Rigol DS1054Z vs Siglent SDS1202X-E

[Old Printer]

A retired EE on YT has taken some very indepth looks at the AD. If you are interested in learning more about its capibilities and limits you should check out his vids. Once on YT a search on the AD will yield quite a bit of other information as well. Their software is free to download and can be run in demo mode to get a feel for it. Digilents website is chock full of instructional and educational info about the AD as well. Except for the price, no one seems to have a bad word to say about it as long as you stay within its intended uses. Dave dose a review of it on hit YT page as well. Dave
https://youtu.be/lQbg7hilS2U

[tautech]

I hadn't heard of the Analog Discovery before. It looks like it could be an economical ($300 or so) alternative for a low frequency analyzer. Interesting as an extra piece of gear but I'd still be looking for a more user friendly scope. Having an AWG and logic analysis capabilities as well as a programmable PS gives it quite a bit of Moxie.

With the 4 ch X-E AWG USB module and all Siglent AWG's too they can be used as a low power DC source, IIRC 200mA.
The AWG USB module needs one of the 4 ch X-E models to drive it and then Bode plots are possible with the DSO too. They also have a 16 ch LA option if you're looking to get as much as you can out of a single box.

[Fungus]

I hadn't heard of the Analog Discovery before. It looks like it could be an economical ($300 or so) alternative for a low frequency analyzer.

Yep. The built-in wave generator lets you automate Bode plots, etc.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/analog-disovery-as-audio-analyzer/

[bd139]

Neat bit of kit really. For the sake of learning electronics, it really does everything.

Only criticism is it could do with some higher voltage outputs, say +/-20v

[Doofus]

In the back of my mind I was questioning how either of these (Rigol and Siglent) 8 bit scopes could achieve a dynamic range greater than 1/256 or approx 46dB. After googling I found a pretty helpful article. https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope. The short answer is oversampling and/or averaging. Perhaps others might find this interesting too.

[nctnico]

In the back of my mind I was questioning how either of these (Rigol and Siglent) 8 bit scopes could achieve a dynamic range greater than 1/256 or approx 46dB. After googling I found a pretty helpful article. https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope. The short answer is oversampling and/or averaging.

Unfortunately that answer is too short. In order for oversampling to work you need enough noise (>1LSB) with a good distribution and the ADC needs to be good enough. In reality you can't get much more bits from an ADC beyond it's design specs (othwerwise everyone would be using 1 bit ADCs).

[Doofus]

Actually the 24 bit sigma-delta A/Ds used for audio are 1 bit A/Ds. I agree though that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. The analog front end and the A/D have to be up for the task. Even though they are advertised as 24 bits, the ENOB is somewhat less than that. Forget trying to get anywhere near that kind of resolution at frequencies these scopes have to work at.

[nctnico]

Actually the 24 bit sigma-delta A/Ds used for audio are 1 bit A/Ds.

No because there is a lot more to a delta-sigma ADC than the single comparator it uses.

[David Hess]

Actually the 24 bit sigma-delta A/Ds used for audio are 1 bit A/Ds.

No because there is a lot more to a delta-sigma ADC than the single comparator it uses.

Doofus means that the quantizer has 1 bit resolution.

Audio delta-sigma converters with 4 bit quantizers used to be common but when this is done, then the linearity is limited by the 4 bit ADC used for a quantizer which limits linearity and distortion.  Multibit quantizers are still used in RF applications where blocking dynamic range matters like jam resistant GPS receivers.  There is no doubt a place for them in Wifi and various direct conversion receivers however the race to the bottom has made them all horrible as far as overload performance.

[exe]

The Analog Discovery has 2 main drawbacks as I see it, the 20mhz bandwidth limit, and the price. At $279 it is pretty close to the Rigol 1054Z at $330 (w/discount).

I thought so as well, so I chose "a real scope" and a "real" signal generator (TO1104+SDG2042). But now I need Bode plots and I think AD2 can save me a lot of time and also has much better resolution (14bit in theory). It also has differential inputs which is a big plus for me (normally all scope channels share the same ground). So, now I'm convinced it's a really useful device for low/mid-freq measurements. I'm going to buy one and, chances are, I'll use it more often than "the real scope".

PS shame on MicSig for not publishing communication protocol so I cannot control it from my programs. They do have some drivers for Windows (requiring a lot of bloatware), but I'm on Linux. I managed to reverse engineer their protocol to some extend, but it's waste of time.

[nctnico]

PS shame on MicSig for not publishing communication protocol so I cannot control it from my programs. They do have some drivers for Windows (requiring a lot of bloatware), but I'm on Linux. I managed to reverse engineer their protocol to some extend, but it's waste of time.

Any chance you could share what you have so far on MicSig's protocol? It could be helpful to others.

[trys]

Doofus,

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks for posting that link, an interesting and informative read. The link above didn't work for me because of the full stop (period) at the end of the link.

Here is the link that hopefully works for folk on here:

https://www.ecnmag.com/article/2013/01/how-get-more-8-bits-your-8-bit-scope

Trys

[Doofus]

Sorry about the period and thanks for fixing it up.

[nctnico]

Unfortunately the article doesn't mention the amount of noise needed. Imagine you have a signal which sits between two ADC steps. No amount of oversampling is going to help get you the exact value of that signal. This isn't some scenario I dream up. I have seen interpolation (high res mode) go completely wrong on an oscilloscope because there wasn't enough noise in the system to make oversampling work.

[exe]

Any chance you could share what you have so far on MicSig's protocol? It could be helpful to others.

Huh, I thought I already posted this... But I cannot find it. Either it was deleted or I forgot to push "post" button All I could find now is a script I made to unpack their firmware, I'll post it there.

[rstofer]

The Analog Discovery has 2 main drawbacks as I see it, the 20mhz bandwidth limit, and the price. At $279 it is pretty close to the Rigol 1054Z at $330 (w/discount).

I thought so as well, so I chose "a real scope" and a "real" signal generator (TO1104+SDG2042). But now I need Bode plots and I think AD2 can save me a lot of time and also has much better resolution (14bit in theory). It also has differential inputs which is a big plus for me (normally all scope channels share the same ground). So, now I'm convinced it's a really useful device for low/mid-freq measurements. I'm going to buy one and, chances are, I'll use it more often than "the real scope".

Within its capabilities (voltage/frequency), the AD2 is an amazing device.  I have been fooling around with an RC circuit as a demo project for my grandson and I should have been using the AD2 instead of my DS1054Z.  The Rigol puts on a good show but my AD2 has a 27" screen.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/best-experimentsdemos-for-learning-about-capacitors-and-inductors/

Really, the whole thread is about the Bode' plot.

The differential inputs are really nice to have under certain circumstances.  You lose that capability if you use the BNC adapter.

[the_grue]

After reading several last pages of this thread, I got getting the impression that MicSig TO1104 is better than or equivalent to Siglent SDS1202X-E in almost every way? Or does it lack significant functionality? I'm a complete newbie, this will be my first scope, primarily used for MCU-based projects.

[nctnico]

After reading several last pages of this thread, I got getting the impression that MicSig TO1104 is better than or equivalent to Siglent SDS1202X-E in almost every way? Or does it lack significant functionality? I'm a complete newbie, this will be my first scope, primarily used for MCU-based projects.

I wrote a review about the MicSig TO1104 a year ago and go into the various choices in the low end segment:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293

Since the review the protocol decoding has been released officially.

[the_grue]

I wrote a review about the MicSig TO1104 a year ago and go into the various choices in the low end segment:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/micsig-to1104-(similar-to-rigol-1104z)/msg1196293/#msg1196293

Since the review the protocol decoding has been released officially.

It's really hard for me to understand the features right now, so would you say that there is parity feature-wise, or is MicSig significantly weaker as one would expect from a portable product vs benchtop one?

[nctnico]

The MicSig TO1104 is a (low end) benchtop scope in tablet form. It doesn't have the weaknesses you typically see in (portable) hand-held scopes.

[the_grue]

Have they completed implementing decoding in T01104 by now? Also, is there now functional PC software for this device, or does it still require Windows 7 SP1? And have they fixed saving data, or does it still save only 35kpts?

[nctnico]

The decoding has been completed. I have not revisited saving data or the PC software. In general PC software for test equipment sucks anyway (also true for Keysight, Tektronix, etc so nothing new here) so don't expect any miracles.

[the_grue]

The decoding has been completed. I have not revisited saving data or the PC software. In general PC software for test equipment sucks anyway (also true for Keysight, Tektronix, etc so nothing new here) so don't expect any miracles.

So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?

[tautech]

So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?

Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.

[the_grue]

So is there any reason whatsoever to prefer the Siglent SDS1104X-E over the portable and more convenient Micsig TO1104?

Unless you must have the small form factor portability the Micsig is out spec'ed by a SDS1104X-E and it's also cheaper. The Siglent does have a smaller display but a greater feature set.

What would you say are the most important feature advantages of SDS1104X-E over T01104?