Siglent - 11/20 - New SDS1104X-U, 4 channel 100MHz, 1Gsa/s economy oscilloscope

[switchabl]

probably zero-padded to 16k?

Why would they zero-pad it?

I don't know, and I don't think they should (rather than just having 16k actual data points). But it sure looks like it no? If they didn't, you wouldn't see the that much detail on the side-lobes.

It doesn't look like that FFT uses much more than 4k of data in any case. If there is a way to use more, I didn't find it. This is with a current firmware and using "Memory*" as the source (whatever the * means).

[EEVblog]

Teardown photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/eevblog/albums/72157717234695506

Yep, much simpler front end.

[merser]

Definately looks a good alternative to the DS1054Z but for Oz buyers its more like $630 not $399. Price point is similar with the rigol.

[TurboTom]

Just for comparison: Here's a shot of both the FFTs of a DS1000Z and a MSO2000A with a signal as per @rf-loop's example (dual-tone sine 300&350kHz). For every of those screenshots, I've optimized the settings to the best results. Actually, I wouldn't call this "utterly useless", especially DS1000Z with the updated firmware (already dating a few years back) made a lot of difference. But still, the new Siglent (and other's as well) scopes' FFT wins hands down, especially usability-wise. The peak search / table function appears to be a very nice add-on, usually only to be found in SAs.

Edit: Added another FFT of the DS1000Z with the same sampling rate as @rf-loop selected on his SDS1000U. Here, the deficiencies of Rigol's FFT implementation get clearly obvious. Calculations point into the direction that Rigol's sampling-memory based FFT processes at least 50kbytes of memory, assuming that each column on the screen represents one bin of resolution at minimum available kHz/div setting.

[rf-loop]

@TT
Oh you just take this ultra simple example out from context where only purpose was tell that Siglent do not hide things like FFT data length and also user do not need calculate bin resolution because it is also displayed. It was only purpose about this image, and also show there is markers and peak search etc . This was also not my test at all but from Siglent marketing material where just display that hey there is also peak search.

Also here is markers, now for Delta.  And instead of dual tone here is used "triple tone"



In this image split window display. Carrier is over display range but not worry, of course level is there just right. Only adjusted so for get more noise level to bottom.  1MHz, AM modulate 1kHz 20%. (As can see (as can see sidebands levels are -20dBc.)




Here full window display, 1MHz, AM, 1kHz, 100% (as can see  LSB and USB levels -6dBc.)

It is not SDS1x04X-E what have 8 times better resolution with 1048576 points FFT data length when X-U model have 131072 points what give here with 5MSa/s (5MHz)
5000000Hz/2/(131072/2)= 38.15Hz when  X-E model have in same place  4.77Hz.

As can see in images this signal is very easy to SDS1104X-U. This is resolution for 0 - 2.5MHz band. Of course if take 0 - 500kHz FFT like in @TT image then Siglent X-U  FFT bin is  7.63Hz.

This table can also show more, also freq etc but I turn these off and only show delta with just only 3 markers for more clear visibility.


In this image tiny bit more challenging case but still without any problem with SDS1104X-U.
Signal 325kHz sine, carrier level -40dBm. AM modulation with 100Hz. Modulation depth 0.2% using -40dBm carrier  sides need be -100dBm level (-60dBc).  Just like checkbox - done.

Also it tell that input channel noise level is not very bad. Using full BW in same setup rise base noise level bit. If you think rise this persistence yellow noise top to -110dBm line it is just there. (note averaging)

This is what you can try...

ETA:  Table in Reply #65 corrected. There was error in amount of available memory.
Right is: 1 channel alone on, max 14M. When 2, 3 or 4 channels simultaneously on, all channels have max 7M !

[TurboTom]

Thanks @rf-loop for demonstrating this kind of performance. It's not even worth to try to match that with any of the FFT implementations of the "mature" Rigol scopes. I don't know about their more recent designs or other manufacturer's products. But it seems that noise- and FFT-wise, the engineers at Siglent really did their homework! It's quite interesting to watch how the products evolve, especially since hardware-wise, the DS1000Z and the SDS1000U aren't too far apart, except for the main SOC silicon... I guess, the software approach makes most of the difference, of course in combination with the more powerful Zync SOC/FPGA combination in Siglent's product. I'ld actually love to see a very compact scope (like the DS1000Z), equipped with the grunt of an SDS2000X Plus or (probably more realistic) of a DS5000.

[rf-loop]

It is not one or two time when someone ask how to get AM signal trig'd  to modulating frequency. Of course old traditional answer is, adjust Trigger Hold Off  time. Yes it works. But, it is also very poor method. When modulating frequency change bit more adjust again.. adjust again.. some times very frustrating. Also I have seen many times peopled give advice to use trigger holdoff.  All modern digital scopes have lot of more clever things that these traditional things what come from analog oscilloscope era.

With this method here trigger can be rock solid without any adjustment over whole normal audio range (90us in image is too long time except if need trig to very low, well under 10Hz, mod frequencies what are not normally used).

This modulating freq change speed is not constant. This is not at all because scope trigger. This is how I adjust generator what is not very handsome  for this purpose.

Signal is 21.2MHz and modulation stepped 10Hz - 4kHz.



Of course this is not just Siglent SDS1104X-U feature. Most modern scopes have this or other suitable trig functions for this.

[rf-loop]

SDS1104X-U  have also timing inaccuracies as all oscilloscopes have more or less.

It is good to know least roughly how much is scope own time jitter when we try measure some signal jitter what we do not know. Of course if you have oscilloscope in your hand you can check it quite easy, if you have tools. But all do not have. Data sheet tell only roughly how big error there can be in frequency but it do not tell anything about how much it have jitter. Also just this time I do not have signal source what jitter I know sure but with other scope I can compare. If other scope is much better with it I can enough sure that test signal have same or less jitter but it can not be more.
So here is test. Same one signal come from signal source and it is split to both scopes and test is made simultaneously just in same time.
Other scope is SDS2104XPlus what have quite good reference. How ever I try SDS2104X+ can not show more total jitter over 10ms than up to 0.5ns peak to peak over more than 15minute period.
After then I start both scopes with around same settings and infinite persistence.
In image there can see SDS1104X-U result and for compare in same image is SDS2104X+ result.
Is it  much or not. It depends what user is doing. It is ≤ 0.6ppm peak to peak.  So,  1ms something like 0.6ns.
SDS1104X-U most fast time scale is 2ns/div.



Of course this is just one individual scope so do not take this result as "data sheet".
Btw in SDS2kX+ image can also see corners "wobbling" because what is not of course from scope in this case.

[rf-loop]

Images tell.


Only one wonder. In sequence mode it is bit faster than SDS1104X-E if look top speed.



Note, history buffer wfm amount is same as sequence mode maximum amount.



Really this wfm/s thing is not most important thing. Also there may exist more fast burst speeds but I do not note these. Some manufactures may also use these peak speed. These are not peak speed but continuous average wfm/s  speed least over 1s. (sequence speed is different thing)

[tautech]

Apparently one is on the way to me. Wioll be interesting to see how stripped down the design is compared to the existing model.

3 weeks pass and only crickets. 

[rf-loop]

Here is other "fact sheet". 
t/div, max mem limit, (only two selections noted, most low and most high) then background history buffer max wfms count (fifo length) and then max amount of segments in fast sequence mode. Also there is calculated max amount of captured data memory in different cases. Max up to 56M.


I hope I have corrected my mistake in every place where is exist.
I also repeat it here.
Right information is:
If only one Ch is in use:  it have max 14M
If two, three or four channels are on simultaneously: Every channel have max 7M.

[2N3055]

Apparently one is on the way to me. Wioll be interesting to see how stripped down the design is compared to the existing model.

3 weeks pass and only crickets. 

He did a teardown:

 

[tautech]

Apparently one is on the way to me. Wioll be interesting to see how stripped down the design is compared to the existing model.

3 weeks pass and only crickets. 

He did a teardown:

Maybe that's all we'll get from Dave for the X-U. 

Therefore I'll have to get a unit to Defpom for a deeper look when some I have coming arrive next week.

[rf-loop]

Here freq response.

[tautech]

Got my hands on some. 

Dunno why but immediately noticed a little addition in the Save/Recall menu where in the X-U the Bin2CSV convertor application has been added whereas for X-E it's currently only available with a virtual key from the instrument control feature within the webserver.
Maybe Siglent will add this to X-E in a future update. 

X-U


X-E

[LiftedTrace]

I just recently purchased a Rigol DS1054Z (just before the Siglen seems to have been released.) I dont use anywhere near all the features, but I am a bit on the child hood greedy side though and have to wonder....should I return this Rigol and get the Siglent SDS1104X-U instead?
The Siglent being fairly new and the Rigol being quite dated. Would it be worth my time to do a swap them out? Reading thru this posts it seems the Siglent is better, but its also about $50 more.
Anyone have thoughts on this?

