EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: njkmonty on September 10, 2019, 09:40:24 am
-
after asking questions, reading , watching , reading some more, I thought i had come to a decision.
Rigol Ds1054z
or
Siglent SDS1202X-E
i really dont think i will need a 4 probe model , however good UI
nice big crisp screen, fast response as possible for that price.
But i really also only envisage doing basic stuff,
measure power supply regulation
biasing bbd chips in effects pedals
biasing clocks in effects pedals
working on valve amps
no real digital requirements come to mind
i dont really want to spend much more than the above , and prefer to buy a reputable brand.
is there a different model within these brands that ticks my boxes?
or do all of these scopes have all this extra stuff i probably wont use?
i dont want to buy a second hand analogue
just need someone to push me over the edge?
sorry for the gazilianth scope question!
-
:clap:
Yep, get a DSO but this:
or do all of these scopes have all this extra stuff i probably wont use?
Of that you can be reasonably sure for some time until your skills develop.
SDS1202X-E is a great little scope and my best seller still. You won't be disappointed with its feature set or performance.
-
is there a different model within these brands that ticks my boxes?
GW-Instek GDS1054B is good for audio work.
-
:popcorn: >:D
-
i gather this is a daily occurrence? :)
how is the GDS1054B better for audio work? from what i can tell its specs arent as good as the siglent? or am i missing something
-
SDS1202X-E is a great little scope and my best seller still.
"Best seller" out of a list of how many? Do you even stock the Rigol DS1054Z? :popcorn:
:popcorn: >:D
-
i gather this is a daily occurrence? :)
Not daily but we live for it ! :-DD
-
is there anyone here who doesn't have a financial interest in their advice?
-
SDS1202X-E is a great little scope and my best seller still.
Do you even stock the Rigol DS1054Z?
Nope, I turned Rigol down when they came knocking. :P
-
is there anyone here who doesn't have a financial interest in their advice?
Plainly visible in my profile.
-
yes it is
-
what scope would you recommend if it wasnt in your respective portfolios?
-
how is the GDS1054B better for audio work? from what i can tell its specs arent as good as the siglent? or am i missing something
The input circuits are very nicely designed, analog-wise. Good amplifiers and good noise levels.
It also has a much nicer UI. Faster to navigate, and with a separate button for menu selections (instead of pushing a twisty knob).
Neither of those things appear on spec sheets, believe it or not.
-
what scope would you recommend if it wasnt in your respective portfolios?
There is very good reason why I stock SDS1202X-E and SDS1104X-E primarily for buyers like yourself.
From the Siglent stable I could choose a number of other models to stock but purposely don't as they don't offer the same bang for buck as the above do.
I will say hand on heart that you'd probably never need to buy anything else, such is the run my customers get with them.
-
Can you put your hand on your heart Fungus?
;)
or should i keep mine on my wallet!
well bugger me Im still on the fence!
-
i gather this is a daily occurrence? :)
how is the GDS1054B better for audio work?
It has input filtering so you can filter away excess noise. OTOH the Siglent oscilloscopes have high-res which is a fixed bandwidth filter. In the end the hardware of the GDS1054B is pretty much the same as the Siglent oscilloscopes mentioned. In the end it basically comes down to price & local availability. Another oscilloscope you could throw into the mix is the MicSig TO1072. This should be in the same price bracket. This is touch-screen only and it has a battery so besides bench use it is also portable.
-
:-+
nctnico
-
working on valve amps
no real digital requirements come to mind
You definitely want one you can float with ease. Scopes that run on batteries float. A MicSig TO1152 for example.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=micsig+to1152&_sop=15 (https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=micsig+to1152&_sop=15)
-
But i really also only envisage doing basic stuff,
That's because you don't own one yet. :popcorn:
...and (b) That doesn't mean a more expensive one wouldn't be much better for a beginner. It's not all about tick boxes on spec sheets, the UI layout can make basic information easier/faster to find and different models can show more information, more clearly, on screen.
eg. Do you want your measurements shown as nondescript numbers at the bottom of the screen or overlaid on the traces, like this?
[attachimg=1]
Scopes that do that are more expensive but they can certainly help beginners to use basic functions. :popcorn:
Another example: The Rigol DS1054Z has a row of buttons down the left side for turning on measurements. Push a button, the measurement appears. The Siglents make you go through a bunch of popup windows and require a lot of twisting of the multi function knob to do the same thing.
The Keysight 1000X series is the king of the "stuff that isn't on spec sheets" in the sub-$1000 bracket. It's Dave's favorite daily-use 'scope and easily worth the $150 price difference over the Siglent if you have the budget.
-
well bugger me Im still on the fence!
Don't expect to come away with a clear answer... this is a nest of hornets. >:D
-
working on valve amps
no real digital requirements come to mind
You definitely want one you can float with ease. Scopes that run on batteries float. A MicSig TO1152 for example.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=micsig+to1152&_sop=15 (https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=micsig+to1152&_sop=15)
Please don't float an oscilloscope. You can still touch the metal parts and get a lethal shock. The only good way to measure high voltages is by using a high voltage probe or a differential probe. These aren't extremely expensive nowadays.
-
Oh look. Another Siglent versus Rigol versus GW-Instek with the exact damned same usual suspects. :--
-
yep!
what im looking for is a similar experience to the following.
i previously had a $100 dmm
then after a while i thought bugger it i will save up for a better one,
after doing the same procrastinating fence sitting research i bought a fluke 87v
from that experienced i was amazed just using the continuity tested how nice and fast it was to use.
now i feel i dont need to look again for another dmm.
its not the most expensive available, and i enjoy using it.
Im looking for the equivilent experience now with a scope, im just trying to find my "FLuke"
is the keysight worth aiming for ? or am i just entering the endless staircase of upsales?
-
You definitely want one you can float with ease. Scopes that run on batteries float. A MicSig TO1152 for example.
Please don't float an oscilloscope.
Yep. Always float the device under test. You don't want lethal voltages appearing on your 'scope's BNC input connectors (or, by extension, the clips on the ends of your oscilloscope probes).
-
Im looking for the equivilent experience now with a scope, im just trying to find my "FLuke"
is the keysight worth aiming for ?
Definitely, 100%, yes!
(and that's the information you should have given at the start...)
-
i am happy to delay purchase by a month or so if its worth it,
but which frequency with they have 50 -100 in the 1000x range
and 1-2 GS/s models and some with waveform generators
is it better to get the 50Mhz keysight than a 200Mhz siglet?
which particular one were you suggesting?
https://www.triotest.com.au/store/233-keysight-1000-x-series (https://www.triotest.com.au/store/233-keysight-1000-x-series)
-
i am happy to delay purchase by a month or so if its worth it,
but which frequency with they have 50 -100 in the 1000x range
and 1-2 GS/s models and some with waveform generators
is it better to get the 50Mhz keysight than a 200Mhz siglet?
which particular one were you suggesting?
https://www.triotest.com.au/store/233-keysight-1000-x-series (https://www.triotest.com.au/store/233-keysight-1000-x-series)
It's possible to unlock certain models so they have a higher bandwidth. It may be worth looking into. If you're trying to find your Fluke I'd probably shy away from the oriental options but be prepared to back it up with some budget.
-
i am happy to delay purchase by a month or so if its worth it,
but which frequency with they have 50 -100 in the 1000x range
and 1-2 GS/s models and some with waveform generators
which particular one were you suggesting?
https://www.triotest.com.au/store/233-keysight-1000-x-series (https://www.triotest.com.au/store/233-keysight-1000-x-series)
They're hackable to unlock extra bandwidth/features: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-978-keysight-1000x-hacking/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-978-keysight-1000x-hacking/)
(used to be you had to swap a couple of resistors on the PCB but now there's a firmware hack)
is it better to get the 50Mhz keysight than a 200Mhz siglet?
For your usage case? Yes. 50Mhz is plenty and the Keysight is awesome.
-
Awesome but in single shot mode the orientals are 14x better because its memory depth is only 1MB (mebiByte?) and the "orientals" have 14MB or more.
-
Isn't the Keysight 1000X series limited to 50kpoints of memory?
-
The EDU models are limited to 100kpts maximum, the others are 1Mpt maximum. https://literature.cdn.keysight.com/litweb/pdf/5992-3484EN.pdf?id=3019454 (https://literature.cdn.keysight.com/litweb/pdf/5992-3484EN.pdf?id=3019454). They all have >= 50,000 waveforms/s update rate, which makes quite a difference if you are looking at 'real world' audio signals.
-
They all have >= 50,000 waveforms/s update rate, which makes quite a difference if you are looking at 'real world' audio signals.
They also have real segmented memory so it can make a lot better use of the 1Mb than the Asians can by only grabbing the interesting stuff.
Plus: The OP has no need for anything digital so isn't going to need to capture long sequences of non-periodic signals.
-
They all have >= 50,000 waveforms/s update rate, which makes quite a difference if you are looking at 'real world' audio signals.
They also have real segmented memory so it can make a lot better use of the 1Mb than the Asians can by only grabbing the interesting stuff.
Plus: The OP has no need for anything digital so isn't going to need to capture long sequences of non-periodic signals.
Show me a scope which doesn't have segmented memory nowadays.
-
Isn't the Keysight 1000X series limited to 50kpoints of memory?
No. They have 1 Mpts (per channel?)
-
The tone/comments from the OP comments sugests they just trolling now.
well bugger me Im still on the fence!
Don't expect to come away with a clear answer... this is a nest of hornets. >:D
-
hey blacksheeplogic! do i need to upgrade to keysight? or will the siglent be more than adequate?
-
hey blacksheeplogic! do i need to upgrade to keysight? or will the siglent be more than adequate?
Not the person you're referring to, but here's my 2 cents. Get the best tools you can afford. It will always save you money in the long run. Here at home, I have only analog 'scopes (Tek 7104 and 7904A mainframes are the centerpiece of my bench) but the work lab has a Keysight MSO-X 6k series instrument (decidedly not an entry level 'scope as it goes well north of 30 kilobucks with options); there really is something to the responsiveness of the ASIC-driven display and controls. The baby Keysight has the same megazoom ASIC. It's the only thing on the market that offers the same level of immediacy as running an analog 'scope. Even other high end stuff can't compete with that.
At the end of the day, regardless of what special sauce any brand may bring to the table, having an o-scope is better than no o-scope. Get the best tool you can afford and have fun with it. :-+
-
thanks 0culus,, just got off the phone to guy who repairs oscilloscopes and said for my purposes dont buy a new cheapy, but get an anaolgue
tek 2225 2235 or 465
his converstion was quite convincing
-
thanks 0culus,, just got off the phone to guy who repairs oscilloscopes and said for my purposes dont buy a new cheapy, but get an anaolgue
tek 2225 2235 or 465
his converstion was quite convincing
So what are you waiting for ? Go grab them.
-
he doesnt have any , just his suggestion, one that i hadnt really considered.
-
thanks 0culus,, just got off the phone to guy who repairs oscilloscopes and said for my purposes dont buy a new cheapy, but get an anaolgue
tek 2225 2235 or 465
his converstion was quite convincing
Well, you seemed quite adamant about not wanting to go the secondhand analog route in the OP so I didn't really push it....but since you asked, here's another 2 cents. :box: :-DD
You first should understand that there's always a chance of needing to repair old test equipment...however it can be done and shouldn't dissuade you from trying them out. And between this forum and the TekScopes mailing list, there's tons of folks who are willing to help you out finding and repairing. Plus there's a lot of lessons to be learned from understanding the circuits. Service manuals are available on the internet...you won't be able to do that with anything modern.
From a practical standpoint, I really think it's valuable to learn how to run an analog scope. Especially something like a 465 that doesn't have any modern niceties like cursors...it forces you to engage your brain and really think about what you're doing. Then you can pick up a digital scope with a far greater understanding of what you're doing and appreciation for how much work it saves you.
-
thanks 0culus,, just got off the phone to guy who repairs oscilloscopes and said for my purposes dont buy a new cheapy, but get an anaolgue
tek 2225 2235 or 465
his converstion was quite convincing
Really ? :o
OK, another living in the last century.
Really that's BS :bullshit: as modern equipment is extremely reliable and comes with a neat feature....a warranty !
-
From a practical standpoint, I really think it's valuable to learn how to run an analog scope. Especially something like a 465 that doesn't have any modern niceties like cursors...it forces you to engage your brain and really think about what you're doing. Then you can pick up a digital scope with a far greater understanding of what you're doing and appreciation for how much work it saves you.
This is misguided too as you don't need features ON with a DSO for them to give you exactly the info you get from a CRO.
95% of my DSO use is with measurements OFF.
-
So? What’s the point of a digital instrument if you don’t want to use automatic measurements and statistics and things? I’m just providing another perspective. Take it or leave it. The guy asked so I told him what I think.
At the end of the day, it sounds like the OP is more interested in building things than maintaining old test equipment and that’s fine. He should purchase accordingly.
-
I was in the same position very recently that you are in now. People who work on tube amps and such tend to recommend getting an analog scope, partly because they can be had for very little money or sometimes free and partly because analog scopes have a smooth and responsive display that is nice for audio. Dave (the owner of this site) recommended to beginners to get a analog scope to start with, because they can be had for little money and because they are simpler to use as a beginner, having all physical controls, without alot of advanced functions getting in the way. And the thing with some of the old analog test gear is that it was built really well, to be repairable, along with service manuals including schematics being produced from the manufacturers, like the old classic tube amps. Check out what Fender was using in their lab: http://tone-lizard.com/fender-laboratory/ (http://tone-lizard.com/fender-laboratory/) A 4.5 Mhz analog scope, which is pretty dang lowly according to today's standards. But Fender designed, built, and serviced some of the greatest guitar amps in all of history, still not surpassed today with all the advanced technology available. I guess that is 'last century'.
Being a noob myself to all of this, I can only recommend a couple of things: Get yourself a set of cheap probes (~$20 for a 100 Mhz set) from ebay, or whichever probes are recommended around here, for trying out whichever analog scope you decide to get. If you buy from ebay, be patient throughout and be courteous to sellers, but don't be a pushover if you run into problems. Ask the seller questions about the functional condition before buying, letting the seller know that you are looking for a fully working scope. You may still run into problems (I definitely did), but in every single case the seller was willing to work things out, being reasonable to more than reasonable. Good luck.
-
Can you repair a broken oscilloscope with the tools you have? A quick look in the TEA thread shows they need repairs quite a bit. I'm not sure Dave still feels the same way about analogue oscilloscopes. They're a worthwhile experience but if you have to choose a digital oscilloscope is more useful in almost every regard.
-
Nearly 5 years ago Dave said this:
If you want (or need) the fancy-shmancy math stuff, logic analyzing, protocol-sniffing you want a modern DSO/MDO, but prepare to spend some serious money as well.
The huge difference between DSO's and CRO's is the ability to capture a waveform. Everything else is a bonus.
Like Dave once said about analog scopes in a video: It's a must have in any decent lab! Pick one up! :-+
I don't recall saying that.
People very often mis-interpret what I have said about analog scopes.
A CRO is a much better option for a beginner than a "toy" handheld DSO if you want a general purpose scope. But now that serious variable intensity displays can be had for sub $400, there is no contest, you only need a DSO. For all but the most extreme niche cases, a CRO will sit on your shelf and gather dust next to a DSO. The game has changed a lot in the last few years.
If I had to pick only one scope to have in my lab, the best analog scope ever made, or an old Rigol DS1052E, I'd pick the Rigol in a heart beat.
5 years later a DS1052E is considered seriously outdated.
Those that want to still live in the CRO past should !
-
A Rigol it is!
thanks tautech!
-
A Rigol it is!
thanks tautech!
Be my guest but do more homework first.
Even back in those days 5 years ago there were issues in sampling and interpolation that are revealed in dots mode and still exist to this day.
-
my last response was tounge in cheek :)
I guess a part of me likes the new flashing modern thing, and the other hears the rational around a quality used one.
I am currently binge watching Daves many scope vids, which isnt helping me nail one down either!
-
my last response was tounge in cheek :)
I guess a part of me likes the new flashing modern thing, and the other hears the rational around a quality used one.
I am currently binge watching Daves many scope vids, which isnt helping me nail one down either!
FIRST decide what cash amount you want to spend THEN search for a scope!!!!
You won't succeed if you don't determine your budget first.
-
my last response was tounge in cheek :)
I guess a part of me likes the new flashing modern thing, and the other hears the rational around a quality used one.
I am currently binge watching Daves many scope vids, which isnt helping me nail one down either!
:)
OK you don't know me from a bar of soap other than what I post here so once again I'll give you a little background.
Once not too long ago I yearned for a scope too and after several CRO's and the efforts to keep them going I got into buying buggered ones and fixing them up. Then after my first DSO (Tek TDS2012B) I was alerted to the magic of DSO's and after some time selling numerous CRO's and a few DSO's (another brand) I scored a sole agency of which I still represent today despite the overtures of many other brands.
Today I'll put the brand I represent against all comers on features, capability, reliability and the factory support I'm offered.
-
Nearly 5 years ago Dave said this:
If you want (or need) the fancy-shmancy math stuff, logic analyzing, protocol-sniffing you want a modern DSO/MDO, but prepare to spend some serious money as well.
The huge difference between DSO's and CRO's is the ability to capture a waveform. Everything else is a bonus.
Like Dave once said about analog scopes in a video: It's a must have in any decent lab! Pick one up! :-+
I don't recall saying that.
People very often mis-interpret what I have said about analog scopes.
A CRO is a much better option for a beginner than a "toy" handheld DSO if you want a general purpose scope. But now that serious variable intensity displays can be had for sub $400, there is no contest, you only need a DSO. For all but the most extreme niche cases, a CRO will sit on your shelf and gather dust next to a DSO. The game has changed a lot in the last few years.
If I had to pick only one scope to have in my lab, the best analog scope ever made, or an old Rigol DS1052E, I'd pick the Rigol in a heart beat.
5 years later a DS1052E is considered seriously outdated.
Those that want to still live in the CRO past should !
You're right. Dave did mention getting an analog scope within the context of many people asking him what he thought of the cheapest digital handheld scopes (the toys, as he put it). Seeing those inexpensive handhelds is pretty tempting to beginners for getting a first scope to play around with. Navigating specifications, functions, and usability concerns of digital scopes is something of a nightmare for beginners, which probably has alot to do with beginners looking at those cheapo handhelds. And for those of us interested primarily in audio, we don't need much in terms of bandwidth, channels, and functions. We just need to see a decent display of a waveform when passing a repeating test signal through a device (need a signal generator too) and when passing a test signal through components using xy mode. The lowest bandwidth bench dso's and cro's is more than enough for that use case. And for audio, storage seems to be more of a nicety (for other use cases) than a requirement.
-
You're right. Dave did mention getting an analog scope
That video was a loooong time ago and Dave has changed his mind since then, because DSOs have got much better/cheaper.
(...and all those CROs are now much older, harder to find, and more likely to die)
I can't find the link to where Dave changes his mind - anyone?
-
You're right. Dave did mention getting an analog scope
That video was a loooong time ago and Dave has changed his mind since then, because DSOs have got much better/cheaper.
(...and all those CROs are now much older, harder to find, and more likely to die)
I can't find the link to where Dave changes his mind - anyone?
The context of Dave recommending an analog scope was many people asking him about cheap toy scopes. So his recommendation was centered around not buying one of those toy scopes if you have only a small amount of money for a first scope. And within that context, his recommendation does seem to still make sense.
I was looking at those inexpensive toy scopes myself, which escalated into looking for a decent enough bench scope. I do still want a digital scope at some point, but in addition to optionally running on battery power and having a nice to use interface design, I would like a scope that will be serviceable. If I can help it, I don't want test gear that will end up in a landfill when some component fails. Are any of the modern dso's serviceable?
-
The context of Dave recommending an analog scope was many people asking him about cheap toy scopes. So his recommendation was centered around not buying one of those toy scopes if you have only a small amount of money for a first scope. And within that context, his recommendation does seem to still make sense.
I was looking at those inexpensive toy scopes myself, which escalated into looking for a decent enough bench scope. I do still want a digital scope at some point, but in addition to optionally running on battery power and having a nice to use interface design, I would like a scope that will be serviceable. Are any of the modern dso's serviceable?
With serviceable you mean repairable? I don't think DSOs are less repairable than CROs. CROs can be stuffed full of ASICs and unobtainable parts.
-
The context of Dave recommending an analog scope was many people asking him about cheap toy scopes. So his recommendation was centered around not buying one of those toy scopes if you have only a small amount of money for a first scope. And within that context, his recommendation does seem to still make sense.
I was looking at those inexpensive toy scopes myself, which escalated into looking for a decent enough bench scope. I do still want a digital scope at some point, but in addition to optionally running on battery power and having a nice to use interface design, I would like a scope that will be serviceable. Are any of the modern dso's serviceable?
With serviceable you mean repairable? I don't think DSOs are less repairable than CROs. CROs can be stuffed full of ASICs and unobtainable parts.
Yes, repairable is a concern to me. For cro's it seems to be very model dependent. Some of them don't have unobtainable parts and do have service manuals with schematics. Are there any modern dso's that have the same?
-
And for those of us interested primarily in audio, we don't need much in terms of bandwidth, channels, and functions. We just need to see a decent display of a waveform when passing a repeating test signal through a device (need a signal generator too) and when passing a test signal through components using xy mode. The lowest bandwidth bench dso's and cro's is more than enough for that use case. And for audio, storage seems to be more of a nicety (for other use cases) than a requirement.
Well there are a few things that make a DSO handy for audio. For starters looking at really low frequency signals. An analog scope sucks at that. Also measuring signal levels and frequency are handy features to have.
-
Yes, repairable is a concern to me. For cro's it seems to be very model dependent. Some of them don't have unobtainable parts and do have service manuals with schematics. Are there any modern dso's that have the same?
Not really but you don't really need to either. It's quite a paradigm shift when you're a CRO owner but these things don't tend to die in large numbers yet. :P I don't think Rigol and Siglent offer spare parts and repair services but Keysight certainly does.
-
I think you are forgetting something about oscilloscopes... there is an active second hand market, you can resell them quite easily.
I was once like you, always thinking, researching, anguishing, trying to find the best of class at a price I could afford.
One of my first scopes was the Rigol 1052z I used it for 2 years and sold it for 25 less than I paid. It was a great starter scope.
The experience of using that scope and also a few older CRO scopes gave me the confidence to make more informed purchases of equipment.
My advice would be to buy a well respected scope at a reasonable price and get some experience.
If you like this hobby your first scope won't be your last.
And something else to remember... just because someone has a financial interest in his recommendation doesn't mean he is wrong or trying to take advantage. We would all be screwed if we never took advice from our manufacturers and suppliers.
-
I think you are forgetting something about oscilloscopes... there is an active second hand market, you can resell them quite easily.
This is a very good point. The used market for entry level DSO's is hot. Any one of them that you buy, you could easily turn around and sell after a year or two at not much of a loss. :-+
-
I don't think Rigol and Siglent offer spare parts and repair services but Keysight certainly does.
Yes you don't think or for that matter even know !
FFS of course they do !
-
This is a very good point. The used market for entry level DSO's is hot. Any one of them that you buy, you could easily turn around and sell after a year or two at not much of a loss. :-+
Yep I've had three DS1054Z's. I went through periods where I didn't need its features so I turfed it on ebay and it was gone within 24 hours. TCO for a DS1054 on next day demand was about 80 quid for two years (£40 per scope loss) or £3.33 a month. Bargain. I've got the third one lurking still as it's earning its keep at the moment. People laugh at this but I run my shit Ferengi style.
I don't think Rigol and Siglent offer spare parts and repair services but Keysight certainly does.
Yes you don't think or for that matter even know !
FFS of course they do !
AFAIK Rigol just do RTB and the supplier sends a new crate out. That's what Telonic was suggesting when I was talking to them initially.
On keysight, they do indeed do spares but it's like Mercedes parts - expensive. Which is why I drive a Shitroen :)
-
People laugh at this but I run my shit Ferengi style.
LOL!!
-
Yes you don't think or for that matter even know !
FFS of course they do !
Good. Where is the page to search and order parts? How long are oscilloscopes supported and repaired?
-
That is incidentally one reason I didn't buy a Siglent initially. Our local reseller never has any in stock and I'm not touching foreign sellers as I rather like the default CRA 2015 protection I have in the UK on purchases which makes the above point moot.
-
I guess a part of me likes the new flashing modern thing, and the other hears the rational around a quality used one.
I am currently binge watching Daves many scope vids, which isnt helping me nail one down either!
We are used to think "Chinese = crap el cheapo" but I'm afraid that's no longer the case.
Old equipment can be very high quality, but what do you know about its usage history? How many components about to fail will it contain?
Modern equipment will for sure avoid the typical uncertainty of "is it the aging instrument or my circuit?". And, come on, digital oscilloscopes are g r e a t. Claiming that analog oscilloscopes are better is like defending magnetic tape or vinyl against proper digital recording.
DSOs are different. Which means that you must learn to use them and exploit their strengths. The only clear disadvantage is XY mode.
I own both the DS1000Z and the SDS1202X-E and I can vouch for them. I wouldn't recommend you to get lessed models from either Rigol or Siglent because these two series are a tipping point. So, how would you choose one of them, given that their prices are very similar?
Easy: Do you want four channels? -> Rigol
Two channels, more bandwidth, better measurements, better noise floor(*), more modern? -> The Siglent
(*)If you are mostly working with digital circuits and you want to check signal timings and that kind of stuff, the four channel model will probably be better.
Both are in my opinion excellent value for money. It just depends on your needs.
As for support, they seem to be committed to providing firmware updates for some time. Both Siglent and Rigol issued firmware updates within the last six months. And the good thing is, they are competing. Even traditional manufacturers such as R&S, Keysight, etc, are releasing more affordable series.
-
Thank you! That was a very helpful reply :)
-
Modern equipment will for sure avoid the typical uncertainty of "is it the aging instrument or my circuit?". And, come on, digital oscilloscopes are g r e a t. Claiming that analog oscilloscopes are better is like defending magnetic tape or vinyl against proper digital recording.
Whatever device it is that we are talking about, analog and digital can both have merits.
I can't say much about scopes, as I am a beginner with them, but I do like the smooth and lag-free display and all tactile interface (no menus). I like that some of them were built to be repairable. And I like that they can be had inexpensively. Digital scopes have storage and advanced math functions, which are surely useful for some use cases and not so much for others. And digital scopes consume much less power, are lightweight, and can interface with computers for doing other useful things.
On audio recording, the merits of digital are low noise, accuracy, convenience, and low cost. But analog recording formats are still very much alive and in use in professional settings. Tape imprints some widely recognized desirable sound qualities which haven't yet been satisfactorly reproduced with dsp, and same goes for vinyl. Lots of professional engineers still record to tape and/or through other analog gear initially to get those analog sound qualities imprinted upon the recording and then either mix analog (because of sound qualities of analog gear) or bounce to digital for mixing. Sometimes a mix of both. Lots of music artists still demand analog recording for it's sound qualities. Music is art, not a lab sample. Lots of end listeners have turned back to vinyl because of it's sound qualities and even cassette, as well as for the physical packaging that includes artwork, photos, lyrics, liner notes about musicians and recording staff, and other information that we don't usually get with digital files.
I just want to leave the impression that things aren't so cut and dry as some people like to make them out to be. Analog and digital shouldn't always be at odds with each other. Doing that is looking at the world in a black and white way rather than looking at the whole spectrum and weighing the pros and cons for individual situations. Just one example of enjoying merits of both analog and digital is in audio end listening. Lots of people rip vinlyl to digital formats. Doing so captures the desirable audio qualities of vinyl to a convenient format.
Personally, I would like to have a digital scope at some point, after I have more experience and better understand what my requirements are. I would also like to have one that will be repairable, although that might never come around from the manufacturing world. Although I have noticed that the datasheet for the Digilent Analog Discovery goes into explaining it's circuits (with schematics), and that looks attractive to me.
-
I guess a part of me likes the new flashing modern thing, and the other hears the rational around a quality used one.
I am currently binge watching Daves many scope vids, which isnt helping me nail one down either!
We are used to think "Chinese = crap el cheapo" but I'm afraid that's no longer the case.
Old equipment can be very high quality, but what do you know about its usage history? How many components about to fail will it contain?
Modern equipment will for sure avoid the typical uncertainty of "is it the aging instrument or my circuit?". And, come on, digital oscilloscopes are g r e a t. Claiming that analog oscilloscopes are better is like defending magnetic tape or vinyl against proper digital recording.
I’m on the fence with this. I sort of agree but would like to add a few things.
Firstly it’s still Chinese crap. There are some horrible UI choices, the manuals are still written in Engrish and there are dubious corners cut all over the place. The difference is that the otherwise excellent products from the West have declined in quality. What we have is a plateau where formerly good brands and formerly bad brands are both mediocre. Honesty I compare Keysight to siglent here and the only difference is the price. (Tautech that is a thinly veiled compliment ;) )
As someone who fixes a lot of equipment, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The newer kit tends to have a lot of the latter. I spent a good few hours scratching my head over a trigger issue on my DS1054Z the other day which turned out to be the last user cal going wonky. Older kit, you tend to be able to run performance validation against. New stuff, not so much.
As for analogue scopes they are far far superior on a few use cases such as X-Y mode, ease of use, lack of aliasing, display quality, repairability, initial investment and predictable bandwidth roll off. Certainly having both is an advantage. I switch back and forth all the time.
-
I went with the Siglent SDS1202X-E Oscilloscope myself, so I guess I will find out soon enough..
-
I guess a part of me likes the new flashing modern thing, and the other hears the rational around a quality used one.
I am currently binge watching Daves many scope vids, which isnt helping me nail one down either!
We are used to think "Chinese = crap el cheapo" but I'm afraid that's no longer the case.
Old equipment can be very high quality, but what do you know about its usage history? How many components about to fail will it contain?
Modern equipment will for sure avoid the typical uncertainty of "is it the aging instrument or my circuit?". And, come on, digital oscilloscopes are g r e a t. Claiming that analog oscilloscopes are better is like defending magnetic tape or vinyl against proper digital recording.
I’m on the fence with this. I sort of agree but would like to add a few things.
Firstly it’s still Chinese crap. There are some horrible UI choices, the manuals are still written in Engrish and there are dubious corners cut all over the place. The difference is that the otherwise excellent products from the West have declined in quality. What we have is a plateau where formerly good brands and formerly bad brands are both mediocre. Honesty I compare Keysight to Siglent here and the only difference is the price.
Here I disagree.
Those 2 brands are on a different path.
KS have hung their hat on an existing ASIC that they've introduced into their entry level DSO and given them enough capability to tempt entry level purchasers. That has enabled them to properly challenge DSO's with UI latency and win.
Siglent on the other hand has introduced some feature sets that other brands have only offered as options and at the same time tuned those features to challenge all comers.
The fight is all about market share.
As someone who fixes a lot of equipment, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The newer kit tends to have a lot of the latter. I spent a good few hours scratching my head over a trigger issue on my DS1054Z the other day which turned out to be the last user cal going wonky. Older kit, you tend to be able to run performance validation against. New stuff, not so much.
Nah on that too as any good service manual has a chapter on performance verification when examined against the datasheet specifies the performance spec the instrument must meet.
As for analogue scopes they are far far superior on a few use cases such as X-Y mode, ease of use, lack of aliasing, display quality, repairability, initial investment and predictable bandwidth roll off. Certainly having both is an advantage. I switch back and forth all the time.
Everyone has a different take on this as for basic scope use they are practically identical in that you have a graticule to take measurements from, X and Y controls and a trigger control.
Really they are not that different to use but with a DSO you see something and want to capture it, well you can.
-
I mostly agree. Some comments though.
At this point I sincerely hope Siglent win the market share battle. Rigol do not deserve it due to the crap they are throwing out (I am very very unimpressed by the MSO5000 after actually playing with one and seeing the total lack of progress, plus typically the things like the counter on the DG1022Z being a steamer that is just not going to be fixed) and neither do Keysight (too expensive, very little feature progress). That's not to say any of them are bad and none of them are useful but there are some seriously glaring product holes. The drive to throw new products on the market means we never get maturity these days and it's frustrating as hell.
On performance verification, I mean deep verification rather than superficial front end validation. A DSO is a much more complicated beast and a lot of the features are not well specified or demonstrated and are entirely in the software domain. For example the FFT and decode implementations have no baseline specification other than a feature tick box. If you look at the commercial software market this stuff is automatically regression tested to buggery. This is definitely not evident in Rigol's products at least and at the price point, getting any of that is unlikely. Keysight are on a winner there but you pay for it and there are some horrible issues I've observed in some of the videos on YouTube. I can't speak for Siglent here but they appear to be throwing stuff out quickly and reactive which is again better than both. Velocity towards maturity is a winner.
If you have one scope, a DSO is best. If you have two scopes, one of them being an analogue unit is a winner though.
I actually nearly bought a keysight the other day to replace my Rigol. After doing a lot more research I skipped this and looked at the Siglent. Then I discovered that some models have probe compensation issues and reminded myself that I'm going to stay with the known unknows, which was really the poorly contrived point I was trying to make :)
-
is there anyone here who doesn't have a financial interest in their advice?
Yup!
I bought the DS1054Z a couple of years ago and immediately unlocked the 100 MHz stuff. Works well! But I wanted 4 channels to decode SPI transactions so buying a two channel scope was out of the question. Besides, I already had a Tek 485 350 MHz 2 channel scope.
Today, I would give the Siglent SDS1204X-E serious consideration. Maybe even try to unlock the SDS1104X-E (details elsewhere). What people say about the slow GUI on the Rigol is absolutely true. I'm not convinced it makes a lot of difference but, prices being essentially equal, I would go for the newer Siglent with the more responsive GUI.
Audio people may actually care about FFT and, on the DS1054Z, it's kind of crude. I can do much better with my Digilent Analog Discovery 2. I have been told that Siglent has a really nice FFT. I haven't gone looking for a video because I'm not really in the market.
I would never pick a 2 channel scope because my world is digital. I spend absolutely no time thinking about audio.
-
is it better to get the 50Mhz keysight than a 200Mhz siglet?
Not if you ever want to look at square waves. Without getting too far down in the weeds, consider that you need bandwidth on the order of 9 times that maximum square wave frequency. A 50 MHz scope may display a 5 MHz square wave pretty well. A 200 MHz might display a 20 MHz square wave.
If you don't have enough bandwidth to display a reasonable number of harmonics, the square wave will start looking sinusoidal. One can debate 5th or 7th or 9th as being sufficient but any way you cut it, 200 >> 50.
-
Agreed with rstofer on all points.
On point the DS1054Z is slow as hell. The FFT isn't that bad really but it's an absolute bastard to get it to do exactly what you want and you need to know how it works deeply before it's valuable. I am managing to use it as a naive HF spectrum analyser and it works pretty well for that believe it or not. But it takes me 5 minutes to tweak it for each measurement.
-
I mostly agree. Some comments though.
At this point I sincerely hope Siglent win the market share battle. Rigol do not deserve it due to the crap they are throwing out (I am very very unimpressed by the MSO5000 after actually playing with one and seeing the total lack of progress, plus typically the things like the counter on the DG1022Z being a steamer that is just not going to be fixed) and neither do Keysight (too expensive, very little feature progress). That's not to say any of them are bad and none of them are useful but there are some seriously glaring product holes. The drive to throw new products on the market means we never get maturity these days and it's frustrating as hell.
On performance verification, I mean deep verification rather than superficial front end validation. A DSO is a much more complicated beast and a lot of the features are not well specified or demonstrated and are entirely in the software domain. For example the FFT and decode implementations have no baseline specification other than a feature tick box. If you look at the commercial software market this stuff is automatically regression tested to buggery. This is definitely not evident in Rigol's products at least and at the price point, getting any of that is unlikely. Keysight are on a winner there but you pay for it and there are some horrible issues I've observed in some of the videos on YouTube. I can't speak for Siglent here but they appear to be throwing stuff out quickly and reactive which is again better than both. Velocity towards maturity is a winner.
Yep, that arises from 2 angles, sales to fund it and good quality user feedback.
On the other hand too frequent firmware releases to address issues can be seen by some as the product's still in the infant stage while withholding FW until much has been addressed can frustrate adopters that have found a bug and have to wait for months and months before new FW is released to fix it !
This is hard to get right to everyone's satisfaction.
Plus when good feature requests are accepted that might add additional functionality that was never considered in the design stage it adds more even pressure to the SW engineers and the FW release cycle.
Yet for the patient the rewards can be very satisfying.
I actually nearly bought a keysight the other day to replace my Rigol. After doing a lot more research I skipped this and looked at the Siglent. Then I discovered that some models have had probe compensation issues and reminded myself that I'm going to stay with the known unknowns, which was really the poorly contrived point I was trying to make :)
HAD with emphasis !
Designers really learnt their lesson on that one and won't overlook that again.
-
is there anyone here who doesn't have a financial interest in their advice?
You should turn this question around. Tautech is the only one with a financial interest. If there is anyone else then that person manages to hide it very well.
-
is there anyone here who doesn't have a financial interest in their advice?
You should turn this question around. Tautech is the only one with a financial interest. If there is anyone else then that person manages to hide it very well.
Nope, there's dozens of resellers and dealers that are members the forum.
-
For example the FFT and decode implementations have no baseline specification other than a feature tick box. If you look at the commercial software market this stuff is automatically regression tested to buggery. This is definitely not evident in Rigol's products at least and at the price point, getting any of that is unlikely. Keysight are on a winner there but you pay for it and there are some horrible issues I've observed in some of the videos on YouTube. I can't speak for Siglent here but they appear to be throwing stuff out quickly and reactive which is again better than both. Velocity towards maturity is a winner.
However, not all Chinese brands are throwing untested stuff on the market. MicSig for example only seems to release firmware which is well tested. When I tested the TO1104 (using a thourough test plan) I have not been able to find a bug. The GW Instek GDS-2000E series had a few issues which they fixed within 2 weeks after reporting. Both oscilloscopes where relatively new when I tested them.
-
is there anyone here who doesn't have a financial interest in their advice?
You should turn this question around. Tautech is the only one with a financial interest. If there is anyone else then that person manages to hide it very well.
Nope, there's dozens of resellers and dealers that are members the forum.
I think in this thread you are the only dealer actively participating. Overall there are very few equipment dealers which participate and most I've seen are easy to spot and/or make their relationship to a brand very clear.
-
Today, I would give the Siglent SDS1204X-E serious consideration. Maybe even try to unlock the SDS1104X-E (details elsewhere).
Yes that was my take on things too before the $619 SDS2202X-E was released. Apart from having just 2 channels it has all the fruits of the SDS1*04X-E models plus a couple more and 2GSa/s performance.
Unlock them to the SDS2352X-E and you have a really nice little scope.
-
The Keysight is hackable for extra bandwidth.
-
Today, I would give the Siglent SDS1204X-E serious consideration. Maybe even try to unlock the SDS1104X-E (details elsewhere).
Yes that was my take on things too before the $619 SDS2202X-E was released. Apart from having just 2 channels it has all the fruits of the SDS1*04X-E models plus a couple more and 2GSa/s performance.
Unlock them to the SDS2352X-E and you have a really nice little scope.
Nice idea! I already have a 4 channel scope and since SPI is in the low MHz, there's no reason to buy another 4 channel scope if I can get more bandwidth for the same kind of money in 2 channels. Features will be the new metric. How good is the FFT (not that I ever use that feature), how responsive is the GUI, what features does it add over the DS1054Z, those kind of things.
The SDS2352X-E is a 350 MHz scope at a reasonable price without unlocking a lesser model - maybe it's time to get rid of my Tek 485 boat anchor. But I would want the MSO options (for no really good reason). It looks to have a sizeable screen.
-
Today, I would give the Siglent SDS1204X-E serious consideration. Maybe even try to unlock the SDS1104X-E (details elsewhere).
Yes that was my take on things too before the $619 SDS2202X-E was released. Apart from having just 2 channels it has all the fruits of the SDS1*04X-E models plus a couple more and 2GSa/s performance.
Unlock them to the SDS2352X-E and you have a really nice little scope.
Nice idea! I already have a 4 channel scope and since SPI is in the low MHz, there's no reason to buy another 4 channel scope if I can get more bandwidth for the same kind of money in 2 channels. Features will be the new metric. How good is the FFT (not that I ever use that feature), how responsive is the GUI, what features does it add over the DS1054Z, those kind of things.
1 Mpts and sharp enough as it is but needs updating with the same features added into SDS1kX-E FFT.
The GUI is fine and no different to Siglent's other X-E DSO's.
28 Mpts mem depth that gives you the same capture length as DSO's with 1 GSa/s and 14 Mpts.
Fastest timebase 500ps.
50 Ohm inputs
Bode plot
Webserver
The SDS2352X-E is a 350 MHz scope at a reasonable price without unlocking a lesser model - maybe it's time to get rid of my Tek 485 boat anchor. But I would want the MSO options (for no really good reason).
The 2352X-E come with really nice probes, better than those supplied with all 200 MHz models.
They are smaller and shorter with the compensation box at the BNC connector. These are still switchable 10:1, 1:1 too.
It looks to have a sizeable screen.
Just 7" like any other entry level scope but quite bright enough and not glossy at all.
Here's a FFT of the probe Cal and this was like the 1kX-E's before they added the fruits to it. FFT has just been improved.
Just found newly released FW and posted it here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-e/msg2684748/#msg2684748 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-e/msg2684748/#msg2684748)
I'll come back and post a 2nd shot of the improved FFT.
This is how FFT is now, here with Max Hold that cleans up all the fuzz down on the noise floor and markers and some tables added. Looking at a FFT of the probe Cal output.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/first-time-buyers-oscilloscope-analysis-paralysis-help!!!!!/?action=dlattach;attach=833943)
-
Yes you don't think or for that matter even know !
FFS of course they do !
Good. Where is the page to search and order parts? How long are oscilloscopes supported and repaired?
Should we interpret the lack of a response as the absence of an answer?
-
FFT has just been improved. Just found newly released FW and posted it
Keysight also keeps adding stuff:
https://www.keysight.com/main/software.jspx?cc=US&lc=eng&id=2820272 (https://www.keysight.com/main/software.jspx?cc=US&lc=eng&id=2820272)
This is how FFT is now, here with Max Hold that cleans up all the fuzz down on the noise floor and markers and some tables added. Looking at a FFT of the probe Cal output.
Yeah, but FFT is just the start. Just look at all the stuff the Keysights can do for signal analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0jR5jE1qGM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0jR5jE1qGM)
(and how snappy the UI is...)
If it's within budget then the Keysight is easily the best choice for audio work in this price bracket.
-
Yeah, but FFT is just the start. Just look at all the stuff the Keysights can do for signal analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0jR5jE1qGM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0jR5jE1qGM)
I am only seeing a sine being modulated/demodulated. What's useful about it for audio analysis? I have very inexpensive software that can do all sorts of useful audio analysis and processing and many other things at a full dynamic range. Why would I do audio analysis using a scope instead?
-
I would use a decent sound card for audio analysis. 24-bit 96KHz M-audio job with some off the shelf software like TrueRTA.
That is quite nice though on the Keysight. I can’t think of a use for it though off the top of my head. I think the most useful thing I’ve seen is the bode plot function as that can be used to evaluate where phase shifts are going to give you a headache. I was going to actually bodge something up with my Rigol stuff and python driving LXI for this but in the end I just poked the circuit in LTspice and worked out the frequency compensation in there and added some headroom and then just swept it by hand to confirm.
Edit: I could have actually solved the above with an analogue scope and an analogue function generator :-//
-
FFT has just been improved. Just found newly released FW and posted it
Keysight also keeps adding stuff:
https://www.keysight.com/main/software.jspx?cc=US&lc=eng&id=2820272 (https://www.keysight.com/main/software.jspx?cc=US&lc=eng&id=2820272)
This is how FFT is now, here with Max Hold that cleans up all the fuzz down on the noise floor and markers and some tables added. Looking at a FFT of the probe Cal output.
Yeah, but FFT is just the start. Just look at all the stuff the Keysights can do for signal analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0jR5jE1qGM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0jR5jE1qGM)
(and how snappy the UI is...)
If it's within budget then the Keysight is easily the best choice for audio work in this price bracket.
What signal analysis? It has 4 basic math operations, low pass filter and 64k FFT. It is really very basic and has none of advanced stuff that 3000 series has.
Rigol DS1000Z literally has better math(and filters), and in this video filter is as slow as it is on the Rigol. Rigol FFT is crap though. But Siglent's FFT is insanelly more capable that what DSOX1102A has.
Also, while Rigol DS1000Z IS kinda slowish on some things, Siglent is really fast and has no worse usability in that regard than Keysight 1000 series.
And Keysight has small memory and only 50 segments in segmented mem.
If I had to choose between DSOX1102A and SDS2352X-E I would go with one that has 28x more memory (and up to 80,000 segments), 1 Mpoint FFT, Mixed signal expandability, 350 MHz bandwidth with 50 OHm, and all protocols and triggers included in basic price. And that is not Keysight, sorry...
While I think that Keysight 3000T series is currently still the best overall (all things included) scope in 3000 class, Keysight 1000 and 2000 series are too much money for very basic and very outdated scopes. They have specs of Hameg scopes from 10 years ago. They are very good quality but very basic, and acceptable only if you use only basic things and practically use them as replacement for analog scopes. If that is your use case, and are willing to pay for brand name and maybe better support (depending on where you are) then they might be good choice. Otherwise, it is like comparing 1965 Porsche 911 (that had 130 HP) with today's Honda Civic Type R (320 HP).. Porsche is a fancy car with great brand but despite all that, Type R is both better and faster.
-
Yes you don't think or for that matter even know !
FFS of course they do !
Good. Where is the page to search and order parts? How long are oscilloscopes supported and repaired?
Should we interpret the lack of a response as the absence of an answer?
Well I recall someone being able to order a new main board for his Siglent function generator. But this was a couple of years ago.
-
Yes you don't think or for that matter even know !
FFS of course they do !
Good. Where is the page to search and order parts? How long are oscilloscopes supported and repaired?
Should we interpret the lack of a response as the absence of an answer?
Well I recall someone being able to order a new main board for his Siglent function generator. But this was a couple of years ago.
I wasn't gunna feed the troll.
-
I wasn't gunna feed the troll.
It's a valid question. I would like to know the answer myself, as I'm sure others would.
-
Yes that was my take on things too before the $619 SDS2202X-E was released. Apart from having just 2 channels it has all the fruits of the SDS1*04X-E models plus a couple more and 2GSa/s performance.
Unlock them to the SDS2352X-E and you have a really nice little scope.
Is the SDS2074X hackable to a SDS2304X?
-
[...]
As someone who fixes a lot of equipment, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The newer kit tends to have a lot of the latter. I spent a good few hours scratching my head over a trigger issue on my DS1054Z the other day which turned out to be the last user cal going wonky. Older kit, you tend to be able to run performance validation against. New stuff, not so much.
[...]
Seems to me you put your finger on something important there: newer instruments are filled with processors and software that touches the signal before you see it - you are further away from the underlying reality in some ways; it is only too easy for some easily 'overlookable' setting on some deep menu to subtly change what you are looking at, possibly leading you down the garden path.
-
I wasn't gunna feed the troll.
It's a valid question. I would like to know the answer myself, as I'm sure others would.
I have experience sending an in-warranty device for repair to Siglent's US based support (Ohio). It was a relatively standard process: get an RMA, send the device, get repaired device returned.
I think the days of having a schematic, bill-of-materials and parts-ordering forms right inside the Users Manual of a product are long-gone. Most companies these days will fix stuff in warranty, offer to fix it for your for a price out of warranty, and that's about it. Most aren't going to offer selling spare parts; they'd rather have you buy a new unit.
-
Most aren't going to offer selling spare parts; they'd rather have you buy a new unit.
Not offer, correct however parts are available.
Equipment has been so reliable that I rarely need to source anything. A folding bail handle that fits all SDM and SDG models IIRC was ~$10 retail.
I had to get one for my best customer and the paperwork was gunna cost more so I just sent it on through to them.
-
Yes that was my take on things too before the $619 SDS2202X-E was released. Apart from having just 2 channels it has all the fruits of the SDS1*04X-E models plus a couple more and 2GSa/s performance.
Unlock them to the SDS2352X-E and you have a really nice little scope.
Is the SDS2074X hackable to a SDS2304X?
I think so.
Have a look at what Defpom did with his older SDS2102, a pre X model:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGHjtlQp6fw&t=69s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGHjtlQp6fw&t=69s)
However these too are getting dated and don't have the faster processor the more modern X-E's have but do have some features the X-E's don't however many are $$ options.
I keep needling Siglent for a SDS2**4X-E but I'm not sure if they can shoehorn two 2 GSa/s ADC onto a small PCB and still get it into the X-E form factor case and still get acceptable cooling with a somewhat quiet fan.
It would be a neat little DSO if they can.
-
Looks like Telonic are now distributing Siglent stuff here suddenly according to the booklet that came with Radcom. They may have another customer soon :-+
-
Not offer, correct however parts are available.
Equipment has been so reliable that I rarely need to source anything. A folding bail handle that fits all SDM and SDG models IIRC was ~$10 retail.
I had to get one for my best customer and the paperwork was gunna cost more so I just sent it on through to them.
Can people order say a front casing or a repair out of warranty? How would that work? It's not just about reliability but mishaps and wear do happen. I like being able to order a new casing when I inadvertently ruin the old one.
-
I have experience sending an in-warranty device for repair to Siglent's US based support (Ohio). It was a relatively standard process: get an RMA, send the device, get repaired device returned.
I think the days of having a schematic, bill-of-materials and parts-ordering forms right inside the Users Manual of a product are long-gone. Most companies these days will fix stuff in warranty, offer to fix it for your for a price out of warranty, and that's about it. Most aren't going to offer selling spare parts; they'd rather have you buy a new unit.
I'd expect in-warranty repairs or replacements to be done as it's the bare minimum. Keysight does offer quite a lot of parts as long as the device is supported and a fair number of years after that through their website and most are priced fairly reasonably unless you need something functionally vital. Fluke also offers parts but is stupidly expensive.
-
It's a valid question. I would like to know the answer myself, as I'm sure others would.
When you know it's going to look bad for the brand you peddle you just accuse people of trolling and conveniently ignore the matter. ::)
-
Tautech's gotta eat. We all have. I peddle my shit elsewhere :)
-
Tautech's gotta eat. We all have. I peddle my shit elsewhere :)
Well I don't sell internationally so any sales I might get from members here are just a small part of my business and I'm only here to address the shite that gets slung Siglents way and demonstrate their equipments capabilities and offer support if I can however when some can't engage their grey matter and see many instruments share the same case, handles, feet, front panels, PSU's etc you do gotta wonder what they are smoking or wonder if they need new glasses. :-//
-
Well I don't sell internationally so any sales I might get from members here are just a small part of my business and I'm only here to address the shite that gets slung Siglents way and demonstrate their equipments capabilities and offer support if I can however when some can't engage their grey matter and see many instruments share the same case, handles, feet, front panels, PSU's etc you do gotta wonder what they are smoking or wonder if they need new glasses :-//
Devices sharing parts doesn't seem to be related with the discussion at hand. That's industrial design related and not support related. The question is what support Rigol and Siglent provide other than the legal minimum and how long they will do this. This support is what sets Keysight, Tektronix and other big players apart from companies only interested in pushing equipment out the door and never looking back or providing added value. It would be useful if you could stop being grating and provide us with answers. Though the refusal to be upfront when you usually are very eager to "contribute" suggests the answer isn't in your best interest. This is one of those times a dealer or representative could add value instead of just noise.
-
Tautech's gotta eat. We all have. I peddle my shit elsewhere :)
The problem is that a lot of noise and bias is added to threads typically started by the kind of people most susceptible to it. New visitors don't know the few usual suspects who barf adverts disguised as advice habitually. I'm not saying dealers or representatives can't be useful as some very much are and even tautech sometimes has his moments.
-
I have experience sending an in-warranty device for repair to Siglent's US based support (Ohio). It was a relatively standard process: get an RMA, send the device, get repaired device returned.
I think the days of having a schematic, bill-of-materials and parts-ordering forms right inside the Users Manual of a product are long-gone. Most companies these days will fix stuff in warranty, offer to fix it for your for a price out of warranty, and that's about it. Most aren't going to offer selling spare parts; they'd rather have you buy a new unit.
I'd expect in-warranty repairs or replacements to be done as it's the bare minimum. Keysight does offer quite a lot of parts as long as the device is supported and a fair number of years after that through their website and most are priced fairly reasonably unless you need something functionally vital. Fluke also offers parts but is stupidly expensive.
When companies can charge $50K for a piece of professional equipment there is a certain expectation of service life and support. I'd be pleasantly surprised 10 years from now to be able to buy a knob for Keysight's DSOX1102A.
Plus, with everyone moving to the Everything As A Service Model, your scope will eventually just be a platform through which you rent online scope software. The platform will be obsoleted out from under you before you have the time to wear out a knob.
-
When companies can charge $50K for a piece of professional equipment there is a certain expectation of service life and support. I'd be pleasantly surprised 10 years from now to be able to buy a knob for Keysight's DSOX1102A.
Plus, with everyone moving to the Everything As A Service Model, your scope will eventually just be a platform through which you rent online scope software. The platform will be obsoleted out from under you before you have the time to wear out a knob.
I'm optimistic you'd be able to order those knobs. Parts for decades old equipment in the same budgetary class are still available. I'm not sure how long the 1000Xs will be current models but I assume they will last a while as they were introduced quite recently.
-
Replacement feet for a Rigol DS1054Z are easy to get hold of:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2479741 (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2479741)
-
[...] with everyone moving to the Everything As A Service Model, your scope will eventually just be a platform through which you rent online scope software. The platform will be obsoleted out from under you before you have the time to wear out a knob.
I'm worried that the opposite will happen: once they have you subscribing to everything you thought you owned (probably including your underwear), what incentive do they have to keep developing the product? The companies that do this might end up like the phone companies of yesteryear... bloated, unresponsive, couldn't care less.
-
I have experience sending an in-warranty device for repair to Siglent's US based support (Ohio). It was a relatively standard process: get an RMA, send the device, get repaired device returned.
I think the days of having a schematic, bill-of-materials and parts-ordering forms right inside the Users Manual of a product are long-gone. Most companies these days will fix stuff in warranty, offer to fix it for your for a price out of warranty, and that's about it. Most aren't going to offer selling spare parts; they'd rather have you buy a new unit.
I'd expect in-warranty repairs or replacements to be done as it's the bare minimum. Keysight does offer quite a lot of parts as long as the device is supported and a fair number of years after that through their website and most are priced fairly reasonably unless you need something functionally vital. Fluke also offers parts but is stupidly expensive.
When companies can charge $50K for a piece of professional equipment there is a certain expectation of service life and support. I'd be pleasantly surprised 10 years from now to be able to buy a knob for Keysight's DSOX1102A.
Me too. 10 years ago if someone mentioned HP made scopes I'd reply; really ? I thought they made PC's and calculators.
Back then if asked for scope advice I'd have said Tek and if someone mentioned Siglent; WHO ?
Such it is in this ever changing world.
Some brands have had decades to hone their business model and get their equipment right yet still struggle with PSU's that go BOOM or nand rot.
-
Me too. 10 years ago if someone mentioned HP made scopes I'd reply; really ? I thought they made PC's and calculators.
Back then if asked for scope advice I'd have said Tek and if someone mentioned Siglent; WHO ?
Such it is in this ever changing world.
Some brands have had decades to hone their business model and get their equipment right yet still struggle with PSU's that go BOOM or nand rot.
The difference is that the serious players acknowledge their mistakes and take steps to correct them. That's also called support. Siglent copied the design and UI so maybe they'll manage to copy the support one day too. Maybe your customers will want to use the oscilloscopes long enough to experience issues like NAND rot. Still no word on the out of warranty parts and repair availability and process?
-
come across one of these locally Agilent 54624a ?
-
come across one of these locally Agilent 54624a ?
It is a really nice scope. The A stands for Analog and means it does not have logic analyzer input. If you can get the 54622D is better (it is a Mixed Storage Oscilloscope with 2+16 channels). Dave reviewed it in one of his videos. Is it worth buying it? Depend on the price you pay. The 54622D are priced around $250 in the US
-
ok thanks
-
Me too. 10 years ago if someone mentioned HP made scopes I'd reply; really ? I thought they made PC's and calculators.
Back then if asked for scope advice I'd have said Tek and if someone mentioned Siglent; WHO ?
Such it is in this ever changing world.
Some brands have had decades to hone their business model and get their equipment right yet still struggle with PSU's that go BOOM or nand rot.
The difference is that the serious players acknowledge their mistakes and take steps to correct them. That's also called support. Siglent copied the design and UI so maybe they'll manage to copy the support one day too.
Nothing at all wrong with our support as Siglent back me to the hilt on any matters I approach them on however not all equipment resellers consider support a prerequisite to having a dealership. :(
Maybe your customers will want to use the oscilloscopes long enough to experience issues like NAND rot.
All Siglent equipment I have sold is still in operation AFAIK, some 7 years worth including a class set of DSO's that were my first Siglent sale.
Those results give me a confidence in these products that I didn't initially have and that speaks volumes to me as to their reliability.
Still no word on the out of warranty parts and repair availability and process?
I can only speak for myself and have no issue with any parts ever required and I offer an in-house service center.
Most dealers don't/can't offer these services for one reason or another and circumstances will be different for each and every brand worldwide.
You're fishing for an 'issue' that isn't there ! :horse:
(Trolling is a bonafide fishing term)
-
Tautech's gotta eat. We all have. I peddle my shit elsewhere :)
The problem is that a lot of noise and bias is added to threads typically started by the kind of people most susceptible to it. New visitors don't know the few usual suspects who barf adverts disguised as advice habitually. I'm not saying dealers or representatives can't be useful as some very much are and even tautech sometimes has his moments.
Tautech has a big chunk of text under his name as does Daniel from Keysight. :-//
Anyway I just found that Telonic have started selling Siglent stuff so it’s on the table for me now we have a decent distributor here.
-
come across one of these locally Agilent 54624a ?
It is a really nice scope. The A stands for Analog and means it does not have logic analyzer input. If you can get the 54622D is better (it is a Mixed Storage Oscilloscope with 2+16 channels). Dave reviewed it in one of his videos. Is it worth buying it? Depend on the price you pay. The 54622D are priced around $250 in the US
It was a great scope in the day. It started mixed signal craze..
On the other hand, that scope has maximum real-time sample rate of 200 MS/sec, meaning that it's maximum sample rate is worse than DS1000Z with all four channels on, when DS1000Z is sampling with 250 MS/sec. With all channels sampling it has maximum sample rate of 100 MS/sec and in both cases it doesn't really comply to Nyquist criteria.
To work around that, it does repetitive sampling, and behaves like a classic sampling scope, creating one screen from many repetitive triggers.
That means that if you are looking at stable, clean, repetitive signal (like from a stable clock source, or crystal or such) you will get nice oscillogram of that.
If you want to take a look at nonrepetitive signal (some kind of burst, series of packets on a digital bus) you wont be able to see it. You will see scrambled crap..
Worst part is that if you have some signal that is supposed to be nice, clean and repetitive, but has a problem in it (like optical encoder that produces random glitches in output) you won't see any of that.
So if you want to use that scope for anything less than 30ish MHz (and that includes all harmonic content of the signal) and use it more like an analog scope, it's great. You will be able to get nice single capture of slow signals.
Even crappy little DS1000Z has better triggering, better sample rate (to capture faster events) more memory. And it is bottom of the barrel.
But, hey, to each its own..
OTOH, 54641A/D and 54642A/D are much, much better machines. They are great, if you can get on that works well, and costs right.
-
I thought this thread was about providing a "Fluke" experience. In that case there's only really one choice in this price range...
Clue: Out of all the Rigols and Siglents in Dave's lab, what oscilloscope does he choose to use in his latest video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9inGSp2QnfI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9inGSp2QnfI)
That's right! Dave's favorite Daily Driver.
-
I thought this thread was about providing a "Fluke" experience. In that case there's only really one choice in this price range...
??? The first post:
Rigol Ds1054z
or
Siglent SDS1202X-E
i really dont think i will need a 4 probe model , however good UI
nice big crisp screen, fast response as possible for that price.
i dont really want to spend much more than the above , and prefer to buy a reputable brand.
is there a different model within these brands that ticks my boxes?
or do all of these scopes have all this extra stuff i probably wont use?
i dont want to buy a second hand analogue
And again the OP with a $350 budget is getting pushed to AAA brand. |O
Clue: Out of all the Rigols and Siglents in Dave's lab, what oscilloscope does he choose to use in his latest video?
But according to the logic on this thread Dave shouldn't be using his own 121GW dmm in that video either! Instead he should be using a Fluke 179 because of the questionable nature of post-warranty parts and support that EEVBLOG offers (or doesn't). 26 years from now if I want to order a replacement LCD screen for my 121GW from the EEVBLOG I might not be able to. :-/O
-
I thought this thread was about providing a "Fluke" experience. In that case there's only really one choice in this price range...
??? The first post:
Which was superceded by this post:
i previously had a $100 dmm
then after a while i thought bugger it i will save up for a better one,
after doing the same procrastinating fence sitting research i bought a fluke 87v
from that experienced i was amazed just using the continuity tested how nice and fast it was to use.
now i feel i dont need to look again for another dmm.
its not the most expensive available, and i enjoy using it.
Im looking for the equivilent experience now with a scope, im just trying to find my "FLuke"
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/first-time-buyers-oscilloscope-analysis-paralysis-help!!!!!/msg2678592/#msg2678592 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/first-time-buyers-oscilloscope-analysis-paralysis-help!!!!!/msg2678592/#msg2678592)
And again the OP with a $350 budget is getting pushed to AAA brand. |O
You know I'm the last person to ever do that, normally it's the resident Siglent salesmen.
If the OP really want an upgrade though, the Keysight is the one to aim for. It's not a whole lot more expensive than the Siglent but the UI is massively more productive and it uses a beast of an ASIC that simply refuses to slow down (mostly due to the RAM being inside the ASIC, which is why RAM isn't as large as on other models).
-
But according to the logic on this thread Dave shouldn't be using his own 121GW dmm in that video either!
Dave has a monetary interest using blue meters in his videos so it's understandable.
Before that he used yellow meters, no problem.
-
come across one of these locally Agilent 54624a ?
It is a really nice scope. The A stands for Analog and means it does not have logic analyzer input. If you can get the 54622D is better (it is a Mixed Storage Oscilloscope with 2+16 channels). Dave reviewed it in one of his videos. Is it worth buying it? Depend on the price you pay. The 54622D are priced around $250 in the US
It was a great scope in the day. It started mixed signal craze..
On the other hand, that scope has maximum real-time sample rate of 200 MS/sec, meaning that it's maximum sample rate is worse than DS1000Z with all four channels on, when DS1000Z is sampling with 250 MS/sec. With all channels sampling it has maximum sample rate of 100 MS/sec and in both cases it doesn't really comply to Nyquist criteria.
To work around that, it does repetitive sampling, and behaves like a classic sampling scope, creating one screen from many repetitive triggers.
That means that if you are looking at stable, clean, repetitive signal (like from a stable clock source, or crystal or such) you will get nice oscillogram of that.
If you want to take a look at nonrepetitive signal (some kind of burst, series of packets on a digital bus) you wont be able to see it. You will see scrambled crap..
Worst part is that if you have some signal that is supposed to be nice, clean and repetitive, but has a problem in it (like optical encoder that produces random glitches in output) you won't see any of that.
So if you want to use that scope for anything less than 30ish MHz (and that includes all harmonic content of the signal) and use it more like an analog scope, it's great. You will be able to get nice single capture of slow signals.
Even crappy little DS1000Z has better triggering, better sample rate (to capture faster events) more memory. And it is bottom of the barrel.
But, hey, to each its own..
OTOH, 54641A/D and 54642A/D are much, much better machines. They are great, if you can get on that works well, and costs right.
For business use, I would probably choose a modern scope from a higher end manufacturer and be done with it, writing it off as a business investment/expense.
For home/hobby use, I ended up with a 54622D... I agree that >50MHz is not really in its wheelhouse, but for anything else it is actually rather good: 2 analog, 16 digital channels; starts/boots in a few seconds; responds instantly to any keypress/menu item - after all, it is using an early version of the HP MegaZoom ASIC, same principle as the current scopes from Keysight.
The screen is high resolution, still better than most LCD scopes, and you can see it from across the room, in daylight... Menus are fairly shallow and fast to use. Built in help function wherever you are. You can store signals as screenshots or spreadsheet format (on floppy... gotta love retro). It connects to GPIB (option) and rs232 (standard). Basically, it has most of the features of a modern scope, including math functions like integration and differentiation, FFT, measuring phase and delay between two channels etc., packaged in a really retro looking unit.
The single shot mode runs at a sample rate of 200MSa/s for a single channel, it is definitely not blind to random events.
You can do a heck of a lot worse for your $250 than one of these...
-
Which was superceded by this post:
Including the last line:
is the keysight worth aiming for ? or am i just entering the endless staircase of upsales?
I think this forum might be doing this OP hobbyist a disservice by leading him by the hand up that staircase. For a hobbyist, I guess I just don't consider a 90% bump ($349 to $670) the same price range.
Dave has a monetary interest using blue meters in his videos so it's understandable.
Before that he used yellow meters, no problem.
That's fine. As long as Dave doesn't actually expect anyone to buy one because everyone should be saving up to buy a Fluke 179 (of course, only if they can't wait longer to save up to buy a Fluke 287.)
-
I've have decided that asking for scope advise on this forum isn't very helpful lol. Too much hyperbole to wade through before you can filter out what actually is true and what isn't.
From what I can tell, there is no "great, starter scope" They all have their warts and blemishes. Actually, even that statement is hyperbole. I have a DS1104Z and it has done everything I've asked of it thus far. Since I'm relatively new to their use (maybe 2 years) it has been a fine starter scope and I have nothing bad to say about it.
Now, if my profession was as an EE. I might sing a different song, but then again. We are talking about starter scopes here, not professional scopes and I'm not an EE.
The one thing I've gathered here is Rigol, Siglent, GW-Instek, and Keysight all make starter scopes worthy of a beginner's first scope.
My opinion? Look at them and pick the one that fits your needs and be done with it. If you start getting way more serious and need a more powerful scope. Then sell your starter scope and go buy a better one. Or keep it and still go buy a better one!
-
From what I can tell, there is no "great, starter scope" They all have their warts and blemishes.
Yep.
and (b) Expensive ones have warts, too...
I have a DS1104Z and it has done everything I've asked of it thus far. Since I'm relatively new to their use (maybe 2 years) it has been a fine starter scope and I have nothing bad to say about it.
Same here, but given the OP's original budget and "audio" needs I'd go for the GW-Instek instead. It's not much more than the Rigol.
My opinion? Look at them and pick the one that fits your needs and be done with it.
Problem: Nobody knows their "needs".
Some specifications were given in the initial post but later we're told that he's looking for an "experience" similar to when he got his Fluke. Not gonna happen for $350...
I'd say the maximum "experience" will come from the Keysight so that's the one to go for. Maybe even the dark-color-scheme "G" version with wave generator for doing bode plots.
If he can afford a Fluke 87V, he can surely afford the Keysight. Spending more on your oscilloscope than your multimeter doesn't seem unreasonable to me. :popcorn:
-
Cost always seems to be the big issue followed shortly by warranty. Guys, it doesn't matter! Neither issue matters!
Barring infant mortality, of course. In the case of the older Rigol DS1054Z, this shouldn't be a problem. I haven't read anything bad about the Siglent offerings either even though they are newer. In any event, stay away from the bleeding edge and everything will work out fine.
Suppose you spent $1000 on an entry level scope and, somehow beating all odds, it lasted for 5 years. So, that's $200/year or about $4/week - the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks, I'm told. We're not talking high finance here!
Look at the bigger picture, in 5 years there will be something with even more magic selling for equivalent money. If your scope is still working, sell it for some discounted price and use the proceeds to buy the next great scope. The cost per week will be about the same.
Just figure you're into this deal for $4/week for the rest of your time playing with electronics. That's just the way it's going to work out.
Here's an idea: Put a jar on your bench and drop a $5 in every week. When you need another scope, you'll have the money. The longer you hold off buying the next scope, the better scope you'll be able to buy.
-
Excellent advice. :-+
-
Here's an idea: Put a jar on your bench and drop a $5 in every week. When you need another scope, you'll have the money. The longer you hold off buying the next scope, the better scope you'll be able to buy.
What about buying the first one? At that rate it's gonna take a while before you can afford it... :popcorn:
-
I've have decided that asking for scope advise on this forum isn't very helpful lol.
You're absolutely correct, but between:
* The wishy-washy lists of requirements
* The resident Siglent salesmen
* The OPs who always get scared and disappear half way through the thread
* etc.
What's a forum supposed to do? :popcorn:
-
In some ways, asking "What's the best scope" is like asking "What's the best car".
Chances are very good that there is more than one answer that you'll end up being very happy with!
-
I've have decided that asking for scope advise on this forum isn't very helpful lol.
You're absolutely correct, but between:
* The wishy-washy lists of requirements
* The resident oscilloscope salesmen
* The OPs who always get scared and disappear half way through the thread
* etc.
What's a forum supposed to do? :popcorn:
From a scope noob perspective, part of it for me is that lots of people are saying that X, Y, and Z are absolute requirements, with no reasons given for why. Show me the usefulness of those features, and I can better decide if they are useful for me personally. For example, do I need a scope that has decoding features? After reading/watching for a while on this topic, I don't really need that as a beginner, and I might never need it. Do I need FFT and lots of other math functions on a scope? Again, not so much, maybe never. And on and on. And that is part of the reason why I ended up starting with an old analog scope. I don't know what or who many of those features are useful for. Other reasons were wanting an interface with no menu diving and lag. No software bugs, hoping that the manufacturer will iron them out eventually (it seems that some manufacturers are quick about this, while others not so much if ever). And hopefully no tossing the thing in a dumpster in a few years due to a failed component or three, when that time will likely come, especially as a beginner who is more prone to making mistakes. On the latter point, I look at it the same as any other tool. Yes, I can go buy a whizz-bang multi-saw with lots of features and attachments, or I can buy something that looks to be well-made, repairable, that fits my actual needs, even if it means buying an older/used tool. From my perspective, it seems that manufacturers and sellers today are trying very hard to sell the idea that their feature-crammed devices is what I need, without explaining why I might need it and without consideration for what my needs and concerns actually are. As an example of that, it might be the case that some scope users would much prefer a scope that has adequate bandwidth with a very good interface and smooth display, over a scope that is feature-crammed without much concern for usability.
Before I ended up going for an analog scope, I likely would have went for a very low bandwidth (couple of Mhz) battery powered dso with a builtin function generator that is adequate, if there were one available that isn't a piece of crap.
-
In some ways, asking "What's the best scope" is like asking "What's the best car".
Chances are very good that there is more than one answer that you'll end up being very happy with!
Yep. At the end of the day we're arguing over options like leather seats alloy wheels where while ignoring the fact that none of them are going to fit a bale of hay in the back.
(...or sofa, depending on your culture)
A lot of people would go with the option of ordinary seats and spend the extra money on something that really makes a difference in their life (eg. a $100 soldering iron).
If you're really in the "I want leather and alloys" demographic then why skimp? Just check all the option boxes and take the hit. A year from now you'll be enjoying your pretty car and won't even remember how much the seats/wheels cost.
(ie. Get the fancy black "G" version of the Keysight, complete with signal generator to drive your audio amplifiers directly and produce Bode plots)
-
In some ways, asking "What's the best scope" is like asking "What's the best car".
Chances are very good that there is more than one answer that you'll end up being very happy with!
Yep. At the end of the day we're arguing over options like leather seats alloy wheels where while ignoring the fact that none of them are going to fit a bale of hay in the back.
(...or sofa, depending on your culture)
A lot of people would go with the option of ordinary seats and spend the extra money on something that really makes a difference in their life (eg. a $100 soldering iron).
If you're really in the "I want leather and alloys" demographic then why skimp? Just check all the option boxes and take the hit. A year from now you'll be enjoying your pretty car and won't even remember how much the seats/wheels cost.
(ie. Get the fancy black "G" version of the Keysight, complete with signal generator to drive your audio amplifiers directly and produce Bode plots)
It seems to be a real issue, the selling of scopes by way of leather seats and alloy wheels while the thing might stumble down the road and go left when turned right. And no aftermarket parts industry to speak of. But even more oddly, it seems to be popularly viewed as being acceptable.
-
From a scope noob perspective, part of it for me is that lots of people are saying that X, Y, and Z are absolute requirements, with no reasons given for why.
Agree 100%.
As an example of that, it might be the case that some scope users would much prefer a scope that has adequate bandwidth with a very good interface and smooth display, over a scope that is feature-crammed without much concern for usability.
The other problem is that people sell (eg.) the Siglent as 100% better that the Rigol. I disagree.
For example: My Rigol has a row of buttons down the side for turning on measurements, along with little pictures showing what they do. Push a button, measurement appears on screen. That's it.
[attachimg=1]
On the Siglent you go through some button presses and eventually get a popup menu with text names for the measurements. You scroll back and forth through the list with the twisty knob then push the knob to select a measurement.
[attachimg=2]
(Should that be horizontal or vertical movement throught he list when you turn the knob? Neither, it's the wrong paradigm...)
People go on and on about the Rigol's vertical control response but my gut feeling is that I turn measurements on and off nearly as often as I adjust the vertical position.
Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? :popcorn:
-
Any working scope is better than nothing.
Many, many businesses buy Siglents and Rigols. They buy 10 Siglent SDS1104X-E and one Keysight 1GHz 3000 , 4000 or 6000 series... Or they rent high end scopes and only buy lesser ones. Because they can do 80-90% of daily chores.
It is same thing as a bookkeeper person making a living on a i3 computer with 4 GB RAM, while spoiled 15 year old brats are demanding i9 12000 USD computers because their latest games don't have enough FPS... It's the hobbyists that are inventing problems where there aren't any. In business it's simple. It either works or it doesn't. Nobody in their right mind wants to spend more money when less will do the job.
It's the hobbyists that can afford (if they are wealthy enough) to be snobbish about brands, or "user experience". In real life companies, you come to work, boss hands you the toolbox and tells you "there is a problem there.. Go fix it and let me know when you're done." If they have to choose between 10 adequate scopes so every engineer has one, or 3 excellent scopes that engineers will have to wait in line to use, guess what's the answer... Only largest companies have premium instruments, all others economize about that...
As I said, to each its own, tool for the job.
Everybody like bashing Chinese scopes. But if you went to Keysight, until few years ago, and you asked them what would they suggest as excellent fully featured ENTRY level scope they would tell you that is exactly why they made 3000 series. They consider 3000 series to be higher low end, advanced entry level scope. That is their marketing strategy.2000 series was deliberately crippled and really basic.
Until Rigol and Siglent came out with their offering, there weren't real entry level scopes. Not really. It was noname toys, or severely crippled name scopes but still sold for several thousands of USD. And it was practically duopoly, HP, Tek and some Hamegs (R&S wasn't big player until few years ago), some LeCroys (no entry level models either to speak of). Maybe Yokogawa here and there. And they all cost too much. There were no Renaults, Fiats, Dacias of scopes. Only Mercedes and Porsche with their very expensive and their slightly less expensive cars the they called "economy", but they were still 5x times more expensive that Fiat with same basic specs. Fiat didn't have leather seats and fancy upholstery. But it drove millions of people to work, to vacation and changed their lives for the better. This is the market that Rigol and Siglent are targeting.
Let's get back to the topic.
It is actually simple:
- You decide how much money you can spend. That includes both "I have this much cash in my hand", or if you plan to get a loan to finance this purchase. Fix the hard sum that you are willing to pay.
- Take a piece of paper and write down what projects you plan to work on.That defines what signals you will encounter.
- On scope you need various triggers so you can catch what you looking for. For noisy analog signal find scope that has good trigger stability. If you look at digital signals, look for specialized triggers to look for crap on digital signals..
- On scope you need enough analog bandwidth so that your signal reaches A/D converter with least amount of distortion. If you look at digital signals, find out what edge rise times you will encounter and search for scopes by criteria which scope has fast enough rise time, not the frequency of signal.
- On scope you need sampling speed that is adequate for analog bandwidth it has. Keysight recommends 5x analog bandwidth to make sure no aliasing happens. Sometimes you can be OK with less than that.
- If you capture long sequences but need to keep high frequency data in that capture, longer the memory the better.
- If you want to correlate lots of signals at the same time you need enough channels. Some people will be fine with 2 (for instance: general troubleshooting, servicing) some will want 8 (for instance: power analysis)..
- If you want to correlate analog and digital you need mixed signal capability. Make sure digital channels are fast enough for digital signal you're looking at.
- If you want to decode some protocols, make sure they are supported.
- If you plan to decode a lot, plan to either get separate logic analyser/decoder. Decoding thousands of messages is job for 24" screen and PC. Decoding on scopes is nice as a quick view for troubleshooting, and really useful because you already have it all connected and you only enable decoding..
- Buy scope for those specific purposes and no more. Don't think "I will give more money but will buy once and have it all, now and 20 years from now on". You will pay too much for stuff you will never use. Buy for today and spend as little as you can and save money to buy scope with more features later if you will need it.
- With money you have, buy scope that fulfills most of your list. If there are compromises to be made, you have to decide what is more important. Do you want bigger touch screen or more sensitive input channels (500uV/div as opposed to 4mV/DIV), can it be PC USB scope with huge 512 MS memory and lots of decodes, or you want "real"scope with buttons, very fast U/I and would be happy with only 1MS of memory.
- You will NOT find SINGLE scope that does ALL you want(need). Not for any money. I have four of them, each one bought for specific capability/purpose. All of them were bought separately, when there was a project that required that capability and not a moment sooner. Project paid for them and I moved on and kept the equipment. If I realize I didn't use something for a year, I make a note of it, and if it really doesn't get used, off it goes.. I can buy something else with that dead money...
Pay attention I didn't mention any brands. Choice of that will change daily.
I have an eclectic mix of Rigol, Siglent, Keysight, Picoscope, Hameg, SignalHound, Micsig, Zeroplus, Maynuo, Brymen, Metrix,Fluke , Genrad, UNI-T, etc..
Like our friend BD139 epicly said, "run your shit Ferengy style" :-)
Dump your money into projects, not fancy instruments that will be not used. Or buy beer and steak, that is awesome too..
Or just admit, "Oh no, I don't do electronics, mind you.. I simply collect fancy instruments. I like how they glow...". That's fine too.
-
+1 to what 2N3055 posted
-
On the Siglent you go through some button presses and eventually get a popup menu with text names for the measurements. You scroll back and forth through the list with the twisty knob then push the knob to select a measurement.
(Attachment Link)
(Should that be horizontal or vertical movement throught he list when you turn the knob? Neither, it's the wrong paradigm...)
People go on and on about the Rigol's vertical control response but my gut feeling is that I turn measurements on and off nearly as often as I adjust the vertical position.
Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? :popcorn:
Both are slow. The GW Instek GDS1054B wins this contest hands down because it has the best from both: a fast CPU under the hood like the Siglent and two rows of buttons which make setting it up quick like the Rigol.
@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments which barely (or not) fit the bill isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.
-
Or just admit, "Oh no, I don't do electronics, mind you.. I simply collect fancy instruments. I like how they glow...". That's fine too.
Yes. Also a compromise tip if you have that magical "time" stuff available and this is a hobby. Collect cheap and old fancy instruments that are broken for pocket money, fix them, nod approvingly at them and enjoy the glow, then sell the buggers for much latinum having added the value of "actually works now". Benefits: cultural enrichment, acquisition of extensive debugging and technical knowledge and profit which can be used to buy nicer new instruments.
I'm running net zero expenditure on everything so far. This has the advantage that no one can complain about spending all that money on test gear :-DD
-
@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments which barely (or not) fit the bill isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.
