Products > Test Equipment
HDO4204 vs. SDS2104X HD
(1/6) > >>
dpenev:
Hello,

Tring to compare Rigol HDO4204 and Siglent SDS2104X HD

Both 4 channels, 12 bits Oscilloscopes.

Rigol HDO4204 pros:
1. More powerful platform RK3399 (dual-core Cortex-A72 and quad-core Cortex-A53) compared to Zynq(Armv7)
2. 4Gs/s - twice as big sampling rate
3. Potential for 800MHz BW (Siglent can go up to 500MHz I think) 
4. Bigger screen resolution
5. Slightly less expensive

Rigol HDO4204 cons:
Stability and Scope app/UI seems to be not as polished as Siglent SDS2104X HD is.
HDO4204 may or may not improve significantly in time.

Anyone willing to share his opinion?
2N3055:

--- Quote from: dpenev on December 15, 2022, 10:15:54 am ---Hello,

Tring to compare Rigol HDO4204 and Siglent SDS2104X HD

Both 4 channels, 12 bits Oscilloscopes.

Rigol HDO4204 pros:
1. More powerful platform RK3399 (dual-core Cortex-A72 and quad-core Cortex-A53) compared to Zynq(Armv7)
2. 4Gs/s - twice as big sampling rate
3. Potential for 800MHz BW (Siglent can go up to 500MHz I think) 
4. Bigger screen resolution
5. Slightly less expensive

Rigol HDO4204 cons:
Stability and Scope app/UI seems to be not as polished as Siglent SDS2104X HD is.
HDO4204 may or may not improve significantly in time.

Anyone willing to share his opinion?

--- End quote ---

First step would be to download datasheets for the two and start from there?
They are actually quite different if you look closer. They are both 12bit but serving different markets..

- Rigol and Siglent have 2x 2GS/s ADC. Only difference is when using only one channel. When using 2Ch + they are the same. Siglent decided not to offer combining 2xADC for 4GS/s..........
- If you look at CH to CH isolation SDS200X HD has SPECTACULAR >70dBC for less than 350MHz and >60dBC for less than 500MHz signals.... Compare that to ≥100:1 (from DC to 500 MHz), ≥30:1 (> 500 MHz to full bandwidth) for DHO4000... maybe choice not to interleave all those signals was a smart choice?
- 800 Mhz is useful with only one channel used.
- Bigger screen resolution is usable only with external monitor. Things are already small to begin with. Scope is not a smartphone you can get closer to face to see details... That being said, DHO4000 has external monitor connector,SDS2000XHD does not.
- DHO4000 is less expensive but is 4ch analog only scope. No signal generator, no digital inputs,no MSO... We could argue that it is more expensive capability wise.. If you need those, of course.
- We had recently quite a few people making a noise (pun intended) about how acoustically loud instruments are. SDS2000X HD is easily acoustically quietest scope with a fan I ever used. First day I went to check if fan stopped working.. So for some people that might be interesting. Not that I care, but for some people it is important apparently...
- Input noise in both is comparable, with Siglent having slightly less noise on some ranges and slightly more on some. Claimed Rigol figures are for heavily filtered BW limited signal. SDS200X HD has full 500MHz BW down to 500uV/DIV and has a bit of less noise for full BW. It can also use software magnification to achieve 100uV/div like DHO4000 (it is software magnification on Rigol too)
- Siglent has much larger input signal offset ranges (it actually has it better than most scopes out there regardless of brands). That is very useful for power applications.
- There are many little details where you see SDS2000X HD is at different maturity level. Look at the timebase accuracy specifications for instance... one manufacturer specifies :±2 ppm initial (0~50℃); ±0.5 ppm 1st year aging; ±3 ppm 20-year aging, the other one: ±1.5 ppm ± 1 ppm/year... See the difference?
- There are many other little differences.. everybody must make a choice what is important for them.
- Siglent has been on a market for a time now. It is a working platform that is in active production. Rigol won't reach that stage for some time and only then we will see what exactly will it be. Both manufacturers will probably be adding features in meantime. If you need to buy something that works now and is stable than Siglent is better choice. If you can wait, wait and see..

I'm not saying that Rigol will not get there. It actually looks promising. There are some interesting features. But it will take time to get there before it is something I would buy to do real work. Today it is still beta test product released to customers..

And, maybe Rigol will release scope equivalent to SDS2000X HD, a "HDO4000MSO", and then we could compare head to head and see.
dpenev:
Thanks 2N3055, I will study your points.   

I am after a long time scope investment.
So I am OK if HDO4204 become mature for an year.

As for the MSO I am using DSLogic USB Logic analyzer.
Probably this is of topic but anyone to comment if MSO in SDS2104X HD is more useful compared to DSLogic or equivalent?   
2N3055:

--- Quote from: dpenev on December 15, 2022, 12:27:15 pm ---Thanks 2N3055, I will study your points.   

I am after a long time scope investment.
So I am OK if HDO4204 become mature for an year.

As for the MSO I am using DSLogic USB Logic analyzer.
Probably this is of topic but anyone to comment if MSO in SDS2104X HD is more useful compared to DSLogic or equivalent?

--- End quote ---

You're welcome.
It is good to see you are realistic about your needs and that you actually have idea of what yo need. There are too many topics where people just come and say "give me best something!" without even knowing what they need.

As for MSO vs. separate Logic/protocol analyser,  while I'm at it let me throw my 2 cents.

In my opinion they are orthogonal, i.e. not really replacement to each other but more of complementary.

If you spend lots of time just debugging what messages software sends, separate PC based analyser will be more useful.
If you work with devices where you need to see analog signals and digital signals and their correlated timing (and be able to decode messages too) that is domain of MSO.

You can sometimes use them interchangeably if you are clever about it. But not always.
If you need to capture 5000 decoded messages it will be easier to to do that on big screen on a PC.
If you need to decode data from ADC and see if it correlates with analog data on input, you would be better off with a MSO.

But in theory, and with less data, MSO scope can do what logic analyser can and some things that it cannot.
So in a way it is more universal. Also scopes usually have better triggering (more versatile, with mixed analog/digital/protocol triggering).

You could also try to cross trigger scope and LA. That will give you some synchronization, but separated data screens..
That can also be used in a pinch...

Best,

markone:

--- Quote from: dpenev on December 15, 2022, 10:15:54 am ---Hello,

Tring to compare Rigol HDO4204 and Siglent SDS2104X HD

Both 4 channels, 12 bits Oscilloscopes.

Rigol HDO4204 pros:
1. More powerful platform RK3399 (dual-core Cortex-A72 and quad-core Cortex-A53) compared to Zynq(Armv7)
2. 4Gs/s - twice as big sampling rate
3. Potential for 800MHz BW (Siglent can go up to 500MHz I think) 
4. Bigger screen resolution
5. Slightly less expensive

Rigol HDO4204 cons:
Stability and Scope app/UI seems to be not as polished as Siglent SDS2104X HD is.
HDO4204 may or may not improve significantly in time.

Anyone willing to share his opinion?

--- End quote ---

Do you need absolutely 4GS/s, 50 ohms input, more than 100Mpts and  probe auto set ?

If the answer is NO, consider to buy an HDO1074 at 2.5X less and apply the hack obtaining 200MHz BW and 100Mpts.

We are talking about of 1000 Euro VS 2700 Euro for HDO4204 or 3000 for SDS2104X HD, with taxes the difference is well over 2000 Euro.

Maybe this argument could "shape" your requirements  ;)
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod