Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs

[shapirus]

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.

[Fungus]

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)

[shapirus]

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?

[shapirus]

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!

[Martin72]

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.

[shapirus]

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.

[Martin72]

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.

[gf]

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?

[shapirus]

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.

[2N3055]

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.

[shapirus]

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.

[mawyatt]

Honestly if one considers the BOM for the DHO800 and SDS800 the ADCs alone likely cost over $200 and believe the SDS has two

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 

Best,

[Fungus]

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/

[Fungus]

(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.

[KungFuJosh]

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?

[egonotto]

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

[Fungus]

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.

[2N3055]

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...

[Fungus]

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.

[Aldo22]

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.

[2N3055]

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.

[Martin72]

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
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.

[Aldo22]

You can buy it in Europe at the moment for € 299 (Net, 3 Weeks).
https://www.batterfly.com/shop/de/rigol-dho804?search=dho804

[bte]

You can buy it in Europe at the moment for € 299 (Net, 3 Weeks).
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 (about 500 EUR + 20% tax)

DHO1074
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

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...

[BillyO]

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.