Testec probes are a better deal than ProbeMaster. The fact that Testec is based here is probably part of the equation; I think the pricing looks different in the US.
You would be paying too much for the Testec LX 312 at 35€. Reichelt has them for 24€, for example. But you might want to opt for the MX 212 or MX 312 instead, which are specified at 250 MHz, so you can upgrade your scope to an SDS824X HD.
-
Do we know how the Rigol and Siglent probes compare to the ProbeMaster and TesTec probes?
I have had two cheap Rigol probes fall apart on me (after several years of light usage); no problems with the Testec probes yet. I have not used the Siglent probes that came bundled with the SDS814X HD since I got used to the Testecs. The Siglents look similar to the Rigols in quality.
Some other differences I noted: The plastic insulation around the ground crocodile clips was very stiff on the Rigol probes in particular, making it annoyingly hard to clip them on. The hooks on the cheap Rigol and Siglent probes are stamped sheet metal where the Testecs use spring steel. The Testec probes come with BNC adapters and spare tips -- but surprisingly without a ground spring. The Testec MX probes have dual compensation potentiometers capacitors, for separate LF and HF compensation.
-
Yep. The obsession people have on getting probes with a scope never ceases to amaze me. When I sell an oscilloscope I make sure to include a set of probes I bought for 5 euro (per 4 pieces) on Aliexpress. Gets me at least 100 euro more for the scope... ??? The bottom line is: the probes which come with cheap scopes are crap. So better buy quality ones from Testec. They don't cost much and will be useful until you wear them out.
The probes from Testec that come with the Magnova are really good.
Likewise, the probes that come with a Siglent SDS3000X HD and with Lecroy it's really wild.
Their probes alone cost around €800 each, so you get 4 probes for over €3000 for free with a scope that costs €10,000.
Or would the scope cost €7000 without them....
It's really a wild thing with the probes.
-
Yep. The obsession people have on getting probes with a scope never ceases to amaze me. When I sell an oscilloscope I make sure to include a set of probes I bought for 5 euro (per 4 pieces) on Aliexpress. Gets me at least 100 euro more for the scope... ??? The bottom line is: the probes which come with cheap scopes are crap. So better buy quality ones from Testec. They don't cost much and will be useful until you wear them out.
The probes from Testec that come with the Magnova are really good.
Likewise, the probes that come with a Siglent SDS3000X HD and with Lecroy it's really wild.
Their probes alone cost around €800 each, so you get 4 probes for over €3000 for free with a scope that costs €10,000.
Or would the scope cost €7000 without them....
It's really a wild thing with the probes.
:-//
SDS3000X HD 500 MHz probes:
https://siglentna.com/product/sp3050a-500-mhz-oscilloscope-probe/
-
As I said, the probes that come with a Siglent 3000X HD are good.
The probes that come with the larger Lecroy scopes are a completely different story. However, I doubt that they are worth €800.
-
Yep. The obsession people have on getting probes with a scope never ceases to amaze me. When I sell an oscilloscope I make sure to include a set of probes I bought for 5 euro (per 4 pieces) on Aliexpress. Gets me at least 100 euro more for the scope... ??? The bottom line is: the probes which come with cheap scopes are crap. So better buy quality ones from Testec. They don't cost much and will be useful until you wear them out.
The probes from Testec that come with the Magnova are really good.
Likewise, the probes that come with a Siglent SDS3000X HD and with Lecroy it's really wild.
Their probes alone cost around €800 each, so you get 4 probes for over €3000 for free with a scope that costs €10,000.
My guess is they pay like 10 euro per probe in bulk. You can probably find the same probes (from the OEM) for a fraction of what Lecroy is charging.
-
They will cost a little more than €10, they are too well made and too well equipped for that.
But €800 for a replacement is an absolute joke; €200 would be more understandable.
Well, the actual clientele won't care.
-
I have had two cheap Rigol probes fall apart on me (after several years of light usage); no problems with the Testec probes yet. I have not used the Siglent probes that came bundled with the SDS814X HD since I got used to the Testecs. The Siglents look similar to the Rigols in quality.
Some other differences I noted: The plastic insulation around the ground crocodile clips was very stiff on the Rigol probes in particular, making it annoyingly hard to clip them on. The hooks on the cheap Rigol and Siglent probes are stamped sheet metal where the Testecs use spring steel. The Testec probes come with BNC adapters and spare tips -- but surprisingly without a ground spring. The Testec MX probes have dual compensation potentiometers capacitors, for separate LF and HF compensation.
So mostly a difference of build quality and usability, but is there also a noticeable difference in signal quality?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :o
Best
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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... 8)
But it is very powerful platform in it's own right.
-
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.
-
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc5g2Z5QRnU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc5g2Z5QRnU)
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.)?
-
... 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.
-
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! :)
-
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. ]
-
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! :)
There are several levels to what Performa01 is trying to convey.
Each scope series is available in a # of BW's so requires a response filter to the max BW in the series then applies some rolloff.
Today this is less done in HW but by SW controlling the PGA that sets the BW for each model.
Filters are never perfect so if overshoot is contained to small amounts it is acceptable.
-
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! :)
It's a complex subject which I'm not going to pretend I fully understand, but... both of those 'scopes are telling you the exact same thing about the circuit:
a) The voltage is reaching the required level, no problem.
b) It's taking at most about 1.4ns to get there (it may be faster but you can't know that).
That's it.
Anybody who tells you that you can infer more than that about the circuit by looking at "ringing" is delusional.
-
Are you saying that the overshoot is happening in the scope (front end), not actually part of the signal?
Of course overshoot cannot be ruled out to be present in the original signal already, but in practice the contribution of the DSO frontend is dominating by far. Let's have a look at some possible signal sources:
1. AWGs can generate squarewaves and pulses, but transitions will only be fast if a high bandwidth model with appropriate sample rate is used, i.e. at least a Siglent SDG6000X. At extreme (mostly unspecified) settings we might get some form of pre-, over- and undershoot - actually "Gibbs Ears" - because of a steep FIR-reconstruction filter at the generator output. See this example:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/show-us-your-square-wave/msg5538565/#msg5538565 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/show-us-your-square-wave/msg5538565/#msg5538565)
2. Digital CMOS circuitry (presumably line drivers) which should not be able to overshoot as they simply switch between Vss and Vdd. On the other hand, the signal will still overshoot if the construction is sloppy with significant parasitic inductances and/or poor probing technique is applied.
3. Analog highspeed OpAmp output with improper HF-consturction techniques and poor output impedance matching can show overshoot because of cable reflections and high supply impedances.
Long story short: you should not see any significant overshoot with serious signal sources like pulse generators or AWGs, but you can never be sure when probing a circuit or using the signal outputs of sloppy DIY-projects.
Just to be sure, you can either have a reference source with known overshoot - or a reference oscilloscope with much higher bandwidth. The following link demonstrates the difference in overshoot of the very same signal with two DSOs that have a bandwidth ratio of 8:1. Simple conclusion here: the better/faster DSO will always show less pulse distortion, i.e. overshoot.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/show-us-your-square-wave/msg5537667/#msg5537667 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/show-us-your-square-wave/msg5537667/#msg5537667)
EDIT: missing link added.
-
Thank you! This is very helpful, and has helped to confirm what I suspected - but didn't know enough to describe or have any clarity about.
-
Thanks to all the contributors in this (and other posts)!
Way too many years ago I assembled my first HealthKit Oscilloscope when I was 14. After my EE degree, I used Tektronix and HP CRT-based scopes but haven’t used one for a long time. I have a new need for a couple of projects and was impressed by the value available today and narrowed it down to these Rigol and Siglent 12-bit scopes after discarding other bottom-end scopes from Frirsi, Owon, and Hantek from consideration. I’ve never used products from either company before.
In this post and other review videos, it appears there are quite a few misrepresentations and errors with the Rigol HDO series. Let me know if I’m wrong.
1) Rigol never fixes bugs or does updates - Rigol has made 9 releases since August 2023, correcting over 40 issues.
2) Rigol never adds features after release – So far, they’ve added 4 improvements: Quick on/off, SMB network storage function, improved self-calibration and DHO800 added 5M storage depth.
3) You can’t save your settings after power down – There is an option to remember your last settings or use the defaults when powering up.
4) Slow to boot – Now offers a sleep mode with instant power-up so long as the scope remains connected to power.
5) Math functions are always in a separate window, not the waveform window. There is an option in the Math options to show results in a separate window or along with the waveforms.
Bode plots on the DHO914S/924S appear to still have issues, although a few tests/users/videos show zero problems. One problem appears to be if the auto gain is too sensitive you may get problems if clipping occurs at higher frequencies. Seems there is a workaround by manually setting the gain of each channel before starting. I’m not sure I’ll ever use Bode plots, but it is a ‘nice to have’.
Silgent SDS800X has had fewer issues but has been on the market for a shorter time. So far, they have made 3 releases and fixed 16 bugs. They have not added any features since the first release.
-
In this post and other review videos, it appears there are quite a few misrepresentations and errors with the Rigol HDO series.
Yep. A lot of people seem to go into Rigol threads just to hate on them.
The Rigol has some advantages, and one of them is that it's extremely hackable. There's improved UIs and an improved fullscreen FFT.
Bode plots on the DHO914S/924S appear to still have issues, although a few tests/users/videos show zero problems. One problem appears to be if the auto gain is too sensitive you may get problems if clipping occurs at higher frequencies. Seems there is a workaround by manually setting the gain of each channel before starting. I’m not sure I’ll ever use Bode plots, but it is a ‘nice to have’.
Similar to the FFT, there's people working in another thread to add Bode plot functions to the DHO804 by controlling an external Signal generator.
-
Yup, nothing says "high-quality scope" like the fact that users need to hack it to give it a usable UI and bode functionality. 😉
-
There is an option in the Math options to show results in a separate window or along with the waveforms.
Is it? Was it added in the latest firmware?
-
Yup, nothing says "high-quality scope" like the fact that users need to hack it to give it a usable UI and bode functionality. 😉
The general opinion is that even the "standard" UI of the Rigol is better than a Siglent, so... :-//
-
The general opinion is that even the "standard" UI of the Rigol is better than a Siglent, so... :-//
No, I don't think the consensus is that Rigol's UI is "better". It is easier to get acquainted with than the Siglent, especially for new DSO users. But is rather wasteful on screen space, due to its many graphical trimmings.
I think the Rigol UI works well on the higher-resolution 10" screen it was originally designed for. Rigol did not do a great job scaling it back to the DHO800/900 screen.
-
The general opinion is that even the "standard" UI of the Rigol is better than a Siglent, so... :-//
Primarily among Rigol fanboys. 😉
-
5) Math functions are always in a separate window, not the waveform window. There is an option in the Math options to show results in a separate window or along with the waveforms.
The display area option for the math functions was added to the first firmware update of the DHO1000/4000 series in April 2023 (the October 2022 user manual hasn't been updated and doesn't mention it), but the DHO800/900 don't have it unfortunately.
-
Are you saying there's literally nothing you'd change about the Siglent UI?
If you could.
(which you can't)
-
Are you saying there's literally nothing you'd change about the Siglent UI?
If you could.
(which you can't)
I'd change the logo (to one of mine), and add some custom icons for fun. But in general, the UI is fine with me. There's certainly some functional changes I'd like to see that I posted in the SDS2000X HD feature request thread. Nothing's perfect, but IME, Siglent is a lot closer than its closest competitor. 😉
-
I'd change the logo (to one of mine), and add some custom icons for fun. But in general, the UI is fine with me.
With the Rigol: I'd change the logo (to one of mine), and add some custom icons for fun. But in general, the UI is fine with me.
-
The display area option for the math functions was added to the first firmware update of the DHO1000/4000 series in April 2023 (the October 2022 user manual hasn't been updated and doesn't mention it), but the DHO800/900 don't have it unfortunately.
I see that now. Thanks! Perhaps they will add it in a future update, as they have been adding features since the first DHO release.
-
The display area option for the math functions was added to the first firmware update of the DHO1000/4000 series in April 2023 (the October 2022 user manual hasn't been updated and doesn't mention it), but the DHO800/900 don't have it unfortunately.
I see that now. Thanks! Perhaps they will add it in a future update, as they have been adding features since the first DHO release.
And pray tell, what specifically did they add since they released it?
-
Here's a simple FFT of a 80MHz -120dBv (1mv) signal on the Rigol DHO814 and Siglent SDS814X HD.
Rigol's FFT looks good but doesn't offer an FFT Average Mode (at least we couldn't find this) like the Siglent which shows the advantage of such with 4 and 64 spectral averages. Hopefully Rigol will offer an FFT Average mode soon ;)
We are not interested in getting into the Rigol vs Siglent debate, nor doing any specific test, folks interested in this can get both and do their own comparisons :-+
Best,
-
Thanks to all the contributors in this (and other posts)!
Way too many years ago I assembled my first HealthKit Oscilloscope when I was 14. After my EE degree, I used Tektronix and HP CRT-based scopes but haven’t used one for a long time. I have a new need for a couple of projects and was impressed by the value available today and narrowed it down to these Rigol and Siglent 12-bit scopes after discarding other bottom-end scopes from Frirsi, Owon, and Hantek from consideration. I’ve never used products from either company before.
In this post and other review videos, it appears there are quite a few misrepresentations and errors with the Rigol HDO series. Let me know if I’m wrong.
1) Rigol never fixes bugs or does updates - Rigol has made 9 releases since August 2023, correcting over 40 issues.
2) Rigol never adds features after release – So far, they’ve added 4 improvements: Quick on/off, SMB network storage function, improved self-calibration and DHO800 added 5M storage depth.
3) You can’t save your settings after power down – There is an option to remember your last settings or use the defaults when powering up.
4) Slow to boot – Now offers a sleep mode with instant power-up so long as the scope remains connected to power.
5) Math functions are always in a separate window, not the waveform window. There is an option in the Math options to show results in a separate window or along with the waveforms.
Bode plots on the DHO914S/924S appear to still have issues, although a few tests/users/videos show zero problems. One problem appears to be if the auto gain is too sensitive you may get problems if clipping occurs at higher frequencies. Seems there is a workaround by manually setting the gain of each channel before starting. I’m not sure I’ll ever use Bode plots, but it is a ‘nice to have’.
Silgent SDS800X has had fewer issues but has been on the market for a shorter time. So far, they have made 3 releases and fixed 16 bugs. They have not added any features since the first release.
Interestingly, none of the numbered items above factored into my decision at all. At the time I made my decision, it was not clear how the scopes would differ in terms of support and updates. The other numbered items weren't even on my radar. I was aware of the Bode plot difference, but wasn't sure whether it was something I would need or want - didn't understand what a Bode plot was well enough fully to understand the discussions about it.
After buying and using the Siglent, I have learned what a Bode plot is (in a class I have been able to sit in on), and have LOVED being able to produce excellent Bode plots at home. I don't know, even now, that I will ever truly need that capability, but then again, I don't know that I truly need a DSO. (Please don't tell my spouse I said that!)
Meanwhile, the thread on the Rigol DHO804 bugs / firmware has made me far more aware of the issue of support and updates; the faux-pas that occurred with their 1.03 firmware and the length of time it took to fix it has made me happy I went with the Siglent. That said, based on what some of the more balanced voices have said in various threads, it is not clear that the bugs (in either scope) would actually have made much if any difference to me as a newbie.
From what I can see, the various arguments for and against fall into four categories:
- There are various "complaints" made against either scope which should probably be discounted, or at least treated as "YMMV" (e.g., the noise of the fan - bothers some, not others).
- Features which one scope has and the other doesn't, which can be overcome relatively easily but may "offend" one's aesthetic sensibilities - e.g., can't use a simple wifi USB adapter on the Siglent but can on the Rigol ... easily overcome with a small, USB-powerd LAN-to-wifi adapter; VESA mount on the Rigol ... easily resolved with a little 3d printing; only one USB port on the Rigol but two on the Siglent ... easily overcome with a USB hub; and so on.
- Features which one scope which the other doesn't, which seem like prime candidates for software upgrades, e.g., Bode plot and FFT averaging on the Rigol, wifi USB adapter on the Siglent.
- Features which one scope has and the other doesn't which cannot be overcome easily or perhaps at all, e.g., ability to power the Rigol with a USB-C power bank, HDMI output on the Rigol, higher sampling rate on the Siglent.
Naturally, each person will weigh these various factors differently. I would say the main reason I went with the Siglent was the sampling rate - that's a "hard number" that, as far as I know, cannot be changed by any software update or hack or so on. I am very happy with my choice. But I strongly suspect that I would have been happy with either, as either of these is such a huge leap beyond my old boat-anchor Tektronix.
-
For me it was the Sample Rate, Memory and better use of screen space of the Siglent
-
Ok, some may flame me, but after looking at all the posts in this thread, many videos, and a lot more on these 12-bit scopes, I went with the Rigol DHO914S.
First here is my reasoning for choosing the DHO914S over a DHO800 (later I’ll talk about the Siglent):
- The 914 has the logic analyzer option. While some might want to cut up the case and solder in the connector, hack the software, and void the warranty, I wasn’t willing to do that. Still, my need for LA isn’t immediate, more of a nice to have for the future. I like the $85 option for a 16-probe 5V/3.3V, as I never work with logic outside that voltage range.
- The primary reason was getting the AWG. There appear to be good alternatives in the $180 and up for a stand-alone AWG. Having it built in eliminates one more box and power cord and allows for Bode Plots that I might like to use in the future (still some controversy on Bode!). My primary use case is for the signal generator, not Bode.
- The third rather silly reason is I like the black faceplate better than the white one. The lighted indicators and buttons stand out a lot better than on the white DHO800 series.
Now before I went through this entire post, I was thinking of the DHO802/SDS802X, both are super bargains. Others here convinced me that 4-channels are worth the extra cost. I can see a few cases where more than 2 channels might be useful. Most of my work has been with 1 or 2 channels. You often adapt to what you have available!
If there was a DHO804S, I would have likely gone for it. Yes, I’m aware of the hacks for higher bandwidth, which is cool in its own right, The bandwidth was not an important consideration for me as I’m hard-pressed to think of a need beyond 10 MHz for my use cases.
After a lot of handwringing, I decided to splurge and get the DHO914S. Next up, why Siglent didn’t quite match up for me, but a close second.
-
Having it built in eliminates one more box and power cord and allows for Bode Plots that I might like to use in the future (still some controversy on Bode!).
It's convenient to have it internally, but there might come a day when you buy an external AWG anyway. I primarily used internal AWGs for a long time, but external AWGs give you more power and more options if/when you need them. For now, enjoy the internal one. 😉
-
- The third rather silly reason is I like the black faceplate better than the white one...
It still surprises me how much weight people give to white vs. black on test equipment. Note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with giving color weight (even a lot of weight) - I'm just surprised how far up the list it is for so many people.
Thanks for explaining your thought process. I haven't bought either of the DHO800/DHO900 or SDS800X HD scopes (and that surprises me - I sold my SDS1104X-E in anticipation), But every time I think I might pull the trigger I have a hard time deciding, though I'll admit I lean a bit toward the SDS804X-HD.
-
My reasoning for choosing the Rigol DHO914S over the similar Siglent SDS814X with AWG:
Right off, we have some specification differences. The Rigol has better single-channel bandwidth, while the Siglent is better at 4 channels. The Rigol has half the sampling rate. The memory depth is the same. I’m ignoring the hacks that can offer more bandwidth. None of these differences matter to me, but may to others depending on the use cases.
For these specific two configurations, the Siglent is also about $90 more expensive.
Going back to the 20 pages of posts earlier on this thread shows that when each is pushed 2-3 times beyond their design limit to 500 MHz, both scopes produce poor results – These are the wrong scopes to be using and a higher-end scope should be considered.
For me the information display is critical – you must be comfortable understanding the settings and accessing features. IMHO the Siglent looks like something like a 1990s PC app whereas the Rigol has a fresh smartphone design style. The fonts are cleaner and easier to read on Rigol. When enlarged on a PC or external display, the Rigol’s display looks even better. Not so with the Siglent. Still, this appears to be a major personal choice issue.
Then there is how the UI functions. I expect if you are used to Siglent’s UI, most don’t want to switch to something more modern. The Auto Setup is a cool feature on both scopes, but why Siglent forces you to confirm the operation each time seems clunky. I hope they don’t do this for other operations.
The ability to further customize the UI is also so cool on Rigol. The free add-in to provide a toggle to full-screen waveform display looks nice (I haven’t tried it yet). Android allows so much more flexibility that doesn’t exist on Siglent. I’ve written commercial Android apps, so being able to add more features adds a lot of value to me. One current limitation is the Math functions are always displayed in a separate Window. Hopefully, Rigol will add the option to combine them in one window as some of their higher-end scopes. On the other hand, I think Siglent doesn’t offer separate Windows as an option.
Next is the AWG option. On the Siglent, this is an expensive $285 dongle that requires more cables and seems like such a clunky solution. On the Rigol, it’s fully integrated and only adds about $100 to the cost. I was on the fence and looked at other standalone AWG equipment. Seems most of the good 14-bit solutions are in the $180-400 category. I really didn’t want more boxes to deal with and my needs are well covered by the AWG in either Rigol or Siglent.
A small negative is the external power supply unit on the Rigol. The Rigol supply and the scope together consume quite a bit less volume than the Siglent, but I doubt anyone cares. With any equipment over its life the power supply is the most likely to fail, so having it easily replaceable is a plus. The external power also allows powering via a 12v battery or a car (I do some CAN/LIN bus work in EVs).
Small pluses for the Rigol include the ability to install tiny $10 USB WiFi, whereas the Siglent has no native support for WiFi. The Rigol also offers a HDMI output that can display up to 1920x1080 resolution. Others have also said the included Rigol probes are better, but I have no way to evaluate that. The Rigol is also significantly thinner and lighter than the Siglent.
A small plus to me for the Siglent is the black faceplate and the Logic analyzer connection is standard on all models. Sadly, the Siglent LA option is another $425 with no lower-cost third-party option that I’m aware of.
I’m unlikely to win any Siglent converts, and that is fine. Both do so much more than the scopes I’ve used in the past, at a price point that is truly incredible – one should be very happy with buying either scope. I’ll try and add some more notes when I do more testing.
-
I see some misinformation is being repeated here that need correction.
Rigol DHO900 does not have less bandwidth at 4 channels. That IS the problem.
And if you use 4 analog and also digital together, it has sample rate that is almost 4x less than SDS800xHD.
Those two limitations of DHO900 combined, will result in almost 300MHz BW sampled at 156 MS/s.
That is sample rate sufficient only for 60-70 MHz realtime oscilloscope.
Rigol DHO800/900 are having adequate sample rate only when 1 or 2 channels are used. All other combinations will make scope show plainly wrong data.
If those facts are known and understood by customers, and they are happy with these limitations, then Ok.
But saying that they have "less BW at more than 2 channels" is dangerous misinformation.
As for colors, I have 3 scopes that are beige/light gray and 3 that are dark gray/black. They are both exactly the same to me, usability wise.
Also comments about how something looks like 1990s design and something is better to read because it looks like a smartphone I find funny. Obviously it has been forgotten how Windows 3.1 looked. And I personally find smartphone GUI design ugly, limited and nonfunctional. But hey, to each it's own.
Also, "are you sure" for Auto button is there for same reason as " This command will format your disk and delete all data on it. Are you sure you want to proceed ??". Sometimes it takes few minutes to setup the scope with all the measurements and such.
And it is really easy. You just press Auto twice, in a succession. When that became so hard to do? You already have finger on it.
I personally would not mind if I could change Auto button to something else useful. That is my complaint.
What am I saying here?
If person wants to nitpick, any of us, any, will find a mile long list things they would do differently.
Also to some 4 math channels with fully featured FFT is a must.
For some, more important is the colour. Or they never use math but they need HDMI.
That is why I think best is to try to speak about facts. Price, capabilities, bugs, support, color, whatever...
Each person maps it to their need and preferences.
-
IMHO the Siglent looks like something like a 1990s PC app whereas the Rigol has a fresh smartphone design style.
This is an excellent way to put it. Focus on functionality and rational use of screen space vs fancy looks purely for the sake of fancy looks (and, frankly, not even shining at that).
Rigol desperately needs to hire an actual industrial UI designer.
-
Rigol DHO800/900 are having adequate sample rate only when 1 or 2 channels are used. All other combinations will make scope show plainly wrong data.
That's deliberately misleading and you know it.
Other combinations might make it show wrong data, but it's unlikely when you're using ordinary probes and not 50 Ohm coax.
(and it's very easy to know when it's showing wrong data, and also easy to make it show the correct data)
-
Other combinations might make it show wrong data,
Yes correct, it might show wrong data, but the bad thing is that you do not know if the data shown is right or wrong, unless you are certain that there is no content of a certain frequency in the input signal. That covers a lot of cases, though, so the problem is not really all that bad for, I think, the majority of the target users. And there's a workaround: you can check the input signal in single-channel mode. But still the lack of a proper LPF functionality to limit bandwidth to what the current sampling rate allows is a very serious flaw. And the most stupid thing here is that it could (I think) have been fixed in firmware, but for some reason Rigol don't care.
but it's unlikely when you're using ordinary probes and not 50 Ohm coax.
Nope. The included probes easily let the frequencies necessary to demonstrate the issue in question through.
(and it's very easy to know when it's showing wrong data, and also easy to make it show the correct data)
For example?
-
This is funny. My posts might sound like I hate the DHO800/900 series. No, it's quite the opposite, I like this little scope very much, it allows me to do everything I (realistically) need and way beyond in a compact and inexpensive package with great potential for hacking in a broad sense of the word. And that's exactly why all of its shortcomings, vast majority of which could have been fixed in software, are so prominently obvious and disappointing to me. What a ridiculous waste of opportunities that this excellent hardware has to offer!
-
And the most stupid thing here is that it could (I think) have been fixed in firmware, but for some reason Rigol don't care.
It would be easy to automatically reduce the bandwidth when the sample rate drops.
But that's Rigol, it won't happen.
If you have a DHO804/814, it's not necessary either, as long as you keep your hands off it and don't hack a “Frankenstein”.
It's also hard to imagine that if you buy a scope like that, you want to take measurements beyond 100Mhz.
I think the DHO900 series is a complete failure, with its bandwidths up to 250Mhz with simultaneous restriction due to the meager sample rate when more channels are active, plus the botched Bodeplot.
If cheap, then DHO800, if it would remain significantly cheaper than the competition from Siglent in the long term.
-
If you have a DHO804/814, it's not necessary either, as long as you keep your hands off it and don't hack a “Frankenstein”.
The DHO800 series scopes shine, in my opinion, if and only if it's a DHO804 (low price, 4 channels) unlocked to 250 MHz (high BW at a low price still). I don't see any reason in the existence of DHO814 other than buying them for use where hacking is not an option because of non-technical reasons (contract-bound purchases, such as, maybe, schools etc.)
It's also hard to imagine that if you buy a scope like that, you want to take measurements beyond 100Mhz.
Pff... Easy! First off, learn how any why scopes may fail to display a HF signal properly.
Then, have fun with making pulse generators and seeing how they perform (every EE hobbyist must make one, right?). Learn that actual frequency is in the edges, not in the "main" frequency, and that's where you may need high(er) bandwidth too.
Play with (and learn again) probing techniques: regular probes with ground lead vs spring, coax cables, resistive probes, make your own diff probe etc.
Investigate ringing issues with different PCB layouts.
There's a lot of fun beyond 100 MHz, and inexpensive scopes that can be useful there is a true modern day wonder that is a reality.
I think the DHO900 series is a complete failure
This is true. It fails in exactly what is supposed to be the added value over the DHO800 series.
-
if and only if it's a DHO804 (low price, 4 channels) unlocked to 250 MHz
That's what I meant by Frankenstein.
There's a lot of fun beyond 100 MHz, and inexpensive scopes that can be useful there is a true modern day wonder that is a reality.
Well..I'll just leave that there for a moment. ;)
The DHO800 series scopes shine, in my opinion
In most respects, it is a worthy successor to the Rigol 1000Z, which at the time represented a milestone in the field of entry-level scopes that could also be used for something.
It was ideal for students who couldn't afford anything.
That's also how I see the DHO800 series: ideal for getting started if you can't afford an SDS800X HD.
-
That's also how I see the DHO800 series: ideal for getting started if you can't afford an SDS800X HD.
At Batronix, I see only 12€ difference between DHO804 and SDS800X HD.
Do you think 12€ really make the difference between can afford and can't afford?
-
It's not only a question of affordability, but that of availability, too. As well as of the interpolated (pixelated) rendering of the waveform on the Siglent, if I understood correctly what it was all about, and other things mentioned in the respective topic.
Both scopes have their pros and cons (go figure). Even as half-baked as the Rigol is, I'm still not sure if I would want to exchange it for the Siglent today if I had such an offer.
-
It's not only a question of affordability, but that of availability, too. As well as of the interpolated (pixelated) rendering of the waveform on the Siglent, if I understood correctly what it was all about, and other things mentioned in the respective topic.