[Fungus]

The Siglent being fairly new and the Rigol being quite dated.

a) These aren't smartphones, life doesn't move fast in the oscilloscope world. The difference between the two isn't really much.

b) The "new" Siglent is just a cut down version of a previous model Siglent which is nearly as old as the Rigol.

Would it be worth my time to do a swap them out? Reading thru this posts it seems the Siglent is better, but its also about $50 more.
Anyone have thoughts on this?

It's about $50 better. Whether you send it back and cost the seller money on a whim is between you and your greed.

If you want something that really feels new and "next generation" then get a Micsig.

(that's what I did - I went from Rigol to Micsig and I'm loving it)

[2N3055]

If you want something that really feels new and "next generation" then get a Micsig.

Well, you keep repeating that, implying it's a better instrument than both DS1054Z and SDS1104X-U..
It is not, it's just different, has some things better, some worse...

It depends what you do. For instance, STO1000C doesn't have statistics on measurements, and not even AC RMS measurement. It doesn't have table mode for decode, but it has dedicated decode in full screen text mode, that doesn't work with zoom or signal view in general, and doesn't allow you to switch between views. If you do switch modes, you lose captures. You cannot tap on packet and make it show it to you in waveform view..
It has no segments, not even basic ones DS1000Z has..
OTOH, it is really portable, front end is low noise, and what it has, works pretty well with very few bugs.

But it is very basic scope, with some eclectic mix of features. It has filtering and quite good math, but no statistics on basic measurements..
It has no segments, but has segments button..To me it almost seems like it was released unfinished...
Text mode decode looks like an afterthought that is not integrated into scope but works as a separate acquisition mode. That gives it some pretty powerful capabilities, but also takes away many, so it is very limited, instead of better...

And it is quite a more expensive than those two.

I have it, and I'm not regretting buying it. It paid off very quickly, because it is a very useful handheld scope. But it would be very awkward  to have it as single scope to own. And I'm not talking about user interface. I only have touch screen scopes, and will never go back to non touch screen ones.
It is the awkward mix of some very advanced features combined with missing some basic features and some conceptual choices that makes it questionable choice for first and only scope.

But as I said, it depends what you do.

[Fungus]

If you want something that really feels new and "next generation" then get a Micsig.

Well, you keep repeating that, implying it's a better instrument than both DS1054Z and SDS1104X-U..
It is not, it's just different, has some things better, some worse...

You can't deny it feels new and "next generation" though.

It depends what you do. For instance, STO1000C doesn't have statistics on measurements,

They're currently working on statistics, at my request. 

(or so they tell me)

...will never go back to non touch screen ones.

Twisty knobs are bad! At least we agree on that.

But as I said, it depends what you do.

The entry-level Rigols/Siglents being discussed here can't do everything, either. 

Text mode decode looks like an afterthought that is not integrated into scope but works as a separate acquisition mode. That gives it some pretty powerful capabilities, but also takes away many, so it is very limited, instead of better...

Serial decoding is way better than on Rigol/Siglent.



(nb. The silly sound effects can be turned off)

Yes, you go to a separate screen to record/view the incoming data but I don't see a problem there because:
a) It does the live/on-screen decoding too, just like the others.
b) You can let it sit in text mode and record all the incoming data, it's not limited to just whatever's in the sample memory at any given time.

Saving to USB stick is also easy in text mode - the "Quick Save" button at the bottom of the screen is modal so when you're in text mode it dumps the recorded serial data to a .csv file when you press it.

[2N3055]

Yes, it is a good little thing. I really like it or what it is but it has it's cons too.
Twisty knobs are not bad, best U/I is knobs for basic, obvious stuff, supplemented with touch screen for stuff that is better used that way.

Glad to hear about statistics.. If you're communicating with them, remind them on AC RMS measurements.

Text mode works great, in text mode it uses special acquisition mode, that allows it to decode huge number of packets, basically replacing need for segmented mode for long decoding.
But you loose completely the whole idea of scope with decoding: correlation of decoded packet to an analog event on other channel.
You cannot select that packet and switch to waveform mode to see what was happening then...
It converts a scope into 4 ch 10 USD logic analyser....

The advantage comes from the fact that it has enough capability to get you out of trouble out in the field...
And it makes great second scope, for usual scope work...

[Fungus]

Twisty knobs are not bad

They're bad for menu navigation.

Glad to hear about statistics.. If you're communicating with them, remind them on AC RMS measurements.

You mean standard deviation? I'll mention it.

