This is exactly one of the few parameters in making the choice where I might be putting too much importance into it wrt Siglent (vs Rigol and others). It is an intriguing feature, but covered (probably better) by my Analog Discovery 2 (and the Audio Analyzer plugin). I would just prefer not having a PC around. Do you have a matching Siglent scope? How good is this in the Siglent scope? I would only use it for low-frequency (audio, filters, speakers etc)?
My "half-way recent" scopes are all rigol brand that I bought at a time when the available options from Siglent weren't as plentiful. So no, I cannot comment on the usefulness of the Bode Plot function. Rigol offers the direct "screen copy" function with their scopes in combination with their AWGs. So far, I may have used this function in a real test setup once in total, but considering you can always go the store CSV -> import CSV path, this wouldn't affect my decision of choice of an AWG at all.
The Bode Plot function may be more useful but I agree the AD2 is probably the better tool for this due to its higher ADC resolution. For anything else than Audio stuff (which will yet be part of your usage sphere), a VNA is the tool to use.
Given it is newer and less expensive (improved) I am actually quite interested in the 811 as well.
- Fanless is great. However, my Siglent scope is a jet plane already, and I would be worried the Rigol is fanless due to being built down in price. In this forum, some report it gets hot. In that case, I would be worried about longevity, especially of the capacitors (which are probably also cheap). What is your experience with temperature?
I never found my 811 to run hot. It gets warm(ish), yes, but it cannot be compared in any way to the temperatures that some components of the SDG2000X (and possibly also of the SDG1000X since it's probably identical) power supply reach if operated from a 230V mains (and still don't cause a problem).
- The 811 datasheet has much better coverage of the frequency counter specs. How does the Siglent compare in this area?
I found the frequency counter function to be quite nicely implemented on the Rigol AWGs with a useful graphical representation (trend) and good statistics functions. The implementation of the corresponding function on Siglent's AWGs has a much more "home-brewn" appearance with way less attention to detail. Keep in mind, though, that on the DG800/900/2000 series of AWGs (that all basically share the same hardware), you will lose one AWG channel if you enable the frequency counter.
- Build quality seems lower in the DG 811. How does this compare to your Siglent?
Don't get fooled by the plastic enclosure of the DG800 series. This is a solid piece of equipment with quite some heft to it. Internally, the construction is arranged around a metal chassis so no worries at all. The Siglent gear has the advantage of a metal enclosure and thus appears more rigid (what it probably is) but i wouldn't depend my decision on that, the usability difference is marginal. Generally speaking, Rigol's plastic parts are first class (except maybe the flap feet on the entry level gear, but that's a different story...), on par or even comparing favorably to "A-Tier" gear.
- I like keys, and the Rigol is missing numeric keys. I know there is a on-screen version. How do you feel about this vs the Siglent experience?
This depends a lot on your personal preference. I'ld have a physical keypad anytime over a touch screen, but then again the capacitive touch screen on the DG800/900 series is of such good quality that it doesn't lack behind a keypad that much usability-wise. The keypad on Siglent's generators is quite small compared to the available screen/touch area of the DG800.
Still, regarding this, I'ld prefer Siglent's solution.
- What about lack of integration between the scope and generator, is that a big nuisance for arbitrary support (when disregarding Bode Plot)? I guess if only need once in a while, format conversion on PC could be used?
Exactly. As I stated above, depending on your field of usage, the arbitrary function will get used more or less frequently. In my experience, other than for "playing around", I may use (built-in) arbitraries in 1% of the usage cases and I may have used custom arbitraries five times in total. Most of the times, standard wavefroms will cut it...
- What is the exact spec of a "liberated" 811?, will it match the DG972 on all specs including memory and sample rate, or are they still limited to 8M/250MSa/s?
Yes. Above 70MHz, you will notice a drop of output amplitude that reaches just shy of -2dB at 100MHz, so still usable as a makeshift RF generator up to that frequency. If we ever come across some calibration instructions / software, we'll be able to calibrate the DG800 to full DG992 specs. If that will ever happen is a different question... Anyway, the "liberated" DG811 IMHO plays bang-for-buck-wise in a different league.
You may also consider that connectivity-wise, Siglent's generators are quite poorly equipped. There's a single "auxiliary" BNC at the rear of the instruments that is shared between analog modulation, sync and trigger functions for both (!) channels. The "lil" Rigol has at least one such AUX connector for each channel, which may sometimes still not suffice but is way better than Siglent's approach.
Considering the digital connectivity, the two (families of) instruments compare quite well. Siglent's available PC software appears much more streamlined than Rigol's bloatware... Whatsoever, both instruments can be programmed using their SCPI interface.