Both scopes have their pros and cons (go figure). Even as half-baked as the Rigol is, I'm still not sure if I would want to exchange it for the Siglent today if I had such an offer.
Not all pros and cons are equally important.
For instance that "pixelated rendering" is not visible when scope is in Run mode. When stopped, you need to look really close and look for ir specifically to actually see it. If you just heard people "talk" about it I would advise you to find someone with SDS800xHD and to see for yourself. I personally had scope for 2 months before someone mentioned that, and had to go look for it with magnifying glass. Screen is small and you need to get really close to see it.
I would be willing to discuss it as something that might be plainly visible on 10" or larger screen. On 7" screen? No, not really.
While I consider a DHO804 a decent little scope hardware (let's no go into fw maturity now, let's have hope Rigol does right by their users in long term), SDS800 is much better scope in many ways. I mean that as a functional instrument, capabilities and just as a concept.
If you don't see that difference, then you don't need those capabilities and don't need a better scope than DHO800. Which is fine because you are well served for your money, and that is all that is important.
OTOH there are dozen of people here on EEVBLOG that bought Rigol DHO800/900/1000 (it was available sooner and cheaper than Siglent) and returned them and got Siglent.
So different people, different priorities and preferences -> different products they like.
-
While I consider a DHO804 a decent little scope hardware (let's no go into fw maturity now, let's have hope Rigol does right by their users in long term), SDS800 is much better scope in many ways. I mean that as a functional instrument, capabilities and just as a concept.
If you don't see that difference, then you don't need those capabilities and don't need a better scope than DHO800. Which is fine because you are well served for your money, and that is all that is important.
Of course I do see the difference, and I did read that excellent thread with an in-depth evaluation of the SDS800, which I by the way recommend to do for anyone who's trying to decide on which scope to buy.
Of course the Siglent's issues are nowhere near the Rigol's in terms of their significance. Being an owner of the latter, I would not recommend buying the Rigol to anyone, except if: a) there is no alternative or the price difference is prohibitive (my case actually); b) there is a very specific reason why it may be preferable in a particular situation. Overall, the Siglent is clearly a better designed more mature device made by people whose intention was to create a scope that follows the respective industry best practices and standards and is fully-functional and not just good looking thing trying to be trendy, but leaving a feeling of something amateurish on a closer look.
I did not mean to say that the two were equivalent when I said that both have pros and cons.
But with that said, buying the Rigol won't be a mistake or a bad choice per se. It is still a good functional oscilloscope with issues, most of which have workarounds and some of which (like the noisy fan) may, depending on the user's tolerance, require fixing before the scope can actually be used.
...and all of this has been said many times, which includes myself, lol.
-
Honestly if one considers the BOM for the DHO800 and SDS800 the ADCs alone likely cost over $200 and believe the SDS has two :o
Of course Rigol and Siglent aren't paying anywhere near this, Rigol has it's own custom developed ADC and Siglent is apparently using TI.
Both impressive instruments, and considering price, amazing values. If you look at a modern bench Power Supply, these DSOs are usually cheaper and considerably more complex :clap:
Best,
-
What about Siglent's completely broken SCPI implementation?
If you want to automate anything then you're going to have serious problems on Siglent.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/scpi-best-practices/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/scpi-best-practices/)
-
(and it's very easy to know when it's showing wrong data, and also easy to make it show the correct data)
For example?
Turn off a channel or two.
The "70Mhz" model (really 125MHz) is mostly enough for poking at circuits on breadboards. Anybody who thinks they can see real information beyond that by clipping probes onto breadboard circuits is delusional.
I don't have mine set to 250MHz by default but I know I can switch it to that speed if I need it.
IMHO this whole issue is overblown. It exists but in practice I'm having difficulty thinking of a real-life example where my Rigol has shown me "plainly wrong data". I also refuse to believe that Siglent owners spend their whole lives looking at four simultaneous pulse generators, or that 200MHz is enough for people that need four simultaneous 50-Ohm-coax signals.
-
Why does it matter to you so much? You like your scope, that's cool. The Siglent is a superior scope, but that doesn't matter if you're content with the scope you have. There's a ton of scopes that are better than both, but so what?
-
Hello,
I don't have a DHO800 but a DHO1074
I am very dissatisfied with the record function of DHO1074. Firstly because I can't save the data, but also because there are often gaps. I wanted to record 100 events that last 20 us and occur every 5 ms. Again and again the distance between two consecutive events is 10 ms and a event is missing in between.
Is the DHO800 better here?
Best regards
egonotto
-
The Siglent is a superior scope
Not true for everybody.
Why does it matter to you so much?
Because of people making statements like that one.
Rigol DHO800/900 are having adequate sample rate only when 1 or 2 channels are used. All other combinations will make scope show plainly wrong data.
And this one.
-
The Siglent is a superior scope
Not true for everybody.
Why does it matter to you so much?
Because of people making statements like that one.
Rigol DHO800/900 are having adequate sample rate only when 1 or 2 channels are used. All other combinations will make scope show plainly wrong data.
And this one.
It is a superior scope. That is objective fact. It is a better instrument. To measure stuff, you know.
Also second statement about sampling is also completely true.
Looking at many posts here it seems to me that few people use Rigols for real work.
Can you use Performa01 SDS800xHD review and follow it and report same for DHO800?
With same measurements so we can compare? Something like that demonstrating it is better or equal would change my mind.
Facts. Repeating lies does not make it true.
Ignore facts at your own peril.. Gravity does not go away, no matter how many times you repeat "I can fly..."
Like I sad, and I agree with Shapirus, fact that SDS800 is better instrument does not make DHO800 useless of garbage.
In a same way as the SDS1104X-E did not make DS1000Z useless or garbage. But objectively, SDS1000X-E was a better, slightly more expensive instrument. Buying DS1000Z was not a mistake, but SDS1000X-E was better. Both were much better choice that many more expensive scopes from A brands in that segment. And infinitely better than many "weird brand" scopes that were just slightly less expensive.
And to repeat, I personally owned DS1000Z, and apart from FFT not being very good, liked the little thing. It was a good scope for the money at the time. For a period of time I kept it together with Keysight and Picos. Then I bought Miscsig (for portability) and really didn't need it anymore.
Situation right now, to me looks similar. SDS800xHD is better instrument. That does not mean DHO800 is useless.
I cannot comment how annoying and buggy FW on DHO800 is, because I don't use it in real life. I do see Rigol is not doing much there. I don't like that much. DS1000Z had it's problems in beginning, but was generally good in that regard.
I do think DHO900 is a scam though...
-
The Siglent is a superior scope
Not true for everybody.
It is a superior scope. That is objective fact. It is a better instrument. To measure stuff, you know.
What if I want a VESA mount, smaller footprint, external HDMI monitor because my eyesight isn't too good or I want to show it on the big screen in the classroom?
What if I only do this part time and I want the 'scope that's easiest to learn?
etc., etc.
It is NOT better for everyone. The guy on the previous page gave a list of perfectly legit. reasons for his purchase.
-
You always revolve around the same, different things.
There is a kind of “general quality / excellence”. This is not always easy to define, but it exists in every area of life.
I am Swiss, a cheese matured for 14 months is considered “superior” to a young cheese.
Does that also mean that it necessarily tastes better to me?
Of course not, but it is still the more valuable cheese.
And that's always the point here.
I also think that the Siglent is technically superior to the Rigol and my Hantek anyway. You can hardly doubt that.
Nevertheless, there are always individual points that can be decisive for a person.
If you want HDMI, you buy the Rigol.
If you can't stand long boot times and fan noise, you might even stick with the Hantek, etc.
That doesn't change the fact that the Siglent is generally the better scope, but perhaps not for your purpose.
-
The Siglent is a superior scope
Not true for everybody.
It is a superior scope. That is objective fact. It is a better instrument. To measure stuff, you know.
What if I want a VESA mount, smaller footprint, external HDMI monitor because my eyesight isn't too good or I want to show it on the big screen in the classroom?
What if I only do this part time and I want the 'scope that's easiest to learn?
etc., etc.
It is NOT better for everyone. The guy on the previous page gave a list of perfectly legit. reasons for his purchase.
Deflection and goalpost changing.
It is a BETTER MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT. Which is the purpose of measurement instruments. Scopes make lousy hammers.
For people that need only basic stuff, and VESA mount is only important thing, they should be served well with DHO800. Because that product SUITS THEM better, despite being INFERIOR INSTRUMENT. Because even INFERIOR INSTRUMENT serves their simple and basic measurement purposes but VESA is important to them.
I have demonstrated examples where people wants to, for instance, show in school or in presentation just some simple waveforms on the big screen and would like to be able to connect scope to big screen. I think that DHO800 would do that well enough for very little money, in a small package, easy to carry in your bag. Good choice.
So to correct your sentence, SDS800xHD is objectively better instrument than DHO800, but DHO800 can be right choice for some people, because their need does not call for best measurement characteristics and capabilities but they exclusively need some other secondary characteristics that Rigol has.
-
At Batronix, I see only 12€ difference between DHO804 and SDS800X HD.
Do you think 12€ really make the difference between can afford and can't afford?
On Aliexpress, a DHO804 costs almost a hundred euros less; here, the prices are conservative. ;)
DHO800 Aliexpress (https://de.aliexpress.com/item/1005007092050597.html?spm=a2g0o.detail.pcDetailTopMoreOtherSeller.11.1e74LcYRLcYRQk&gps-id=pcDetailTopMoreOtherSeller&scm=1007.40196.417130.0&scm_id=1007.40196.417130.0&scm-url=1007.40196.417130.0&pvid=07a63d62-c4d1-4a29-98fe-616e6a964622&_t=gps-id:pcDetailTopMoreOtherSeller,scm-url:1007.40196.417130.0,pvid:07a63d62-c4d1-4a29-98fe-616e6a964622,tpp_buckets:668%232846%238113%231998&pdp_npi=4%40dis%21EUR%21329.39%21329.39%21%21%212436.32%212436.32%21%4021038da617347840774963907ea0c0%2112000039373554782%21rec%21DE%212008247043%21X&utparam-url=scene%3ApcDetailTopMoreOtherSeller%7Cquery_from%3A)
Batronix does not currently have a single DHO800/900/1000 model in stock.
You can still buy DHO4404 and 4804, they have probably been in storage for ages. 8)
-
You can buy it in Europe at the moment for € 299 (Net, 3 Weeks).
https://www.batterfly.com/shop/de/rigol-dho804?search=dho804 (https://www.batterfly.com/shop/de/rigol-dho804?search=dho804)
-
You can buy it in Europe at the moment for € 299 (Net, 3 Weeks).
https://www.batterfly.com/shop/de/rigol-dho804?search=dho804 (https://www.batterfly.com/shop/de/rigol-dho804?search=dho804)
Good prices in Europe, with seasonal discounts and all that. Here we get none of the discounts, so enjoy while you can.
DHO804 price from the only distributor in the country:
https://www.partnerelectronic.com/urunler/dho804-70-mhz-4-kanalli-12-bit-dijital-osiloskop (https://www.partnerelectronic.com/urunler/dho804-70-mhz-4-kanalli-12-bit-dijital-osiloskop) (about 500 EUR + 20% tax)
DHO1074
https://www.partnerelectronic.com/urunler/rigol-hdo1074-70-mhz-4-kanalli-12-bit-dijital-osiloskop (https://www.partnerelectronic.com/urunler/rigol-hdo1074-70-mhz-4-kanalli-12-bit-dijital-osiloskop) (about 950 EUR + 20% tax)
Here is what's available from one of the three distributors in terms of Siglent models:
https://www.kamitekno.com/siglent-osiloskop?sira=URUNFIYATIORJINAL&yon=DESC&sayfa=1 (https://www.kamitekno.com/siglent-osiloskop?sira=URUNFIYATIORJINAL&yon=DESC&sayfa=1)
Need to click on "stoktakiler" (in stock items) to just see what's actually available for sale (8 items as of this post).
SDS814X HD (USD 610 including 20% sales tax, approx USD 508 without)
SDS1104X HD (USD 1729 including 20% sales tax, approx USD 1440 without)
The other two Siglent distributors don't provide prices (they require to ask for quote and in my experience one of them never returns to requests for quotes through the web form); one example should be enough to demonstrate the situation here.
This post doesn't have much point; I just wanted to get it off. Apologies in advance for any inconvenience...
-
It seems, for once, we are pretty lucky here in Canada.
SDS804X HD - $407 (USD)
SDS1104X HD - $1299 (USD)
These prices are lower even than the US prices. :-+
The Rigol scopes don't interest me at all, but they might be suitable for someone else if getting the best performance is not the main criteria. For one guy I know, being able to run a compact scope off a battery pack was the deciding factor. To each their own.
-
DIY VESA mount has been made for the SDS800X HD series. That's no longer a win for the other win. 😉
-
You always revolve around the same, different things.
There is a kind of “general quality / excellence”. This is not always easy to define, but it exists in every area of life.
I am Swiss, a cheese matured for 14 months is considered “superior” to a young cheese.
Does that also mean that it necessarily tastes better to me?
Of course not, but it is still the more valuable cheese.
And that's always the point here.
I also think that the Siglent is technically superior to the Rigol and my Hantek anyway. You can hardly doubt that.
Nevertheless, there are always individual points that can be decisive for a person.
If you want HDMI, you buy the Rigol.
If you can't stand long boot times and fan noise, you might even stick with the Hantek, etc.
That doesn't change the fact that the Siglent is generally the better scope, but perhaps not for your purpose.
IMO HDMI instrument connectivity is overrated. :horse:
If you must port the display to a big screen for any need, a good and powerful webserver is the better solution.
I have SDS6204A and SNA5004A both with HDMI and never used it other to check if it works....big deal :=\
For 20+ yrs I've had a PC at the bench for PCB CAD, device datasheets and general electronics research, therefore what's another browser tab or 3 adding to the 20+ that are already open. :-//
With the webserver I have full mouse and keyboard control without needing to touch the instrument along with capture of any files I might need to capture directly to the PC.
For EDU and presentation use the webserver wins again as EDU PC's or laptops can port to a large display via a projector or HDMI connection and provide full instrument control with a mouse.
At the 3 day EMEX exhibition in Auckland a few months back we used a 40" display in conjunction with a mini PC, smaller than a box of chocs and had all instruments connected to it via a private LAN using an old 4 port router and another switch or 2.
We could show each instruments connectivity in browser tabs with just a mouse click, 5x scopes and a few analyzers but sadly we at that time didn't have the recently released PSU's or Arbs with webservers.
No pissing about with $ $ HDMI cabling when a cheap LAN cable offers a much more powerful display porting solution.
-
For EDU and presentation use the webserver wins again as EDU PC's or laptops can port to a large display via a projector or HDMI connection and provide full instrument control with a mouse.
How do you get it fullscreen instead of like this?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2467177;image)
-
For EDU and presentation use the webserver wins again as EDU PC's or laptops can port to a large display via a projector or HDMI connection and provide full instrument control with a mouse.
How do you get it fullscreen instead of like this?
By clicking the expanding arrows in the bottom right corner next to the display image.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2467201;image)
-
For EDU and presentation use the webserver wins again as EDU PC's or laptops can port to a large display via a projector or HDMI connection and provide full instrument control with a mouse.
How do you get it fullscreen instead of like this?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/choosing-between-entry-level-12-bit-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=2467177;image)
Like Josh said :-+
Best
-
Here is an example on a 28 inch PC.
-
Like Josh said :-+
Alright, I'm just asking... no need for everybody to take it so personal.
-
On the Rigol fan noise, it seems like a non-issue today. Perhaps Rigol improved the design. My scope was manufactured in October 2024. In a silent room, being 18" from the front, I can't hear any fan noise. From 12" from the back, I can hear the fan, but not annoying or noisy.
I used a sound meter, and from 2" away from the back at the location with the highest reading, it was only 57 dB. At 3" it drops to 53 dB. This is a very quiet device and shouldn't be a factor in deciding which scope to get.
-
Like Josh said :-+
Alright, I'm just asking... no need for everybody to take it so personal.
In my old SDS1104X-E review, I showed it full-screen on a 32" monitor: https://youtu.be/HI7DGjgl2tw?feature=shared&t=378
-
Alright, I'm just asking... no need for everybody to take it so personal.
Nothing personal here, we've got no "Skin in the Rigol/Siglent game" ;)
We do have both DSOs, altho the Rigol was acquired for a client that has fallen on financial woes!!
Note: Our comments are from an actual use standpoint rather than speculation.
The Rigol is a very good all around DSO, nothing serious to complain about, does what it's supposed to do and does it very well, great value!!
However, the Siglent is what we reach for most of the time, it's performance, features and value are just outstanding IMO ;)
As we've said, don't know how Rigol and Siglent can offer these at this price point, remarkable values!!
Of course as always, YMMV!!
Best
-
[...] the Rigol was acquired for a client that has fallen on financial woes!!
Unrelated events, I trust? ;)
-
[...] the Rigol was acquired for a client that has fallen on financial woes!!
Unrelated events, I trust? ;)
Yeah, client over extended themselves on their design side of the product. Went thru multiple mechanical product designs/redesigns with different resources and could never get things right, eventually burning up all their R&D funds. They have a superb PCB (no changes in 1st iteration) that's almost unbreakable with abuse (intended for unskilled users), but can't seem to get their act together wrt to packaging :P
We tried earlier to help them realize their situation (lack of electrical/mechanical skills), even offering to take over the entire project, but fell on deaf ears :o
Best,
-
Hello KunFu Josh! I just bought my first Siglent SDS804 with your recommendation after debating between the Rigol. Unfortunately it looks like the hack videos and scripts were removed :(. Would you be able to share it with me? Thanks!
-
Can anyone confirm that the SDS804X hides one trace under another as in the picture unlike the DHO804 which has semi-transparent traces allowing both traces to be seen? I just saw it in a Youtube video.
-
Yes, the SDS824X HD does not show one trace section behind another. However you can select which is the top trace and viewed in full.
Note how the highlighted channel gets front row!
Best
-
Another example of not seeing everything:
Notice the bottom, where most, but not all the green negative pulses are hidden by the red. Giving the false impression, that green pulses are missing.
-
Can anyone confirm that the SDS804X hides one trace under another as in the picture unlike the DHO804 which has semi-transparent traces allowing both traces to be seen? I just saw it in a Youtube video.
These are two way to render multiple traces on the screen.
Problem with Rigol style is color mixing.
If you put all 4 channels on and decoding and other stuff, and apply some more complex signals that overlap more randomly, you get a rainbow where you don't know what is part of what.
With Siglent way you always have full view of focused channel and if you want some other channels, you move focus to that one.
Keysight does it same as Siglent, as are many others like Tektronix, R&S and even other Rigol scopes. And for a reason.
-
Can anyone confirm that the SDS804X hides one trace under another as in the picture unlike the DHO804 which has semi-transparent traces allowing both traces to be seen? I just saw it in a Youtube video.
These are two way to render multiple traces on the screen.
Problem with Rigol style is color mixing.
If you put all 4 channels on and decoding and other stuff, and apply some more complex signals that overlap more randomly, you get a rainbow where you don't know what is part of what.
With Siglent way you always have full view of focused channel and if you want some other channels, you move focus to that one.
Keysight does it same as Siglent, as are many others like Tektronix, R&S and even other Rigol scopes. And for a reason.
:-+
-
Problem with Rigol style is color mixing.
I have just seen that in the case of my DHO I have freedom of choice, if I want to hide one trace under another I only have to set the trace to 100%, and if I want to see one trace under another I can set it to +-50%. I normally have it at 50% by default.
-
Problem with Rigol style is color mixing.
I have just seen that in the case of my DHO I have freedom of choice, if I want to hide one trace under another I only have to set the trace to 100%, and if I want to see one trace under another I can set it to +-50%. I normally have it at 50% by default.
It is same as when working with any software that deals with multiple layers in multiple colors. PCB software for instance.
Thank you for the information. I would still have it non transparent for the reasons I stated.
You are are talking about difference between "hide one trace under another" and "traces mixing and interfering with each other".
It is a choice between clearly seeing selected channel no matter what and maybe seeing it Ok and some other stuff but maybe not or maybe complete confusion.
You might have personal preferences, but non-transparent mode must exist. Because it is only way to actually guarantee you will see the channel you need.
It is good they gave you choice.
-
With Siglent way you always have full view of focused channel and if you want some other channels, you move focus to that one.
Keysight does it same as Siglent, as are many others like Tektronix, R&S and even other Rigol scopes. And for a reason.
Rigol DHO800 does that, too.
Apparently it's not "The Siglent way", go figure.
-
With Siglent way you always have full view of focused channel and if you want some other channels, you move focus to that one.
Keysight does it same as Siglent, as are many others like Tektronix, R&S and even other Rigol scopes. And for a reason.
Rigol DHO800 does that, too.
Apparently it's not "The Siglent way", go figure.
No, the "Siglent way" is not meant as a statement that they invented it, don't be silly.
This is how things get wrong when you take statements out of context.
I said that in response to a specific comparison between the Siglent scope and the other one.
It is good if DHO800 does that too, like the rest of Rigol scopes before. I said that.
The point is that it is industry standard way and Siglent is doing it too.
The point is that it was not invented by Siglent.
This phrasing was used in response to malicious statement (by the usual bringer of libel, misinformation and fake news) that particular way of display was a bug and defect and just plain display (pun intended) of incompetence by manufacturer, for "failing" to do it "right way" (which is being defined as to whatever he feels like it should be at the moment).
-
Problem with Rigol style is color mixing.
I have just seen that in the case of my DHO I have freedom of choice, if I want to hide one trace under another I only have to set the trace to 100%, and if I want to see one trace under another I can set it to +-50%. I normally have it at 50% by default.
Only the Rigol gives this choice? None of the other brands?
-
If you put all 4 channels on and decoding and other stuff, and apply some more complex signals that overlap more randomly, you get a rainbow where you don't know what is part of what.
I am wondering why you are always exaggerating things. An option for this would already help, when there are only 2 traces! No need to exaggerate here. And if you cant understand its usefulness, does not mean its useless.
-
Hello KunFu Josh! I just bought my first Siglent SDS804 with your recommendation after debating between the Rigol. Unfortunately it looks like the hack videos and scripts were removed :(. Would you be able to share it with me? Thanks!
Are you asking about upgrading to higher bandwidth & memory? Here's a thread that may help: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds804x-hd-same-upgrade-scripts/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds804x-hd-same-upgrade-scripts/)
-
If you put all 4 channels on and decoding and other stuff, and apply some more complex signals that overlap more randomly, you get a rainbow where you don't know what is part of what.
I am wondering why you are always exaggerating things. An option for this would already help, when there are only 2 traces! No need to exaggerate here. And if you cant understand its usefulness, does not mean its useless.
Funny for you to say that.
You are the one always exaggerating everything.
I used as an example one of your screen shots, where you say you can't see it right.
With traces transparent, in that same situation you would see something but understand even less..
And I understand what it does. And I said that I don't mind it as long as you can set it to show like all other scopes.
Fact that nobody does it that way is either everybody in industry making scopes is stupid, or maybe it is mature industry where after years and years of experimenting, one way to display traces was settled down as optimal.
But if you like it so much, maybe switch back to Rigol DHO if they are only ones providing that, to you critical, function.
Go at it buddy.
Make note that two people that thanked you are one strong Rigol advocate and a guy that created alternative FW because Rigol GUI is apparently hated even by people that own it, and users have to fix dozens of (real) bugs that are still there after more than 2 years platform was released.
And yes he is selling that FW.. Which by itself is OK by me. He should be paid for his work. But obviously there is a conflict of interest, when taking advice and sides..
-
you would see something but understand even less..
And I understand what it does...
:blah: :blah: :blah:
So much words, but you havent answered my request in the other topic about your accusations. ::)
BTW:
I dont care about "thanks". There are other things that i care about, that are worth much more...
-
:blah: :blah: :blah: ??
What are you, four years old?
I am not on trial here and won't play your stupid games.
It is all in the plain site..
-
What are you, four years old?
You're very generous! :-DD :-DD
-
I am not on trial here and won't play your stupid games.
It is all in the plain site..
Of course your are not, but you posted same bad accusations of me without (recent) proof.
You are very welcome to STFU to all my future posts!
-
You are very welcome to STFU to all my future posts!
Wouldn't that be your wet dream ......
To be able to bullshit to your heart will, unchecked........
I am afraid, no luck for you...
Make note that I DID have positive comments on SOME of your posts..
Those that weren't stupid, obnoxious and vile....
I also answered some of your good and polite questions in polite manner.
Fact that I have more negative than positive comments for your posts is more about quality of material you provide, than me..
-
The fact that oscilloscope fanboys exist is absolutely wild. Reading this thread was a trip. I ultimately bought the rigol, because I am not entirely sure what an oscilloscope does or what I will use it for. And it was slightly cheaper on aliexpress. But watching you guys duke it out over oscilloscopes is nuts. As a beginner looking for a scope, reading this thread was embarrassing. I feel like I learned nothing other than oscilloscope fanboys are weirdly a thing.
-
The fact that oscilloscope fanboys exist is absolutely wild. Reading this thread was a trip. I ultimately bought the rigol, because I am not entirely sure what an oscilloscope does or what I will use it for.
Wait! What? You bought a scope and dont know if your going to use it? Thats something i would expect a fanboy to do. There is this one guy, that bought a scope, that knew his favourite brand did not make upgrades (or at least it was very unlikely). He said he put it in the shelf and waits for an upgrade.
Why did you bought it?
-
trying to get ahead of the tariffs. Figure at some point in the next 4 years I might need a scope.
-
trying to get ahead of the tariffs. Figure at some point in the next 4 years I might need a scope.
:-DD
-
trying to get ahead of the tariffs. Figure at some point in the next 4 years I might need a scope.
:-DD
-
I ultimately bought the rigol
Good choice!
-
The fact that oscilloscope fanboys exist is absolutely wild.
I ultimately bought the rigol
Good choice!
:-DD :-DD :-DD
-
The fact that oscilloscope fanboys exist is absolutely wild.
Is there something that people won't divide themselves into tribes over?
-
The fact that oscilloscope fanboys exist is absolutely wild.
Is there something that people won't divide themselves into tribes over?
No.
They will even divide into tribes about fact whether people divide into tribes naturally or not...
-
The fact that oscilloscope fanboys exist is absolutely wild.
Is there something that people won't divide themselves into tribes over?
No.
They will even divide into tribes about fact whether people divide into tribes naturally or not...
I wonder... are Rigol fans typically Android and Siglent fans Apple? :-DD
-
trying to get ahead of the tariffs. Figure at some point in the next 4 years I might need a scope.
:-DD
It's nice that you can take what he said with a laugh but getting ahead of price increases is a thing. Just today some political events took place here and our currency lost 10% against USD and EUR on the spot. Quite expectedly, the prices on authorized dealers jumped up as well.[1]
The only thing I don't understand here is the "I am not entirely sure what an oscilloscope does" part of the remark. Why would one buy something where he doesn't know what it is for? I perfectly understand that one might not know in advance what exact equipment may be best for a prospective project but that part of the comment beats me.
[1] It has been reported that to curb the exchange ratio, "financial institutions" are selling USD. The latest tally was about 8 billion USD sold in a few hours. Now the jump has been reduced to about 5%.
In the old times, the primary "financial institution" selling the foreign currency was actually named in the news articles (i.e. "central bank") but the name and the practice has been under public scrutiny for a long time so it seems the news is now being reported in a veiled fashion.
-
The fact that oscilloscope fanboys exist is absolutely wild.
Is there something that people won't divide themselves into tribes over?
No.
They will even divide into tribes about fact whether people divide into tribes naturally or not...
I completely disagree that people will divide into tribes over whether people divide into tribes naturally or not, and declare you to be "the other" because you hold such a ridiculous view.
Oh, wait ... did I just demonstrate the truth of what I was denying? Well, shoot. Never mind ...
:):):)
(Hopefully it is clear that all of the above was intended to be funny. Of course, every time I think I have been witty, my wife says I only half succeeded ...)
-
(Hopefully it is clear that all of the above was intended to be funny. Of course, every time I think I have been witty, my wife says I only half succeeded ...)
That didn't appear funny at all! I have to agree with your wife on this one. 😉😉
-
(Hopefully it is clear that all of the above was intended to be funny. Of course, every time I think I have been witty, my wife says I only half succeeded ...)
That didn't appear funny at all! I have to agree with your wife on this one. 😉😉
I am deeply hurt, so much so that I probably won't be able to get any more work done today as a result, and will need to go home and play with conduct serious and meaningful experiments with my oscilloscope in an effort to recover. Of course, it may take me several days to recover. I'm sure my boss will understand ... right??
:)
-
I'm sure my boss will understand ... right??
That depends...you mean your wife, right? 😉
-
That depends...you mean your wife, right? 😉
They are wired not to understand! :palm:
Even if we agree to the pottery. :-//
-
I'm sure my boss will understand ... right??
That depends...you mean your wife, right? 😉
I missed this when you posted back in March! Yes, definitely my wife is the boss. That said, she has been amazingly patient and supportive of my various addictions hobbies.