Siglent 1104x-e or 2202x-e?

[Andreax1985]

Hi, I'm looking for my first oscilloscope. I've restricted my choice down to two Siglent models: 1104x-e (4ch, 100mhz, 1Gsa/s) and 2202x-e (2ch, 200mhz, 2Gsa/s). In particular I'm wondering if it's worth going for the 2202x-e, trading two channels for higher sampling rate and bandwidth. I'm an hobbist and I mainly work with audio amplifiers and radio transmitters.
What do you suggest?

[Fungus]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/unlocking-siglent-sds1104x-e-step-by-step/

[Andreax1985]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/unlocking-siglent-sds1104x-e-step-by-step/

Yes, I know I can hack 1104x-e to 200mhz. But:

i) The sample rate will still be 1Gsa/s vs 2 Gsa/s of the 2202x-e. I find 2Gsa/s attractive, but don't know if in practical terms there's a difference.

ii) If you want to be able to use the 200mhz bandwidth with 1104x-e you must also buy four 200mhz probes, so you should factor this in the equation.

iii) How can I be sure that the hack will effectively enable 200mhz bw without possible hidden quirks?

[Gandalf_Sr]

Expand your choices and consider the Rigol DS1054Z, when 'upgraded' it's good for 130 MHz bandwidth.

[Andreax1985]

Expand your choices and consider the Rigol DS1054Z, when 'upgraded' it's good for 130 MHz bandwidth.

I've excluded it because it's an older design and it is surpassed by Siglent entry level scopes in almost every way.

[Gandalf_Sr]

That may be true that the Siglent's are more advanced on paper but the DS1054Z is the one I use every day, it works well and for what your needs are, it will do all that you need with the exception that you won't get much past 130 MHz.

I owned a Siglent SDS1202X-E and sent it back then replaced it with the Rigol DS1054Z; for $300 it's an ideal first scope.

Think of it another way, it's been around so long that pretty much all the bugs have been found and fixed.

[nctnico]

That may be true that the Siglent's are more advanced on paper but the DS1054Z is the one I use every day, it works well and for what your needs are, it will do all that you need with the exception that you won't get much past 130 MHz.

I owned a Siglent SDS1202X-E and sent it back then replaced it with the Rigol DS1054Z; for $300 it's an ideal first scope.

Interesting. I would not expect this. Did you choose the DS1054Z because of more channels or the way it worked in general?

To the OP: I wouldn't spend money on the Siglent SDS2000X. The hardware platform is slow and it has too many limitations because of that.

[Andreax1985]

That may be true that the Siglent's are more advanced on paper but the DS1054Z is the one I use every day, it works well and for what your needs are, it will do all that you need with the exception that you won't get much past 130 MHz.

I owned a Siglent SDS1202X-E and sent it back then replaced it with the Rigol DS1054Z; for $300 it's an ideal first scope.

Interesting. I would not expect this. Did you choose the DS1054Z because of more channels or the way it worked in general?

To the OP: I wouldn't spend money on the Siglent SDS2000X. The hardware platform is slow and it has too many limitations because of that.

I'm not looking at the sds2000x series but to the new sds2000x-e which, as far as I understand, shares the same platform with sds1000x-e models, except it has a 2Gsa/s sample rate.

[Gandalf_Sr]

Interesting. I would not expect this. Did you choose the DS1054Z because of more channels or the way it worked in general?

To the OP: I wouldn't spend money on the Siglent SDS2000X. The hardware platform is slow and it has too many limitations because of that.

I was one of the early buyers but had the probe compensation issue which I had to argue with Siglent about to get refunded.  Perhaps like the OP, I'd disregarded the DS1054Z because it had been out 'forever' but when I got it, I was delighted and 4 channels are a huge plus which I have used.

I paid $285 for mine after discounts and they gave me all but the bandwidth upgrade for free.

[Fungus]

Expand your choices and consider the Rigol DS1054Z, when 'upgraded' it's good for 130 MHz bandwidth.

Usually closer to 200, measured.

[MrW0lf]

i) The sample rate will still be 1Gsa/s vs 2 Gsa/s of the 2202x-e. I find 2Gsa/s attractive, but don't know if in practical terms there's a difference.

I have SDS2352X-E. For this bandwidth 1GSa/s is on the limit and 2GSa/s pretty good. Real 500uV/ range is also neat thing. For me this is "helper" scope so having 2+EXT not 4 is not a huge issue. If compare to DS1054Z then signal fidelity is another class, what analog frontend sees you see, no tricks - excellent dot mode. So kinda like it.

[MrW0lf]

Usually closer to 200, measured.

More the worse... With 3,4Ch ON 250MSa/s is totally insufficient. With lots of new options on market I would suggest start to avoid "undersamplers".

[nctnico]

That may be true that the Siglent's are more advanced on paper but the DS1054Z is the one I use every day, it works well and for what your needs are, it will do all that you need with the exception that you won't get much past 130 MHz.

I owned a Siglent SDS1202X-E and sent it back then replaced it with the Rigol DS1054Z; for $300 it's an ideal first scope.

Interesting. I would not expect this. Did you choose the DS1054Z because of more channels or the way it worked in general?

To the OP: I wouldn't spend money on the Siglent SDS2000X. The hardware platform is slow and it has too many limitations because of that.

I'm not looking at the sds2000x series but to the new sds2000x-e which, as far as I understand, shares the same platform with sds1000x-e models, except it has a 2Gsa/s sample rate.

