EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: uski on October 22, 2020, 03:32:57 am
-
Hi,
I need to buy a new oscilloscope.
I was thinking of getting the Rigol MSO5074 (https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/MSO5000/) : 8GS/s and can be "upgraded" to 350MHz.
And a forum member made low cost logic probes (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/ms05000-budget-logic-analyzer-probe-set-design/msg2978054/#msg2978054) that can be used with it.
The scope costs $999 (https://www.saelig.com/product/mso5074.htm)
Another option is the Siglent SDS2104X Plus (https://siglentna.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds2000xp/) which has 2GS/s and can be "upgraded" to 350MHz and maybe 500MHz if I am lucky (seem to depend on HW version).
However, the logic probes (https://siglentna.com/product/spl2016-16-channel-logic-probe-for-mso-option-sds2000x-oscilloscope-family/) are $369 (http://www.saelig.com/product/spl2016.htm), and the scope itself is $1399 (https://www.saelig.com/product/sds2104x-plus.htm).
The total cost of the solution is lower for Rigol, so it seems like it is a no brainer.
However, I never used an oscilloscope from any of these brands. I have read early concerns about bugs, but I do not know if it is still valid today.
Any recommendation between these two choices ? Specifically interested in feedback from users of these scopes in end of 2020 (recent).
Thanks
-
Hard decision...I know.
399$ more for better look and 50 ohm input, apparently faster response time from touchscreen.
I know it sounds funny but Tautech hotline support is also a factor for me.
-
Well buried on P71 of the SDS2000X Plus thread Howardlong bought both and put them against one another:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93QUNt1z6Gw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93QUNt1z6Gw)
-
One thing not mentioned and may be a minor point.
On Rigol in office light conditions I have problem to see the CH4 blue signal especially when looking at short pulses. In dim conditions it's better but hey I really hate that dark blue. :)
-
The total cost of the solution is lower for Rigol, so it seems like it is a no brainer.
However, I never used an oscilloscope from any of these brands. I have read early concerns about bugs, but I do not know if it is still valid today.
Any recommendation between these two choices ? Specifically interested in feedback from users of these scopes in end of 2020 (recent).
You really don't need any more of this than what is already in the forum to exhaustion. There are already excellent threads in both ways (some of them already mentioned).
In the end, i sum it for you: If you can spend the $1.399 buy the Siglent. If not, buy the Rigol. Spin it as many times as you decide, but it'll come to that. Period.
-
I have the same problem, because I want to upgrade my Rigol DS1054Z during the next weeks. I know the MSO5000 well, because I ordered it ca. 1.5 years for my bench in office (200 MHz, all Options + LA, ca. 3000 Euro). I have been working as a sofware developer (embedded) and use it mostly for digital measuring. Here my short list of pros and cons:
Rigol MSO5000:
+ price ca 1000 Euro for 4ch, 70MHz
+ 8 GS for one channel, 2GS, for all 4 channels,
+ 2x AWG integrated, each with 25MHz (Siglent: 1x AWG 50MHz, without modulation)
+ 350MHz probes are delivered for the 70MHz model
+ 4 bus decoder parallel
+ fully hackable, clone for LA available
- noisy frontend
- awfull user interface, touch screen is slow
- bad update politic, only two updates within 1.5 years, this is very annoying !!
Siglent SDS2104X:
+ Modern user interface
+ 10,1" LCD (Rigol MS5000 has a 9" LCD)
+ very good update support
+ 50 Ohm inputs, auto recognition
+ lower noise than MSO5000
+ 10bit Mode (upt to 100MHz)
+ fully hackable up to 500MHz
- only 200MHz probes
- LA very expensive (ca. 550 Euro), clone isn't available yet
- costs 350 Euro more than Rigol
The MSO5000 is in my opinion a powerful piece of hardware with a bad software. You can work
with ist, but the user interface is a copy the older models like DS1000Z and doesn't benefit from
the touch screen, big LCD and powerful CPU.
At the moment I tend to the Siglent 2104X-Plus, because I expect a modern user interface and
regularly updates with fixes and enhancements. This I can see at Siglent. On the other hand I
have to spend additional 350 Euro for the Siglent. I think everybody can understand my hesitation ;)
-
In the end, i sum it for you: If you can spend the $1.399 buy the Siglent. If not, buy the Rigol. Spin it as many times as you decide, but it'll come to that. Period.
I have to admit that you are absolutely right. The question is if you can spend more money for the scope with more useability. Both of them are good scopes for their prices.
As I said, I tend to Siglent and one reason is that I don't want reward Rigol for almost none update support for a scope which needs it.
Bye,
Coder69
-
The total cost of the solution is lower for Rigol, so it seems like it is a no brainer.
However, I never used an oscilloscope from any of these brands. I have read early concerns about bugs, but I do not know if it is still valid today.
Any recommendation between these two choices ? Specifically interested in feedback from users of these scopes in end of 2020 (recent).
You really don't need any more of this than what is already in the forum to exhaustion. There are already excellent threads in both ways (some of them already mentioned).
In the end, i sum it for you: If you can spend the $1.399 buy the Siglent. If not, buy the Rigol. Spin it as many times as you decide, but it'll come to that. Period.
Yep. The Siglent costs more, it ought to be better.
If you're the sort of person who wants to follow that line of reasoning to the logical conclusion, there's even better/more expensive devices out there. It's turtles all the way up.
Bottom line: Both of them will do the job.
PS: The "noise" thing is a bit of a red herring. Anybody who wants to make serious noise measurements will use a signal amplifier to amplify the noise and view it on the 5V/div range of their 'scope. That way you can see uV of noise and measure it. They start at around $5 for a basic one (30db boost) on Aliexpress. Or ... build your own as a project, there are many single-chip solutions for this from Analog Devices, etc.
-
Hello,
I have a Rigol MSO7000 and I had an MSO5000.
I think the MSO7000 is a bit more responsive than the 5000 but I haven't had the two side by side long enough.
Having said that, I also have an SDS2104X Plus and the responsiveness is more or less the same as the MSO7000.
The software of these two oscilloscopes are designed differently.
As soon as you engage a measurement, you lose responsiveness and wfm/s on the Siglent and this is not the case on the Rigol.
So I'm not sure it's an argument to choose between the two devices.
And the same goes for updates. They are slow at Rigol. But at Siglent, they were quick when the device was introduced to the market.
Now that they have other devices to take care of....not so much.
But, If you care about the GUI, go to the Siglent. The UI is much much better.
There is a kind of anti-aliasing treatment on the Rigol which makes the text and curves look better than on the Siglent but the UI is really good on that one.
If you don't care about that, the Rigol is quite usable and a great device for digital work.
If you don't need special performance in small signals or on analogue stuff, you can't go wrong with this one and with the low cost digital probes from Gandalf_Sr.
If you plan to work on analog, consider the Siglent. Not only for the low noise front end but also for its filtering functions much better than on the Rigol.
And finally, like tv84 says, if spending an extra $400 doesn't force yourself to make choices or deprive yourself of something, buy the Siglent.
-
Thank you all for your insightful feedback. Much appreciated. :-+
Here is my reasoning so far :
- Context : I am buying an instrument for my home lab for the long haul. I expect to keep it for possibly a decade or more... lab instruments are long lived.
- In that sense, I have no visibility on the work I am going to do with it (what will I be working on in 5 years ? no idea)
- As a result, it makes sense to focus on the best instrument in its core functionality, which is analog signals. That's what oscilloscopes are made for. I'm buying a scope, not a logic analyzer. The Rigol seems to be much more noisy and it is a problem for me.
This makes me lean toward the Siglent, also considering other factors (better UI, I agree Siglent seems to issue more software updates, ...)
Yes the logic probes of the Siglent are more expensive, on top of the scope itself being more expensive. So the cost of the total solution is much higher. However :
- I do have a Saleae Logic (the first one, 24MHz) that suits my needs so far, for digital signal measurements. I never needed anything more so far for digital signals.
- Should I need to work with higher speed signals on the scope, I can always buy the Siglent logic probes later on, when I need them. And if I am lucky by then, clone probes will maybe be available. One caveat is that if I wait too much (years), the probes might be no longer available. But I could also score them on clearance.
- The scope being a 4 channel scope, I can still use it for some basic digital signal work. In this era of serial buses, having a bunch of parallel signal channels is much less important than before.
Regarding price, considering I buy this for the long haul, the $400 more is not a major issue.
I would of course prefer to keep this money in my pocket, but we can't have the cake and eat it too right ? :)
PS: Just saw this thread :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2k-vs-rigol-mso5000-the-features/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2k-vs-rigol-mso5000-the-features/)
I am a bit bummed that the Siglent seems to be lacking some software features. Siglent if you are reading... please implement the missing features !
-
Uski, I think you came through with enlightment. I also see this as a long term investment.
However, I do know what I will be doing in the future...And what will suit my needs...
But I now have to admit something :-[
I will probably go with the MSO5074.
First reason: Saelig does not carry until early late November/December
2nd reason: I deal mostly in digital things and later on in life if/and/or/maybe motor/tesla experiments.
3rd reason: After discovering a few things it seems like I will just save $$$ and its tempting.
I feel a bit sick now. They shipped it...Its in the truck...No more turning back.
Should I stard a new thread:Feel terrible about my Rigol purchase?
Or should I test it first and then review ;)
-
You know... these things keep evolving.
If you wait 1-2 more years, it is extremely likely there will be an even better model for even cheaper.
So you have to realize that you cannot always get the "best deal" and that what is the "best deal" at a given point in time will not always be.
The way I read this is : you made a purchase. You made it with the best information you had at the time. What you purchased is probably 1000x better than what you would have purchased a year or two ago. So be happy with your purchase :)
PS: This is also why I decided to create a new thread, and not read 500 pages of outdated information. This type of discussion is extremely time sensitive as it relates to what is available on the market currently, and also the current status of the firmware. Most review videos are early models, show software bugs, and it is difficult to know if they have been fixed without asking... "hey what's up with these models ?"
-
A few additional points uski:
New FW is in the build for the SDS2000X Plus according to the factory and presumably will add features/fixes that have recently been done to SDS5000X models.
The LA probe SPL2016 has been used on SDS2000, 2000X and 5000X models as well as SDS6000 Pro that we won't see for some time so be comfortable that SPL2016 will be around for a good while yet.
FYI, LA probes of the same style are used by other manufacturers however as yet we haven't found their OEM. :(
Member TK has made an adapter to use some generic HP LA probes that come up on ePay regularly.
Info about the LA probes and TK's adapter are buried in the SDS2000X Plus thread.
Oh and for those that haven't seen it, there's a current promo running for SDS2000X Plus offering a free option bundle however LA/MSO is not included. :(
https://siglentna.com/news-article/save-up-to-1764-with-a-new-sds2000x-plus-oscilloscope-and-option-bundle/ (https://siglentna.com/news-article/save-up-to-1764-with-a-new-sds2000x-plus-oscilloscope-and-option-bundle/)
Edit to add:
Post with TK's MSO adapter:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3079002/#msg3079002 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3079002/#msg3079002)
-
I have the same problem, because I want to upgrade my Rigol DS1054Z during the next weeks. I know the MSO5000 well, because I ordered it ca. 1.5 years for my bench in office (200 MHz, all Options + LA, ca. 3000 Euro). I have been working as a sofware developer (embedded) and use it mostly for digital measuring. Here my short list of pros and cons:
Rigol MSO5000:
+ price ca 1000 Euro for 4ch, 70MHz
+ 8 GS for one channel, 2GS, for all 4 channels,
+ 2x AWG integrated, each with 25MHz (Siglent: 1x AWG 50MHz, without modulation)
+ 350MHz probes are delivered for the 70MHz model
+ 4 bus decoder parallel
+ fully hackable, clone for LA available
- noisy frontend
- awfull user interface, touch screen is slow
- bad update politic, only two updates within 1.5 years, this is very annoying !!