But you loose completely the whole idea of scope with decoding: correlation of decoded packet to an analog event on other channel. You cannot select that packet and switch to waveform mode to see what was happening then...

It obviously can't store the analog history of the other channels going back in time. The serial data in the buffer might have arrives ages ago.

I don't see how you can say it's worse than the others though, it also has their "traditional" decode mode where it just decodes the current sample memory.

It also has very good serial triggering, two serial decoders on screen at once, and setting the parameters is sooooo much easier/faster than with a twisty knob.

[2N3055]

Twisty knobs are not bad

They're bad for menu navigation.

Yeah, but knobs are gorgeous for actual scope work...

Glad to hear about statistics.. If you're communicating with them, remind them on AC RMS measurements.

You mean standard deviation? I'll mention it.

Yep. Standard deviation (aka AC RMS in Keysight parlance). Thanks!

But you loose completely the whole idea of scope with decoding: correlation of decoded packet to an analog event on other channel. You cannot select that packet and switch to waveform mode to see what was happening then...

It obviously can't store the analog history of the other channels going back in time. The serial data in the buffer might have arrives ages ago.

I don't see how you can say it's worse than the others though, it also has their "traditional" decode mode where it just decodes the current sample memory.

It also has very good serial triggering, two serial decoders on screen at once, and setting the parameters is sooooo much easier/faster than with a twisty knob.

That is the thing, proper table decode and segmented memory, does exactly that, it gives you 10s of thousands of packets and analog history in vicinity of packet. STO1000C is not worse than Rigol DS1000Z in that regard, but it is worse than other scopes that have segmented/history mode and proper decode table mode...

In general, I find STO1104C to be very useful instrument. But as I said, I get this feeling it still is not feature complete. It's saving grace is the fact that, what it is there, works quite well and is very good contender in inexpensive portable scope area.
But it's not quite complete and missing few things to be real replacement for desktop scopes that you can get for same amount of money, provided you don't need portable...

BTW, I suggest you open new topic "How MICSIG tablet scope compares to entry level desktop scopes" where you can elaborate in detail your experience.
As a former DS1000Z user, you probably have good amount of data on that. It would be interesting to read... I also had DS1000Z before and now have Micsig STO1104C, I would likely gladly contribute there... Maybe some users that have both Micsig and other entry level scopes from other manufacturers could also say few words..

Let's leave this topic go back to what it is: a place to discuss details of new SDS1104X-U series from Siglent..

[drussell]

Let's leave this topic go back to what it is: a place to discuss details of new SDS1104X-U series from Siglent..

Actually, I am finding this whole discussion enlightening and very helpful.

I'm currently in the market for a couple of entry-level scopes and am looking for some first hand knowledge of these various units, especially people who have used more than one for direct comparison.  I've been looking for a good youtube  comparison series or something but haven't really found much in the way of good resources yet.  I'd really love to see Dave do an updated entry-level scope showdown, for example.

Currently my personal DSO capabilities consist of the grand total of an old K7103 Velleman kit that I built in the early 90s, so a whole whopping 32 MS/sec, 4k per channel memory depth, 100 V peak input capability and a parallel port interface, so any of these recent models are going to be a huge improvement.   

If this were a year ago, I would say for sure I would just grab a couple Rigol DS1054Zs and be done with it.  They're a mature, well known and understood quantity with a proven track record.  They've made a gazillion of them so even far-future servicing should be possible since partially dead "parts units" with salvageable bits will likely be available far into the future.

It looks like I can buy a couple of DS1054Zs for under $420 CAD each after tequipment's free shipping, "we'll pay your sales tax" promo and the EEVblog discount if they'll let me stack all those together.  That seems like a bargain as far as scope-for-the-money goes.  I would be hacking them to 100 Mhz and full options, of course.  One will be for me personally at home and the other for general purpose use at my own small business and I don't really foresee any medium-term requirements for anything significantly higher than what is currently done with the K7103 and newer decent PC software and the aging, worn out old Tek 40 MHz dual channel with the ailing, fading CRT, etc. 

I have also been considering the Siglent SDS1104X-E, since it does seem overall to be a more capable scope, dual ADCs, hackable to 200 MHz, better FFT, faster processor in general, runs Linux directly so potentially has the ability to add some utilities and customizations, etc. but they are quite a bit more money.  At $630 CAD each, that is pretty much exactly 1.5 times as much as the DS1054Z and I'm simply not sure they're really worth the extra money for my typical use cases.  I could buy three DS1054Zs for the price of two SDS1104X-Es.

I would probably never use the ability to add the digital inputs or signal gen options, wifi or anything like that.  I would rather just use a separate inexpensive logic analyzer, for example.  As for the fancier FFT, I'm already used to just capturing data using the K7103 and pulling it into the computer where I can do whatever I want to it despite the limitations of the FFT in the "normal" software, although I can see times where something closer to realtime could potentially be useful, I guess.  Things like having 256 shades on the intensity grading instead of 64 is better, but I don't see anything like that being a "killer feature" either.  The internal web server interface looks convenient but again, I don't see that becoming in any way critical for my typical workflows and use cases.  CAN decoding might be useful I suppose, but again a dedicated solution is easy enough and cheap if I need it.

The SDS1104X-U adds a new dimension to the mix, yet it seems like its only real advantage over the DS1054Z would be speedier UI and a few random bells and whistles for the most part, and I don't expect it to be as inexpensive as the Rigol.  (Tequipment does list it but no pricing is shown so I assume they don't even stock it yet to compare?)  I have personally never used a 1054Z or any of the Siglents so I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of either series in any way, but the Rigol front panel even looks like options and UI menus, etc. might be easier to work with in general with twice the number of screen buttons for a non-touchscreen scope, etc.

This leads me to suspect that the good ol' 1054Z is probably still the way to go, mostly really just for its ubiquity more than anything else, but I am looking to following any related discussions or especially, like I said, any kind of in-depth comparison or shootout or whatnot.  The one comparison video that I found to be helpful so far really didn't bode well for the SDS1104X-E.  For example, while it did still show waveforms above the -3 dB point, up to 150 MHz, the Rigol still showed usable waveforms up to 430 MHz.  While the amplitude obviously wouldn't be correct, the fact that they can even display something at all on a single channel way up at that far above the rated bandwidth is the kind of thing that makes me still think I'd like them...   

Any pointers to suggested comparison resources are highly appreciated! 

If I'm convinced that spending the extra dough on something that really is "fancier," I'm always in the "buy once, cry once" camp when it comes to buying tools, but I also can't spend a fortune on scopes right now either.

Thank you all for your informative discussions.  Please carry on!   

[Fungus]

(Tequipment does list it but no pricing is shown so I assume they don't even stock it yet to compare?)

Batronix doesn't have it either so I'm guessing it doesn't exist yet in the real world.

I have personally never used a 1054Z or any of the Siglents so I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of either series in any way, but the Rigol front panel even looks like options and UI menus, etc. might be easier to work with in general with twice the number of screen buttons for a non-touchscreen scope, etc.

Yep. Things like enabling measurements are much easier/faster on a Rigol thanks to the buttons down the left edge.

Rigol also has some features that the Siglent doesn't, eg, plot a rolling graph of measurements over time.

This leads me to suspect that the good ol' 1054Z is probably still the way to go

If you can buy from Tequipment then the GW-Instek GDS1054B is under $300 with the EEVBLOG discount:

https://www.tequipment.net/Instek/GDS-1054B/Digital-Oscilloscopes/?search=true

That's a sweet little 'scope and they've added a lot of new features lately via firmware updates, eg. Serial decoding.

Ask about current state of hackablilty here:  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/possible-gw-instek-gds-1000b-hack/

[drussell]

Rigol also has some features that the Siglent doesn't, eg, plot a rolling graph of measurements over time.

What?  There's no "roll mode" or whatever they call it? 

Hmm, that's important if it doesn't exist on some of these potential choices.  I use the "transient recorder" feature on the K7103 all the time!  I guess I need to read through the manuals of a couple of these possible models to try to spot things like that.   

If you can buy from Tequipment then the GW-Instek GDS1054B is under $300 with the EEVBLOG discount:

I haven't really eliminated any possible brands at this point, I'm open to all suggestions but I don't want to totally hijack this thread either, perhaps I should start another comparison thread?  It just always seems like "what is the best scope" is a done to death thread topic. 

That being said, the little bits and pieces I have heard about general quality on GW-Instek gear did not exactly inspire confidence and give me that warm fuzzy feeling and the price in CAD would only be $20 less than than the Rigol since there is no "pay your sales tax" promo on them like on the DS1054Z.  I would rather get the ubiquitous Rigol if all other things are equal, even simply due to track record and number sold alone, so any contender needs to be way better bang for the buck by somehow either being far less expensive or way more capable in some ways that would make it more useful to me, hence my interest in the SDS1104X-U vs DS1054Z specifically, as I think I already basically understand where the SDS1104X-E  vs DS1054Z divide ends up.