I'd be wary about the state of the firmware (bugs) of the SDS2000X-E because it was released about a month ago. Also only 2 channels so not very interesting.

Buying the SDS1104x-e (and upgrading it to 200MHz) seems like a safer bet to me but do check the threads about this scope to make sure there aren't any issues you'd like to see addressed first.

[Andreax1985]

i) The sample rate will still be 1Gsa/s vs 2 Gsa/s of the 2202x-e. I find 2Gsa/s attractive, but don't know if in practical terms there's a difference.

I have SDS2352X-E. For this bandwidth 1GSa/s is on the limit and 2GSa/s pretty good. Real 500uV/ range is also neat thing. For me this is "helper" scope so having 2+EXT not 4 is not a huge issue. If compare to DS1054Z then signal fidelity is another class, what analog frontend sees you see, no tricks - excellent dot mode. So kinda like it.

I'm looking at the 2Gsa/s 200mhz version (which costs 130 euro more than the 4ch 1Gsa/s 1104x-e). Do you think it's worth it? My doubt is: even if I don't immediately need 4 channels, is it wise to trade 2channels for double the sample rate and bandwidth?

Besides, I see that all the big brands (tek, keysight...) have a lot of 2ch scopes in their catalogues and this makes me think that a buying 2ch scope is not necessarily a wrong move.

[nctnico]

Don't get hung up on the samplerate. As long as the samplerate is 2.5 times the maximum frequency you'll be OK. And I strongly recommend getting a 4 channel scope if you are going to design circuits. 2 channels is OK for repair work but for design you'll want to check more signals at the same time.

[Fungus]

Usually closer to 200, measured.

More the worse... With 3,4Ch ON 250MSa/s is totally insufficient. With lots of new options on market I would suggest start to avoid "undersamplers".

I believe the hacked Siglents suffer the exact same problem.

Might be best to move up to a Rigol MSO5000, 8GSa/sec is easily enough for 350MHz bandwidth. Avoid the Gibbs phenomenon entirely for not much more money.

Plus you get a built-in signal generator for audio work.

[Gandalf_Sr]

If you want to look at SPI busses then >2 channels is a must.  If all you're looking at is up to 100 MHz then 1 GSps is OK, even for a 4 channel scope.

[MrW0lf]

Don't get hung up on the samplerate. As long as the samplerate is 2.5 times the maximum frequency you'll be OK.

Pretty much any modern digital signal will have max frequency content over let's say 250M and you get annoying wobbly crap on the edges.

[MrW0lf]

I'm looking at the 2Gsa/s 200mhz version (which costs 130 euro more than the 4ch 1Gsa/s 1104x-e). Do you think it's worth it? My doubt is: even if I don't immediately need 4 channels, is it wise to trade 2channels for double the sample rate and bandwidth?

Besides, I see that all the big brands (tek, keysight...) have a lot of 2ch scopes in their catalogues and this makes me think that a buying 2ch scope is not necessarily a wrong move.

What you should take into account that these are MSO (have to buy extra module though). So with all digital channels, EXT and 2 analog will you miss out on something? When you need to measure current and voltage at same time in multiple points then yes. Otherwise you can just make sure that digital line is ok with analog ch and move monitoring it to digital channel.

[Andreax1985]

Usually closer to 200, measured.

More the worse... With 3,4Ch ON 250MSa/s is totally insufficient. With lots of new options on market I would suggest start to avoid "undersamplers".

I believe the hacked Siglents suffer the exact same problem.

Might be best to move up to a Rigol MSO5000, 8GSa/sec is easily enough for 350MHz bandwidth. Avoid the Gibbs phenomenon entirely for not much more money.

Plus you get a built-in signal generator for audio work.

Yes, great specs on paper. But no ERES, no real 500uV/div and zooming under 2mV/div are a deal breaker for me.

[nctnico]

Don't get hung up on the samplerate. As long as the samplerate is 2.5 times the maximum frequency you'll be OK.

Pretty much any modern digital signal will have max frequency content over let's say 250M and you get annoying wobbly crap on the edges.

But that is not due to aliasing. The front-end filter and the probe capacitance block the higher frequencies so what is left is a bandwidth limited signal which doesn't show a perfect square wave.

[MrW0lf]

Why talk when can do experiment... Here is most mellow square from Arduino using more-less correct probing tech. At 2GSa/s rise is reported as ~4.5ns so edge bw <100MHz.

Below screenshots taken at 2G, 1G, 500M, 200M, 100M sampling rates. What can observe? Signal gets ugly 200MSa/s. At 100MS/a it's fuzzy as hell, but if switch to dot mode can see undistorted signal at full analog bw! Try that on DS1054Z, along with correct (period) measurements on full data out of zoom envelope.

[nctnico]

@MrW0lf: Your are showing a different effect here. You are zooming in on a signal without having enough information to display it properly.

[Andreax1985]

I'd like to know if, in your opinion, 2Gsa/s is overkill for a 200Mhz scope.

[nctnico]

I'd like to know if, in your opinion, 2Gsa/s is overkill for a 200Mhz scope.

For 200MHz bandwidth 500Ms/s should be enough if the oscilloscope has a good sin x/x implementation. A higher samplerate would allow for a less steep roll-off of the input filter resulting in a slightly nicer frequency response but it is unlikely you'll have any benefit from it.