Author Topic: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator  (Read 11456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rbola35618Topic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 305
  • Country: us
Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« on: December 06, 2013, 02:24:15 am »
Found a video showing the difference between the function generators when using the pulse function. The slow rise and fall time is one of the complaints I have on the Rigol function generator.


« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 03:04:54 am by rbola35618 »
 

Offline rockandroll

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2013, 08:48:20 am »
it seems that Siglent sdg800 series also have a fast rise and fall time as their SDG5000  ,and lower price than sdg1000https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sdg800simply-but-different/msg334841/#msg334841
Found a video showing the difference between the function generators when using the pulse function. The slow rise and fall time is one of the complaints I have on the Rigol function generator.



 

Offline Electro Fan

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2014, 02:35:31 am »
In the video Siglent says the Rigol generator has rise and fall times of 200 micro seconds but in the Rigol spec sheet Rigol claims less than 12 nano seconds?  Any idea whether Siglent is a bit hard on Rigol or if Rigol isn't really meeting their spec? 

http://www.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/Documents/Rigol/DG4062/dg4062_doc_1.pdf
 

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 29882
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2014, 05:51:05 am »
In the video Siglent says the Rigol generator has rise and fall times of 200 micro seconds but in the Rigol spec sheet Rigol claims less than 12 nano seconds?  Any idea whether Siglent is a bit hard on Rigol or if Rigol isn't really meeting their spec? 

http://www.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/Documents/Rigol/DG4062/dg4062_doc_1.pdf

I suspect it is a case of normal Test Equipment manufacturers "one-upmanship".
The Siglent SDG1000 series is rated rise time in pulse mode of >7ns @1KHz 1V p-p
Sorry I don't have the SDG5000 series specs.

Nothing flash from Rigol or Siglent as an 30 Yr old Phillips pulse generator is 3ns and is mostly discrete construction.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
 

Online hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1708
  • Country: nl
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2014, 07:36:08 am »
In the video Siglent says the Rigol generator has rise and fall times of 200 micro seconds but in the Rigol spec sheet Rigol claims less than 12 nano seconds?  Any idea whether Siglent is a bit hard on Rigol or if Rigol isn't really meeting their spec? 

http://www.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/Documents/Rigol/DG4062/dg4062_doc_1.pdf

Because of course you're going to try and put your competitors products in a bad shade.

Not very impressed by that though. Engineers are the kind of people that look at datasheets and specification tables, compare and make their own decision. That kind of "marketing" is probably better suited for the average Joe buying a new toilet cleaner.

AFAIK my Rigol DS1000 function generator has a ~10ns rise time or so.
 

Offline rf-loop

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4139
  • Country: cn
  • Born in Finland with DLL21 in hand
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2014, 08:24:25 am »
In the video Siglent says the Rigol generator has rise and fall times of 200 micro seconds but in the Rigol spec sheet Rigol claims less than 12 nano seconds?  Any idea whether Siglent is a bit hard on Rigol or if Rigol isn't really meeting their spec? 

http://www.tequipment.net/assets/1/26/Documents/Rigol/DG4062/dg4062_doc_1.pdf

I suspect it is a case of normal Test Equipment manufacturers "one-upmanship".
The Siglent SDG1000 series is rated rise time in pulse mode of >7ns @1KHz 1V p-p
Sorry I don't have the SDG5000 series specs.

Nothing flash from Rigol or Siglent as an 30 Yr old Phillips pulse generator is 3ns and is mostly discrete construction.

Of course Philips can have 3ns risetime. Making fast risetime pulses is very easy.
My very old HP do specifications 1.3ns and measured around 1ns - 1.1ns.  My very very old Tektronix do 70ps risetimes.

But in this Philips I do not think you can free adjust rise and fall times in pulse mode and what is resolution for adjust pulse width and period.

But then, of coure Rigol or Siglent can do if they want fast risetimes... but these kind of equipments - Arbitrary Function generators need lot of filtering. These are not at all made for fastest possible risetimes. There is lot of much more important things. 

Also it is good to keep risetimes slow. If do fast risetimes for noobs then internet  is full of stories and bullshitvideos how strange things and bugs my oscilloscope have (not so seriously...)..

In this particular case Rigol loose with Siglent just as 0-1.
Note that this example in video is pulse mode!
Of course Rigol (example square wave) risetime is as Rigol specification.
Also in pulse mode it have much faster risetimes BUT this risetime in pulse mode have relationship with pulse frequency (pulse period) in Rigol afaik. But no one force you to use pulse function in Rigol if want fast risetime but low period pulses.

In Siglent you can produce narrow pulses in pulse mode. You can also free adjust rise and fall times from around 6ns.

Here Siglent .
Mode Pulse in both images and this is what Rigol can not do in pulse mode afaik.
But I do not have Rigol for real compare tests. Of course also Rigols have its strong points. There is not perfect universal machine what all things are best possible.  One is strong with some things and one with some other things.

What is best for some purpose or for some user it depends  needs. If people do not know what he need then situation go very easy to point where try find universal machine what is good in all things and have lot of and some amount more functions so that becouse do not know what need then want all so that "if some day need".  This is typical hobbyist problem with very limited budget and lack of knowledge what really need and what really do not need.

Some people may also select so that how equipment looks "professional" on his table and he can tell to friends that I have this name and model of equipment and then friends look that oh you are clever. This effect can see also in other area than electronics.

Good example is photographing. Peoples who have never take any single good photographs are talking about is Canon better than Nikon etc... and this Nikon have this some deep parameter or feature  and function and this and that and canon is bullshit because it do not have this kind of dingledongle.

But when they walk on the street, and other photographer see that he have this name and this model he "know" this guy is sure "professional"... 

...and then some long time photographing "enthusiast" (with low budget) take very good picture with cheapest chinese pocket camera and win some photo competition... just because he know how to take good photograph.

picture  1.
Pulse frequency 100mHz (pulse period 10 seconds )
Pulse width set 20.0ns  Pulse risetime set 6ns
Pulse fall time set 12ns
Pulse rise and fall time can free set from 6ns to veeery slow. Example if pulse width is 1ms then rise or fall time can set to example 900us(this is not limit) and 6ns as shortest possible setting.
There is small inaccuracy in shortest 6ns. In model 5082 (80MHz model)

Picture 2
Pulse width 1ms
Rise 6ns
Fall 1ms
Period 1s (freq 1Hz)


Both images are normal acq mode, Sin(x)/x off and just single shots and display mode dots.
For image 2. SDS2304 run in Zoomed and in image just realtime one shot.

Do these with Rigol using Pulse mode
.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 09:03:04 am by rf-loop »
EV of course. Cars with smoke exhaust pipes - go to museum.
Wises must compel the mad barbarians to stop their crimes against humanity. Where have the (strong)wises gone?
 

Offline rf-loop

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4139
  • Country: cn
  • Born in Finland with DLL21 in hand
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2014, 08:27:26 am »
Engineers are the kind of people that look at datasheets and specification tables, compare and make their own decision. That kind of "marketing" is probably better suited for the average Joe buying a new toilet cleaner.

Yes, Agilent and Tektronix are manufacturers who make toilet cleaners...hehe

Have you read many Agilent/HP and Tektronix papers where they always do this. And these papers are made for T&M professionals.

Of course also chinese in mainland China and on the Taiwan island and have learned this lesson. And more is coming.
In some Hewlett-Packard and later Agilent papers there is lot of "dirty things" but... if read carefully they do not exactly lie.

It is a little questionable when done well hidden, aggressive advertising, hiding it, "applicaton Note" papers. They are readed by many engineers as the fact as of learning materials and used also as references. Actually they are least partially clever (and dirty) advertising..
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 09:13:41 am by rf-loop »
EV of course. Cars with smoke exhaust pipes - go to museum.
Wises must compel the mad barbarians to stop their crimes against humanity. Where have the (strong)wises gone?
 

Offline KedasProbe

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 660
  • Country: be
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2014, 09:09:53 am »
If I remember correct is that the Rigols rise/fall time in pulse mode is limited to a certain minimum percentage of the total period (meaning frequency dependent), while the Siglent is not or not that much limited.
Not everything that counts can be measured. Not everything that can be measured counts.
[W. Bruce Cameron]
 

Offline rf-loop

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4139
  • Country: cn
  • Born in Finland with DLL21 in hand
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2014, 09:20:35 am »
If I remember correct is that the Rigols rise/fall time in pulse mode is limited to a certain minimum percentage of the total period (meaning frequency dependent), while the Siglent is not or not that much limited.

Siglent is not limited.
In pulse mode down to 1uHz (period 1000000s) and up to 20MHz (period 50ns)
Risetime and fall time setting bottom limit is same 6ns.
EV of course. Cars with smoke exhaust pipes - go to museum.
Wises must compel the mad barbarians to stop their crimes against humanity. Where have the (strong)wises gone?
 

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 29882
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2014, 09:28:15 am »

Quote from: rf-loop on Today at 06:24:25 PM
Of course Philips can have 3ns risetime. Making fast risetime pulses is very easy.
My very old HP do specifications 1.3ns and measured around 1ns - 1.1ns.  My very very old Tektronix do 70ps risetimes.

But in this Philips I do not think you can free adjust rise and fall times in pulse mode and what is resolution for adjust pulse width and period.



Phillips PM5771 with adjustable rise and fall range from 2.4 ns to 100 us in 4 fine adjustable ranges.
It is a dedicated 1 Hz to 100 MHz pulse gen.

Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
 

Offline jpb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1771
  • Country: gb
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2014, 09:49:06 am »
If I remember correct is that the Rigols rise/fall time in pulse mode is limited to a certain minimum percentage of the total period (meaning frequency dependent), while the Siglent is not or not that much limited.

This is the key thing that Siglent are pushing in their video. They resample/re-interpolate pulse data in a much simplified version of what Agilent do for general waveforms with their TruForm resampling.

The resampling alows fast rising edges on long pulses. The Rigol system just sets the pulse up in memory (if my understanding is correct) so the shape of the pulse is scaled by the overall pulse length which means long pulses have slow rise times. The problem is exacerbated with Rigol as it has a relatively short memory of just 16k.

For short pulses Rigol has very fast rise times
 

Offline rf-loop

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4139
  • Country: cn
  • Born in Finland with DLL21 in hand
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2014, 09:54:56 am »
Phillips PM5771 with adjustable rise and fall range from 2.4 ns to 100 us in 4 fine adjustable ranges.
It is a dedicated 1 Hz to 100 MHz pulse gen.

o-ou... oh THIS Philips. This model I have never meet.
My HP 8161A (with some options (100MHz, double channel etc)) is also programmable pulse generator. It can not do sine etc. It is also just pulse generator. Specified for <=1.3ns risetimes and of course also with adjustable rise and fall times. This my unit is made 1989 and works as new.

EV of course. Cars with smoke exhaust pipes - go to museum.
Wises must compel the mad barbarians to stop their crimes against humanity. Where have the (strong)wises gone?
 

Offline rf-loop

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4139
  • Country: cn
  • Born in Finland with DLL21 in hand
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2014, 10:09:48 am »
If I remember correct is that the Rigols rise/fall time in pulse mode is limited to a certain minimum percentage of the total period (meaning frequency dependent), while the Siglent is not or not that much limited.

This is the key thing that Siglent are pushing in their video. They resample/re-interpolate pulse data in a much simplified version of what Agilent do for general waveforms with their TruForm resampling.

The resampling alows fast rising edges on long pulses. The Rigol system just sets the pulse up in memory (if my understanding is correct) so the shape of the pulse is scaled by the overall pulse length which means long pulses have slow rise times. The problem is exacerbated with Rigol as it has a relatively short memory of just 16k.

For short pulses Rigol has very fast rise times

Btw, why need arb memory for doing slow period pulses?

But what they do is some trics with used DAC's.
Note that it is 500MSa/s system. Pulse risetime/fall time setting resolution is 0.1ns  and width setting resolution 0.1ns but not all widths. In some wide pulses it is 1ns and  example then 100s period and 10s width this width can set with 1us resolution. <1us width resolution is 0.1ns
EV of course. Cars with smoke exhaust pipes - go to museum.
Wises must compel the mad barbarians to stop their crimes against humanity. Where have the (strong)wises gone?
 

Offline jpb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1771
  • Country: gb
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2014, 10:52:00 am »
Btw, why need arb memory for doing slow period pulses?

I think the Rigol at least is a straight forward DDS system without any means of sequencing or adding any extra delay.

This means that it uses the fixed memory and just selects the memory location to next feed to the DAC using a phase accumulator which is incremented at a rate dependent on the frequency being generated.

For slow period pulses each memory location will represent multiple actual samples at the 500MS/s fixed output rate but the time resolution will be determined by the number of memory locations. So given 16k of memory and say a 10 mS pulse period the size of each memory location will be 1E-2/16,384 seconds = 610 nsecs approx and if you need say 1 point on the slope itself the length of the slope will be of the order of 1200 nsecs even though the output samples are being sent with a gap of only 2 nsecs between them.

What I presume Siglent does is to split the memory in some way so that the edges are treated differently to the flat parts of the pulse. Doing this means you can use different time scales for each part and have much more flexibility.
 

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 29882
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2014, 11:23:20 am »
While I can't answer you question in depth I can supply some specs.
Siglent SDG5000 series 500MSa/s and "Up to 512k sample points of internal waveform depth"
Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
 

Offline Electro Fan

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2014, 02:41:05 pm »
The Rigol spec sheet says for a pulse period of 66.7ns and a pulse width of 18ns the leading and trailing edge times will be 11ns.  Now to be specific the specs are shown as equal to or greater than rather than less than; also they are distinguishing between "rising and falling" (which they provide elsewhere in the spec) and "leading and trailing".  Maybe someone with a DG4000 could do some tests to see if it really lags so far behind the Siglent performance?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 02:52:42 pm by Electro Fan »
 

Offline jpb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1771
  • Country: gb
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2014, 02:49:59 pm »
The Rigol spec sheet says for a pulse period of 66.7ns and a pulse width of 18ns the leading and trailing edge times will be 11ns.  Now to be specific the specs are shown as greater than rather than less than.  Maybe some with a DG4000 could do some tests to see if it really lags so far behind the Siglent performance?
This has been discussed in this thread :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dg4000-arb-gen-as-pulse-generator/msg416483/#msg416483
I have a DG4162. 

Using the Pulse function:
The rise time can be set to a minimum of 5 nS  for a pulse period as large as 2.5uS  (400KHz)
After that the minimum rise time becomes 0.195% of the pulse period.

For example:  for a 5uS pulse period the DG4162 will allow a minimum rise time of 9.7 nS.
                       for the 1uHz frequency you mentioned, the rise time is 1953 seconds

However, when I constructed a pulse using the ARB capability, the rise time was not affected by the pulse period and I was able to get a 5 nS rise time with a pulse period of 0.1 sec.  So that may be a way around the rise rime issue without using a comparator.

I hope this helps.  Let me know if you want a specific test.  But I am not going to do a 1 uHz.  It may take a week to trigger!
 

Offline Electro Fan

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2014, 03:01:51 pm »
The Rigol spec sheet says for a pulse period of 66.7ns and a pulse width of 18ns the leading and trailing edge times will be 11ns.  Now to be specific the specs are shown as greater than rather than less than.  Maybe some with a DG4000 could do some tests to see if it really lags so far behind the Siglent performance?
This has been discussed in this thread :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dg4000-arb-gen-as-pulse-generator/msg416483/#msg416483
I have a DG4162. 

Using the Pulse function:
The rise time can be set to a minimum of 5 nS  for a pulse period as large as 2.5uS  (400KHz)
After that the minimum rise time becomes 0.195% of the pulse period.

For example:  for a 5uS pulse period the DG4162 will allow a minimum rise time of 9.7 nS.
                       for the 1uHz frequency you mentioned, the rise time is 1953 seconds

However, when I constructed a pulse using the ARB capability, the rise time was not affected by the pulse period and I was able to get a 5 nS rise time with a pulse period of 0.1 sec.  So that may be a way around the rise rime issue without using a comparator.

I hope this helps.  Let me know if you want a specific test.  But I am not going to do a 1 uHz.  It may take a week to trigger!

Just checking to see if I understand; the answers seem to be:

1. On the Rigol DG4000 as the period becomes relatively longer the pulse rise and fall times become less impressive using the pulse feature, but if you create a pulse using the arb capability you can work around the limitations of the pulse feature?

2. For the pulse feature the Siglent outperforms the Rigol DG4000 on relatively long pulses when it comes to rise and fall times. 

Please feel free to correct me on this.  Thx, EF
 

Offline jpb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1771
  • Country: gb
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2014, 03:24:59 pm »

Just checking to see if I understand; the answers seem to be:

1. On the Rigol DG4000 as the period becomes relatively longer the pulse rise and fall times become less impressive using the pulse feature, but if you create a pulse using the arb capability you can work around the limitations of the pulse feature?

2. For the pulse feature the Siglent outperforms the Rigol DG4000 on relatively long pulses when it comes to rise and fall times. 

Please feel free to correct me on this.  Thx, EF
First, I should point out that I don't have a DG4000 but I have studied them a lot whilst trying to make up my mind as to what signal source to buy.

Using arb you can create long pulses with a fast edge BUT you have to make the edge abrupt so you only have "fast" as an option not some prescribed slope. You can of course make your own slope using the data points but this runs into the issue of each data point being a relatively large time step equal to at least period/16,384. So you can have a rise time of around 5 nsecs (depending on the amplitude as the Rigol has different bandwidths for Vpp < 4V or > 4V) but you can't have a rise time of say 10 nsecs on a 100 msec pulse.

The other drawback of arb is you'll probably have a bit more ringing.

Siglent's scheme appears to be much more flexible - RF-loop did some measurements in his review:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tests-siglent-sdg5082-waveform-generator/30/
 

Offline Electro Fan

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Siglent SDG5000 versus Rigols DS4000 function generator
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2014, 04:02:00 am »
Anyone know how the arb waveform-creation PC software compares on the Siglent vs. the Rigol DG4000 in terms of flexibility and ease of use?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf