Help on differences in Siglent SDG1032X, SDG2042X and Rigol DG811 for hobby use

[pbs74]

Hi

I am coming back to my old electronics hobby, and are looking to buy my first function generator.

My main usage scenario is ramping up in general, audio repair (amplifier/cd/tape), low-frequency frequency response, and low-end microcontrollers for small projects.

I recently purchased a Siglent SDS1104E-X oscilloscope, so pairing with a Siglent AWG seems obvious, e.g., for Bode plot. On the other hand, I also have an Analog Discovery 2, and in the audio frequency range, this ought to perform better, however, I also prefer to not have to rely on a PC for everyday use.

My current candidates, based on reading a number of (long) threads here and elsewhere are below (all "improvable")
* Siglent SDG1032X
* Siglent SDG2042X
* Rigol DG811

I have also looked at the Feeltechs and Uni-T, but will prefer above.

I am leaning towards the Siglent SDG1032X as it seems to match my modest requirements at this point and matches my oscilloscope. However, I do have the budget for the SDG2042X as well as long as it actually provides return on the higher price (it is 80% more expensive in my country) for my needs. Otherwise, that money can be spent on other equipment instead, and if actually needed, I can upgrade later.

Specifically, I am wondering how much do I loose by not having below 2042X/Rigol811 (improved) advantages:
* Up to 120MHz sine > Seems like up to 60MHz should be enough for my use cases?
* 16bit vs 14bit > Could be useful, but I guess that saved money could be better spent for a 24 bit soundcard or e.g., Quantasylum QA402 for audio needs?
* Higher sample rate, up to 1.2G/s vs 125M/s > How useful is that in general/hobby scenarios?
* Much higher memory (8M vs 16K) and frequency (20 vs 6MHz) for arbitrary waveforms > Arbitrary waveforms seems cool, but I have not yet had a need for testing or using/recoding arbitrary waveforms. How useful/important is that in general/hobby scenarios?
* More stable clock (less jitter) > I guess if I ever need that, an external 10MHz GPS reference would be better anyway?

Also, how important/useful is the better square performance of the 1032X? Could it be an advantage for e.g., clock generator for microcontroller setup, or would that require a better quality (crystal) clock anyway?

Thanks,
Peter

[bdunham7]

I have the SDG 2042X and it does work well alongside the SDS 1104X-E, and the pair is a great value when you are done hacking them.

To answer a few of your questions:

I don't think 14 vs 16 bit is a huge issue. 

The SDG 2042X is 300MSa/s with x4 interpolation output filtering.  IMO, the way they market it is borderline criminal, but it doesn't affect the usefulness of the unit.

The square wave performance of the SDG 2042X is inferior to the SDG 1032X because the latter has a special separate circuit for them.  The SDG 2042X is limited to 25MHz and an 8.4ns rise time in general.  Frankly this is a limitation in certain circumstances, but unless you need that performance for a specific reason, it isn't a big issue.

The clock on the SDG 2042X is pretty stable and accurate, can't say for the others.

If you work on audio and ever need to analyze an FM receiver, the 120MHz (hacked) capability of the SDS 2042X is useful.  I haven't figured out how to generate composite stereo FM signals with it, but for every other test it works great.  Note to Siglent:  If you would incorporate an FM stereo test signal into the 2122X, you would sell a bunch for that feature alone.

[pbs74]

Thanks!

The square wave performance of the SDG 2042X is inferior to the SDG 1032X because the latter has a special separate circuit for them.  The SDG 2042X is limited to 25MHz and an 8.4ns rise time in general.  Frankly this is a limitation in certain circumstances, but unless you need that performance for a specific reason, it isn't a big issue.

What could be real life examples where this is a limitation? It is this and price that are the main reasons I favor the 1032X, but it might not be worth not choosing the 2042X due to this square limitation given its other advantages?

If you work on audio and ever need to analyze an FM receiver, the 120MHz (hacked) capability of the SDS 2042X is useful.

Good point, I did think of that actually. However, I am not sure FM calibration is required that much, and where I live, radio is used a lot less these days. In fact, there have been plans turning off the FM signal nationwide (that keeps being postponed though).


Also, do you use arbitrary signals and record/re-generate a lot with your 2042X? What would be common cases for that?

And how much do you take advantage of the Bode Plot integration? Rigol DG811 will be quite capable, but it is one area it does not match the Siglents. However, as I mentioned I have an Analog Discovery 2 and that makes Bode Plots as well, when that is needed.

[tautech]

All SDG models interface directly via USB or LAN with SDS1104X-E for Bode plot functionality and saving/reproduction of captured waveforms. Also EasyWaveX SW is a powerful tool for waveforms that can be used as an interface between the scope and AWG. (Capture, view, upload/recreate)
SDG1032X is a good entry level AWG despite being 14 bit however that lack of signal purity can impact on THD/audio stuff.
Coupled with the 4ch X-E DSO SDG1032X is a popular pairing however SDG2042X especially for those that want/need to improve them is the better choice.

[pbs74]

All SDG models interface directly via USB or LAN with SDS1104X-E for Bode plot functionality and saving/reproduction of captured waveforms. Also EasyWaveX SW is a powerful tool for waveforms that can be used as an interface between the scope and AWG. (Capture, view, upload/recreate)
SDG1032X is a good entry level AWG despite being 14 bit however that lack of signal purity can impact on THD/audio stuff.
Coupled with the 4ch X-E DSO SDG1032X is a popular pairing however SDG2042X especially for those that want/need to improve them is the better choice.

Thanks Tautech (also on your support on Siglent in this forum)!

No doubt SDG2042X is the better generator. I am trying to assess though, how important its better specs are for "everyday" use, especially when it comes to signal purity (which I guess is still not optimal for, e.g., THD) and arbitrary signals for a hobbyist (audio/microcontrollers). And if its lower square performance is of any significance in that use.

I know it is hard to answer, as I am asking in general and not for a specific requirement that can be looked up in the datasheets. Basically I am wondering, based on the experience of others, if 1032X is "enough" as a start/growing into, or whether it will quickly be let down, e.g., by its arbitrary waveform support?

[bdunham7]

I know it is hard to answer, as I am asking in general and not for a specific requirement that can be looked up in the datasheets. Basically I am wondering, based on the experience of others, if 1032X is "enough" as a start/growing into, or whether it will quickly be let down, e.g., by its arbitrary waveform support?

I've used the Bode plot and ARB features, but not very much.  I suspect either model will be sufficient for most uses.  The THD of the SDG 2042X is high enough that for audio purposes, I don't think 14 vs 16 bit matters much.  Both are plenty good for repair and basic analysis, but for ultimate performance testing (think Audio Precision), neither is nearly good enough.  I think the primary difference for most users will simply be the bandwidth and output levels, which you can find in the specs.  If either is missing any features the other has, perhaps Tautech can point them out.  In short, the SDS 2042X is a True Arb AWG with twice the real sample rate, all of which may not matter to you.

As far as 'enough', as the saying goes "too much is not enough".  I suspect either model will work for you.

[Hexley]

Basically I am wondering, based on the experience of others, if 1032X is "enough" as a start/growing into, or whether it will quickly be let down, e.g., by its arbitrary waveform support?

The SDG1032X is an excellent choice for a starting AWG for the uses that you mentioned in your first post. You will not be let down, IMHO. I had been using an old analog function generator for general-purpose work, and found that the SDG was better in nearly every category (accuracy, stability, modulation capability, etc.) Not to mention the advantage of having two channels. While it has its quirks (common to the Siglent AWG ranges; see the forum posts for various models for details), the value for money is hard to beat.

As your needs grow, you may want to add specialized generators for low-THD, or high-amplitude, or high-frequency use. Or build your own for those cases.

[TurboTom]

@pbs 74:

I guess it all depends on how much you value the Bode plot function that the combination of a Siglent Scope and AWG would enable you to use. I haven't got a Siglent SDG 10?2X nor a 2??2X, but to tell from my experience with my "liberated" SDG6022X, which U/I-wise is a family member of the other two mentioned AWGs, I wouldn't recommend any of the instruments without Siglent having published a completely revamped firmware. My current go-to AWG actually is a hacked Rigol DG811 unless its frequency range or slope rise time doesn't meet the requirements. But these are rare occasions. Siglent corrected most of the "no-go" bugs of the 6000X series, and I assume the situation of the 1000X and 2000X series may even be better, but you just feel the clumsy, old-fashioned U/I that wasn't really prepared to seamlessly integrate a touch screen. Don't get me wrong, you will get the job done with any of these AWGs, but IMO the joy factor is higher with the DG811 (if you can accomodate yourself with the "peculiar" design... ).

Since you mentioned to do audio stuff, it may be worth considering that the 811 hasn't got a fan installed and thus is absolutely quiet. The outputs of all the AWGs in question are earth(PE)-referenced, so in order to eliminate possible ground loops, you may have to take additional measures.

Anyway, I guess you won't be completely disappointed with any of these instruments and it will take considerable time to reach their limits.

Cheers and all the best,
Thomas

[Roger Need]

Here is a comparison of the two...
https://www.batterfly.com/PDF/Siglent/siglent-sdg2000x-sdg1000x.pdf

I debated between the 1032x and the 1042X as well and bought the 2042X for several reasons. 

The most important was the time base accuracy.  On the 1032X it is +/- 25 ppm unless you use an external 10 MHz. input.  With the 2042x it is +/- 1 ppm and you can adjust the frequency to about 1 Hz. using the service menu (can't do this with 1032x).  This also makes the frequency counter very accurate.

Secondly the spurious and noise floor specs are better on the 2042X.

Thirdly the 2042X has True Arb capability and a much larger waveform memory than the 1032 X. 

Finally the  1032X only goes to 30 MHz. and the 2042x goes to 40 MHz. (before hacking which I wasn't interested in doing)

The only feature that the 1032X has that is better is the square wave generation.  The 2042X is better or the same than the 1032X for all other specs or features. 

Roger

[pbs74]

The most important was the time base accuracy.  On the 1032X it is +/- 25 ppm unless you use an external 10 MHz. input.  With the 2042x it is +/- 1 ppm and you can adjust the frequency to about 1 Hz. using the service menu (can't do this with 1032x).  This also makes the frequency counter very accurate.

Thanks, I missed the impact on the frequency counter - was actually planning to use the generator for that to not have a separate counter. How good do you find the counter support (gate time etc), is it adequate as a standalone counter and thus worth optimizing for? Regardless I guess an external lab clock would still be desirable if/when requiring accuracy? It would also be easier than adding a TCXO internally (is that possible in these models?)

The only feature that the 1032X has that is better is the square wave generation.  The 2042X is better or the same than the 1032X for all other specs or features. 

How much of a limitation has this been for you, both frequency and rise time wise? I guess at least the latter could be "patched" with external logic if needed.

[Vgkid]

For audio testing, the quantasylums are good. Though if you want a better thd option, then look into the pro usb audio interfaces.

[pbs74]

I guess it all depends on how much you value the Bode plot function that the combination of a Siglent Scope and AWG would enable you to use.

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)?

Since you mentioned to do audio stuff, it may be worth considering that the 811 hasn't got a fan installed and thus is absolutely quiet.

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?
• The 811 datasheet has much better coverage of the frequency counter specs. How does the Siglent compare in this area?
• Build quality seems lower in the DG 811. How does this compare to your Siglent?
• 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?
• 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?
• 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?

[tautech]

I guess it all depends on how much you value the Bode plot function that the combination of a Siglent Scope and AWG would enable you to use.

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)?

In depth analysis of X-E Bode plot capability is here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1x04x-e-bodeplot-ii-(sfra)-features-and-testing-(coming)/

[TurboTom]

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.

[pbs74]

[...] 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).

Thanks, was not aware the Siglents runs hot

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.

So this is not the case in the Siglents?

DG800 to full DG992 specs.

Just to be clear, even if DG800 can only be taken to 8MB officially, a "liberated" version is still 16M, and sampling rate 250MSa/s instead of the normal 125MSa/s?

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.

Thanks, had not noticed

[TurboTom]

AFAIK, Siglent's AWGs don't limit the generator channels when the counter function is in use. In case of the DG800/900/2000 series, it's done for a really unnecessary reason (yet, I cannot tell if FPGA resources may also play a role): One of the auxiliary DAC channels that's used to generate the output channel offset, is re-purposed to provide the trigger level voltage of the F/C input comparator...

It is proven by the availability of a chinese language service manual for the DG800 / 900 series of AWGs that all these instruments use the main PCB with the same P/N, so all the limitations that there may or may not be are firmware-induced. There is the memory, the sampling rate and the quantization depth of the highest range model (DG992) in all the DG800/900 gear.

[pbs74]

Anyway, the "liberated" DG811 IMHO plays bang-for-buck-wise in a different league.

Disregarding costs/bang-for-buck - would you still prefer a liberated DG811 over a liberated SDG2042X given the more modern UI, more recent hardware, fanless design, per channel ext out and seemingly much better frequency counter with trend, gate time etc (I need a proper counter)? The Siglent signal seems to be cleaner (harmonics/spurios). It seems to me you'd favor the Rigol regardless?

[TurboTom]

I may be biased due to my disappointment with the (early) purchase of an SDG6022X as a general purpose AWG. Initially, this instrument was virtually so buggy that I couldn't use it without verifying the output with a scope to make sure it's not outputting some garbage due to improper initialization of the waveform engine. With the latest firmware updates, Siglent has improved the situation a lot. Yet, the instrument still leaves the impression to be outdated, especially considering the U/I and several small signal peculiarities that may be indicative to a slightly inaccurate math engine. But this is nit-picking, for everyday's use, especially in a hobby environment, all the AWGs that you're taking into account, will get the job done.

I may be a "pathological case" regarding the AWG issue, having started off with a crappy Hantek HDG2002 (heavily modified), then switched to a Rigol DG4000 that was quite disappointing in some ways (and quite impressive in others in hindsight) which made me finally go for the SDG6000X that I expected to be the "swiss army knife" to replace all my previous generators. It was also the most expensive AWG I ever got. Considering this and the issues I encountered with it, I was really disapponted. I got the DG811 more or less as an "impulse purchase" due to the perspective of an available hack and the more recent design. And I was quite impressed by the amount of AWG you get for that comparably low price (always considering the hack -- If I had to pay for the DG992, my attitude would be different for sure, but that's the same for the other AWGs as well).

As I stated before, now the "DG8++" is my go-to generator as long as its specs suffice for the job, it's just so much more convenient to use, once you accomodated yourself with its U/I philosopy.

Signal-quality wise, I wouldn't worry that much. I started a review of several AWG's output signal quality some time ago only to find that it's not that easy to give a definite answer like "A is better than B". Since over the available output voltage range, the output amplifier of today's instruments gets re-configured in several ways (also depending on selected DC offset), an AWG that excels at low levels may fail miserably at higher signal amplitudes and vice versa. If you look at the output circuitry of today's "acceptable quality" budget AWGs, you'll find they more or less resemble each other, in many cases you will even find the same components. Thus, the differences in signal cleanliness aren't that big, as long as the manufacturers use a "proper" DAC and well regulated analog power rails (which both Siglent and Rigol do).

To sum it up: Factors like communication with existing gear, brand preference and maybe U/I philosophy, and not the least, price, may be more relevant for decision making when purchasing an AWG for hobby use than "hard performance parameters", always taking the hacking opportunities into account.

[Domitronic]

Here is a comparison of the two...
https://www.batterfly.com/PDF/Siglent/siglent-sdg2000x-sdg1000x.pdf

I debated between the 1032x and the 1042X as well and bought the 2042X for several reasons. 

The most important was the time base accuracy.  On the 1032X it is +/- 25 ppm unless you use an external 10 MHz. input.  With the 2042x it is +/- 1 ppm and you can adjust the frequency to about 1 Hz. using the service menu (can't do this with 1032x).  This also makes the frequency counter very accurate.

If this would be the only reason you could get the 1032X and an additional GPSDO for even less than the price of the 2042X. Then you have even better time base accuracy. But still miss all the other advantages of the 2042X of course. That is what i did because time base accuracy was more important for me than the other advantages of the 2042X. So i'm using the 1032X with a GPSDO from Leo Bodnar. Works for me.

[Roger Need]

The most important was the time base accuracy.  On the 1032X it is +/- 25 ppm unless you use an external 10 MHz. input.  With the 2042x it is +/- 1 ppm and you can adjust the frequency to about 1 Hz. using the service menu (can't do this with 1032x).  This also makes the frequency counter very accurate.

Thanks, I missed the impact on the frequency counter - was actually planning to use the generator for that to not have a separate counter. How good do you find the counter support (gate time etc), is it adequate as a standalone counter and thus worth optimizing for? Regardless I guess an external lab clock would still be desirable if/when requiring accuracy? It would also be easier than adding a TCXO internally (is that possible in these models?)

The counter runs on auto mode with no gate time option.  You just connect a signal to the rear BNC and it does the calculations for you.  There is an option for filtering and some trigger options.  See the manual for details.  The display is statistical text with no graphing options.  As I mentioned earlier I calibrated my 2042X using the service menu. This sets the D/A level which controls the internal TCXO.    After 2 months it is still within 1 Hz. with a 200 MHz. input after 30 minutes of warmup.    I could connect my Bodnar GPSDO but I don't bother unless I need even more accuracy.  I don't think it would be wise to change the TCXO in the 1032X -- just buy a Bodnar GPS for 99 British pounds and problem solved.  Stats display attached

The only feature that the 1032X has that is better is the square wave generation.  The 2042X is better or the same than the 1032X for all other specs or features. 

How much of a limitation has this been for you, both frequency and rise time wise? I guess at least the latter could be "patched" with external logic if needed.

The square wave is better on the 1032X in terms of rise time but the jitter is worse than the 2042X.  I don't use square  waves that much so I don't care but I can always clean it up with a Schmidt trigger if required.  See attached specs

You should also look at the pulse specs for the two.  Attached

If you want/need True Arb then you need the 2042X.  See comparison below.

In the end it is all about your requirements.  Only you can make that decision. 

Roger

[pbs74]

Signal-quality wise, I wouldn't worry that much. I started a review of several AWG's output signal quality some time ago only to find that it's not that easy to give a definite answer like "A is better than B". Since over the available output voltage range, the output amplifier of today's instruments gets re-configured in several ways (also depending on selected DC offset), an AWG that excels at low levels may fail miserably at higher signal amplitudes and vice versa.

That one is interesting. Am I wrong in interpreting that as the "liberated" DG811 matches most specs of the SDG 2042X and has the upper hand on signal purity (harmonics) up to at least 10MHz (well vs the 6000 series that is, 2000 series could be optimized more for low end*), at half the price of the SDG 2042X? Those measures also seems to beat the DG992 datasheet by quite a lot? Also, I guess an off-frequency vs the clock might show a different picture, did you try that?

* edit: Actually, in Dave's old video on the SDG2122X, it seems (@7m51s) that he is getting harmonics as low as 90dBc @ 10MHz (although for a 0.5Vpp signal), significantly better than both DG811 and SDG6000 series at 0dBm according to several AWG's output signal quality. Am I misunderstanding these numbers?

[TurboTom]

Nowadays, even the "B Tier" equipment manufacturers are making sure that their instruments match the specified figures. They are in a real position to challenge the "big ones" already. You can be sure the specs are published with a certain "safety margin" so the instruments meet them no-questions-asked.

Regarding the reference clock accuracy, long-time member @rf-loop did a nice test of his DG811"+". When I received my unit, I measured it against an Efratom LPRO-101 rubidium atomic oscillator on an hp 53310A modulation domain analyzer and also didn't find anything negative -- it didn't perform worse than my SDG6000X. You get the stability figures that you can expect from a decent TCXO. I'm too lazy now to search for the measurements, and anyway, they don't mean that much since if the internal reference isn't accurate enough for the job, you can always hook up an external reference (OCXO, GPSDO or Atomic standard) to improve it by an order of magnitude or two. That's valid for all the mentioned AWGs and for most decent entry-level AWGs in general.

Edit: I played around with my DG811"+" again a little and as it seems, the SDG2000X performs really well signal-purity-wise. My "pimp-my-DG811" reaches -80dBc at best up to 10MHz/0.5Vpp but doesn't get much worse at different output level settings either. At lower frequencies, things don't change much but above 20MHz, second and third harmonics increase gradually, basically what one can expect from an instrument like that. If an as low harmonic signal as possible is mandatory, the SDG2000X clearly is the better choice, even considerably better than the SDG6000X series.

[blurpy]

If wondering how the SD2000X performs on audio frequencies, check out my measurements here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-siglent-sdg2042x-thread/msg3606484/#msg3606484

[bson]

With the SDG2000 it's worth remembering it's on the common ground, which will always be reflected in noise measurements.  It does improve slightly with a 10M reference, but mine never gets down to the levels of spectral purity of my HP 33120A (for the audio band).  Which is really the only reason I keep the latter; in every other way he SDG2000 is superior.

[dorkshoei]

Also, do you use arbitrary signals and record/re-generate a lot with your 2042X? What would be common cases for that?

@pbs74 did you get any good answers to this?

I'm considering upgrading from an old GW Instek generator which has started to develop issues. It has no arbitrary signal support at all.   

I just upgraded scopes (to a 1104X-E) and was planning on sticking with Siglent.

I'm trying to decide if I'm going to find the 16K waveform limit of the 1xxx series an issue.     

Since:
a) I work on mostly digital,  some power supply work,  nothing audio/rf related.   
b) I've never used arbitrary waveforms before

my sense is that I'm not going to need TrueArb and I'll be fine with the DDS but I'm also similarly curious as to whether there are use cases I'm not aware of.

Staying under $300 (1032X with 6% discount) is appealing.