Siglent SDS2104X:
+ Modern user interface
+ 10,1" LCD (Rigol MS5000 has a 9" LCD)
+ very good update support
+ 50 Ohm inputs, auto recognition
+ lower noise than MSO5000
+ 10bit Mode (upt to 100MHz)
+ fully hackable up to 500MHz
- only 200MHz probes
- LA very expensive (ca. 550 Euro), clone isn't available yet
- costs 350 Euro more than Rigol
The MSO5000 is in my opinion a powerful piece of hardware with a bad software. You can work
with ist, but the user interface is a copy the older models like DS1000Z and doesn't benefit from
the touch screen, big LCD and powerful CPU.
At the moment I tend to the Siglent 2104X-Plus, because I expect a modern user interface and
regularly updates with fixes and enhancements. This I can see at Siglent. On the other hand I
have to spend additional 350 Euro for the Siglent. I think everybody can understand my hesitation ;)
FYI, the SDS2000X Plus in 4ch models uses two 2 GSa/s ADC's each with 200 Mpts mem support therefore with all channels active 1 GSa/s is the sample rate and 100 Mpts mem/channel.
My contacts tell me a new firmware version is coming soon which will make it the 3rd release since these scopes were released in Feb so it would seem Siglent are very serious about having these nice scopes very well polished.
-
Usually the first generation of anything will always carry some problems on as nothing is released in perfection state.
Probably the Rigol 5000 and their front end fits in this picture. I believe the future revisions will fix some hardware problems but right now, they've to amortize all the money from R&D.
-
Hi,
For me, who owned the MSO5074 over a year and then changed to the siglent, the answer of the topic is clear... ;)
First of all, I´m with tv84 - If you can spend 1400 bucks, go for the siglent, if not go for the rigol - nothing else inbetween.
The louder fan and the dim display of the rigol....That didn´t bother me once.
But....
The firmware upgrade rate and the noisy frontend "kills it" and I ´ve changed to siglent without any regrets so far.
Much better display, much better UI, Hires which deserves it´s name, 50ohm inputs, external trigger input and the familary to lecroy let me forget not having 8GSa/s and full memory at all the time (yes, I know, history function..).
The rigol 5000 is a raw diamond, I´ve posted it at everytime the question cames up.
The hardware is powerful, but the software lacks and chances are low, that this will be "corrected", as the 5000 is rigols very low entry level with their own asic.
So again, reminding tv84 "words"... ;)
-
@ Martin72,
For a strictly digital domain measurement, noise is less an issue.
Well, I have hope that Rigol will fix their firmware issues/bugs.
Why do I say that? Well the decision is a hard one between these 2 scopes and they know word goes around quick, so its in their best intere$t, to take away that argument.
-
For a strictly digital domain measurement, noise is less an issue.
Of course, but you won´t buy an oscilloscope for that only.
For pure digital works, there are "better" solutions avaible.
Well, I have hope that Rigol will fix their firmware issues/bugs.
I´d given up the hope.
-
True...True
It was a very difficult decision. Honestly I dont think I ever faced such a difficult decision for a purchase. Hope I dont regret.
The Gandalf probe tipped in favor of Rigol.
Also, 200 Mhz probes? Come on Siglent...Put the 350mhz in there.
-
Also, 200 Mhz probes? Come on Siglent...Put the 350mhz in there.
This is/was a real showstopper as we all know that suitable probes were really expensive when to buy separaretly.
Rigol delivers the max. bandwith probes even with the 70Mhz model - A clear advantage.
-
For a strictly digital domain measurement, noise is less an issue.
Of course, but you won´t buy an oscilloscope for that only.
For pure digital works, there are "better" solutions avaible.
Hello Martin,
If you think about logic analyzer, no it doesn't replace an oscilloscope.
It's better for protocol decoding but that's all. You need an oscilloscope also even if you only into digital domain stuff.
And you can work with MSO5000 on analog signals. It is just that you can't see very small signal burried in the intrinsic noise.
-
And you can work with MSO5000 on analog signals. It is just that you can't see very small signal burried in the intrinsic noise.
You can if you add a $5 signal amplifier (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000267287145.html).
(or maybe a better one with 60dB gain ... they're all on there)
PS: If you want to see 10uV of noise on the Siglent, how will you do it? Same answer.
-
If you are dealing with tiny signals you are in the medical or specialized sensor field. Wich brings this clearly into the professional sphere.
Most areas of growth deal in the digital domain.
And 5G, SERDES requires better scopes, high speed DDR as well.
So for the most part, it satisfies the needs of most.
Rigol has a cheaper product for the masses and I am incuded in that (woohoo)...
-
I think the Siglent is better than the Rigol, even with the price premium.
Or get a vintage Lecroy DDA-120 for around $300-$400, it is much better than the Siglent, 1GHz, 8GSa/s, 16Mpts, tons of measurements and statistics... it even has a thermal printer!!!
-
it even has a thermal printer!!!
I must laugh a little bit when reading this...
We got two Waverunner LT scopes with the thermal printer at work - And "tons" of thermal paper rolls for it... :-DD
The fact that these lecroy models got floppy disk only (yes, I know the "Scope Explorer" program) and no usb ports, makes the situation that funny, that our engineers are printing the waveforms and glueing the printed sheet in their protocols...
I think the Siglent is better than the Rigol
As an owner of both and with experience at work with lecroy models, I must say it is.
-
I think the Siglent is better than the Rigol, even with the price premium.
But as usual neither is perfect. Rigol has the better memory handling where Siglent has better features. If you want the best of both worlds you have to look elsewhere. Usually I end up at a different brand (and paying more) to have less compromises.
-
Rigol has the better memory handling
This could be egalized in not so far future - Hope, they´ll (siglent) do it right...
I end up at a different brand (and paying more) to have less compromises.
Most here are hobbyists with limited budget.
So we´re talking mostly about brands like siglent, rigol, micsig, gwinstek...
At work, it´s a pure pleasure to work with the lecroy hdo6034a or waverunner 9054 - But the price.... :-X
-
I think the Siglent is better than the Rigol, even with the price premium.
Or get a vintage Lecroy DDA-120 for around $300-$400, it is much better than the Siglent, 1GHz, 8GSa/s, 16Mpts, tons of measurements and statistics... it even has a thermal printer!!!
These DDA-120 are all $800 or so on eBay. I've given up trying to find reasonably priced second hand equipment (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/where-is-the-cheap-test-gear-what-happened-in-the-past-few-years/).
-
Rigol has the better memory handling
This could be egalized in not so far future - Hope, they´ll (siglent) do it right...
I end up at a different brand (and paying more) to have less compromises.
Most here are hobbyists with limited budget.
Well there are quite a few who are looking around for professional use OR have enough money but can't resist spending less on what is seemingly a device which offers the same features. A while ago I recommended a Siglent signal generator to a customer. This ended up with 2 people chasing a problem for over a week which turned out to be a bug in the generator. So the financial gain turned into a loss.
-
This ended up with 2 people chasing a problem for over a week which turned out to be a bug in the generator. So the financial gain turned into a loss.
Yep. The thread about terrible bugs in the Siglent SDS1000X is as long as any other bug thread.
-
I think the Siglent is better than the Rigol, even with the price premium.
Or get a vintage Lecroy DDA-120 for around $300-$400, it is much better than the Siglent, 1GHz, 8GSa/s, 16Mpts, tons of measurements and statistics... it even has a thermal printer!!!
These DDA-120 are all $800 or so on eBay. I've given up trying to find reasonably priced second hand equipment (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/where-is-the-cheap-test-gear-what-happened-in-the-past-few-years/).
Yes, but look for ones that accept best offer... these are really boat anchors and I guess most sellers want to get rid of them... I got mine for $350 shipped.
-
I think the Siglent is better than the Rigol, even with the price premium.
Or get a vintage Lecroy DDA-120 for around $300-$400, it is much better than the Siglent, 1GHz, 8GSa/s, 16Mpts, tons of measurements and statistics... it even has a thermal printer!!!
These DDA-120 are all $800 or so on eBay. I've given up trying to find reasonably priced second hand equipment (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/where-is-the-cheap-test-gear-what-happened-in-the-past-few-years/).
Yes, but look for ones that accept best offer... these are really boat anchors and I guess most sellers want to get rid of them... I got mine for $350 shipped.
I agree. Asking price is the highest price you'll have to pay. Just low-ball and see where it goes. It is not like the old Lecroy scopes are rare.
-
You could just flip a coin... they are both solid scopes in the same class but each has their own niche to evaluate.. if just a generic scope then you can flip a coin and do just as fine between the two
-
Rigol has the better memory handling
This could be egalized in not so far future - Hope, they´ll (siglent) do it right...
I end up at a different brand (and paying more) to have less compromises.
Most here are hobbyists with limited budget.
Well there are quite a few who are looking around for professional use OR have enough money but can't resist spending less on what is seemingly a device which offers the same features. A while ago I recommended a Siglent signal generator to a customer. This ended up with 2 people chasing a problem for over a week which turned out to be a bug in the generator. So the financial gain turned into a loss.
lol.. nothing quite like 2nd guessing yourself wondering wtf then to realize you been had
-
Either scope would probably be fine for you as a hobbyist. Neither is a high-end scope as they are both mid-range scopes from mid-level brands. They're both able to do most everything but aren't necessarily great at anything. I personally bought the Siglent SDS2104X Plus and started using it today. My rationale was that I didn't need 8Gsa/s, but I did want deep memory that lasted a good amount of elapsed time while maintaining a decent sampling rate. Beyond that, both the SDS2104X and the MSO5104 supported everything I needed. (Note that I wasn't considering the MSO5074).
I do wish Dave would do an updated video on the Rigol MSO5000 to show whether they've fixed the issues he encountered with it. Rigol's software update changelog indicates some changes were made that potentially affect bugs Dave found.
It is worth noting that the price to upgrade your oscilloscope to 350MHz would be quite high, especially compared to the price of just buying a higher-end model to start with. Don't count on upgrading unless you're going to hack your oscilloscope. Also, if you need 350MHz bandwidth with 3 or 4 active channels, go for the Rigol. The Siglent is limited to 1GSa/s with all 4 channels on, and 1G/350M=2.86, barely above Nyquist frequency. The 8GSa/s of the Rigol (2GSa/s with all 4 channels on) will be useful at 350MHz.
-
Yep. If you need 4 channels with full bandwidth then the Rigol's 8GSamples/sec. give you a lot more headroom.
-
These comments about the number of GS/s vs the number of active channels are interesting and are something I did not consider until now.
The high noise of the analog frontend of the Rigol is still a major issue for me and, in my opinion, is a bigger problem that the reduced bandwidth with all channels due to the GS/s sharing.
In all honesty, in my use case, I do not necessarily need a super high bandwidth. Lower noise matter to me however. That's just my use case, that I share just for discussion purposes, and everyone will be different of course :)
I have also been sending some offers on eBay but so far all have been denied. I hope they will keep their 20 years old scopes on their shelves for a long while if they are not interested in selling >:D
-
Our older Waverunner LT scopes (1999..2002) are having max. 1GSa/s and you could work with it with no problems.
This was my concerning too before changing to the sds2104x+, leaving the 8GSa/s..
But then I made my mind up, thinking about the scopes on work and yes, the noise were the killer for my rigol 5000.
And the final kill was the answer from rigol, as I´ve asked of what about the frontend of the 7000s and they wrote me, it should be nearly the same.
So that was it, I´ve changed the brand.
-
These comments about the number of GS/s vs the number of active channels are interesting and are something I did not consider until now.
The high noise of the analog frontend of the Rigol is still a major issue for me and, in my opinion, is a bigger problem that the reduced bandwidth with all channels due to the GS/s sharing.
In all honesty, in my use case, I do not necessarily need a super high bandwidth. Lower noise matter to me however. That's just my use case, that I share just for discussion purposes, and everyone will be different of course :)
I can't imagine a case where noise doesn't matter. Another issue with the Rigol MSO5000 is that it seems to have only 6 bits of effective resolution even with the 20MHz bandwidth limit on (according to measurements done by HowardLong whom I trust to be right about it).
-
These comments about the number of GS/s vs the number of active channels are interesting and are something I did not consider until now.
The high noise of the analog frontend of the Rigol is still a major issue for me and, in my opinion, is a bigger problem that the reduced bandwidth with all channels due to the GS/s sharing.
In all honesty, in my use case, I do not necessarily need a super high bandwidth. Lower noise matter to me however. That's just my use case, that I share just for discussion purposes, and everyone will be different of course :)
I can't imagine a case where noise doesn't matter. Another issue with the Rigol MSO5000 is that it seems to have only 6 bits of effective resolution even with the 20MHz bandwidth limit on (according to measurements done by HowardLong whom I trust to be right about it).
6 bits?
More like barely 5 bits ( 3.65 - 5.24 depending V/div) least if look this Howardlong message and his image "effective bits"
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/msg3281580/#msg3281580 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/msg3281580/#msg3281580) there reply #16
-
These comments about the number of GS/s vs the number of active channels are interesting and are something I did not consider until now.
The high noise of the analog frontend of the Rigol is still a major issue for me and, in my opinion, is a bigger problem that the reduced bandwidth with all channels due to the GS/s sharing.
In all honesty, in my use case, I do not necessarily need a super high bandwidth. Lower noise matter to me however. That's just my use case, that I share just for discussion purposes, and everyone will be different of course :)
I can't imagine a case where noise doesn't matter. Another issue with the Rigol MSO5000 is that it seems to have only 6 bits of effective resolution even with the 20MHz bandwidth limit on (according to measurements done by HowardLong whom I trust to be right about it).
6 bits?
More like barely 5 bits ( 3.65 - 5.24 depending V/div) least if look this Howardlong message and his image "effective bits"
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/msg3281580/#msg3281580 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/msg3281580/#msg3281580) there reply #16
I made the decision to go with the Siglent based upon the Rigol's noisy front end and general comments (UI) before seeing the issue with the ENOB! Thank goodness I made the right decision!
The ADC is the most critical component in a sampled data system, which DSOs are. Even with a prefect frontend, if the ADC corrupts the measurement, the end result is compromised. Quality, high speed, good resolution ADCs are quite difficult to design and need to be fabricated in an advanced CMOS process and one could speculate that the design of this 8GSPS ADC has some serious issues. I've seen Keysight's Stingray ADC (5 years ago, actually have some) that's in the latest high speed DSOs, this was a very high performance/speed ADC that required the best engineering talent and lot's of $ to pull off in an advanced CMOS process. Like the superb Griffin DAC, these are masterpieces of integrated circuit chip design expertise and not easy to reproduce!!
Stingray (wafer) Image.
Best,
-
These comments about the number of GS/s vs the number of active channels are interesting and are something I did not consider until now.
The high noise of the analog frontend of the Rigol is still a major issue for me and, in my opinion, is a bigger problem that the reduced bandwidth with all channels due to the GS/s sharing.
In all honesty, in my use case, I do not necessarily need a super high bandwidth. Lower noise matter to me however. That's just my use case, that I share just for discussion purposes, and everyone will be different of course :)
I can't imagine a case where noise doesn't matter. Another issue with the Rigol MSO5000 is that it seems to have only 6 bits of effective resolution even with the 20MHz bandwidth limit on (according to measurements done by HowardLong whom I trust to be right about it).
6 bits?
More like barely 5 bits ( 3.65 - 5.24 depending V/div) least if look this Howardlong message and his image "effective bits"
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/msg3281580/#msg3281580 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benefits-of-going-with-all-siglent-setup/msg3281580/#msg3281580) there reply #16
I was trying to be nice for a change.. >:D But you are right. Saying it is 5 bits at most is a more accurate statement.
-
I'm asking myself this same question, using the Saelig discount code and my Chase 5% cash back for PayPal transitions the MSO5072 will end up costing $811.74, vs the SDS2104X-Plus costing $1249.31, a difference of $437.57. So as a hobbyist is the Siglent that much better to justify the additional cost?
The 50 Ohm inputs on the Siglent is appealing, so is the 10-bit oversampling, the better UI, and 50 MHz AWG... but are those alone enough to make it worthwhile?
Furthermore, what's the resell value on these when I upgrade to the latest and greatest in a few years... I recall several years ago that Siglent was unlawfully blocking the sale of used equipment on eBay, are they still doing this? The Rigol has a software bundle promo right now, and strictly speaking I would have to reset the scope back to defaults if I were to sell it to someone else, so the extra software bundle license might actually have a little bit of tangible value when I decide to sell it too.
I'm a computer systems engineer, so the ease of hackability of ether scope isn't a deciding factor for me. Can the AWG on ether of these scopes be programmatically controlled, say for instance with a python script? i.g. bit banging?
And technically I already have a Logic Analyzer (Diligent Analog Discovery), and I believe ether scope can do SPI decoding using the four analog channels... so I don't see an obvious need for the expensive LA probe, at least up front. I also figure that if/when I outgrow the LA on the Analog Discovery that it might make more sense at that point to upgrade to a dedicated LA device.
My biggest goal as a hobbyist is building my own 8 or 16 bit computer from scratch so that I can better understand computer engineering at the lowest level. For example, Ben Eater's Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc)) is a perfect example of generally what I want to do. However, I also need something for more general purpose use, such as RF, analog, bode plots, FFT, does the Siglent have a spectrum analyzer mode?
-
So as a hobbyist is the Siglent that much better to justify the additional cost?
Only you can answer that, based on your financial situation.
The Rigol has a software bundle promo right now, and strictly speaking I would have to reset the scope back to defaults if I were to sell it to someone else, so the extra software bundle license might actually have a little bit of tangible value when I decide to sell it too.
a) How will a buyer know if you had those options legally or not?
b) The buyer might be a hacker, too.
c) I don't imagine many privately bought Rigols go unhacked so a buyer won't care.
Can the AWG on ether of these scopes be programmatically controlled, say for instance with a python script? i.g. bit banging?
Yes. All functions can be controlled.
My biggest goal as a hobbyist is building my own 8 or 16 bit computer from scratch so that I can better understand computer engineering at the lowest level. For example, Ben Eater's Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc)) is a perfect example of generally what I want to do.
The Rigol will do that just fine. Heck, a Rigol DS1054Z will do that just fine if you're looking at CPU clock speeds in the single digit MHz.
However, I also need something for more general purpose use, such as RF, analog, bode plots, FFT, does the Siglent have a spectrum analyzer mode?
You just said you had an Analog Discovery... :-//
-
So as a hobbyist is the Siglent that much better to justify the additional cost?
Only you can answer that, based on your financial situation.
Can the AWG on ether of these scopes be programmatically controlled, say for instance with a python script? i.g. bit banging?
Yes. All functions can be controlled.
My biggest goal as a hobbyist is building my own 8 or 16 bit computer from scratch so that I can better understand computer engineering at the lowest level. For example, Ben Eater's Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc)) is a perfect example of generally what I want to do.
The Rigol will do that just fine. Heck, a Rigol DS1054Z will do that just fine if you're looking at CPU clock speeds in the single digit MHz.
Financially speaking, the $437.57 price difference is a drop in the bucket, but at the same time I'm generally frugal unless spending the extra money for more features creates a better value proposition / ROI.
If the AWG can be numerically controlled via software like you said, the Siglent seems to top out at 3 volts, whereas the Rigol can drive 5 volt, and given that I want to work with retro digital circuits I presume I'm going to be working with 5 volt logic... yes?
-
Also, it appears the Rigol is running Linux kernel version 3.12, and the Siglent is running version 3.19. I normally work on the command line via a bash SSH shell, I know the Rigol has an SSH shell but I don't know if the Siglent does. How fleshed out are the user land environments? Do they have a toolchain, can you install applications on them, for instance GCC, Python, Perl, Bash?
I'm more into mathematics and physics then I am electronics, so I like playing with FFT formulas and doing number theory stuff, so being able to program the AWG using arbitrary complex mathematical formulas on the command line would be of great interest to me.
-
So as a hobbyist is the Siglent that much better to justify the additional cost?
Only you can answer that, based on your financial situation.
Can the AWG on ether of these scopes be programmatically controlled, say for instance with a python script? i.g. bit banging?
Yes. All functions can be controlled.
My biggest goal as a hobbyist is building my own 8 or 16 bit computer from scratch so that I can better understand computer engineering at the lowest level. For example, Ben Eater's Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc (https://www.youtube.com/user/eaterbc)) is a perfect example of generally what I want to do.
The Rigol will do that just fine. Heck, a Rigol DS1054Z will do that just fine if you're looking at CPU clock speeds in the single digit MHz.
Financially speaking, the $437.57 price difference is a drop in the bucket, but at the same time I'm generally frugal unless spending the extra money for more features creates a better value proposition / ROI.
If the AWG can be numerically controlled via software like you said, the Siglent seems to top out at 3 volts, whereas the Rigol can drive 5 volt, and given that I want to work with retro digital circuits I presume I'm going to be working with 5 volt logic... yes?
I don't think you will use the AWG for retro digital circuits, except to generate a square wave, which you can do with something costing less thatn $10. You are better with a vintage HP logic analyzer that offers tons of inputs and you can also get one with a pattern generator to simulate vintage logic
-
Also, it appears the Rigol is running Linux kernel version 3.12, and the Siglent is running version 3.19. I normally work on the command line via a bash SSH shell, I know the Rigol has an SSH shell but I don't know if the Siglent does. How fleshed out are the user land environments? Do they have a toolchain, can you install applications on them, for instance GCC, Python, Perl, Bash?
I'm more into mathematics and physics then I am electronics, so I like playing with FFT formulas and doing number theory stuff, so being able to program the AWG using arbitrary complex mathematical formulas on the command line would be of great interest to me.
It doesn't matter as user access is closed, unless hacked... even when you can enable sshd, you don't want to go inside and mess with the pre-installed software (except to do some sort of hacking...). Remember, it is not a general use PC, it is a test equipment and better to leave the SW as untouched as possible
-
The 50 Ohm inputs on the Siglent is appealing, so is the 10-bit oversampling, the better UI, and 50 MHz AWG... but are those alone enough to make it worthwhile?
Auto probe sense is very important to some users but a deeper dig into the datasheets and manuals need be required for the full picture of differences.
Furthermore, what's the resell value on these when I upgrade to the latest and greatest in a few years... I recall several years ago that Siglent was unlawfully blocking the sale of used equipment on eBay, are they still doing this?
Oh FFS not this hardy annual again.....NO !
The Rigol has a software bundle promo right now, and strictly speaking I would have to reset the scope back to defaults if I were to sell it to someone else, so the extra software bundle license might actually have a little bit of tangible value when I decide to sell it too.
Current SDS2000X Plus Promo:
https://siglentna.com/news-article/save-up-to-1764-with-a-new-sds2000x-plus-oscilloscope-and-option-bundle/
However, I also need something for more general purpose use, such as RF, analog, bode plots, FFT, does the Siglent have a spectrum analyzer mode?
No.
2 Mpts FFT only.
If the AWG can be numerically controlled via software like you said, the Siglent seems to top out at 3 volts, whereas the Rigol can drive 5 volt, and given that I want to work with retro digital circuits I presume I'm going to be working with 5 volt logic... yes?
+3V
So with some offset applied 6V is the spec of interest to you. ;)
-
Also, it appears the Rigol is running Linux kernel version 3.12, and the Siglent is running version 3.19. I normally work on the command line via a bash SSH shell, I know the Rigol has an SSH shell but I don't know if the Siglent does. How fleshed out are the user land environments? Do they have a toolchain, can you install applications on them, for instance GCC, Python, Perl, Bash?
I'm more into mathematics and physics then I am electronics, so I like playing with FFT formulas and doing number theory stuff, so being able to program the AWG using arbitrary complex mathematical formulas on the command line would be of great interest to me.
It doesn't matter as user access is closed, unless hacked... even when you can enable sshd, you don't want to go inside and mess with the pre-installed software (except to do some sort of hacking...). Remember, it is not a general use PC, it is a test equipment and better to leave the SW as untouched as possible
Ah yeah, as a computer systems engineer, I'm usually the guy designing this kind of embedded stuff since my forte is linux, so I have an innate desire to get in there and tinker. I look at scopes that are hackable not completely because of the extra features, but more so I just love to tinker with them and try to do things they were never intended to do. The journey is the sort of the destination for me, I'd be the guy looking to upgrade the kernel version on the darn thing simply for the sake of the challenge.
-
Financially speaking, the $437.57 price difference is a drop in the bucket, but at the same time I'm generally frugal unless spending the extra money for more features creates a better value proposition / ROI.
Value for money is about the same.
Plus: We can easily recommend more expensive toys if you've got money. :)
If the AWG can be numerically controlled via software like you said, the Siglent seems to top out at 3 volts, whereas the Rigol can drive 5 volt, and given that I want to work with retro digital circuits I presume I'm going to be working with 5 volt logic... yes?
I'd have thought the pattern generator of your Analog Discovery would be more useful for this.
-
Furthermore, what's the resell value on these when I upgrade to the latest and greatest in a few years... I recall several years ago that Siglent was unlawfully blocking the sale of used equipment on eBay, are they still doing this? The Rigol has a software bundle promo right now, and strictly speaking I would have to reset the scope back to defaults if I were to sell it to someone else, so the extra software bundle license might actually have a little bit of tangible value when I decide to sell it too.
I don't have any of the oscilloscopes but, as an owner of a midrange Rigol (DS4014) that had tons of issues at its inception and took a couple of years to fix them, I imagine the MSO5000 won't have a much different story here. Despite the bugs were mostly fixed in the latest firmware version of the DS4000 series and it became a very stable instrument (with the possibility of being fully unlocked to 500MHz, lots of decoders and a very deep memory at 5GSPS), every time someone mentions this family others jump at how it uses an "old architecture" or is just buggy. That certainly affects resale value.
-
I´ve sold my MSO5000 only 70€ cheaper then a new one immediately, after one year in use...
Used rigol DS1000Z models reaching nearly everytime the 300 bucks, although new ones won´t cost much more.
For my rigol ds2072 I got only 599€....
-
I have followed and read all the various threads around these two scopes with interest, plus watched so many utube reviews.
I have a couple of questions for those users of the Siglent SDS2000X+ scopes. Not purely technical but something that warrants consideration I think.
1. How "nice" is the multi-function/select knob to use?. I don't recall this being mentioned, but the threads are so long now I may have missed it and search didn't return anything useful.
The single biggest irritation to me with my current Rigol 2000 is its habit of changing values when you push the select button, unless I press it just so. This still seems to be an issue with the 5000 from videos I have seen. I think in the Howard Long vid it happens to him. Multi-function/select button sensitivity annoys me enough that I am considering a GWINSTEK MDO2204 due to the separate "select" button. Maybe the touch screen of the Siglent alleviates some of that concern. Although I am not that fond of touch screens. Things can get messy when using them while eating hot chips 'n gravy :).
May not be a big deal for most but little things like that get me spewing expletives.
2. How readable is the screen text. Being a 10" screen it should be better. I usually wear Multi-focals and need to change to other glasses for "lab" work.
In regards to cost differences I found the Rigol to be more expensive. Ignoring hackability of Rigol base model. An MSO5104 is about AU$2878 vs SDS2104X+ AU$2321 (from Aus distributors sites). Maybe that's the 350Mhz probes.
As to either being a long term proposition would depend on what one is working on I suppose. Do the same thing in 10 years as now and that 10 yr old tool is still suitable. But something will likely come along where you will go "gotta get me one of those", and then we are back to these sorts of threads.
-
I have followed and read all the various threads around these two scopes with interest, plus watched so many utube reviews.
I have a couple of questions for those users of the Siglent SDS2000X+ scopes. Not purely technical but something that warrants consideration I think.
1. How "nice" is the multi-function/select knob to use?. I don't recall this being mentioned, but the threads are so long now I may have missed it and search didn't return anything useful.
It's fit for purpose although if it had a larger knob it would be even better.
Siglent have the acceleration algorithm pretty good on all their modern scopes.
Maybe the touch screen of the Siglent alleviates some of that concern. Although I am not that fond of touch screens.
Certainly touch does and you'll find yourself using touch with a 2kX Plus as it's faster and even more so when using a mouse as well. The multipurpose control can be pressed when a numeric adjustment box is highlit and active to bring up a virtual keypad where absolute values can be selected with touch or a mouse and when one gets the hang of this the multipurpose knob gets used little.
2. How readable is the screen text. Being a 10" screen it should be better. I usually wear Multi-focals and need to change to other glasses for "lab" work.
I grab +1's or +2's now for real work and I don't think you'll have any issues with visibility although some of the labels of the more complex measurement types need another look as they're abbreviations but you shouldn't have issues with the more everyday ones.
If you can make out all the text in the screenshots from Performa01 in the first few pages of the SDS2000X Plus thread you'll be fine as they are more distinct in real life.
-
1. How "nice" is the multi-function/select knob to use?. I don't recall this being mentioned, but the threads are so long now I may have missed it and search didn't return anything useful.
It's fit for purpose although if it had a larger knob it would be even better.
It's still a horrible user interface device though. Pushing a knob to make a selection is just WRONG.
(and leads to the occasional error because the know usually turns a bit when you push it)
There's only one brand that gets it right AFAIK, and that's GW-Instek. They have a separate button next to the knob to make the selection. No knob-push required.
-
In regards to cost differences I found the Rigol to be more expensive. Ignoring hackability of Rigol base model. An MSO5104 is about AU$2878 vs SDS2104X+ AU$2321 (from Aus distributors sites). Maybe that's the 350Mhz probes.
"Ignoring hackability"? :-//
-
1. How "nice" is the multi-function/select knob to use?. I don't recall this being mentioned, but the threads are so long now I may have missed it and search didn't return anything useful.
It's fit for purpose although if it had a larger knob it would be even better.
It's still a horrible user interface device though. Pushing a knob to make a selection is just WRONG.
I disagree; I am faster operating an instrument this way.
However, that was certainly my opinion about my scope before I changed the encoder of my DS4014 to a detented one from Alps.
-
1. How "nice" is the multi-function/select knob to use?. I don't recall this being mentioned, but the threads are so long now I may have missed it and search didn't return anything useful.
It's fit for purpose although if it had a larger knob it would be even better.
It's still a horrible user interface device though. Pushing a knob to make a selection is just WRONG.
I disagree; I am faster operating an instrument this way.
However, that was certainly my opinion about my scope before I changed the encoder of my DS4014 to a detented one from Alps.
If it is implemented correctly, you should not have major problems, but even later Keysight scopes (1000X Linux based) experience some sort of miss-selections... It used to be spon on. Or you could add a select button just below the knob, like the GW Instek scopes.
-
However, that was certainly my opinion about my scope before I changed the encoder of my DS4014 to a detented one from Alps.
If you're into DIY you could maybe drill out a hole next to the selector and add a push button. >:D
-
However, that was certainly my opinion about my scope before I changed the encoder of my DS4014 to a detented one from Alps.
If you're into DIY you could maybe drill out a hole next to the selector and add a push button. >:D
It is a good idea, maybe scope manufacturers can implement this in future products, no SW modification needed
-
However, that was certainly my opinion about my scope before I changed the encoder of my DS4014 to a detented one from Alps.
If you're into DIY you could maybe drill out a hole next to the selector and add a push button. >:D
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
-
Thank you all for the responses. I was a little hesitant in asking as UI interactions are somewhat subjective. Being involved in some software UI testing in the past, trying to please everyone is nigh impossible. Mind you I was mainly there to see if I could break or subvert it.
It's fit for purpose although if it had a larger knob it would be even better.
Siglent have the acceleration algorithm pretty good on all their modern scopes.
Maybe the touch screen of the Siglent alleviates some of that concern. Although I am not that fond of touch screens.
Certainly touch does and you'll find yourself using touch with a 2kX Plus as it's faster and even more so when using a mouse as well. The multipurpose control can be pressed when a numeric adjustment box is highlit and active to bring up a virtual keypad where absolute values can be selected with touch or a mouse and when one gets the hang of this the multipurpose knob gets used little.
@tautech
That is sort of what I was hoping for, that a mix would make it easier. Or I am just being a baby and should just deal with it. But I do like tools to be "comfortable" to use.
2. How readable is the screen text. Being a 10" screen it should be better. I usually wear Multi-focals and need to change to other glasses for "lab" work.
I grab +1's or +2's now for real work and I don't think you'll have any issues with visibility although some of the labels of the more complex measurement types need another look as they're abbreviations but you shouldn't have issues with the more everyday ones.
If you can make out all the text in the screenshots from Performa01 in the first few pages of the SDS2000X Plus thread you'll be fine as they are more distinct in real life.
Yes, have seen those. Wasn't sure how close they would be in real life. If they are like that or better then that would be usable. To see any of these scopes in the flesh I have to travel 300+kms and with the "flu" in parts of Sydney I am trying to avoid that.
"Ignoring hackability"? :-//
@Fungus
Yes. To me being hackable should not be a prime consideration when comparing products. Not that I am adverse to it. All my Rigol gear has been "upgraded". Yah! I thought it'll be more useful, but apart from serial decodes I never use the extra capability. So whilst being hackable is a nice to have, it is less important to me than base usability(but that's subjective too).
So far of all the scopes I have considered, the R&S ones appear to have the nicest looking UI to me. The R&S are tempting, especially with their current promotions. Being retired and really just a hobbyist getting back into ham radio, even an RTC1000 would do most of what I need but it has no bode plot. Which I do want as life's too short to do it manually. I just don't think that the UI is enough to justify getting an RTB for my lowly uses.
-
In Rigol MSO5000 series there is also SFRA aka BodePlot.
But, really difficult to find any details and functions and performance about SFRA feature in it. Also it looks like owners do not want tell about it. Weird.
I just ago read user manual and data sheet and advertisements many times but I can not find any kind of more detailed info about SFRA whole dynamic range and SFRA (BodePlot) other details.
Yes they tell 10 - 300 samples per decade. So if I sweep from 10Hz to 10MHz. There is 6 decades.
Can I set it for do 1800 steps in sweep and it produce 1800 row data table where is freq, level and phase.
If I set center 10MHz and span say example 500Hz how many sweep steps it can do... what is freq resolution.
If DUT have example 80dB difference in this swept band, say example pass band top level is reference and in this case it is example 10dBm and in stop band area level drops 80dB can I measure it in one sweep? How it is if level drop more, say example 100dB?
Then If I need look some narrow band pass filter. Take example 100kHz CW filter what width is 100Hz. Say example shape factor 1:3 and need look stop band down to least under -60dBcenter.
Is it possible to set for 1Hz resolution with span 500Hz. For example look some XTAL response.
