Products > Test Equipment

Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review

<< < (30/48) > >>

tinhead:

--- Quote from: Performa01 on February 21, 2018, 04:19:57 pm ---Here comes an in-depth review of the optional SAG1021 AWG.

--- End quote ---

exzellent review! I got SAG1021 as well, playing now a bit. The XO in my have 16Hz deviation (AWG 10MHz sine compared to rubidium source), bit more as the one you tested, but (again) better than SDS120X-E counter (21Hz deviation).

The XO seems to be mems from TXC, http://txccrystal.com/images/pdf/ta.pdf

SDS seems to using same mems, i wish i could replace them with decent crystek, but 25MHz is unobtainium.
Overclocking to 50MHz is too much, last stable was 37.5MHz (which make no sense to use, x2 scaling would be ok)


Rerouter:
Out of curiousity. Are you saying there is no interrupt or trigger style status pin from or to the sla module? As the scope must be syncronising its triggers somehow.

So why can siglent not abuse that to get working pattern trigger? Have the scope trigger on the analog pattern match and have the SLA device use that with its digital pattern match. If they both overlap. Then display?

tinhead:
btw, thanks for the hint with SCPI commands, even if the SAG1021 does not support sweep from interface, one can send over SCPI sweep command, and that works perfect, even with max freq 40MHz: C1:SWWV STATE,ON,TIME,10S,STOP,40MHZ,START,1MHZ

That makes this baby very useful!

Rerouter:
You can think of the sag1021 as a fully featured function generator without a displaym you also have bust and arbitary modes. And can load custom waveforms for any of the modes.

MartyMacGyver:
So I've gathered from this thread that the Siglent PP510 is close to the same performance as their PP215 probe through 200MHz.

That said, of the four PP510 probes that came with my SDS1104X-E, all but one seem pretty solid when using the hook - whereas that fourth PP510 has mad noise at the slightest movement of that hook. In fact, the hook-end spins almost like a top versus the others, suggesting very poor frictional contact.

A look inside the hook assembly reveals the metal hook ends in a kind of fork that friction-presses against the inner probe tip when fitted in its housing. A spring and a plastic retainer round out the interior of the hook end - not much going on in there but obviously prone to problems

So I ask: while it has mostly similar performance, is the PP215 constructed any more durably than the PP510? The '215 is certainly more costly (I'm surprised at just how cheap the PP510 is versus even the Owon T5100's I had on my previous scope... those seemed pretty solid to me), but is basically the same (particularly the hook end)?

I do plan to contact Siglent about the problem as it may be extremely cheap to resolve (I would think the hook end is the cheapest part of this $10USD assembly) but it'd be good to know my other options too.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod