EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: corey on June 08, 2023, 01:11:35 am
-
Hi all, new member here. I've done a bit of hunting around on these forums and mm after some advice on currently available oscilloscopes, at the moment I'm in the market for my first benchtop one with a budget of AU$600-800. Just trying to find what's the best value in this range at the moment, including any hacking necessary. Not sure I'll need 4-ch but I've seen them recommended a few times as a general comment, "why not get a 4-ch?". Obviously looking at maximum BW/Gsps for the price/value.
Looks like the Siglent SDS1104X-E is a good option but can it be hacked to increase the BW to say 250MHz? It's a 1Gsps unit.
Also its datasheet says for the memory depth it has 7 Mpts/CH (not interleave mode); 14 Mpts/CH (interleave mode). So it's saying 14 Mpts per channel x 4 = 56 Mpts total?
The other I'm thinking about is the ol' Rigol DS1054Z. On TEquipment, it says they come with the mem depth upgrade: 24Mpts (1 CH)/12Mpts (2 CH)/6Mpts (4 CH). This implies a total of 24 Mpts.
Anything else I should be looking at?
(There's also the GWInstek GDS-1054B or 1104B, I don't know if the 1054B can be hacked to increase BW given it's a 1 Gsps)
Looks like forwarding would be around US$90 using Shipito.com (I've used them in the past).
Thanks!
-
Welcome to the forum.
FYI
SDS1104X-E uses two 1GSa/s ADC's, each with 14 Mpts memory support. Therefore we consider what channel pairs are active for the resources available to each channel.
They are a 200 MHz design and -3dB rolloff is in the region of 220 MHz for the 200 MHz model.
-
The Siglent one has better user interface. The FFT function is very decent. It can do FFT at very low frequency.( You will be surprised a $24k 12-bit LeCroy scope cannot do FFT in low frequency region. Software screwed up.)
-
My first scope was the DS1054Z. I hated it. I didn't like the display, it was slow, and any remote connection was tedious to make and even slower. I returned it and got the SDS1104X-E.
The Siglent is a great scope, and the web server that's built in is excellent. You can also get a $9 dongle to get it to work on WIFI if you need to. Take a look at the threads on here for "improving" most of the Siglent stuff if you're inclined to.
-
I got GW-Instek GDS1054B. I'm happy with it, but if you want max bandwidth/sampling rate for the money, Siglent SDS1104X-E is what you want. As Tautech said it has two ADCs, so it effectively doubles what the Rigol and the Instek can do: 200 vs 100 MHz. Since each of these ADCs takes care of two channels, you can get 1 Gsa/s using channels 1 and 3 with 200 MHz bandwidth (sampling rate=5xBW=>really good). 500 MSa/s with all four channels active at 200 MHz (sampling rate = 2.5XBW => good enough). No doubt this is the most bang-for-the-buck you can get at this entry-level. At the end of the day, oscilloscopes are mainly about sampling rate and bandwidth.
In practice, 200 MHz will not get you much more further than 100 MHz however. If you want to do things with, say, really fast MCUs, 200 MHz probably isn't going to be good enough much longer than 100 MHz BW. But the price is not much higher, either, so why not? Unless you are on a short budget, of course.
The Instek has probably the better UI. Fast response, independent controls for all the 4 channels. But it comes with 70 MHz probes which aren't good enough after you hack it up to 100 MHz, so you'd be better getting new probes ipso facto. You would need at least 250 MHz probes to get total system bandwidth into 100 MHz range after hacking the Instek. That means the price could be near Siglent's (with original probes) but bandwidth can't go further than 100 MHz.
Keep in mind the recommendation is to have probes with "at least" 3x the signal bandwidth you want to measure. You could do with less than that, but having 70 MHz probes on a 100 MHz oscilloscope somehow defeats your "upgrading". Both the Siglent and the Rigol came with better probes than the Instek (I'm told) so you could probably initially do with the original probes and delay the purchase of new ones. I'm not really sure which probes would you need to get Siglent's total system bandwidth into 200 MHz range however. Total system bandwidth = 1/sqrt((1/o'scopeBW²)+(1/probesBW²)). Things get crazy expensive quite fast when bandwidth increases. Surely others can give some advice here.
The Rigol is the cheapest I think. I'm told its user interface is the slowest but it can do all you need at the low-end MCU level. Which is probably the usual stuff when speaking about entry-level benchtop oscilloscopes. So it would be the obvious option if you are on a short budget. You are probably going to need more stuff than just an oscilloscope so that matter is worth some consideration.
If you are ever going to do anything with sensors/LCD displays, you'll be doing digital work. In that case you'll be happy with a 4-channel oscilloscope and a logic analyzer like, say, a DSLogic Plus or, perhaps even better, an oscilloscope with a good-working MSO option. If you are sure you'd never be touching any digital stuff, then a 2 channel oscilloscope would be enough, I think.
So, if you have the money and want to get the most bandwidth, get the Siglent. If you are on a short budget, get the Rigol. Leave the Instek for those that have the money and want a responsive UI, but don't care so much about the greatest bandwidth.
Unless you are on a really short budget, the 4-channel Siglent is probably the way to go. Just don't think its MSO option is any good and get a separate logic analizer like DSLogic Plus if necessary.
If you have deep pockets and really want to have lots of bandwidth, and good-working MSO option, it could be wise to save some more money (double/triple your budget) and go for an oscilloscope that could be hacked to 350 MHZ like Rigol MSO5074 or Siglent SDS2104X Plus.
Good luck
-
About probes: recently somebody posted measurement results that show there really isn't a difference in bandwidth where it comes to probes.
Which scope is the best choice depends a bit on the purpose. For decoding the GW Instek is the best choice as it decodes the entire memory so you can inspect deep into decoded data without the decoded data dissapearing. Also the GDS-1054B has freely adjustable signal filtering which can be handy in some situations. It is possible to upgrade the screen to a larger sized one which makes the screen easier to read.
-
I'm waiting on the new Rigol HDO800. It won't be here for another three or four months though. The next-gen UI and high definition is killer.
If you a 'scope right now and budget isn't a problem then the Siglent is probably the one to get.
All three are similar bang:buck so it's really just down to how much you want to spend. All three are very capable devices. The Instek is nice to use (separate channel controls, a proper menu select button instead of pushing the twisty knob, etc...) but Instek pricing varies wildly by country. If it's close to the Rigol then get the Instek for sure but I wouldn't pay Siglent prices for one.
I wouldn't obsess over bandwidth at this level. Real-life probing problems will swamp any difference between having 100Mhz and 200MHz. I'm not even sure I'd hack a Siglent to 200Mhz, it might be better to keep the higher sample-rate-to-bandwidth-ratio of a 100MHz/2GS 'scope. None of them have internal termination for coax setups.
-
Which scope is the best choice depends a bit on the purpose. For decoding the GW Instek is the best choice as it decodes the entire memory so you can inspect deep into decoded data without the decoded data dissapearing. Also the GDS-1054B has freely adjustable signal filtering which can be handy in some situations. It is possible to upgrade the screen to a larger sized one which makes the screen easier to read.
Yep. The Instek has a lot of things going for it.
But as usual we don't know what the intended use for the 'scope is and the asker will be all surprised about not getting a definitive answer about what's "best".
-
Hi, and welcome!
As a long-time Rigol user (MSO1074-Z here from around 2016), so... Votes against Rigol:
- FFT is something, which shouldn't be even noticed – the worst in class,
- UI may be a bit awkward at the first, but you may become familiar with it after a few hours of use,
- literally no practical decoding option, even with the 16-channel probe,
- without practical decoding, it's a waste to have 16 digital channels on MSO models,
- a bit old, compared to the currently available competitors,
- fan is noisy, whatever you do,
- no RTC, so every screenshot starts from the lowest available ID,
- I've never ever used pass/fail and record during "live" measurement processes, they're both awkward to set-up and barely produced the expected results
What I actually like (not really love):
- fair quality for the price,
- regular models are all easily hackable (MSO doesn't, but it's another story),
- fairly wide range of trigger options (for example RUNT),
- meet the specs, even near the extremes,
- lightweight and compact.
It's good to know, that back in 2016, this was the „benchmark” beginner scope with 4 channels, a relatively big display, and all the really useful trigger options – there was no real competitor then. Within these 7 years, the whole market changed, and all competitors came up and made even better scopes.
Ideas to consider:
- 4 vs 2 channels: clearly 4, in some cases, may be enough to decode an SPI line, and there are many measurements, where 2 channels are not enough,
- digital channels: avoid it, it's way better to have a sealea, if necessary -- though, the price is nearly comparable
- strong front-end is a must,
- Bandwith, sample rate, and sample memory are all important, but you must exactly know what are you looking for, for example, it may be seriously more important to have a decent capture rate on relatively low bandwidth to catch a glitch, or to find a missing /ACK in i2c communication, so you must know what are you looking for
- built-in waveform generators are usually very compromised and limited,
- in the entry-market, there is no perfect scope, there are scopes which may have less limitations,
- Your decision must be made based on your measurement needs, and not tech specs – if you know what are your goals/measurement plans, then, we can introduce you to the key factors you must deal with. In general: for some measurements, an analog scope is much better, in the digital domain, it's possible that you must have a scope capable of handling signals up to 500 Mhz, or even more. Some description of your ideas/plans may be very useful.
If you have any question, just feel free to ask!
-
About probes: recently somebody posted measurement results that show there really isn't a difference in bandwidth where it comes to probes.
Well I can assure you that my oscilloscope has more bandwidth with 150 MHz Testec probes than with the original 70 MHz ones. Like some 20 MHz more. After that I got 250 MHz a couple of weeks ago, yet I don't have any spare time right now to test this new batch so I will remain silent about them. They will have to wait at least a couple weeks more
-
in 2016, this was the „benchmark” beginner scope with 4 channels
Yep, and the price difference with the competition was much larger.
FWIW: It looks like Rigol is about to create a new "benchmark" with their DHO800 series (https://www.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO800) but we're only at "preorder" status right now.
In the entry-market, there is no perfect scope, there are scopes which may have less limitations,
I'll go further and say there's no perfect 'scope at any level. :)
But yeah, don't expect any of these 'scopes to be 100% amazing and have no problems.
(Think: If they were then there'd be no $1000 or $2000 'scopes on the market. :popcorn: )
-
That means the price could be near Siglent's (with original probes) but bandwidth can't go further than 100 MHz.
FYI
SDS1104X-E is supplied with PP510 100 MHz rated probes whereas 200 MHz SDS1204X-E is supplied with PP215 probes.
Their frequency responses were checked by member Performa01 and PP510 was down 1dB at 200 MHz compared to PP215.
These results indicate PP510 will give satisfactory accuracy for most work at frequencies well above their rating.
-
What I actually like (not really love):
- fair quality for the price,
- regular models are all easily hackable (MSO doesn't, but it's another story),
- fairly wide range of trigger options (for example RUNT),
- meet the specs, even near the extremes,
- lightweight and compact.
How about:
It has a row of buttons down the left side for turning on measurements very quickly/easy (something which you do a lot...)
Siglent's system for turning on measurements is a real pain in the ass by comparison.
there is no perfect scope
QFT.
-
Thanks all! I'm quite surprised at the level of responses - some long and detailed. I acknowledge I didn't mention the intended use, and hence it's somewhat of a difficult question to answer! ;D But thanks to all, this is quite the helpful community.
I'm leaning toward the Siglend SDS1104X-E, which is available at AppVision for $693 incl GST currently. https://appvision.com.au/index.php?id_product=119&id_product_attribute=0&rewrite=siglent-sds1202x-e-digital-oscilloscope-200mhz-2-channel-1gss-with-serial-decode&controller=product (https://appvision.com.au/index.php?id_product=119&id_product_attribute=0&rewrite=siglent-sds1202x-e-digital-oscilloscope-200mhz-2-channel-1gss-with-serial-decode&controller=product)
Second in line is a GWInstek. Sounds like it is stronger in the decoding from memory, which I'm also likely to need.
Intended use is SDR (low RF up to 1GHz, IF), ADC/DACs, as well as digital interfaces (to an FPGA). RF/IF is why I was going for highest bandwidth possible. I'm thinking I'll get a separate logic analyser (e.g. Saleae? Haven't looked at pricing) but would be great to go for a MSO, I just don't think I have the budget. So I'm also interested in the FFT capability, which sounds like is good on the 1104X-E.
Must say, though, we're spoilt for choice. When I was at university 15-20 years ago, CRO/DSO's were $$$.
-
Well,
Yes, sure. On the other hand, you can be easily messed up when you fill up all the free places, and you're going to change one less used to a new one. I use cursors in about 95% of all measurements.
-
Hi,
At this moment, I have some home-brew SDRs on my bench to be assembled and tested.
From a broader view, with designated frequencies near 1 GHz, you'll have serious limitations even with a scope with a higher bandwidth of 250 MHz (both HW frontend, A/D, FPGA, and software interpretation). These scopes are barely capable to support your measurement needs.
Planning your measurements is a must at this point. With an SDR, you'll have to check the signal of the Tayloe driving circuit (precise phase shift) for example. I'm about to use it only on HF bands (up to 60 MHz), so a simple scope is capable to handle the signal. But as soon as you plan go up to the GHz range (or near to it), your chances to make key measurements will be significantly reduced (if not zeroed). Again, it's a question of your measurement goal.
Catching up a digital feed from an FPGA is also a question of bandwidth and capture rate. It depends on the clock frequency of the line (if exists).
Saleae is way over your budget at the moment... :-/ https://eur.saleae.com/products/saleae-logic-pro-8 (https://eur.saleae.com/products/saleae-logic-pro-8)
-
That means the price could be near Siglent's (with original probes) but bandwidth can't go further than 100 MHz.
FYI
SDS1104X-E is supplied with PP510 100 MHz rated probes whereas 200 MHz SDS1204X-E is supplied with PP215 probes.
Their frequency responses were checked by member Performa01 and PP510 was down 1dB at 200 MHz compared to PP215.
These results indicate PP510 will give satisfactory accuracy for most work at frequencies well above their rating.
I mean GW-Instek GDS1054B can't go further than 100 MHz, even using better probes than originally supplied, which will make GW Instek GDS1054B about the same price than Siglent SDS1104X-E, which does go up to 200 MHz: I didn't knew with which probes.
Just saying it as clearly as I could, because perhaps your assertion seems to imply I said Siglent SDS1104X-E couldn't go further than 100 MHz with the original probes? Not really sure about it. You know, not a native english speaker here.
It turns out, from Performa01's information, Siglent SDS1104X-E can go up to 200 MHz even with the original probes. Good to know. I think this information will be useful to the OP.
But I forgot that in Europe right now the Siglent is cheaper than the Instek: €429 vs €465, + VAT, in Eleshop.eu
In the US, pricing seems to be like it was in Europe two years ago: cheapest one is the Rigol, then some 25 bucks more buy you the Instek, then about another 75 bucks more buy you the Siglent. Or so it was some weeks ago. IIRC the Instek was the cheapest one in the US two years ago.
So the point I made is still valid in the US, but not in Europe anymore.
Is this the post from Performa01 you are refering to?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665)
Quite interesting, mainly because I got some Testec probes recently: Testec TT-LF-312, Testec TT-MF-312, Testec TT-HV-250 (because it's high voltage, not sure 300 MHz bandwidth matters) and finally Testec TT-HVP-40 (multimeter HV probe).
TT-LF-312 is a real improvement over the original, 70 MHz GW-Instek probes supplied with my GDS1054B.
Quite disappointing to see TT-MF-312 at the bottom of the graphs. I still have to test it. I hope they are an improvement over TT_LF-312.
Well at least it turns out Testec probes are relatively cheap. But after the comments about Testec on multiple posts in this forum, I wasn't expecting having to say this. Perhaps they are becoming a cheap chinese brand?
Maybe I'll also get Testec TT-HF-212 to see if it's any better. But this will be for another thread.
-
Probe Master makes awesome probes, and they have a dealer in Europe too.
-
Is this the post from Performa01 you are refering to?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665)
Yes.
And this one:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1435196/#msg1435196 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1435196/#msg1435196)
-
Is this the post from Performa01 you are refering to?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665)
Yes.
And this one:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1435196/#msg1435196 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1435196/#msg1435196)
Yeah, I saw it. Where would be useful for that probe to have 300 MHz bandwidth? I was under the impresion that at those voltages, one would be dealing with some mains-related thing. So probably 50-60 Hz? I don't think a CR tube goes at 300 MHz. One could use that probe to look at the CRT of some Hameg oscilloscopes because it's 2.5 kV, not because it has 300 MHz bandwidth. Multimeter probe Testec TT-HVP-40 could look at almost any CRT and it has just 300 Hz BW, am I right? Even a VFD would usually be under 500 Hz, it isn't?
Well I guess there will be something where a 300 MHz HV probe could be useful, but right now I can't figure what it could be.
-
Well I guess there will be something where a 300 MHz HV probe could be useful, but right now I can't figure what it could be.
Resolving fast edges.
FWIW all 100x HV probes we sell are 300 MHz rated not because we need such but that's what the manufacturer offers. Here like most, maybe all of EU mains is 230VAC and 3ph 415VAC between phases and being low impedance IMO it's wise to protect the instrument and yourself with a HV rated probe with better breakdown specs rather than any 600V rated probe.
-
I’m starting to think, for my SDR work and working with IF and FOGAs, maybe I should stretch my budget up to an MSO5000 series. 😅 Probably save me on a nicer signal generator and logic analyser etc. TEquipment sell a 5074 with logic probe. But it’s looking expensive, even from TEquipment, about AU$2000 landed.
-
I’m starting to think, for my SDR work and working with IF and FOGAs, maybe I should stretch my budget up to an MSO5000 series. 😅 Probably save me on a nicer signal generator and logic analyser etc. TEquipment sell a 5074 with logic probe. But it’s looking expensive, even from TEquipment, about AU$2000 landed.
A couple things to think about that might save you some money on the logic probe:
- there are people selling a non-Rigol version of the logic probe (based on designs that were developed in discussion threads on EEVBlog). On US eBay they run about $80 USD shipped to the USA. I'm not sure how the quality compares or what feature differences there might be (like supported signal voltages) different from the Rigol logic probe.
- unless you need to have your logic waveforms displayed with and synchronized with analog signals, one of the many inexpensive USB logic analyzers might save you a fair bit
-
Well I guess there will be something where a 300 MHz HV probe could be useful, but right now I can't figure what it could be.
It isn't a 300MHz HV probe--it can be used as a 300MHz probe or a HV probe, but not both at the same time. It's main feature will be a lower input capacitance, the 100M input resistance is mostly a sideshow.
-
I’m starting to think, for my SDR work and working with IF and FOGAs, maybe I should stretch my budget up to an MSO5000 series. 😅 Probably save me on a nicer signal generator and logic analyser etc. TEquipment sell a 5074 with logic probe. But it’s looking expensive, even from TEquipment, about AU$2000 landed.
Don't ever imagine an inbuilt AWG will meet your every need.
Typically their drive levels (p-p) are lacking for a multitude of uses.....just so you know. ;)
-
I’m starting to think, for my SDR work and working with IF and FOGAs, maybe I should stretch my budget up to an MSO5000 series. 😅 Probably save me on a nicer signal generator and logic analyser etc. TEquipment sell a 5074 with logic probe. But it’s looking expensive, even from TEquipment, about AU$2000 landed.
A couple things to think about that might save you some money on the logic probe:
- there are people selling a non-Rigol version of the logic probe (based on designs that were developed in discussion threads on EEVBlog). On US eBay they run about $80 USD shipped to the USA. I'm not sure how the quality compares or what feature differences there might be (like supported signal voltages) different from the Rigol logic probe.
- unless you need to have your logic waveforms displayed with and synchronized with analog signals, one of the many inexpensive USB logic analyzers might save you a fair bit
IMHO that is looking at it the wrong way. The cheap logic analysers offer little in terms of triggering versatility so in the end digital channels on an oscilloscope work just as well. A big plus is that you can see the signals change in realtime. A logic analyser always works in a capture-analyse sequence (no realtime display) while an MSO can do both. It may make a lot of sense to look at a used logic analyser from Agilent or Tektronix as these sell for peanuts nowadays if you want to have a wealth of triggering possibilities. A real logic analyser has a trigger system that consists of a programmable state machine which is immensly powerful.
Then again I have the idea that digital channels aren't well implemented on B-brand scopes which automatically gets you into Keysight & R&S territory if you want decent MSO functionality.
Bottom line: if you are looking at an MSO from one of the B brands, make sure you can return the unit for a refund if the digital channels can't do what you require.
-
A big plus is that you can see the signals change in realtime. A logic analyser always works in a capture-analyse sequence (no realtime display) while an MSO can do both.
QFT.
-
I got GW-Instek GDS1054B.
Is there a Trigger Output available? I did not find it in the user manual.
https://www.tme.eu/Document/55a6f24fec57e56bb5baaeaca0f05267/GDS-1000B-MANUAL.pdf (https://www.tme.eu/Document/55a6f24fec57e56bb5baaeaca0f05267/GDS-1000B-MANUAL.pdf)
Maybe the user manual was too old?
-
The GDFS-1000B serial manual from GW-Instek's site:
- https://www.gwinstek.com/en-US/products/downloadSeriesDownNew/1679/133 (https://www.gwinstek.com/en-US/products/downloadSeriesDownNew/1679/133)
(annoyingly, you need to have a free registered account)
-
Siglent's system for turning on measurements is a real pain in the ass by comparison.
Which model did/have you had and with which other scopes did you compare it ?
-
Siglent's system for turning on measurements is a real pain in the ass by comparison.
Which model did/have you had and with which other scopes did you compare it ?
Actually it is very easy to see. Any oscilloscope with a vertical AND horizontal row of buttons is way easier to navigate compared to an oscilloscope with only a single row of buttons. On top of that an oscilloscope with a seperated rotating knob / select button is easier to use compared to an oscilloscope with a combined button. GW Instek really comes out on top where it comes to ease of use for setting up measurements and decoding. Ofcourse things are different if the oscilloscope has a touchscreen but then you;d need to look at MicSig for a sub US$ 1k scope.
-
It´s about making measurements or did I missunderstood something ?
The old debate about pros and cons having separate adjustment knobs for each channel is another thing.
-
It´s about making measurements or did I missunderstood something ?
You understood correctly; you need to go through menus to set these up. Easy menu access = easy to do measurements
-
Siglent's system for turning on measurements is a real pain in the ass by comparison.
Which model did/have you had and with which other scopes did you compare it ?
None !
You already know it's simple, set the measurements you need and the source from which they are taken and they are returned at every boot and whenever you cycle Measurements ON again.
-
Yep,
It's really easy and "quick", I had just tried it out briefly because I was taking pictures for the demo board thread.
Press Measure, select source, select parameters, done in a few seconds, could make a short video clip from it, if wanted.
-
It's really easy and "quick", I had just tried it out briefly because I was taking pictures for the demo board thread.
Press Measure, select source, select parameters, done in a few seconds, could make a short video clip from it, if wanted.
Please do. Feel free to explain how easy/fast/intuitive it is to navigate this screen and select things with the twisty knob:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-recommendation-ds1054z-sds1104x-e-gds-1104b-etc/?action=dlattach;attach=1803872;image)
-
No problem, I show you mine and you show yours... ;)
-
Mine's a touch screen that looks like this:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-recommendation-ds1054z-sds1104x-e-gds-1104b-etc/?action=dlattach;attach=1804211;image)
Rigol 1000 series have dedicated buttons like this:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-recommendation-ds1054z-sds1104x-e-gds-1104b-etc/?action=dlattach;attach=1804217;image)
-
It's really easy and "quick", I had just tried it out briefly because I was taking pictures for the demo board thread.
Press Measure, select source, select parameters, done in a few seconds, could make a short video clip from it, if wanted.
Please do. Feel free to explain how easy/fast/intuitive it is to navigate this screen and select things with the twisty knob:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-recommendation-ds1054z-sds1104x-e-gds-1104b-etc/?action=dlattach;attach=1803872;image)
It is not direct but it is fast and intuitive. Keysight does it in similar way and nobody would say that is the reason to ditch MSOX3000A and get Rigol 1000Z. It's just different. Rigol implementation is very good, but not a deal breaker...
-
Mine's a touch screen that looks like this:
Touchscreen didn´t count.. 8) But you´re invited to make a video too, like me:
https://youtu.be/kPDwf-aKVJI
Just a few seconds to get what you want, there's nothing annoying about it.
-
For some people there is nothing annoying about eating a bowl fried rice with chopsticks. Others use a spoon.
I used to own a Agilent/Keysight scope that operated the menus in a similar fashion. Even though it was a way more high-end scope it got replaced as my daily driver by a GW Instek because the GW instek simply is way more convenient to use. And I still have and use that GW Instek scope. The Agilent / Keysight scope is long gone OTOH.
-
Just a few seconds to get what you want
33 seconds, to be exact.
I can do it in about 4 seconds on my Micsig.
there's nothing annoying about it.
I guess the slight overshoot when you were switching channels with the twisty knob didn't count as 'annoying', right? :)
-
Please do. Feel free to explain how easy/fast/intuitive it is to navigate this screen and select things with the twisty knob:
There are a lot more items on that screen than there would possibly be room for with buttons. I can tell you from experience that once you spend 5 minutes figuring it out, the Siglent measurement menu experience is only ruined by the awful push-button combination knob.
-
...ruined by the awful push-button combination knob.
At least we agree on that.
I wouldn't ever go back to a twisty knob interface after owning a touch-screen.
-
There are a lot more items on that screen than there would possibly be room for with buttons.
The Rigol switches horizontal/vertical measurements with the button at the top then pages up/down to find the ones you want. Also not perfect but at least you get pictures and don't have to use the twisty knob along with all the overshoots and bad presses that involves.
-
Just a few seconds to get what you want
33 seconds, to be exact.
I can do it in about 4 seconds on my Micsig.
there's nothing annoying about it.
I guess the slight overshoot when you were switching channels with the twisty knob didn't count as 'annoying', right? :)
How much seconds on your Micsig to enable measurement statistics..?
-
I guess the slight overshoot when you were switching channels with the twisty knob didn't count as 'annoying', right?
Not for me, it´s reacting very quickly, faster than me. 8)
33 seconds
When you are so pressed for time that every second counts, something is wrong in your life. ;)
Joking aside,
This is a fairly quick adjustment and does not present any great difficulty to contend with.
I had now shown how easy it is, more I can not do here.
-
I had now shown how easy it is, more I can not do here.
I didn't say it was difficult, just a weak point in the Siglent's UI.
When all you have is a twisty knob for everything, some things have to be worse.
Rigol had the sense to add some buttons for this common task. I've seen people complain they make it look ugly and old fashioned but I'm not one of those.
-
you´re invited to make a video too, like me:
Ok, I had the camera set up so let's do it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3CzLoMEQEs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3CzLoMEQEs)
I think that's the same measurements you enabled. Two on CH1 (P-P+Freq) and two on CH2 (Min+Period). :)
-
you´re invited to make a video too, like me:
Ok, I had the camera set up so let's do it:
::)
The very reason why touch screen scopes are very popular.
This topic is not about touch screen scopes and instead those fitting lesser budgets.
-
Nevertheless you can buy scopes with good, efficient user interfaces in the price range the OP is looking for. MicSig used to be priced a bit more competitive in the past but seem to have raised their prices a bit.
-
Ok, I had the camera set up so let's do it:
::)
The very reason why touch screen scopes are very popular.
Yep. There's no going back. :-)
FWIW, Rigol is currently launching touch-screen 'scopes with totally new UI for about the same price as current-gen devices. :)
How much seconds on your Micsig to enable measurement statistics..?
The new Rigols do statistics an order of magnitude better than current generation scopes.
I'm expecting to go back to Rigol towards the end of this year, assuming they don't do anything stupid.
-
Nevertheless you can buy scopes with good, efficient user interfaces in the price range the OP is looking for. MicSig used to be priced a bit more competitive in the past but seem to have raised their prices a bit.
Yeah, they've gone a bit off course lately.
If they'd released a new firmware with a couple of extra features they'd have gained a whole new user base, but they've decided to go towards higher-end (more expensive) devices instead. Their selling point was the form factor and UI but they won't be able to compete with the new Rigols when they appear.
I do like Micsig's internal battery and portability but the Rigols will work from a USB-C powerbank, so... :-//
-
How much seconds on your Micsig to enable measurement statistics..?
Measurement statistics are only for wimps. Real men can do without!
-
Thanks to all for your suggestions and help. Whilst I did do a quick search for previous discussion along these lines, I've since realised there are actually a lot more than I initially looked at. So thanks also for the patience dealing with "yet another newbie who is asking for a recommendation". :)
I ended up ordering an SDS2104X Plus which was basically double my initial budget. But I think I'll need it, and it's going to last me years (hopefully). Ordered from AppVision with a 15% off EOFY code.
-
I had a DS1054Z, a SDS1104X-E, both good scopes.
But can´t compete against a SDS2104X+ in many ways.
Good decision!
-
I'd love to get the sds2104Xplus, but I wish it was 12bit, and the 12bit HD scopes weren't +4000.
I have a sds1204X-E, so I just learned they can do 16ch's of logic, with an expensive add-on tho. Can you hook it up to the computer and record as much data as would fill your drives ??
And it can do Bode plots.
-
Not too long ago, it would have been a dream to get a 12bit scope for under 10000.
Today, people moan that a 12-bitter cost 4000.
The times, they are changing. ;)
I'd love to get the sds2104Xplus, but I wish it was 12bit,
SDS1000X HD/Rigol DHO1000... :-X
-
Not too long ago, it would have been a dream to get a 12bit scope for under 10000.
Today, people moan that a 12-bitter cost 4000.
The times, they are changing. ;)
I'd love to get the sds2104Xplus, but I wish it was 12bit,
SDS1000X HD/Rigol DHO1000... :-X
And very soon the Rigol DHO800
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-pre-sales-begin/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-pre-sales-begin/)
(which will be the next "game changer" - for the 12 bit resolution and completely new touch-screen UI at DS1000Z prices).
-
Agree to it, in the class of the 7" screen size scopes.
-
I'd love to get the sds2104Xplus, but I wish it was 12bit, and the 12bit HD scopes weren't +4000.
SDS2000X Plus models do have a 10 bit mode however it's restricted to 100 MHz.
I have a sds1204X-E, so I just learned they can do 16ch's of logic, with an expensive add-on tho. Can you hook it up to the computer and record as much data as would fill your drives ??
Not sure the recently added Logging feature works with LA....I wouldn't think so but nevertheless it's something I need check.
And it can do Bode plots.
All recent Siglent models can too excepting the 2ch SDS1202X-E.
-
Bode plot is one of the major decision points for me - No bode, no scope for Martin... ;)
-
Agree to it, in the class of the 7" screen size scopes.
Yeah, it has a smaller screen than the HDO1000.
-
Hi,
Bode plot is one of the major decision points for me - No bode, no scope for Martin... ;)
Which of the entry-level (4 channels, 1000 MHz or around, price around/under 1500 usd/eur) scopes offers bode plot?
Thanks!
-
Hi,
Bode plot is one of the major decision points for me - No bode, no scope for Martin... ;)
Which of the entry-level (4 channels, 1000 MHz or around, price around/under 1500 usd/eur) scopes offers bode plot?
Thanks!
1000MHz ? as in 1GHz?
-
Which of the entry-level (4 channels, 1000 MHz or around, price around/under 1500 usd/eur) scopes offers bode plot?
Siglent SDS1000X-E (4ch)
Siglent SDS2000X-plus
Siglent SDS1000X-HD
Rigol MSO5000
AFAIK...
-
The cheap Siglents need an external Siggen.
(Siglent, of course..)
-
The cheap Siglents need an external Siggen.
(Siglent, of course..)
It seems you have not been observant ......
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-and-sds1204x-e-bode-plot-with-non-siglent-awg/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-and-sds1204x-e-bode-plot-with-non-siglent-awg/)
Siglent AWG's OTOH are plug and play for Bode plot with all Siglent DSO's that support it.
-
Which of the entry-level (4 channels, 1000 MHz or around, price around/under 1500 usd/eur) scopes offers bode plot?
Siglent SDS1000X-E (4ch)
Siglent SDS2000X-plus
Siglent SDS1000X-HD
Rigol MSO5000
AFAIK...
Maybe you should also mention that Siglent were the first to introduce Bode Plot in late 2017 with the SDS1004X-E series.
And it was (and still is) an ambitious feature, three channels in parallel (so you could trace a three-way crossover network for a speaker system in a single step), up to 120 MHz, AGC, frequency selective detector and consequently more than 100 dB dynamic range.
The competition eventually followed suit, but most of their "me too" implementations are nothing to write home about in comparison.
-
No, Keysight pioneered bode plotting. Siglent copied it quickly. But according to Rudi's review, bode plot works super slow on Siglent scopes compared to R&S and Keysight (minutes versus tens of seconds). So that is something to consider if you want to adjust something which needs several sweeps (or just want bode plot to work at a reasonable speed). And it is not like the dynamic range on other oscilloscopes is bad. My R&S scope has a dynamic range of around 90dB which is perfectly useable.
-
No, Keysight pioneered bode plotting. Siglent copied it quickly. But according to Rudi's review, bode plot works super slow on Siglent scopes compared to R&S and Keysight (minutes versus tens of seconds). So that is something to consider if you want to adjust something which needs several sweeps (or just want bode plot to work at a reasonable speed). And it is not like the dynamic range on other oscilloscopes is bad. My R&S scope has a dynamic range of around 90dB which is perfectly useable.
"Your scope" is RTM3104 that cost as much as 15 times as scopes being discussed here.... Just saying...
Rudi's review also found Siglent's FRA had many features other don't have and that it measures with very good accuracy....
As far as speed goes, my (also 10kUSD + machine)is faster than Siglent, but still needs 30-40 seconds to run sweep with any accuracy.
That is not what I would call interactive speed.. R&S RTx2000/3000/4000 is not any better than that..
There is a reason why people shell out so much money for BODE100.. It can do 5-10 sweeps PER SECOND............. Now that is interactive...
As for FRA, Keysight unveiled it in december of 2017 of their "low cost" 1000X series and to 3000T. Previous models did not have any.
Siglent unveiled their BODE analysis 2 months later. Meaning it was already fully developed and tested to production and was awaiting FW release scheduling... It was not reaction to Keysight...
-
No, Keysight pioneered bode plotting. Siglent copied it quickly. But according to Rudi's review, bode plot works super slow on Siglent scopes compared to R&S and Keysight (minutes versus tens of seconds). So that is something to consider if you want to adjust something which needs several sweeps (or just want bode plot to work at a reasonable speed). And it is not like the dynamic range on other oscilloscopes is bad. My R&S scope has a dynamic range of around 90dB which is perfectly useable.
"Your scope" is RTM3104 that cost as much as 15 times as scopes being discussed here.... Just saying...
Rudi's review also found Siglent's FRA had many features other don't have and that it measures with very good accuracy....
As far as speed goes, my (also 10kUSD + machine)is faster than Siglent, but still needs 30-40 seconds to run sweep with any accuracy.
That is not what I would call interactive speed.. R&S RTx2000/3000/4000 is not any better than that..
The point is not a price comparison but just to note that there are other factors to consider and Siglent is not the only manufacturer out there that has bode plotting. It is actually rather interesting that none of the Siglent fan crowd has ever commented on the slowness of Siglent's FRA. Either they didn't want to tell or just don't know any better. Rudi's comparison where it comes to the time needed to do a sweep came as a total -shocking- surprise to me!
-
The "speed" of the bodeplot was often noticed, also and even more so by the "fans", because they tried it out.
Was last in the feature thread a topic.
-
No, Keysight pioneered bode plotting. Siglent copied it quickly. But according to Rudi's review, bode plot works super slow on Siglent scopes compared to R&S and Keysight (minutes versus tens of seconds). So that is something to consider if you want to adjust something which needs several sweeps (or just want bode plot to work at a reasonable speed). And it is not like the dynamic range on other oscilloscopes is bad. My R&S scope has a dynamic range of around 90dB which is perfectly useable.
"Your scope" is RTM3104 that cost as much as 15 times as scopes being discussed here.... Just saying...
Rudi's review also found Siglent's FRA had many features other don't have and that it measures with very good accuracy....
As far as speed goes, my (also 10kUSD + machine)is faster than Siglent, but still needs 30-40 seconds to run sweep with any accuracy.
That is not what I would call interactive speed.. R&S RTx2000/3000/4000 is not any better than that..
The point is not a price comparison but just to note that there are other factors to consider and Siglent is not the only manufacturer out there that has bode plotting. It is actually rather interesting that none of the Siglent fan crowd has ever commented on the slowness of Siglent's FRA. Either they didn't want to tell or just don't know any better. Rudi's comparison where it comes to the time needed to do a sweep came as a total -shocking- surprise to me!
Fact that Siglent FRA is slower than R&S and Keysight is know fact, widely publicized and myself personally did tests and confirmed it is slower, on SDS2000X HD for instance..
Price comparison is always a point... We are discussing 1000 series devices here., specifically.
It appears that 15x price difference does go a long way as far as patience to wait 30 more seconds for result.
And as I say, BODE II on Siglent has multichannel (not available by anybody else regardless of speed) and several automated measurements..
It is not perfect (I wish it was faster..) but measures well, with good precision and dynamic range. Speed is apparently not a dealbreaker here..
Siglent is aware of speed difference. It remains to see if they can optimize something or to enable user to make less precise but faster "orientational" measurements for those that prefer speed over accuracy, detail and resilience. So far they made hundreds of optimizations based on user feedback, where it was realistically possible. If this is, future will tell.
-
We've used the Siglent Bode function often, and have also reported it's slow, real slow (we are not a fanboy)!! With this in mind it does give superb results as mentioned by 2N3055, slow yes, but accurate with a very wide dynamic range if utilized properly by someone that understands how the Bode function operates within the DSO.
If getting the correct, accurate answers is important, one can often overlook the speed!!
We've utilized the Bode function on things as obscure as the complex transfer function of a Peltz Oscillator under Injection Locking which is quite a complex interaction, and superbly rendered by the Siglent Bode function. Honestly, still amazed that anything could produce these stunning results, much less a modest DSO with Bode function!! Believe me we've seen some pretty amazing measurements over our career, and this ranks right up there with some of the best we've experienced :clap:
I mean, showing the complex nature of the oscillator's non-linear injection phase and amplitude response with the hysteresis memory effects, check out figure 4 of the Razavi paper (2nd below), please study this and the other references (be sure to look up Adler's original IEEE paper) to get a "feel" for what's going on here, amazing IMO :-+
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/injection-locked-peltz-oscillator-with-bode-analysis/msg4424434/#msg4424434 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/injection-locked-peltz-oscillator-with-bode-analysis/msg4424434/#msg4424434)
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/brweb/papers/Journals/RSep04.pdf (http://www.seas.ucla.edu/brweb/papers/Journals/RSep04.pdf)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/simple-sinusoidal-oscillators/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/simple-sinusoidal-oscillators/)
Fun stuff indeed :)
Best,
-
As for FRA, Keysight unveiled it in december of 2017 of their "low cost" 1000X series and to 3000T. Previous models did not have any.
Siglent unveiled their BODE analysis 2 months later. Meaning it was already fully developed and tested to production and was awaiting FW release scheduling... It was not reaction to Keysight...
Exactly. The idea of a Bode Plot application has been accepted by Siglent management back in September 2016, when there was only Vellemann with some cheap USB oscilloscope (and I don't know about the quality of their implementation) and Keysight had indeed one as part of their expensive PA-package, of course not available in any entry level scope.
The specification for Siglents first version of the FRA was written back in February 2017 and already specified a frequency selective detector, but this was something not yet implemented in the first version.
-
We've used the Siglent Bode function often, and have also reported it's slow, real slow (we are not a fanboy)!! With this in mind it does give superb results as mentioned by 2N3055, slow yes, but accurate with a very wide dynamic range if utilized properly by someone that understands how the Bode function operates within the DSO.
If getting the correct, accurate answers is important, one can often overlook the speed!!
Now you make it sound like slow = accurate but that simply isn't true. The results from R&S's implementation (the one I have experience with but I don't see why others should be different) are just as accurate. So they deliver the same answer in less time. I have repeated several of the measurements you have shown using my R&S oscilloscope and got to the same results.
-
We've used the Siglent Bode function often, and have also reported it's slow, real slow (we are not a fanboy)!! With this in mind it does give superb results as mentioned by 2N3055, slow yes, but accurate with a very wide dynamic range if utilized properly by someone that understands how the Bode function operates within the DSO.
If getting the correct, accurate answers is important, one can often overlook the speed!!
Now you make it sound like slow = accurate but that simply isn't true. The results from R&S's implementation (the one I have experience with but I don't see why others should be different) are just as accurate. So they deliver the same answer in less time. I have repeated several of the measurements you have shown using my R&S oscilloscope and got to the same results.
He never said slow was accurate.. He said (same as I did) it is dead accurate but somewhat slower then R&S and Keysight... And it is not seconds to hours difference...
And it is debatable if you got exactly the same result. You don't have a Siglent scope to really set it up the same... It looks OK though, and we said that.
Again, against what sub 1000 USD scope you are comparing Siglent SDS1104X-E bode plot feature/speed/accuracy set?
How many scopes (at any price range) can perform bode plot analysis of a 3-way active xover (low, mid, hi) at the same time on the same screen.
How long does it take to do that on Keysight or R&S..
I did check against the Keysight 3000T and got better dynamic range with Siglents I have..
Is that because I'm comparing a 500uV/div 12 bit scope against 8 bit scope with 4mV/div with more noise ??
That could be the case.... But the both SDS6000 and SDS2000X HD had better dynamic range than MSOX3104T...
For general use both will be good enough to gather -3dB point frequency, general shape of curves, etc..
There is also one more thing that were discussing. It is much easier to measure filters (passive and active) in quiet environment, than loop response of switching PSU with aggressor signals being orders or magnitude larger.
With switching PSU, ability of BODE plotter (whatever it is) to extract phase/gain of stimulus is very much a question of extracting very small signal from switcher natural output ripple.
In which case frequency selective detector and averagning helps a lot.. In which case slower is better....
So yeah, it is MUCH more complicated than: SLOW!!!! BAD!!!!!
-
R&S is also using frequency selective detector. I did those tests as well. Anyway, Siglent could speed up their FRA a whole lot without compromising much so it would make sense for Siglent to implement fast (low dynamic range) and slow (high dynamic range) modes. That would be the proverbial cherry on top.
-
R&S is also using frequency selective detector. I did those tests as well.
I defer to you for this. I have no way to verify it and no reason to doubt you.
Anyway, Siglent could speed up their FRA a whole lot without compromising much so it would make sense for Siglent to implement fast (low dynamic range) and slow (high dynamic range) modes. That would be the proverbial cherry on top.
That is what I said. If they can, that would be another win for Siglent. But if not, still OK.. I personally find it mildly annoying, not a dealbreaker..
If other scopes could do 2 sweeps per second than I would be also annoyed. But they cannot. I need to get a 5000 USD FRA to get order of magnitude faster sweeps.
This way, 45 seconds or 90 seconds, for both cases I take that as as moment to get up, stretch my back and go get some water or something.. By the time I'm back, result is there...
If I would do FRA every day, all day long, I would then go for BODE100 device, because not a single scope (even 20000USD+ ones) are as fast, accurate or have as good dynamic range for that purpose.
But, for occasional use, speed is not primary.. And again, Siglent has that capability, and better features than other manufacturers, for a very low entry price, available to hobby users and small business that cannot afford to pay 15X times more for 30 seconds less...
-
We've used the Siglent Bode function often, and have also reported it's slow, real slow (we are not a fanboy)!! With this in mind it does give superb results as mentioned by 2N3055, slow yes, but accurate with a very wide dynamic range if utilized properly by someone that understands how the Bode function operates within the DSO.
If getting the correct, accurate answers is important, one can often overlook the speed!!
Now you make it sound like slow = accurate but that simply isn't true. The results from R&S's implementation (the one I have experience with but I don't see why others should be different) are just as accurate. So they deliver the same answer in less time. I have repeated several of the measurements you have shown using my R&S oscilloscope and got to the same results.
No, no not saying that slow always equals accurate. Just saying that within a given measurement/equipment scenario that if one needs specific accurate results, often slow is acceptable. Suspect the R&S is faster and also accurate, we don't have one so can't say for sure, we don't comment on equipment we don't have and put very little faith in comments by others that don't have said equipment in hand.
Would like to see how well the R&S behaves with the Peltz Oscillator Injection Locking experiment mentioned (wish we had one to compare), would expect good results tho as from what we've gathered from various reviews, and the informative videos and responses by R&S Engineer pdenisowski, R&S MSO features seem well done.
Best,
-
There is also one more thing that were discussing. It is much easier to measure filters (passive and active) in quiet environment, than loop response of switching PSU with aggressor signals being orders or magnitude larger.
With switching PSU, ability of BODE plotter (whatever it is) to extract phase/gain of stimulus is very much a question of extracting very small signal from switcher natural output ripple.
In which case frequency selective detector and averagning helps a lot.. In which case slower is better....
So yeah, it is MUCH more complicated than: SLOW!!!! BAD!!!!!
Agree, this is a condition that really stresses the measurement with a high interfering signal hiding the wanted low level signal, kinda like what a radio receiver must deal with!! The Injection Locking experiment placed the interfering signal (oscillator output) quite close to the tiny wanted Bode signal, and thus our comments :-+
Best,
-
It is actually rather interesting that none of the Siglent fan crowd has ever commented on the slowness of Siglent's FRA. Either they didn't want to tell or just don't know any better. Rudi's comparison where it comes to the time needed to do a sweep came as a total -shocking- surprise to me!
Oh, now you've done it ... you said something bad about a Siglent! :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
-
It is actually rather interesting that none of the Siglent fan crowd has ever commented on the slowness of Siglent's FRA. Either they didn't want to tell or just don't know any better. Rudi's comparison where it comes to the time needed to do a sweep came as a total -shocking- surprise to me!
Oh, now you've done it ... you said something bad about a Siglent! :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
Everyone that's actually used the Siglent Bode or FRA function, whatever you want to call it, has said it's slow; ourselves, 2N3055, Rudi, and so on. This is likely a consequence of the massive amount of computational energy required to do such, and puts a serious strain on the available computational resources (likely why everything else slows down or stops completely when Bode is active). We must remember that all the Siglent Bode effects are created purely in the digital domain (read software) without any hardware participation nor acceleration (to the best of our knowledge). The R&S may have higher computational resources available, may have hardware assist, or maybe just a better method to implement the function, will let the folks that actually have and know this fine instrument comment tho.
The real discussion as pointed to by 2N3055 is "at this price point" nobody has a competing instrument period!!
We challenge you or anyone to show this isn't true, and if someone finds a better solution then we all benefit :-+
We'll repeat again what we've said all along, the Siglent Bode implementation is technically a superb effort, and at this price point a great value added feature. Recall some actually stating that the Siglent Bode function was just a toy feature, obviously they were/are uninformed!!
All this discussion begs the evaluation of the higher end Siglent instruments for Bode speed. We call all these instruments (DSO & MSO) because they are really highly sophisticated, high speed/resolution, data acquisitions systems with excellent low noise and high dynamic range analog front ends with wonderful digital display renderings :)
Anyway, maybe someone with various instruments (1000, 2000, 5000 & 6000 series) at hand could do a comparison of Bode Function speed? Would be interesting to see if the newer Siglent instruments are significantly faster than the entry and mid level devices. This might hint at where the bottleneck is regarding speed.
Best,
-
We find it somewhat amusing that the very mention of a "scope" of any form, brings up the usual heated discussions and arguments when the reality is that the "scope" offerings by the major sources discussed are actually all superb instruments, and far more that just a visual rendering of a time domain waveform.
They all are so darn good, we should be thankful and admiring the engineering genius behind them rather than trying to nitpick them apart :palm:
Best,
-
Don't rule out the Analog discovery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKsgMtvd-V4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKsgMtvd-V4)
They all are so darn good, we should be thankful and admiring the engineering genius behind them rather than trying to nitpick them apart :palm:
Only through nitpicking you'll learn about the flaws. I'm not interested in how well something works on a sunny day, I want to know where the limits of a piece of equipment are.
-
Only through nitpicking you'll learn about the flaws. I'm not interested in how well something works on a sunny day, I want to know where the limits of a piece of equipment are.
Would argue that nitpicking doesn't verifiably revel anything, hands on test and verification verifiably does :-+
Best,
-
That is just semantics. Doing detailed tests to get to the finest details is the definition of nitpicking :box:
-
From the original definition:
"Nitpicking is a term, first attested in 1956, that describes the action of giving too much attention to unimportant detail." :box:
Edit, from Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitpicking
Best,
-
Define unimportant detail >:D At some point every detail becomes important. For some reason I tend to get bitten by details that other people deem unimportant. :scared:
-
Don't rule out the Analog discovery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKsgMtvd-V4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKsgMtvd-V4)
They all are so darn good, we should be thankful and admiring the engineering genius behind them rather than trying to nitpick them apart :palm:
Only through nitpicking you'll learn about the flaws. I'm not interested in how well something works on a sunny day, I want to know where the limits of a piece of equipment are.
A device without BNC inputs (and outputs) and proper case is not a real scope in my opinion. Try using one on a daily basis...
OTOH, it is really useful little thing and I wish I had something like that when I was a kid... But it's a gadget.
-
There is a 'pro' version that has BNC connectors. But nothing stops you from adding connectors or a dedicated test fixture yourself. AFAIK the analog discovery has differential inputs. If so, you could create much better test fixtures then you can ever achieve on a common-ground oscilloscope.
-
Anyway, maybe someone with various instruments (1000, 2000, 5000 & 6000 series) at hand could do a comparison of Bode Function speed? Would be interesting to see if the newer Siglent instruments are significantly faster than the entry and mid level devices. This might hint at where the bottleneck is regarding speed.
Hehehehe.... ;)
I got a SDS1104X-E and my SDS2540X-HD at home, and access to a SDS2104X+ at work.
As I´ve tested the batronix demoboard, bodeplot with the 1104X-E was the fastest.
Could re-test it again, making sure the settings were all the same.
-
Anyway, maybe someone with various instruments (1000, 2000, 5000 & 6000 series) at hand could do a comparison of Bode Function speed? Would be interesting to see if the newer Siglent instruments are significantly faster than the entry and mid level devices. This might hint at where the bottleneck is regarding speed.
Hehehehe.... ;)
I got a SDS1104X-E and my SDS2540X-HD at home, and access to a SDS2104X+ at work.
As I´ve tested the batronix demoboard, bodeplot with the 1104X-E was the fastest.
Could re-test it again, making sure the settings were all the same.
Yes you would need to, things like points # and autoscaling engaged could dramatically slow performance.
However all this my Bode plot is better than yours is nothing but hot air :blah: without a standardized test ! :horse:
-
As a German cabaret artist once said, comparing times only makes sense if everyone starts at the same time. ;)
This can be reinterpreted according to the situation, always fits... 8)
nothing but hot air
In the meantime, I ignore such things as far as possible.
Do it yourself, experience it yourself, then you can say something meaningful about it.
-
A device without BNC inputs (and outputs) and proper case is not a real scope in my opinion. Try using one on a daily basis...
The BNC adapter board is a cheap accessory. You can 3D print a case:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/3d-printable-case-for-analog-discovery-2/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/3d-printable-case-for-analog-discovery-2/)
-
Do it yourself, experience it yourself, then you can say something meaningful about it.
Exactly, as we mentioned hands on experience defines ones level of detail, what's important, and not, and we don't pay much attention to those without hands on, which quickly whittles things down to verifiable information and use.
Even spec sheet racing can lead to misinformed decisions, with "hands on" one gets an actual "feel" for how the instrument behaves in ones technical arena! This is why value added distributers are important, they can quickly get the instruments into ones hands for evaluations in local regions.
Way back when we were employed, Tektronix and HP reps were always bringing new instruments by for our evaluation, and if we liked something (seldom looked a spec sheets) we could place a PO in the next capital procurement cycle, of course having a total new equipment budget over $10M/Yr helps :)
Best,
-
A device without BNC inputs (and outputs) and proper case is not a real scope in my opinion. Try using one on a daily basis...
OTOH, it is really useful little thing and I wish I had something like that when I was a kid... But it's a gadget.
We've had an Analog Discovery for some time now, and have never even turned it on. It's too much of a hassle to use for our needs, and more of a learning tool IMO, evidently a pretty good tool in that respect!! Agree this would have been a blast as a kid to have ::)
Heck, we have a PicoScope 4262 that hardly ever gets used, also too much of a hassle to get up and running with the laptop. For some reason we just feel that a scope should be stand alone and not require a laptop, or any other "fixture" to make it usable, but we are old school (very old) and other folks may have a different view , which is fine :)
Anyway, our Bode plot is not better than anyones, but it does serve our needs quite well indeed, altho could be faster :-+
Best,
-
A device without BNC inputs (and outputs) and proper case is not a real scope in my opinion. Try using one on a daily basis...
The BNC adapter board is a cheap accessory. You can 3D print a case:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/3d-printable-case-for-analog-discovery-2/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/3d-printable-case-for-analog-discovery-2/)
A person comes and asks for replacement for his old and trusty analog scope. He never mentioned he wants scope in a kit.
There is a 'pro' version that has BNC connectors. But nothing stops you from adding connectors or a dedicated test fixture yourself. AFAIK the analog discovery has differential inputs. If so, you could create much better test fixtures then you can ever achieve on a common-ground oscilloscope.
Again, no wishes of DIY scope. Or "I want to create text fixtures so what would be best instrument for that?"..
And AD Pro is a joke.. Same mediocre device, just this time really expensive... scope with 32k buffer for 1300 USD +VAT...
Again OP asked for specific class of scope in specific price range...
People read the title: "Oscilloscope recommendation DS1054Z / SDS1104X-E / GDS-1104B"
that excludes:
- anything that is more expensive than some 500-600 USD
- USB scopes
-
A person comes and asks for replacement for his old and trusty analog scope. He never mentioned he wants scope in a kit.
But then the discussion turned to Bode plots, and the AD2 has one of the best for half the price of a 'scope setup.
Try to keep up.
-
A person comes and asks for replacement for his old and trusty analog scope. He never mentioned he wants scope in a kit.
But then the discussion turned to Bode plots, and the AD2 has one of the best for half the price of a 'scope setup.
Try to keep up.
I'm not going to feed the distraction/trolling.. Bode plot was mentioned because only Siglent has it of the 3.
And then a "Siglent bad" shit happened. As in 12000USD scope is better than Siglent SDSD1104X-E.. No shit, Sherlock...
If you are in 300-400 USD range, no scope will beat Rigol DS1054Z (or GDS-1104B in USA in which case go with Instek). At 500-600 USD SDS1104X-E is king at the moment.. Still
Let's wait and see what market new, new devices from Rigol and Siglent will add to confusion, until there is enough evidence to sort out who overpromised, who is too expensive and who did good..etc....
-
If you are in 300-400 USD range, no scope will beat Rigol DS1054Z (or GDS-1104B in USA in which case go with Instek). At 500-600 USD SDS1104X-E is king at the moment.. Still
Perfect one line summary of dozens of threads with hundreds of messages.
-
If you are in 300-400 USD range, no scope will beat Rigol DS1054Z (or GDS-1104B in USA in which case go with Instek). At 500-600 USD SDS1104X-E is king at the moment.. Still
Perfect one line summary of dozens of threads with hundreds of messages.
We really need a sticky for this.
-
If you are in 300-400 USD range, no scope will beat Rigol DS1054Z
Where can i get that for $300-$400?
Here in Europe, it's closer to $540.
Even on Aliexpress it costs around $440 shipped. With import taxes also more than $500.
-
https://www.batronix.com/versand/oszilloskope/Rigol-DS1054Z.html (https://www.batronix.com/versand/oszilloskope/Rigol-DS1054Z.html)
339/403€ excl./incl. VAT and full options.
-
https://www.batronix.com/versand/oszilloskope/Rigol-DS1054Z.html (https://www.batronix.com/versand/oszilloskope/Rigol-DS1054Z.html)
339/403€ excl./incl. VAT and full options.
Thanks, looks good!
It's funny how the prices vary.
https://www.reichelt.com/de/de/digital-speicher-oszilloskop-50-mhz-4-kanaele-1gs-s-rigol-ds1054z-p239301.html (https://www.reichelt.com/de/de/digital-speicher-oszilloskop-50-mhz-4-kanaele-1gs-s-rigol-ds1054z-p239301.html)
-
LOL :scared:
Same Seller, the plus version (MSO,70Mhz):
https://www.reichelt.com/digital-speicher-oszilloskop-70-mhz-4-kanaele-mso-ready-rigol-ds1074z--p304726.html (https://www.reichelt.com/digital-speicher-oszilloskop-70-mhz-4-kanaele-mso-ready-rigol-ds1074z--p304726.html)
-
Same Seller, the plus version (MSO,70Mhz):
You should always compare prices. ;)
It's good to know a few dealers with reasonable prices.
Since I'm not in a hurry, I'm waiting for the Rigol DHO800 to see where this ends up in Europe in terms of price.
-
If you are in 300-400 USD range, no scope will beat Rigol DS1054Z
Where can i get that for $300-$400?
Batterfly: https://www.batterfly.com/shop/en/rigol-ds1054z (https://www.batterfly.com/shop/en/rigol-ds1054z)
-
How do y'all think the MSO5000 does for the upper ~1k territory of scopes? I have been on the same grind of reading many threads on here about hacks for a few of the popular ones.
Also are the biggie o scope makers expected to release some near gear soon? Maybe I should wait before I buy my first one I guess....
-
How do y'all think the MSO5000 does for the upper ~1k territory of scopes? I have been on the same grind of reading many threads on here about hacks for a few of the popular ones.
Also are the biggie o scope makers expected to release some near gear soon? Maybe I should wait before I buy my first one I guess....
Please take this discussion to one of the thousands of topics that discuss that class of scope. It is off topic here...
-
How do y'all think the MSO5000 does for the upper ~1k territory of scopes? I have been on the same grind of reading many threads on here about hacks for a few of the popular ones.
Depend on what you want to use it for. If you're working with little mV analog signals all day long then it's not a good choice. If you're mostly working at 5V or 3.3V and need high bandwidth and lots of memory then it's a bargain.
-
How do y'all think the MSO5000 does for the upper ~1k territory of scopes? I have been on the same grind of reading many threads on here about hacks for a few of the popular ones.
Depend on what you want to use it for. If you're working with little mV analog signals all day long then it's not a good choice. If you're mostly working at 5V or 3.3V and need high bandwidth and lots of memory then it's a bargain.
Please take this discussion to one of the thousands of topics that discuss that class of scope. It is off topic here...