is Rigol Ds1052e still the best option in its class?

[ftransform]

You should buy the rigol just to be in the rigol 1000 club. no sense in nit picking here. 

say siglent, say rigol, does rigol not just sound better?

[sorin]

say siglent, say rigol, does rigol not just sound better?

NO

[Galaxyrise]

say siglent, say rigol, does rigol not just sound better?

It's not even obvious how to say "Rigol".  Marmad's & Dave's videos pronounced it "rye gall".  So I went looking for some "official" pronunciation. However, official videos on Youtube by "RigolTech" pronounce it more like Regal. 

[vk6zgo]

Tektronix sounds nicer.

Agilent is a bit weird---sounds like a Hyundai!

Rohde & Schwarz is a  bit of a mouthful.

Hameg?--sounds like breakfast!

Owon?---sounds like a British chap reminding you that he loaned you some money.

Siglent---sounds like the alternative loans company!

[Hydrawerk]

"Rygol" means "gutter" or "raceway" in Czech language. 

[ivan747]

I got the Rigol because it is a proven model, and from what I see, it is popular around my region. I even found one lying when visiting college labs to pick out an institute. Something tells me if it breaks it's going to be easy to find the fault. We have seen schematics of the front end and even the power supply around this forum. The firmware is well matured and the model is well known. Also we have our resident Rigol expert Drieg and all the other guys I can't remember! 

[kerrinal]

People maybe think that owon is the best choice.But I think the siglent oscilloscope is also a good choice.

[rf-loop]

People maybe think that owon is the best choice.But I think the siglent oscilloscope is also a good choice.

Siglent have much more features and UI is far better.

But Owon have some advantages over these others. One of these is samplerate and memory.
It is good to look samplerates also with other than just fastest horizontal speeds.

If this is not important to user and many other things weights more then Siglent is good and also good to remember that price is different.

Of course this is not important for all users but overall: Do not look only MHz or "up to" samplerates. What this oscilloscope do with other settings.. and is it important for you or not.
example:

500us/div 

Owon SDS7102   1GSa/s max. (10M full speed memory. Two channel 10M + 10M but 500MSa/s)

Rigol DS1000E  50MSa/s  (1M half speed memory. Two channel 500k+500k 50MSa/s)

Hantek DSO5000B  (400us/div)   max 100MSa/s (1M half speed memory. Two channel 500k setting 50MSa/s)

Siglent SDS1102CML  max 50MSa/s (2M half speed memory. Two channel 1+1M 50MSa/s. )

With 2ms/div Owon Nyquist limit is still ower 100MHz
Rigol is 5MHz
Siglent (2.5ms/div)  is 5MHz
Hantek is 10MHz
Did you buy 100MHz oscilloscope?

But then, in many and most other things Siglent win clearly Owon. Specially user interface is far better.  Also. today it seems that  Siglent building quality is reasonable good.

[poorchava]

I happen to own an ADS1022 from Atten, so basically the same thing as the Siglent (I have the version with smaller screen). Software is total and utter shit. Quite often crashes when doing math or autoset. FFT is useless. On the positive side is CAN withstand 40A going through the chassis (a small "woops..." when probing around a big transformer, my probes melted...).

[marmad]

thanks for the answer, I performed the same test on Tekway/Hantek "Recorder" so let's compare to Siglent Record/Recorder

Max of frames
Tekway/Hantek - 1000
Siglent - 2500

Minimum interval
Tekway/Hantek - 1ms (but it takes 11ms for 1ms frame)
Siglent - 1ms (but it takes 44ms for one 1ms frame)

i can't speak for Siglent, but on Tekway/Hantek when i set 90ms then the real interval is 100ms,
so in principle always +10ms independant on interval setting.

What memory length can be enabled for Record feature
Tekway/Hantek - 4000pts (with max 1000 frames), 40000pts (with max 500 frames)
Siglent - automatic only screen size (~500pts)

Zoom on playback frames
Tekway/Hantek - yes (vertical and horizontal)
Siglent - no

Measurment on playback frames
Tekway/Hantek - no
Siglent - no

Just one question about these 'recorders' (actually just crude segmented memory) - since the Rigol DS1000 series also has the feature: do they have time tags for the 'frames'? Because without that, IMO, there usefulness decreases.

[tinhead]

Just one question about these 'recorders' (actually just crude segmented memory)

Depends how you define it. 10 years ago it would be sufficient to have that kind of segmented memory implementation,
today it's not. Today segmented memory is not only a "recorder" capturing data based on interval you set, but on trigger data.
Sure, it is not that one could not measure once time between two events and setup then the interval, but that's is good
for few things only. The better way is to capture one event (or even none) and start then segmented memory cature - when there
is an event it will get captured. And exactly here it does make sense, as we don't have any pre-selected interval between frames,
to have time tag implemented.

The time-tag need of course good resolution (accuracy is anyway different story, one have to calcutate the deviation
by themselves based on measured time-tag stamp and typical timebase/trigger accuracy).
Something like 10-100ps is common usefull value for resolution.

EDIT: Agilent can e.g 10ps best case, see 5989-7833EN

since the Rigol DS1000 series also has the feature: do they have time tags for the 'frames'?

from a hardware point of view DS1000, (and all these who copied that hw design, like Siglent/ATTEN/UNI-T etc. )
does not have RTC on board, so no way to have time tag (and yes i know, there could be a counter running in
FPGA/CPLD and the latency between µC and FPGA could be calibrated out, but this is not the case for these DSO here).

Rigol changed that in DS2000, so it does have external RTC (ISL1208), but no matter how good the counter/interrupt/rtc/rtos
combination works, you will not get real ps resoultion on processor running at 400MHz. I don't have DS2000, so can't test anything.
All i found in user manual and pictures was like 1us timetag resolution. On the other side Rigol does not speak about
"segmented memory" but "recorder", so that ok, the timetag (independant on the given resolution) is then an small extra,
but not a real feature. I haven't found anything about when DS2000 is saving frames (except the interval setting, but i don't saw
anything trigger related). So when it can't be set to save on trigger event, then it is only recorder (or old school segmented memory).
Of course i might be wrong, maybe Rigol implemented the timetag counter (and on-trigger input) into the second FPGA (which is afaik
from the memory speed/size the recordig FPGA), so they could get best case 2ns resolution.
Anyway, you have DS2000, you can check that.


Regards Tekway, it does have internal RTC and enought counters to get 100-500ns resolution, but there is not RTOS
but Linux running. Sure, with proper device driver and changes to fw they could for sure do 1us or so, but that's would
be not a real timetag (or not what timetag have to be). Maybe i should ask them to see what they can implement, but yeah,
i didn't expect much from 400MHz ARM with Linux on it. Here, as on the DS1000E (and it's hw clones), the FPGA is too
small and timing already too hard on limit to have a way to implement timetag into FPGA, so as said above probably
1us could be the max (if they would implement it). And yeah, Tekway is based on interval as well, so no way to save
frame on each trigger event, so typical recorder and not segmented memory.

Because without that, IMO, there usefulness decreases.

as said above, without resolution (and accuracy of course) timetag is exact that good as manually counting seconds
on fingers between two nanosecond pulses.

[andersm]

Hey tinhead, do you think you could set your editor to soft wrap? The hard line breaks prevents the browser from reflowing the text and makes it kind of hard to read.

[marmad]

The time-tag need of course good resolution (accuracy is anyway different story, one have to calcutate the deviation
by themselves based on measured time-tag stamp and typical timebase/trigger accuracy).
Something like 10-100ps is common usefull value for resolution.

For someone who doesn't have time tags on their DSO, you seem fairly confident about what is useful - but I think you're wrong. The time tag is extremely useful - even if you only have a resolution that is slightly higher than the re-arm time, which is 20 us on Agilent 2000X (according to specs - perhaps it's better when measured), and ~17.5 us (best case I've measured - AUTO MemDepth) on Rigol DS2000.

All i found in user manual and pictures was like 1us timetag resolution.

I think the resolution is 100 nanoseconds on the DS2000 (perhaps less - I haven't checked).

On the other side Rigol does not speak about "segmented memory" but "recorder", so that ok, the timetag (independant on the given resolution) is then an small extra,
but not a real feature. I haven't found anything about when DS2000 is saving frames (except the interval setting, but i don't saw anything trigger related). So when it can't be set to save on trigger event, then it is only recorder (or old school segmented memory). Of course i might be wrong...

Yes, you're wrong - just as you were wrong about the Rigol's capture speed. [BTW, you often seem to be trying to knock down the DS2000's abilities - DSO envy?  ]  It captures PURELY based on trigger events - although, unlike the Agilent X-Series (which doesn't seem to be able to capture segments more than 1 second apart according to the manual), the Rigol can add an interval (hold-off) between trigger events of up to 10 seconds, giving it the ability to capture equidistantly spaced segments up to a period of 7.5 days.

As I've told you more than once already, you can see the wfrm/s speed of the Rigol with a given sample length/timebase reflected in the time tags (i.e. it can capture segments at it's rated update rate).

as said above, without resolution (and accuracy of course) timetag is exact that good as manually counting seconds
on fingers between two nanosecond pulses.

I'll assume this is a joke. 

[tinhead]

trying to knock down the DS2000's abilities - DSO envy? 

yeah, that must be the case

Seriously DS2000 is currently the best you can get (2ch models) for under 2k USD, if there are things that not good enought for xxx or yyy or missing (and there are some) then that didn't matter at all as there is no competitor (as combined bung for buck value).

All i found in user manual and pictures was like 1us timetag resolution.

I think the resolution is 100 nanoseconds on the DS2000 (perhaps less - I haven't checked).

if you don't mind check that please, it would be nice to know it.

It captures PURELY based on trigger events - although, unlike the Agilent X-Series (which doesn't seem to be able to capture segments more than 1 second apart according to the manual), the Rigol can add an interval (hold-off) between trigger events of up to 10 seconds, giving it the ability to capture equidistantly spaced segments up to a period of 7.5 days.

These 7.5days. i found your org. posting, that looks good.

For someone who doesn't have time tags on their DSO, you seem fairly confident about what is useful - but I think you're wrong. The time tag is extremely useful - even if you only have a resolution that is slightly higher than the re-arm time, which is 20 us on Agilent 2000X (according to specs - perhaps it's better when measured), and ~17.5 us (best case I've measured - AUTO MemDepth) on Rigol DS2000.

i think you got it wrong, i wasn't talking about that Tekway DSO vs DS2000, but about the timestamp feature generaly (and about how useless are timestamps in "µs"). That Tekway and all the others, i told only what the hardware can/could/can't and described why timetag it is not available on all these DSOs and why it didn't make sense to implement timetag on Tekway (however i will request it)

Sure, in the last 10yrs i was primary entrepreneur, but still there was a lot of things i have made themselves, so yes, i had a chance to work with gears you even don't know that they exists  , and for sure used lot of times segmented memory feature. Even my private TDS754D (that one which died ~2009, which was a reason for me to take a look on china gears) was capable of FastFrame (which is segmented memory), and yes, it was capable of picosecond resolution in timestamps.

[marmad]

I think the resolution is 100 nanoseconds on the DS2000 (perhaps less - I haven't checked).

if you don't mind check that please, it would be nice to know it.

It's strange - when I was doing a lot of testing with recording before (when writing the software to read out the frames), I thought that it was resolving down to 10ns - but checking tonight, I could only see changes as low as the 100ns digit (even though it displays down to the 1ns digit).

I think you got it wrong, i wasn't talking about that Tekway DSO vs DS2000, but about the timestamp feature generaly (and about how useless are timestamps in "µs").

Well, as I mentioned before, I think it's critical (as long as the resolution is at least 10x smaller than the fastest re-arm time). Without the time-tag, it would be impossible to tell exactly when a non-repetitive triggered event happened. Attached are two 3d images of segments - the first is plotted equidistantly (without using the time-tag) - the second is plotted with Z based on the time tag. It's obvious that the location (in time) of the sine-to-square change is much different when referring to the time-tag.

[ftransform]

so this thread got completely derailed. Can we agree that the owon 300$ version is 100% better then the rigol 1052e?

this thread was supposed to be about entry level scopes but it turned into some 1000$ pissing contest....

I feel like the coolaid man busted through the wall and now batman is trying to stop him....

[marmad]

so this thread got completely derailed. Can we agree that the owon 300$ version is 100% better then the rigol 1052e?

this thread was supposed to be about entry level scopes but it turned into some 1000$ pissing contest....

I feel like the coolaid man busted through the wall and now batman is trying to stop him....

No pissing contest - just a discussion about waveform recording - a feature which happens to exist in most entry-level DSOs. But, gee whiz, we better get this thing back on track because there is hardly any information to be found anywhere on this forum comparing entry-level scopes.

And no, the Owon is definitely not 100% better than the Rigol DS1052E.

[ftransform]

im sorry but the 3d graph from star trek scared me

I'm guessing that it has to do with the WFM/S.. I figure my rigol (or any 300$ scope) would probably catch on fire/teleport into hell before making a 3d graph.

holy dog shit it does have a record mode. thats way cool, I learned something... thanks. no 3d graph though
is there some program that can make the diagram that you show on the computer for the 1052e?

[bob808]

Hi, am new here, my first post ..

I have used analogue scopes for around 30 years and thought I'd quite like to venture into the digital sampling scope, but can't decide on whether a Siglent SDS1072CML or a Rigol DS1052E would be best.

The Siglent wide screen would be nice but having used non wide screen for many years I'm fine with the older squared screen.

I realise the Rigol is 50MHz and the Siglent is 70MHz, which is fine either way. I'm just wondering is the Rigol is still the better scope, although it doesn't have anti-aliasing, where as the Siglent 'appears' to have (50 GS/s effective sampling).

Not keen on reading about the UI's crash's though .. does this apply to both scope I wonder?

Was hoping to decide after reading the thread but still non the wiser, hence my post.

Pip

Same here Thought I might get to a conclusion... I need a digital scope but have a max of around 300$

[TMM]

Of course this is not important for all users but overall: Do not look only MHz or "up to" samplerates. What this oscilloscope do with other settings.. and is it important for you or not.
example:

500us/div 

Owon SDS7102   1GSa/s max. (10M full speed memory. Two channel 10M + 10M but 500MSa/s)

Rigol DS1000E  50MSa/s  (1M half speed memory. Two channel 500k+500k 50MSa/s)

Hantek DSO5000B  (400us/div)   max 100MSa/s (1M half speed memory. Two channel 500k setting 50MSa/s)

Siglent SDS1102CML  max 50MSa/s (2M half speed memory. Two channel 1+1M 50MSa/s. )

With 2ms/div Owon Nyquist limit is still ower 100MHz
Rigol is 5MHz
Siglent (2.5ms/div)  is 5MHz
Hantek is 10MHz
Did you buy 100MHz oscilloscope?

Sampling faster for a given timebase is not always better because you are compromising the ability to zoom out when you only have a modest amount of sample memory. If you need to zoom in by more than 3 orders of magnitude after capturing the waveform you are doing something wrong or buying the wrong class of scope. I find the implementation on the Rigol 1000 is a reasonable compromise of being able to zoom in and out.

FWIW, the Rigol 1000 has a fair bit of jitter up past 50mhz. It's not really an issue for me because i rarely use mine >10mhz, but it's worth noting. I don't know how the others compare because people don't seem to pay attention to it in reviews.

[markce]

In general TS question is not specific. DS1052E is still a very good entry DSO. In some aspects, it's not the best. Most obvious is the screen resolution. However, firmware is very stable. There is a large knowledge/support base. Price is an all-time low. It's proven reliable. There is free software to interface with it.
Not really a risk to buy at this price level...

[saturation]

I'd fully agree with markce's succinct summary.  The 1000s series is over 6 years old and well matured.  It may not have the best specs but its very stable and predictable, so it will do what the spec sheet says so you can measure your work with confidence, not spend time getting the scope to work.  If the spec sheet isn't what you want, then move up to a better scope, but that is a far better situation than the spec sheet being iffy or frankly false [ which is how many choose among devices, IMHO if this is bad the vendors are off to a bad start ] having unexpected glitches or bugs plus unpredictable variation in those bugs from year to year in other models.  Note there is one minor recurring quality issue, rotary encoders become erratic with age, and if you DIY replace beware breaking the power switch knob is a common issue in disassembly, but the scope has been reliable otherwise over time. 

In general TS question is not specific. DS1052E is still a very good entry DSO. In some aspects, it's not the best. Most obvious is the screen resolution. However, firmware is very stable. There is a large knowledge/support base. Price is an all-time low. It's proven reliable. There is free software to interface with it.
Not really a risk to buy at this price level...

[Hydrawerk]

I would prefer some Siglent scopes. They have better front panel with Single button and separate vertical controls.

[Fay]

http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/BEST-PRICE-New-Siglent-70MHz-SDS1072CML-Digital-Storage-Oscilloscope-2-channels-7-display-32Kpts-memory-depth/521168_1352141711.html

I recommend 1072cml from Siglent

[tinhead]

http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/BEST-PRICE-New-Siglent-70MHz-SDS1072CML-Digital-Storage-Oscilloscope-2-channels-7-display-32Kpts-memory-depth/521168_1352141711.html

I recommend 1072cml from Siglent

where are the mods? stop that f* spammer