Products > Test Equipment

Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review

<< < (8/48) > >>

rigol52:
Thanks.
Not really happy with such facts which lead to changing lab equipment (seems along with my nick name),
bu what to do - world is not perfect.
Still very impressed with capability of here reviewed scope taking into account its price/performance outcome.

tautech:

--- Quote from: rigol52 on February 16, 2018, 12:31:28 pm ---Thanks.
Not really happy with such facts which lead to changing lab equipment (seems along with my nick name),
bu what to do - world is not perfect.
Still very impressed with capability of here reviewed scope taking into account its price/performance outcome.

--- End quote ---
Quite understand, yes not perfect at all but most brands do this proprietary stuff.  :(

Yes they are a feature packed little box so see if you can find one locally for a test drive.

BillB:
Great in-depth review, Performa01  :clap:

Helped me decide to pick one up!

maxwell3e10:
Thanks, Performa01, for a very detailed review. I am trying to figure out the input noise of the scope from your data, section 3 of the review.

When I look at figure on page 64 I would estimate that +/-2 sigma level is about 1 division, so the RMS noise is 125 uV. When I look at RMS noise on the plot on page 67, 16 LSB corresponds to 16*0.5mV*10/250 =  320 uV.

I am wondering if the RMS noise estimate on page 67 comes from the RMS measurement on the scope? In that case it can include the offset as well. It would be interesting to find the standard deviation of the data with shortened input.

tautech:

--- Quote from: maxwell3e10 on February 18, 2018, 12:44:47 am ---Thanks, Performa01, for a very detailed review. I am trying to figure out the input noise of the scope from your data, section 3 of the review.

When I look at figure on page 64 I would estimate that +/-2 sigma level is about 1 division, so the RMS noise is 125 uV. When I look at RMS noise on the plot on page 67, 16 LSB corresponds to 16*0.5mV*10/250 =  320 uV.

I am wondering if the RMS noise estimate on page 67 comes from the RMS measurement on the scope? In that case it can include the offset as well. It would be interesting to find the standard deviation of the data with shortened input.

--- End quote ---
If you are going down this rabbit hole of DSO baseline noise as it compares to other DSO's, please consider a further two things:
    Is max input sensitivity at full BW and not BW limited.
    Is the max sensitivity an artificial magnification of real/actual maximum sensitivity ?

They both have an impact on apparent baseline noise.
Only then can you compare apples with apples.

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