There's the trifecta of time, cost and features to consider there. Features cost money. Time costs money. Money costs time. Features cost money.
The most successful businesses I have worked for understand the problem domain they are working on deeply enough to be able to compose something to solve a problem quickly rather than rely on a vendor to have an off the shelf solution. The dead time when you're waiting for vendor response and PO process kills a lot of products dead. The biggest one I worked on was a defence project which was rather late and only a couple of hundred million quid over budget. Some of this was actually due to Xilinx's sales team apparently although I wasn't on that side of things.
Also McGuyver got out of a lot of sticky situations without having to call up Keysight and get a scope to debug the bomb's protocol.
I work in the software sector now where all the tools are expensive and made of boiled dog shit. Much fun.
-
@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.
I didn't forget it, it was kinda included in "buy instrument to be fit for the purpose", but I wasn't really clear about that and thank you for pointing that out.
But also as a counterpoint to you, I must make a remark that I heard that argument many, many times, but it didn't hold truth all the time.
Buying more potent instrument doesn't always bring gain in productivity, because people have to use in way that is beneficial.
Many times, if it does enhance productivity, it has to be proven that it makes economic sense.
It is also self fulfilling prophecy. Where those businesses successful because they didn't economize on T&M equipment, or simply, because they were successful, they had enough money that they decided to spend a lot on T&M equipment because they can ?
Sometimes companies, knowing that engineers are funny that way and like that stuff, buy fancy equipment to promote working environment as being high tech and consider it a perk to employee, like free coffee and such.. You know, like: "I work for this great company, we have all the best toys.."
Management strategies are funny sometimes.
But you are absolutely right: If buying something more expensive will help you make more money, or make more free time for you (most precious resource we have) than by all mean get that, not the cheapest stuff. But make sure that investment will be returned, one way or another.
-
From a scope noob perspective, part of it for me is that lots of people are saying that X, Y, and Z are absolute requirements, with no reasons given for why.
Agree 100%.
As an example of that, it might be the case that some scope users would much prefer a scope that has adequate bandwidth with a very good interface and smooth display, over a scope that is feature-crammed without much concern for usability.
The other problem is that people sell (eg.) the Siglent as 100% better that the Rigol. I disagree.
For example: My Rigol has a row of buttons down the side for turning on measurements, along with little pictures showing what they do. Push a button, measurement appears on screen. That's it.
[attachimg=1]
On the Siglent you go through some button presses and eventually get a popup menu with text names for the measurements. You scroll back and forth through the list with the twisty knob then push the knob to select a measurement.
[attachimg=2]
(Should that be horizontal or vertical movement throught he list when you turn the knob? Neither, it's the wrong paradigm...)
People go on and on about the Rigol's vertical control response but my gut feeling is that I turn measurements on and off nearly as often as I adjust the vertical position.
Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? :popcorn:
Thanks for that one. That's pretty horrid.
Honestly the biggest feature I use on the digital scopes is the auto measurements because I'm a lazy bastard. I can derive as much value from an analogue box if I put the effort in as nearly all measurements are approximations and quite good enough to work out if the ball of poo you threw together in LTspice is doing what you hoped it will do in real life.
The other day I solved a problem on a 20MHz Hameg because my DS1054 wouldn't bloody trigger (turned out to be a self cal issue)
-
+1 to what 2N3055 posted
+2
You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently.
This also.
Some instruments have optional features that at purchase might never be considered as necessary or even required however as skills/needs grow at some later date they can be added.
Then the choice becomes more complex, will those features be required at some later time or just having them in an instrument make it more valuable if you decide to upgrade it.
On this premise there are those that choose to spend a little more initially so to be covered for later needs.
Each and every buyers situation is different.
-
@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments which barely (or not) fit the bill isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.
There's the trifecta of time, cost and features to consider there. Features cost money. Time costs money. Money costs time. Features cost money.
This ! And one more: money cost money.... :-)
To be honest, like you said, most of the time, time is wasted on trying to understand problem domain, not because my scope doesn't twiddle buttons fast enough...
It's more like, you grab a screen of crap and than look at that and the datasheet, and then screen, and then datasheet, and then specification... And then you think of something else, twiddle this twiddle that, capture again something else, than again look at that for few minutes....
If instrument has ready made analysis for something that I don't have to write myself, that is time saving.
But if analysis package costs 3000€ and I can spend 2 days and write something myself I go to client and ask if they want to save two days for 3000€ more cost. If it's so time critical, they have to pay if it is only for their benefit. Or they wait 2 days..
If it is something I use all the time, and for my benefit, than I will make a decision either to finance it myself, or write analysis in my own time...
I jolt down few numbers in Excel, calculate and make a decision. Simple as that.
-
Also as is typical with software these days, you spend that 3000€ and still have no idea what the problem is :-DD
-
@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.
I didn't forget it, it was kinda included in "buy instrument to be fit for the purpose", but I wasn't really clear about that and thank you for pointing that out.
But also as a counterpoint to you, I must make a remark that I heard that argument many, many times, but it didn't hold truth all the time.
It is also self fulfilling prophecy. Where those businesses successful because they didn't economize on T&M equipment, or simply, because they were successful, they had enough money that they decided to spend a lot on T&M equipment because they can ?
No, those companies (or at least the people leading them) had the insight that good tools do a better job. One of the primary problems of designing circuits and/or working with electronics in general is that you can't see electricity. You need instruments to measure voltage and current versus time. The better the insight you can get on the misbehaviour of a circuit the quicker you'll be able to make a circuit work.
-
@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.
I didn't forget it, it was kinda included in "buy instrument to be fit for the purpose", but I wasn't really clear about that and thank you for pointing that out.
But also as a counterpoint to you, I must make a remark that I heard that argument many, many times, but it didn't hold truth all the time.
It is also self fulfilling prophecy. Where those businesses successful because they didn't economize on T&M equipment, or simply, because they were successful, they had enough money that they decided to spend a lot on T&M equipment because they can ?
No, those companies (or at least the people leading them) had the insight that good tools do a better job. One of the primary problems of designing circuits and/or working with electronics in general is that you can't see electricity. You need instruments to measure voltage and current versus time. The better the insight you can get on the misbehaviour of a circuit the quicker you'll be able to make a circuit work.
I wasn't saying you are wrong per se, but that I'we seen both.
But it all drills down to types of projects, and complexity. More complexity and more advanced technology, more you start to depend on specialized and high end instruments and solutions.
-
Looking back at njkmonty's original post, what features do you think he needs for his requirements? Not *maybe this, maybe that*, just in case later *maybe this, maybe that*. According to njkmonty's actual requirements, which features do you think he needs?
It sounds to me that 2-channels, any bandwidth would be fine. Around $350 seems to be the max that he wants to spend. One point worth considering is that he wants to work on valve amps (high voltage). And the cost of some sort of suitable low frequency function generator, or maybe just a simple oscillator circuit, should be considered. He also wants a nice to use gui/display. Do any of the lower cost scopes include a good enough builtin function generator? Does one or more of those have any real advantage over other's in the same price range in terms of gui/display?
after asking questions, reading , watching , reading some more, I thought i had come to a decision.
Rigol Ds1054z
or
Siglent SDS1202X-E
i really dont think i will need a 4 probe model , however good UI
nice big crisp screen, fast response as possible for that price.
But i really also only envisage doing basic stuff,
measure power supply regulation
biasing bbd chips in effects pedals
biasing clocks in effects pedals
working on valve amps
no real digital requirements come to mind
i dont really want to spend much more than the above , and prefer to buy a reputable brand.
is there a different model within these brands that ticks my boxes?
or do all of these scopes have all this extra stuff i probably wont use?
i dont want to buy a second hand analogue
just need someone to push me over the edge?
sorry for the gazilianth scope question!
-
This thread reminds me of going to a local department store some years ago (remember those?) to find a microwave after mine kicked the bucket. Ever tried to get an out of warranty microwave repaired? Any way, I'm standing in the aisle looking at the whole range of microwaves, at this and that price, with this and that features. An hour and a half later, I left the store and put my frozen dinner in the oven. :-DD
Moral of the story, I didn't need any of the crap being displayed in the product info for those things. I just needed a hot dinner. Sometimes things are simpler than they are made out to be.
-
Nahhh the problem is going to a store. Usually when I go to a store I go back empty handed too because stores don't have much choice (which seems to get lesser and lesser). Better stop going to stores and order online. Some stores don't even want to sell these days. Last time I wanted to buy a monitor there was nobody at the cash register so I left the monitor at the cash register and went home (and ordered the same one online when I got home).
-
Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? :popcorn:
Both are slow. The GW Instek GDS1054B wins this contest hands down because it has the best from both: a fast CPU under the hood like the Siglent and two rows of buttons which make setting it up quick like the Rigol.
All roads still lead to GW-Instek, but nobody seems to own one. Riddle me that... :-//
OK, for a long time it was missing some "essential" features. Then somebody figured out a) The firmware is modular and b) you can copy the modules from high-end GW-Insteks onto low-end models and they'll work. Suddenly it had serial decoders, etc. It still doesn't seem to have gained much traction though.
Edit: Also separate controls for each channel...
-
Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? :popcorn:
Both are slow. The GW Instek GDS1054B wins this contest hands down because it has the best from both: a fast CPU under the hood like the Siglent and two rows of buttons which make setting it up quick like the Rigol.
All roads still lead to GW-Instek, but nobody seems to own one. Riddle me that... :-//
There are quite a few forum members who own one. Even Dave2 has one on his bench. It is just that GW Instek doesn't seem to do much in terms of marketing so they are easely overlooked. They probably sell enough through their existing sales channels. Look at how much GW Instek gear got onto the market when a large school in the US went bankcrupt a couple of years ago.
-
There are quite a few forum members who own one. Even Dave2 has one on his bench.
IIRC Dave2 has a mid-range model though.
If I had to replace my DS1054Z today I'd be looking at the GW-Instek.
-
If I had to replace my DS1054Z today I'd be looking at the GW-Instek.
Although ... getting hold of one is a problem. TME wants 500 Euros, Batronix don't even do them.
Where would a European buy one at a sensible price?
-
While GW Instek is a good brand and their little 1000 scope has better processor and therefore better performance of U/I, it still has only one 1GS/s converter (so same problems as DS1000Z), doesn't have segmented memory, and no decodes.
While you can hack it (they say), for 100€ less you get SDS1104X-E that has two 1GS/s converters, is 100MHz, and decoders included with no hacking needed. It also has FRA if you have a siggen from them. So no, little Instek is nice but not a great deal.
OTOH GW 2000E series are great scopes, but much more expensive..But I would buy them instead of Keysight 1000/2000 series in a heartbeat, on a merit of being better instruments..
-
While GW Instek is a good brand and their little 1000 scope has better processor and therefore better performance of U/I,
Not just faster UI, better UI - separate channel controls, separate button for the twisty knob, better UI design overall
it still has only one 1GS/s converter (so same problems as DS1000Z), doesn't have segmented memory, and no decodes.
It's all about trade-offs. I'd happily trade the 2GS/s converter for the better UI, and as noted earlier, it's been hacked to add decodes, etc.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/possible-gw-instek-gds-1000b-hack/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/possible-gw-instek-gds-1000b-hack/)
-
I had the GW-Instek GDS-1054B. UI is responsive but I sold it because I did not like 2 things about it:
1) Serial decode and segmented memory is only available when hacked... no support whatsoever from GW-Instek because they are non-existent features for them. When hacked, I was able to measure >200MHz
2) The graphics looks more like an OWON scope rather than the KS, Rigol or Siglent. The trace and characters are coarse like inherited from a lower resolution LCD of the past.