Example like this. Is it possible with MSO5000 BodePlot. It is possible even with Siglent SDS1000X-E as also Teledyne LeCroy T3DSO1104, T3DSO1104 and of course scope model in topic, Siglent SDS2104XPlus and Teledyne LeCroy T3DSO2104A.
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/84kHz-XTAL-example-peaks-full-sf.png)
84kHz XTAL.
Lets hope later they develop it bit more for more variable vertical scale and for more narrow span also with higher freq resolution. 1Hz is bit too coarse.
Then bit different. 14.2MHz filter (bad one)
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/SDS-14M2-Harris-flt-vs-ssa.png)
Here 14.2MHz filter. Span 60kHz, step 120Hz. Just simple BodePlot.
And compared how spectrum analyzer show it for proof that BodePlot is not so far away from SA view.
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/SSA--14M2-Harris-flt-vs-BPII-resize.png)
Setup was bit different due to fact these tests are made totally separately without originally even thinking any compare.
When carefully look images my opinion is that in this kind if works SDS1104X-E BodePlot is better or even far better than SSA3021X with TG for this kind of testing. And have lot of features what this SA do not have for this.
Even with some limits it is amazing good tool and not just as checkbox feature in shiny sales brochure.
Are there anyone who have MSO5000 and can test it example just with some XTAL or some other way how it can use for narrow span.
Also what is its dynamic range inside one sweep. In some info it looks like it do BP just using normal scope xt sweep.
Then there read in manual that user can select channels 1 - 4 free. can it do more than one channel BP simultaneously or just one. Also, where is reference channel. Iunderstand that user can not select what channel to use for reference. if this is true how user can select DUT output for channels 1 to 4.
How it is exactly?
Main questions are: What is its measurements dynamic range in one sweep and what is narrow some span maximum frequency resolution in over 100kHz frequencies. Or say example center freq 1MHz and 500Hz span. what is freq step increment (resolution).
What is its best resolution say example if center is 10MHz. What is in this case minimum span and what is step interval.
If it is just as told max 300 for one decade then it can not do anything narrow band analyzing like I show Siglent can do.
Looks like this is too hard question. Perhaps I can guess why..
-
Will the SDS2000X Plus utilize the full BW of the external SDG6000X AWG in Bode Plot mode?
I know this works with the SDS2102X Plus "enhanced" to 350MHz with SDG2042X which has been "enhanced" to 120MHz, this allows a full 120MHz Bode Plot sweep :-+
Added plots showing a RG58 cables (3) & Banana to BNC adapter test using the Bode Plot, note the null caused by the high impedance reflected scope impedance (1M) and RG58 cable on C1, C2 was terminated (internal) with 50 ohms. Second Bode plot shows a standard cheap BNC "T" adapter with 3 RG316 20" cables with a high impedance (1M) scope input on C1 (C2 50 ohms), also note the null caused by the high scope impedance. Third is a plot of 3 RG316 cables (AWG, C1, C2) with both scopes inputs C1 and C2 terminated, so not a proper "matched" connection at the "T" but yields much better performance (proper "T" match would have been a 3 way 50 ohm power splitter). I often use this type improper "T" connection rather than an open circuit or high impedance when working beyond 10MHz with 50 ohm cables.
These Bode plots clearly show why you shouldn't use Banana adapters or standard 50 ohm cables beyond about 10MHz with a high impedance loads, the reflected high/open circuit causes a very low impedance at 1/4 cable wavelength which causes significant attenuation at these 1/4 wave frequencies.
The Bode Plot can be useful in everyday measurements and an added benefit of these popular versatile DSOs.
Best,
-
Will the SDS2000X Plus utilize the full BW of the external SDG6000X AWG in Bode Plot mode?
I know this works with the SDS2102X Plus "enhanced" to 350MHz with SDG2042X which has been "enhanced" to 120MHz, this allows a full 120MHz Bode Plot sweep :-+
Added plots showing a RG58 cables (3) & Banana to BNC adapter test using the Bode Plot, note the null caused by the high impedance reflected scope impedance (1M) and RG58 cable on C1, C2 was terminated (internal) with 50 ohms. Second Bode plot shows a standard cheap BNC "T" adapter with 3 RG316 20" cables with a high impedance (1M) scope input on C1 (C2 50 ohms), also note the null caused by the high scope impedance. Third is a plot of 3 RG316 cables (AWG, C1, C2) with both scopes inputs C1 and C2 terminated, so not a proper "matched" connection at the "T" but yields much better performance (proper "T" match would have been a 3 way 50 ohm power splitter). I often use this type improper "T" connection rather than an open circuit or high impedance when working beyond 10MHz with 50 ohm cables.
These Bode plots clearly show why you shouldn't use Banana adapters or standard 50 ohm cables beyond about 10MHz with a high impedance loads, the reflected high/open circuit causes a very low impedance at 1/4 cable wavelength which causes significant attenuation at these 1/4 wave frequencies.
The Bode Plot can be useful in everyday measurements and an added benefit of these popular versatile DSOs.
Best,
BodePlot limit is max 120MHz as far as I know. It is limited by AWG in use or 120MHz depending which one is lower. Also 120MHz is bit too high but usable for some simple things if do not need high accuracy, specially phase is problem. Also Signal generators start reduce output level with higher frequencies so it also start limit usable dynamic range when testing passive circuits. Of course case with active circuits what may have amplification etc then dynamic range max is what is BP itself dynamic range.
Something like this (This is OLD (and possible obsolete after FW updates), just for look it in freq range where are mostly HF radio receivers filters etc.)
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/SDS1x04X-E-BodePlotII-level-range-preliminary-b.png)
As can see there is SDG1000X up to 60MHz band dynamic range ( based to my some tests) what is roughly up to 100dB. Best range is where are most HF receivers IF filters. But of course scope can handle much higher amplitudes so if DUT is amplifier dynamic range can be higher. But then need also "bit different" grade feed thru terminator depending what is max power. 60dBm (1kW) max it can be up to 160dB single sweep dynamic range and this is lot but you need 1kW 50ohm feed thru. So... perhaps not for "everyone". 8)
Siglent BodePlot performace and features are handled some amount in specified thread in forum. It is there handled using SDS1104/SDS1204X-E what is, afaik, quite same what is on SDS2000X-E and 2000XPlus models.
BodePlot support all Siglent AWG X models.
If need work over roughly said 20-40MHz it is not enough to use just good cables and of course impedance matching is nothing more but mandatory. But even it is not enough. For good tests with higher frequencies need do time calibration and it is not so simple. Oh well it is simple if user have some special things... what most of users do not have.
But if start talking bit more deep things then need write one book.
What is ok for low freq very simple things just all these can throw away if do something other than just play fun things.
Example some things may need double channel setup where input to DUT is separated from input to BodePlot Reference but it need know how to calibrate this setup for some measurements. Example if use dual channel generator setup how to do timing calibration (for get real phase instead of "something"). There is skew in generator, cables propagation times need match and scope channels skew... these timing things need calibrate just for individual setup and settings.
One degree in phase is roughly 28ps when freq is 100MHz. Example with RG58 (PE type, example Belden 9201) roughly 5.5mm length respond 1 degree phase shift (velocity factor is 0.66). And after then come scope inputs internal skew what need compensate externally! If need even somehow accurate phase all these need zero, one possible tool is adjustable length coaxial. Then also impedance need match and it IS difficult part due to facts about signal generator output and scope input circuits.
All is simple with audio frequencies.
And then if go over 50MHz...over 100MHz things goes much more difficult. So my opinion is: 120MHz limit is good and even it is bit high. Perhaps 60MHz is better limit.
Of course "something" can do with 100MHz and even with bit higher but then we go more up... results goes more to "entertainment" grade than test and measurement instrument grade and I do not like if test instruments include these "game boy features" for play just some fun.
----------------------------------
But. Topic is Rigol - Siglent.
I wonder bit why there is nearly total lack of information and truth about Rigol BodePlot function in MSO5000 model.
In my previous message there is many questions about RIGOL - without any single answer. And answer can not find from Rigol and not here.
(same as with GoodWill BP and same as with Keysight BP in they low end models, just nearly nothing)
Resolution, Span, swept measurement dynamic range etc etc and if they are working using swept frequency selective receiver or just simplest broad band scope channel.
Please even freq resolution... just someone who have this scope. Open BP and set and look and tell numbers.
Set 1MHz center. What is minimum span. What is minimum freq step.
Set 1MHz center and span 1kHz. What is minimum freq step. If minimum span is smaller, then do it give more freq resolution.
Of course if someone can tell more it is nice. If also can know maximum usable single sweep dynamic range. And whole freq range dynamic range if test signal to DUT is just 0dBm what is then max usable dynamic range (yes this need bit work for test). And how many channels simultaneously max from DUT. Manual tell that user can select channels 1 - 4. Do it have 4 channel BodePlot or just select what single channel is in use for BP.
-
In the end you have to think about what bode-plot is being used for and in most cases that will be looking at the frequency response of a circuit which some RC poles in there. For that you don't need small spaced frequency steps. It is great the Siglent bode-plot can show the response of a crystal but then what? My network analyser can tell me the equivalent circuit of a crystal using the response plot. At some point you enter an area of diminished returns. And you can also find the peaks of a crystal by sweeping the frequency so it is not that bode-plot (or network analyser) is required to measure a crystal.
-
In the end you have to think about what bode-plot is being used for and in most cases that will be looking at the frequency response of a circuit which some RC poles in there. For that you don't need small spaced frequency steps. It is great the Siglent bode-plot can show the response of a crystal but then what? My network analyser can tell me the equivalent circuit of a crystal using the response plot. At some point you enter an area of diminished returns. And you can also find the peaks of a crystal by sweeping the frequency so it is not that bode-plot (or network analyser) is required to measure a crystal.
What about a xtal. Do you understand it is ONLY ONE example about limits!
There is also many other limits. Do you really think BP is just for some simply RC. Yes it can do also it.
Of course because Siglent have this and some other what brand you like do not have your first argument is that oh... this feature is not useful and no one need. Because you do not need. World have lot of preoples from africa, asia, europe, america etc who have lot of different needs.
It takes also time before peoples start find how useful these are for many purposes. It do not happen if all make it as Keysight or GW bottom model BP joke and now it looks like Rigol have also gone to Keyshit way until some tell they have not. Yes after these all can say. BP is not at all important... not so useful. I can say these really are not useful except some simple RC like circuits just for fun or bottom level students. Until someone do it better and Siglent have done.
Old times I use also SFRA. It was made Rohde&Schwarz. It was heavy, it was expensive. So expensive that only some peoples can touch it in lab.
Can you think they was stupid they make these equipments. Did you told to Rohde that they are for nothing. Now this simple and cheap Siglent can walk around it just hands down except they was bit more high freq and faster but lot of lacking features also.
-
I agree with you rf-loop.
I own some time ago also the SDS2104X-Plus, and the bode plot was one of the feature I'm interested in.
I'm almost very pleased with this scope, but I must say that the Bode plot function seem unfinished and a little bit disappointing.
First, the sweep time is very very slow, and scope doesn't response to any command during the plot.
Also as said, enable to get low step frequency of sweep is a problem for any case where the level change very fast with frequency.
In my application, it's not a crystal, but a simple passive notch filter with high Q. It's impossible to get the right notch depth with it.
So, as rf-loop say, it's a pity to not allow to choose the step frequency as parameters.
Regards
Frex
-
In the end you have to think about what bode-plot is being used for and in most cases that will be looking at the frequency response of a circuit which some RC poles in there. For that you don't need small spaced frequency steps. It is great the Siglent bode-plot can show the response of a crystal but then what? My network analyser can tell me the equivalent circuit of a crystal using the response plot. At some point you enter an area of diminished returns. And you can also find the peaks of a crystal by sweeping the frequency so it is not that bode-plot (or network analyser) is required to measure a crystal.
What about a xtal. Do you understand it is ONLY ONE example about limits!
There is also many other limits. Do you really think BP is just for some simply RC. Yes it can do also it.
Instead or ranting on come up with a practical circuit where you need fine-grained bode plotting (say more than 100 points/decade). Circuits with sharp peaks in their frequency response are not very common because their dependancy on component stability makes them hard to use in practical situations (subject to temperature and aging).
See the comment from Frex above. It isn't all sunshine & rainbows; at some point other methods/equipment become more effective.
-
In the end you have to think about what bode-plot is being used for and in most cases that will be looking at the frequency response of a circuit which some RC poles in there. For that you don't need small spaced frequency steps. It is great the Siglent bode-plot can show the response of a crystal but then what? My network analyser can tell me the equivalent circuit of a crystal using the response plot. At some point you enter an area of diminished returns. And you can also find the peaks of a crystal by sweeping the frequency so it is not that bode-plot (or network analyser) is required to measure a crystal.
You can tell this also to Keysight so that no one need these. Are they stupid they develop it for much more resolution and narrow span and better dynamics. DSO X 4000 series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2oXlzeTLc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2oXlzeTLc)
He did not even go and show deep limits in this simple video show. But 1000 poits in any span if I heard right!
And you say this kind of resolution is not useful at all. (because YOU have VNA) And soon there is coming more performance. Can you understand at all why. Just for fun or for response needs. Think carefully before answer from your narrow looking angle from some niche area in electronics. Why it is like red cloth to bull when Siglent do something.
When Siglent try do this to cheaper instruments, not as nice UI etc, but still lot of performance you say these are nonsense. Keysight do not these without reason, I believe. And not only for "check box" feature for sales brochures. But of course you can be opponent.
-
I agree with you rf-loop.
I own some time ago also the SDS2104X-Plus, and the bode plot was one of the feature I'm interested in.
I'm almost very pleased with this scope, but I must say that the Bode plot function seem unfinished and a little bit disappointing.
First, the sweep time is very very slow, and scope doesn't response to any command during the plot.
Also as said, enable to get low step frequency of sweep is a problem for any case where the level change very fast with frequency.
In my application, it's not a crystal, but a simple passive notch filter with high Q. It's impossible to get the right notch depth with it.
So, as rf-loop say, it's a pity to not allow to choose the step frequency as parameters.
Regards
Frex
Yes, clearly there is things what need improve. In UI and some in features for serve better very different users very different needs.
Speed question is hard. I think with this kind of setup and hardware there can not do much for speed up it without decrease performance in other things.
When set [Channel Chain Hold] (ALC Off) it give some more speed but price is dynamic range. [Channel Chain Auto] (ALC On) give full available dynamic range but is much slower. Just for one example about things what is behind speed.
-
@rf-loop: again; stop ranting and show is why Siglent's way is better with a real circuit. Very simple question. We don't care that you hate Keysight (which you keep bringing up again and again). You start to sound like Trump: Siglent is better. I've seen it myself. Bigger numbers. It's true! Really.
-
@rf-loop: again; stop ranting and show is why Siglent's way is better with a real circuit. Very simple question. We don't care that you hate Keysight (which you keep bringing up again and again). You start to sound like Trump: Siglent is better. I've seen it myself. Bigger numbers. It's true! Really.
You are really fun. Just I linked Keysight youtube what have better BP than Siglent in just example this resolution and span things and also UI looks good. Also told that Siglent need develop UI better. This was example to you who try told how useless is BP and it do not need fancy resolution and I ask... why then Keysight do these and develop these better and better and one nctnico tell it is nearly for nothing. Why you do not go to Keysight discussing and tell how nonsense these dynamic and resolution things are because only for some RC....
Also I have told time ago that in its time Siglent SDS1000X-E series BP (version II) was very good or afaik even best in its price class in this time, and I have also displayed true test data. And sorry, I like more data, numbers etc than your opinions. Of course if I show false data, wrong numbers etc I like very much if someone correct me, even you. But if you do not like right numbers it is your problem. Scrap the Numbers, Get a Real Opinions.
And now you tell that I hate Keysight. This is total and deepest bullshit I have heard long time. You do not know nearly anything what I think, what I like and what I hate. I have been Hewlett-Packard fan perhaps even before you have born. There was one total disappoint in 70s but it was not test equipment, it was some HP3000 nightmare what crash nearly every week but it was exception, before it there was E.I.A analog computer what was really good but spare parts start being problem, in critical places need always be backup spares. But, I do not like all what have happen in company. Only what I hate in this HP - Agilent - Keysight story is time of Carly Fiorina "disaster".
But for what you pop-up here when I ask how Rigol works and some numbers what are not published in data sheet and user manual. After then you start this your own show without any other reason than name Siglent exist what is like red cloth to bull for you. How long time it take you can walk over this post traumatic position after SDS2000 accident in your life.
-
Although it's not something I use much, and it's the first time even trying a crystal filter on a scope FRA, I just did some FRA plots on an MSO3104T, SDS1204X-E, SDS2504X Plus and MSO5000.
I tend to agree with some other posters, if I'm to measure a crystal I'd be heading straight to the VNA rather than contemplate using a scope, so this is largely an academic exercise for me.
The DUT is a 4 pole 10.7MHz, 7.5kHz BW band pass filter, ECS-10.7-7.5B. I used 320 ohm terminations (including the load, source and the fixture's series matching resistors) as that's the fixture I had lying around. 200mV pp drive. 60 points requested for the sweep (if possible). So my termination wasn't optimum.
The Keysight, SDS1204X-E & SDS2504X+ managed to do some sort of a job with it, but the MSO5000 doesn't appear to have the frequency resolution to even start measuring such a device, being limited to 300 points/decade, so completely useless for crystal measurement. FWIW, I also tried the SDS2054+ using both the internal Wavegen and an external SDG1025 as the source, both worked fine.
Note how the phase measurements can flip quadrant on all of these measurements, so care needs to be taken when interpreting the results.
MSOX3104T:
[attach=1]
SDS1204X-E:
[attach=2]
SDS2504X+ internal Wavegen:
[attach=3]
MSO5000
[attach=6]
MSO5000 settings
[attach=7]
-
I'd say the Siglents (especially the SDS1000X) are quite impressive for their price.
-
ditto what rsjsouza said.
With the SDS1204X-E, for example, this was done with a sweep on one channel of an external generator which was output through a filter to one channel of the oscilloscope which you setup to show amplitude and phase across the designated freq span?
-
ditto what rsjsouza said.
With the SDS1204X-E, for example, this was done with a sweep on one channel of an external generator which was output through a filter to one channel of the oscilloscope which you setup to show amplitude and phase across the designated freq span?
AWG 50ohm output to Fixture input + ChA 1Mohm input.
Fixture output to 50 ohm thru terminator, then into ChB 1Mohm input.
MY fixture has 270 ohm series resistors on its input and output, it was originally used for testing ceramic filters which matched to that setup. The crystal filter I used here has a higher impedance, about 1.8kohm//4pF, so this test doesn't really properly show the filter's performance, I'd need to build a fixture with an appropriate pair of L filters to do that.
-
These are some results with a more reasonably matched fixture using the manufacturer's specs of 1800//4pF. IME it takes a bit of experimentation to get the match right, and the manufacturer's specs for SAW and crystal filters are rarely particularly accurate, I think they must go off the modelled specs, not the empirical specs. However, they are usually pretty uniform in production.
Anyway, I used L matches on both sides, the 1800//4pF gives 1458-j706 ohms @ 10.7MHz. For both the L matches, I used 4.7uH series and 43pF shunt (impedance matching calculator came up with 4.4uH & 44.9pF).
The most obvious thing to see is that the inline losses are a lot less when a reasonable match is provided.
Unfortunately, the resolution of the marker readout on the Siglent is only 100kHz which is something that a software fix could easily resolve. I didn't try the Keysight for markers.
HP 8753A VNA
[attach=1]
DSA815+Tracking generator
[attach=2]
SDS2054X+
[attach=3]
MSOX3104T
[attach=4]
-
(..) but the MSO5000 doesn't appear to have the frequency resolution to even start measuring such a device, being limited to 300 points/decade, so completely useless for crystal measurement.
Wow, they (rigol) told me BP will come in may 2019 - You all know how long it takes in real to come at last.
And then this result.. :--
-
These are some results with a more reasonably matched fixture using the manufacturer's specs of 1800//4pF. IME it takes a bit of experimentation to get the match right, and the manufacturer's specs for SAW and crystal filters are rarely particularly accurate, I think they must go off the modelled specs, not the empirical specs. However, they are usually pretty uniform in production.
Anyway, I used L matches on both sides, the 1800//4pF gives 1458-j706 ohms @ 10.7MHz. For both the L matches, I used 4.7uH series and 43pF shunt (impedance matching calculator came up with 4.4uH & 44.9pF).
The most obvious thing to see is that the inline losses are a lot less when a reasonable match is provided.
Unfortunately, the resolution of the marker readout on the Siglent is only 100kHz which is something that a software fix could easily resolve. I didn't try the Keysight for markers.
HP 8753A VNA
(Attachment Link)
DSA815+Tracking generator
(Attachment Link)
SDS2054X+
(Attachment Link)
MSOX3104T
(Attachment Link)
Yes this Siglent marker displayed resolution is poor. It is also weird why they do this. Whole all in BP is based to data table what it produce during sweep and there data is full resolution. Display draw and all displayed things are based to this primary table. And if you take also table display open in same window with draw also there data resolution is rounded for 2 decimals. But if you take data table out, there is full resolution. So why they do not just pick up more decimals from table and without any single reasons.
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/BP2-example1-two-probes-x1-data-max-pts-70k-35M.png)
As can see there is lot of room in displayed data table for higher resolution what also is already available there in primary data table what can download from scope (and also upload back to scope). Or is it so that there is two programmers (one who did BP primary engine and other who then did BP display/UI things) and they did not say even hello to each others. Sorry I do not have here available any data table out from scope so I can not show this real resolution.
One question. Why you use this low freq resolution. Nearly 1.67kHz/step. (if I understand right your previous message where you tell 60 points)
When look images it looks like these stop band dips before and after pass band may be more deep if you use more resolution. Specially when look Siglent image it looks it "jumps over" this dip. It is not rejected due to dynamic rage. It looks like least 10dB is missing if not even more. Also If look HP VNA image it is clear (but this first dip look also weird in HP VNA image, are there also lack of freq step resolution or what... ). Overall this filter is very easy for these machines except these sharp dips (what are somehow nonsense in practice but can give some knowledge about test equipment performance. If have better filter then start real game... and then can differentiate toys and tools and there some HP VNA wins hands down these oscilloscope bodeplot things where -80... -90dB down from 0dBm start be impossible totally or start be limiting factor when take Siglent BP. (in around 10MHz freq)
...as can see in next OLD image where is one other typical filter freq (455kHz) tested using step attenuator.
As can see -90 still usable and then -100dBm level ref 0dBm level start be game over limit totally (noise level). Note!! In image 0dB level in scale is +17.9dBm due to reason what is not important here. (SDG1000X limit in 10MHz is +17.9dBm so I use this level what was input to step attenuator)
Step attenuator (of course HP) stepped manually during one sweep. Bit messy but it was not for beauty image but for data..
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/BP2-455kHz-18dBm-DUT-att-0-120dB.png)
-
Or is it so that there is two programmers (one who did BP primary engine and other who then did BP display/UI things) and they did not say even hello to each others.
rf-loop - you do very good work with your analysis and your annotated images are top notch, and you have a great sense of humor :)
:-+ :-+
-
Some Bode plots from SDS5000X that I have no reason to believe is any different to SDS2000X Plus other than SDS5000X is running latest firmware and we are waiting for the SDS2kX Plus update.
As used before my same passive 1 KHz to 30 KHz bandpass filter with a 0 dBm stimulus from SDG1032X.
In Decade display 2pts/dec to 216pts/dec are available with sweeps very fast to some 6 1/2 minutes for max pts.
5pts/dec is the minimum displayed below as lower settings results in poor interpolation at low frequencies.
Markers set to -3 dB levels. ~6s sweep
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106088)
Max 216 pts/dec ~6 1/2 minutes sweep
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106092)
Configure page
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106096)
Measurements page
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106100)
-
Nice to see BP UI is bit improved (settings)
If you open dual display, trace + table do this displayed table still show these highly truncated rounded frequency values for data points.
Btw, other question, is it possible you take out table data and upload it so that we can see what is real BP engine data resolution in primary table behind displayed traces and table in SDS5k or SDS2kplus. Siglent really need pick up these values also to displayed table. It is important because also cursors resolution is based to this displayed table instead of true primary table. Of course it is not problem with wide span sweeps over decades but as seen previously, utterly useless with narrow span sweeps. ;)
-
One question. Why you use this low freq resolution. Nearly 1.67kHz/step. (if I understand right your previous message where you tell 60 points)
No particular reason, the first unit I tried was the Keysight, it offered up 60 points, so I kept that setting so as to compare like for like.
The VNA and SA+TG plots have far more points, ISTR the VNA is 801 points for example.
-
One question. Why you use this low freq resolution. Nearly 1.67kHz/step. (if I understand right your previous message where you tell 60 points)
No particular reason, the first unit I tried was the Keysight, it offered up 60 points, so I kept that setting so as to compare like for like.
The VNA and SA+TG plots have far more points, ISTR the VNA is 801 points for example.
Howard,
With do all respect, i kindly disagree, that is exactly the point, the fact that they don't compare like for like..
Advantage is the fact that on some equipment you can set it to 1000 points across very narrow frequency span, and that will give you resolution.
They will all have similar results when working with limited points, a bad one...
Also, on my Keysight I can set a span from 10,65 -10,75 MHz with 1000 points in between.. It takes 6-7 minutes to run. Step was roughly 100Hz.
Are you sure you couldn't set it to more than 60 points? What firmware are you running?
Regards,
Siniša
-
One question. Why you use this low freq resolution. Nearly 1.67kHz/step. (if I understand right your previous message where you tell 60 points)
No particular reason, the first unit I tried was the Keysight, it offered up 60 points, so I kept that setting so as to compare like for like.
The VNA and SA+TG plots have far more points, ISTR the VNA is 801 points for example.
Howard,
With do all respect, i kindly disagree, that is exactly the point, the fact that they don't compare like for like..
Advantage is the fact that on some equipment you can set it to 1000 points across very narrow frequency span, and that will give you resolution.
They will all have similar results when working with limited points, a bad one...
Also, on my Keysight I can set a span from 10,65 -10,75 MHz with 1000 points in between.. It takes 6-7 minutes to run. Step was roughly 100Hz.
Are you sure you couldn't set it to more than 60 points? What firmware are you running?
Regards,
Siniša
Least in 4000 series Keysight can as can see in previous video where they tell improvements in BP. It can do 1000step also with more narrow span than 100kHz. And it clearly is sign that there is demand for these better resolutions (and also for better dynamic what is totally other thing what also need know and compare.). They do not without reason just for checkbox features in shining sales brochures. There is demand and they respond. As also Siglent do in different price group.
-
One question. Why you use this low freq resolution. Nearly 1.67kHz/step. (if I understand right your previous message where you tell 60 points)
No particular reason, the first unit I tried was the Keysight, it offered up 60 points, so I kept that setting so as to compare like for like.
The VNA and SA+TG plots have far more points, ISTR the VNA is 801 points for example.
Howard,
With do all respect, i kindly disagree, that is exactly the point, the fact that they don't compare like for like..
Advantage is the fact that on some equipment you can set it to 1000 points across very narrow frequency span, and that will give you resolution.
They will all have similar results when working with limited points, a bad one...
Also, on my Keysight I can set a span from 10,65 -10,75 MHz with 1000 points in between.. It takes 6-7 minutes to run. Step was roughly 100Hz.
Are you sure you couldn't set it to more than 60 points? What firmware are you running?
Regards,
Siniša
I find that I am regretting sharing information again :-(
There seems to be some projection on the purpose of the tests I ran.
My test was to see if these scopes would be even capable of measuring a relatively narrow band device such as a 10MHz crystal filter, nothing more. Before running the tests, I was doubtful, so didn't see much point in even attempting to run a ten minute FRA when I could get what I was after in a minute or so.
The Keysight may well be capable of more points, I never claimed otherwise. As I already said, 60 points happened to be the default setting when I ran my first test which was on the Keysight, and I used that 60 points for the rest to compare like for like (except VNA and SA+TG).
It's not unusual to use a VNA or SA+TG to dynamically adjust filters, which typically will sweep ITRO a second or so. If you have to wait even a minute to get a response graph it's going to be a very painful time in that use case!
I've found that the problem with documenting such tests here is that different people have different demands, and there are assumptions I must have had the same demands. By publishing findings, I'm finding that I regret it because what should be a half hour or an hour's tinkering to see if something can even be achieved, I end up being pushed to go back and set up tests again and again to fit with someone else's demands, not mine, and that takes time.
-
I find that I am regretting sharing information again :-(
There seems to be some projection on the purpose of the tests I ran.
My test was to see if these scopes would be even capable of measuring a relatively narrow band device such as a 10MHz crystal filter, nothing more. Before running the tests, I was doubtful, so didn't see much point in even attempting to run a ten minute FRA when I could get what I was after in a minute or so.
The Keysight may well be capable of more points, I never claimed otherwise. As I already said, 60 points happened to be the default setting when I ran my first test which was on the Keysight, and I used that 60 points for the rest to compare like for like (except VNA and SA+TG).
It's not unusual to use a VNA or SA+TG to dynamically adjust filters, which typically will sweep ITRO a second or so. If you have to wait even a minute to get a response graph it's going to be a very painful time in that use case!
I've found that the problem with documenting such tests here is that different people have different demands, and there are assumptions I must have had the same demands. By publishing findings, I'm finding that I regret it because what should be a half hour or an hour's tinkering to see if something can even be achieved, I end up being pushed to go back and set up tests again and again to fit with someone else's demands, not mine, and that takes time.
Howard,
I apologize if my comment was offensive or harsh to you. I must emphasise English is not my first language, and nuances of expression are not easy.
I didn't mean to slight your effort in any way, but merely to state a difference in opinion. My comment to number of points on Keysight comes from fact that Keysight upgraded FRA last year and it wasn't as good as today..
I certainly don't want to push you to do my bidding of any sort. I 'm sorry if it came out that way.
All the best,
Siniša
-
Nice to see BP UI is bit improved (settings)
If you open dual display, trace + table do this displayed table still show these highly truncated rounded frequency values for data points.
Btw, other question, is it possible you take out table data and upload it so that we can see what is real BP engine data resolution in primary table behind displayed traces and table in SDS5k or SDS2kplus. Siglent really need pick up these values also to displayed table. It is important because also cursors resolution is based to this displayed table instead of true primary table. Of course it is not problem with wide span sweeps over decades but as seen previously, utterly useless with narrow span sweeps. ;)
Further info for you to inspect.....note from SDS5kX and as previous posts using 0 dB stimulus from SDG1032X for 1-30 KHz BP filter.
Points, Decade vs Linear view, decade max is 216/dec, linear max is 500 points.......with settings used for this BP filter....not yet tried other settings.
Settings = Decade, points max.
Table enabled as requested and Data file attached, remove txt extension. ;)
BTW, widen the csv columns and 7 digits past the decimal point are visible ! :o
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106550)
-
Looks like this is what rf-loop wanted regarding using the finer grain data for display and markers :)
Hopefully will trickle down to the lower grade DSOs soon ::)
Think it's impressive Siglent has followed Keysight's lead and produced a useful and powerful Bode Plot feature, then expended more time and $ to expand the dynamic range (clever use of input/output scaling) and now the display. They are squeezing more useful information out of these 8 bit ADCs than I thought possible, nice work :-+
Best,
-
Looks like this is what rf-loop wanted regarding using the finer grain data for display and markers :)
He'll ask for more if he needs it. ;)
Hopefully will trickle down to the lower grade DSOs soon ::)
Typically 2kX Plus development has followed in the footsteps of 5kX yet as Performa01 has indicated in time their features will be closely aligned.
Think it's impressive Siglent has followed Keysight's lead and produced a useful and powerful Bode Plot feature, then expended more time and $ to expand the dynamic range (clever use of input/output scaling) and now the display. They are squeezing more useful information out of these 8 bit ADCs than I thought possible, nice work :-+
:)
Yet when BP was implemented in KS's 1k series they had a good amount of catchup to do to equal the capability of X-E models BP version 1. Interesting a DSO 1/2 the cost could do a much better job of BP.
Anyways, off to find some crystals to do some narrow span BP investigations. :)
-
I have been trying to keep up with the discussion, but lack the experience to see the strengths/weaknesses most of you do. Though I understand some of the obvious bits like steps/points per span etc.
As a hobbyist the last time I did an FRA was a 7.1Mhz filter in Technical College 5 years ago, using an old HP VNA (don't know the model), as part of an assignment. I sort of get the impression that bode plot capability in scopes, though handy, (and some seem to do it better than others) if I am wanting to do more than just fiddle around I would be best served getting an actual VNA or SA + TG.
@Howardlong I for one would be saddened if you stopped sharing this sort of information. To all that take the time to produce and share such info I must say thanks, it is invaluable to the likes of me. Especially the inevitable discussions that arise, I find them very informative and view such as a learning experience. Although sometimes I am more confused than ever ,but hey.
Though it does remind me a bit of when I worked in IT and discussing the merits of the latest Cisco kit vs Juniper, and others with the various vendors. Sometimes "pistols at dawn" type stuff.
-
Anyways, off to find some crystals to do some narrow span BP investigations. :)
SDS5kX BP UI is improved but it works as BP in all models.
For XTAL you need first build (simples possible) test fixture for it for load it right way.
It is bit tricky to first find ok settings.
https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/crystalfilters/xtaltest.html (https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/crystalfilters/xtaltest.html)
No need switch, just use this 10 - 27pF series capacitor what ever you find or is suitable for your xtal. For training and demo it is not so important. With good setup you can easy get over 80 - 100dB difference between high and low peaks depending of course also used xtal.
-
Nice to see BP UI is bit improved (settings)
If you open dual display, trace + table do this displayed table still show these highly truncated rounded frequency values for data points.
Btw, other question, is it possible you take out table data and upload it so that we can see what is real BP engine data resolution in primary table behind displayed traces and table in SDS5k or SDS2kplus. Siglent really need pick up these values also to displayed table. It is important because also cursors resolution is based to this displayed table instead of true primary table. Of course it is not problem with wide span sweeps over decades but as seen previously, utterly useless with narrow span sweeps. ;)
Further info for you to inspect.....note from SDS5kX and as previous posts using 0 dB stimulus from SDG1032X for 1-30 KHz BP filter.
Points, Decade vs Linear view, decade max is 216/dec, linear max is 500 points.......with settings used for this BP filter....not yet tried other settings.
Settings = Decade, points max.
Table enabled as requested and Data file attached, remove txt extension. ;)
BTW, widen the csv columns and 7 digits past the decimal point are visible ! :o
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106550)
Bode Plot engine primary work is to do primary table using every sweep step precise frequency, measured level and measured angle using full resolution from meas math. This is all what it produce.
But because users need see something on screen this data must use for produce visible things.
This means also that you can set what ever vertical scale for display level draw and for display angle draw. Also you can vertically shift these where ever and force it stay with these settings. If signals image go out from display no problem at all... because all is still there in primary table... you movw display and it draw from table...
Then there is table what user can take to display. This table do not show full primary table(s) resolution. Yes there is tables... if you use all three channels there is three primary tables.
Now, when user narrow or very narrow band SFRA this displayed table display resolution have been and is very poor and what more bad also cursor use this poor resolution. But behind TFT screen all time there is available this full resolution primary table what is heart of whole BP. Btw, if you dowload it... you can see.
If user download primary table out from scope he can analyse it more. But more. For later needs it can also load back to scope and look as what ever just done BP.
@tautech .csv have example about this full resolution. Here attached clipped image where can see what it include.
This displayed resolution NEED improve urgently in SDS1000 and 2000 models.
Btw I do not like how they now show level! It is much better if tightly stay in dB and not jump to m (mdB) without real reason. Again, what you thing there in Siglent or what you smoke. -0.667 is well enough and good for readability because somewhere is it jump 10.76, 666m, 1.365, -75m, -11.57 and so on... s t u p i d. keep it like 000.000 and same for freq, do not jump dimensions ninside one table... and keep decimal point place.
Here is primary table what BP engine do. BP Displayed all graphic and data, all is derived from this primary table. BP have resolution. More than enough.
But also users need see resolution....please do not hide it in cases when they are useful.
Also SDS1004X-E do this same kind of full resolution proimary table as also SDS2000XPlus and other Siglent models what have BP.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106814;image)
And small edit for cursors data and for table. Of course not as nice as I like but l do not have image editor software, just irfan.
Keep fixed decimal, keep decimal point position, Hz, space for 000 separate... all right alingn, so all do not jump here and there when values change in table rows... readability, ergonomic, including visual ergonomic and it need include also colors selection...
|O Perhaps they can finally read even one old HP journal before 2025. Why this learning curve is so slow, why it is so difficult... WHY?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1106818;image)
-
Anyways, off to find some crystals to do some narrow span BP investigations. :)
SDS5kX BP UI is improved but it works as BP in all models.
For XTAL you need first build (simples possible) test fixture for it for load it right way.
It is bit tricky to first find ok settings.
https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/crystalfilters/xtaltest.html (https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/crystalfilters/xtaltest.html)
No need switch, just use this 10 - 27pF series capacitor what ever you find or is suitable for your xtal. For training and demo it is not so important. With good setup you can easy get over 80 - 100dB difference between high and low peaks depending of course also used xtal.
Yes, thanks for these tips. :)
Some digging through my scrap bin of old PCB's found a 24 MHz ATL brand crystal and enough bits to knock together a rats nest BNC test fixture wired the same as in the link above with ~10pF and the result was certainly better than first tried by with a stimulus of 0 dB and series wiring of the crystal as in this first screenshot.
.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107342)
Done properly and capacitively coupled the result is much different. Such a simple test fixture could easily be cobbled together on some blank PCB Manhattan style or with a little Dremeling.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107346)
-
Anyways, off to find some crystals to do some narrow span BP investigations. :)
SDS5kX BP UI is improved but it works as BP in all models.
For XTAL you need first build (simples possible) test fixture for it for load it right way.
It is bit tricky to first find ok settings.
https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/crystalfilters/xtaltest.html (https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/crystalfilters/xtaltest.html)
No need switch, just use this 10 - 27pF series capacitor what ever you find or is suitable for your xtal. For training and demo it is not so important. With good setup you can easy get over 80 - 100dB difference between high and low peaks depending of course also used xtal.
Yes, thanks for these tips. :)
Some digging through my scrap bin of old PCB's found a 24 MHz ATL brand crystal and enough bits to knock together a rats nest BNC test fixture wired the same as in the link above with ~10pF and the result was certainly better than first tried by with a stimulus of 0 dB and series wiring of the crystal as in this first screenshot.
.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107342)
Done properly and capacitively coupled the result is much different. Such a simple test fixture could easily be cobbled together on some blank PCB Manhattan style or with a little Dremeling.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107346)
You used 100kHz span. 500 steps responds 200Hz steps.
It is very rough step for xtals. This sharp dip down need much fine resolution... if you use 10kHz span you get 20Hz step. Even it is lot but this xtal or setup is loose so...
Look this image what I previously show some days ago what was from test using some 84kHz xtal. There was 500Hz span and so 1Hz step and even this is bit too rough... (sharp dip is true even when I have draw it out from image area... it there is primary table and if just change display vertical position it is there or change scale.)
But as can see also in your image, this table freq resolution is total shame... what have this Siglent programmer thinking... are they there just for playing some fun like kids. Shame. Yes they can repair this later but this must not happen even in first place if programmer have any idea what he is doing. This tell total lack knowledge, lack of enough education and total lack of enough experience with test instruments... why they do not select better workers. Perhaps they do not know how to select... too much "child level" mistakes in every second corner. Of course this is not severe error but ... they do not think reputation damage when whole part of world are laughing. Perhaps they think fun is fun and show must go on...
Here is totally loose 3.58MHz surplus XTAL from some recycle basket.
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/BP2-example2-3M58_XTAL-2kHz-Span-500pts.png)
And here is 2kHz span in use with 500 steps. But because xtal is crap AND setup is crap, 4Hz step is enough for this.
Of course if look 100kHz trace there in your image can see small changes far before and far after resonances- these parts are mostly nonsense but what can first look and after then more narrow, depending what is doing, example if is selecting best xtals for ladder filter from big lot of candidates. With this 24MHz xtal 10kHz or max 20kHz is enough for get more resolution. Normally when we do xtal oscillators osc freq is just there between these fs and fp resonances.
But yes nice test and show this displayed table "fun". But for show limits... there need find "thousand times" more challenging things.
-
:)
Do I ever wish you lived next door !
Some further experiments with xtals applying tips from rf-loop.
Using the same 24 MHz xtal and test fixture but with SVA1032X on SA mode using TG as the stimulus. Trace A = 30Hz RBW, Trace B = 100Hz RBW (2nd half)
Note the sweep time @ 30Hz RBW ! :o
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107550)
Back to Siglent's Bode plot SDS5000X/SDS2000X Plus where similar settings have been applied and many sweeps are made in the same time for ONE spectrum analyser sweep !
Mind you, the narrower RBW of the SA makes for a cleaner trace at the expense of much longer sweep times.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107554)
::)
Note the horizontal scaling: 24.00, 24.00 (CF), 24.02 MHz....shaking head. ???
School boy errors.
-
New SDS2000X Plus firmware released:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3321796/#msg3321796 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg3321796/#msg3321796)
-
:)
Do I ever wish you lived next door !
Some further experiments with xtals applying tips from rf-loop.
Using the same 24 MHz xtal and test fixture but with SVA1032X on SA mode using TG as the stimulus. Trace A = 30Hz RBW, Trace B = 100Hz RBW (2nd half)
Note the sweep time @ 30Hz RBW ! :o
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107550)
Back to Siglent's Bode plot SDS5000X/SDS2000X Plus where similar settings have been applied and many sweeps are made in the same time for ONE spectrum analyser sweep !
Mind you, the narrower RBW of the SA makes for a cleaner trace at the expense of much longer sweep times.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5074-or-siglent-sds2104x-plus/?action=dlattach;attach=1107554)
::)
Note the horizontal scaling: 24.00, 24.00 (CF), 24.02 MHz....shaking head. ???
School boy errors.
Of course SA make more clean trace.
Think about what is difference between oscilloscope and SA.
Some SA may have something like 16 bit ADC and scope just 8 bit. If take example 30uVrms signal... what you see with scope...yes perhaps you can pick up it out from noise but... then how about same signal with SA.. just easy bit of bisquit ;)
So with Bode Plot there need be enough signal level... much more than with SA what have lot of better sensitivity.
Look these images about SDS1000XE BodePlotII (can not be very big difference dynamic)
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/BPII-connections2.png)
First, This two channel setuo is more suitable in some situations. Not explain more ehere.
(https://siglent.fi/pic/SDS1000X-E-4ch/BodePlot2/SDS1x04X-E-BodePlotII-level-range-preliminary-b.png)
Looking this picture can give some imagine about dynamic range. Not SDS5000 or SDS2000 but still in sama ballpark in this thing.
20MHz.
If Signal highest level to DUT (and DUT can not have amplification) is 0dBm@50ohm (!), max single measurement dynamic range is 78dB for good accuracy. For poor accuracy (also noisy) roughly 85dB and very poor game over limit 90dB.
But if signal level is more low, all is then away from available dynamic range and vice versa if signal level is higher this can add to dynamic range. Bottom do not move!
So example if you drive xtal as DUT with very low level this fp dip goes under noise and noise can see also bit higher there... it need remember scale is Log. Zero is zero. Then 00000001 is +6dB and 00000010 again 6dB more and 00000100 again 6dB more. When we are near bottom...near zero... signal and noise is bit challenging... after then we have 6 bit left. 36dB.
So with 8 bit ADC it is small miracle we have nearly 100dB dynamic between noise and 0dBm. (with better accuracy 90dB dynamic in one sweep @1MHz @ 0dBm )
-
Looks like this is what rf-loop wanted regarding using the finer grain data for display and markers :)
Hopefully will trickle down to the lower grade DSOs soon ::)
Think it's impressive Siglent has followed Keysight's lead and produced a useful and powerful Bode Plot feature, then expended more time and $ to expand the dynamic range (clever use of input/output scaling) and now the display. They are squeezing more useful information out of these 8 bit ADCs than I thought possible, nice work :-+
Best,
+1
-
I have been trying to keep up with the discussion, but lack the experience to see the strengths/weaknesses most of you do. Though I understand some of the obvious bits like steps/points per span etc.
@Howardlong I for one would be saddened if you stopped sharing this sort of information. To all that take the time to produce and share such info I must say thanks, it is invaluable to the likes of me. Especially the inevitable discussions that arise, I find them very informative and view such as a learning experience.
+1
Howard your tests and observations are always useful, insightful, and much appreciated. Sometimes readers take input and go off in some new direction of interest - it’s kind of like impedance matching for humans in forums. :) Everyone here in their own way is doing their best to learn and/or contribute, and your learnings/findings, observations/contributions are consistently excellent - so no worries, at all.
This is a very good thread, I think, and I hope everyone keeps going with the various tests, observations, comments, and questions. This thread seems to sit at the intersection of lots of interesting EE concepts including reactance/impedance plus math/measurements plus evolving test equipment - and the journey from freq to phase through resistance, capacitance, and inductance and FFT and BP to new scopes and SAs to VNAs is a very fun and useful journey. In the end we are learning through measuring and visualizing attributes and their interactions in dimensions with pretty big dynamic ranges while revealing subtleties and complexities that have been historically well beyond the resources and grasp of most of humanity and I think these insights can be very useful/important and and definitely fascinating.
In the process, metaphorically, we are kinda like cats herding ourselves in rabbit holes - and while it can occasionally be frustrating when one or more cats stray in an unanticipated direction overall the herd is learning, teaching, and hopefully having some fun - each in our own way while generally, I think, making the herd ever stronger.
-
Looks like this is what rf-loop wanted regarding using the finer grain data for display and markers :)
Hopefully will trickle down to the lower grade DSOs soon ::)
Think it's impressive Siglent has followed Keysight's lead and produced a useful and powerful Bode Plot feature, then expended more time and $ to expand the dynamic range (clever use of input/output scaling) and now the display. They are squeezing more useful information out of these 8 bit ADCs than I thought possible, nice work :-+
Best,
+1
+1