EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: Performa01 on December 11, 2017, 01:06:39 pm

Title: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 11, 2017, 01:06:39 pm
The new Siglent SDS1x04X-E series SPO have entered the world market and generated some interest.

Siglent were kind enough to offer me an early SDS1104X-E for evaluation and I couldn’t resist finding out whether this scope has the potential to meet the high expectations. The new models have a whole lot to offer – certainly more than the average DSO in this class.

The SDS1x04X-E series scopes aren’t expensive, yet they are certainly not the cheapest DSOs around. But then again, some might be looking for the best value for money rather than just the cheapest price.

In any case this appears to be a very interesting product and I felt it deserves an in-depth review.
Anyone interested in these scopes will find the demonstration, verification and discussion of all features together with any noticeable deficiencies, which of course I’ve already reported to Siglent.

Most of the functionality was of surprising high quality already, with only minor issues that did not prevent me from doing my tests the way I had them planned and getting the results I'm going to present here. Of course there were (and sure as hell still are) a number of flaws, particularly in the areas that are either completely new or have undergone a major re-design:

•   Serial decoding had been redesigned and looks promising, but needs further refinement.
•   MSO Option has not yet been available.
•   Bode Plotter first shot, good concept, but certainly far from finished yet.
•   XY-mode currently some emergency solution, that will see some major re-design.
•   Sequence mode is currently broken, but Siglent promised a fix within a short time.

A full and final review of these functions listed above will be published later, after a firmware with the necessary fixes has been released.

Either way, this review is not yet finished, so you can expect regular updates in the future. I just figured some folks might appreciate to get some detailed information about the new kids in town…

The review is provided piece-wise as small pdf files (with slightly overlapping content), because this site obviously doesn’t allow attachments bigger than 1MB. Also not more than 2MB total for one post, so I’ll need several posts to get the initial contents online.

Here we start:

SDS1104X-E Review 1-25
- Introduction
- Differences to SDS1202X-E
- Base Functionality
- - Display
- - - SPO (Super Phosphor Oscilloscope)
- - - Display Modes
- - - A first glance at measurements
- - - Persistence Mode
- - - Horizontal Zoom
- - - - Zoom Mode
- - - - Changing Timebase in Stop Mode
- - - Vertical Zoom
- - - Reference Waveforms

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the document. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   Some typos and formal issues addressed


SDS1104X-E Review 26-50
- Base Functionality
- - Acquisition
- - - Memory Depth
- - - Acquisition Modes
- - - - Normal
- - - - Peak Detect
- - - - Average
- - - - Eres
- - - - Roll Mode
- - - X-Y
- - - Interpolation
- - - - Dots + x
- - - - Dots + sin(x)/x
- - - - Vectors + x
- - - - Vectors + Sin(x)/x
- - - - Examples

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the document. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   A more realistic look at XY-trace quality
•   Some typos and formal issues addressed


Anyone interested in these scopes is welcome to ask questions, request additional tests and discuss the results. Be aware though, that my limited spare time will only allow me to play with the scope at the weekends.

Anyone who’s already got one of these scopes is welcome to share their experiences and add more review content to this thread.

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 11, 2017, 01:11:43 pm
Here comes part 3 together with a special about bandwidth:

SDS1104X-E Review 50-70
- Base Functionality
- - Acquisition
- - - Signal Handling
- - - - DC Accuracy
- - - - AC Accuracy
- - - - Bandwidth
- - - - Input Impedance
- - - - Low Frequency Response
- - - - Probe Bandwidth PP510
- - - - Noise

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the document. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   Noise measurement tables added
•   Noise rms measurements corrected
•   Noise vs. Timebase for 20MHz bandwidth limit added
•   Some typos and formal issues addressed


SDS1000X-E Bandwidth
- Introduction
- Why we need Bandwidth
- Why we need Sample Speed
- - Aliasing in the SDS1202X-E
- - Reconstruction in the SDS1202X-E
- - Aliasing in the SDS1104X-E
- - Reconstruction in the SDS1104X-E
- Square Wave Test
- The 100MHz Puzzle

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the document. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   Reconstruction: Percentage of Nyquist frequency corrected
•   Some typos and formal issues addressed
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 11, 2017, 01:15:35 pm
Here come parts 4 & 5:

SDS1104X-E Review 70-93
- Base Functionality
- - Trigger
- - - Trigger Coupling
- - - - AC Trigger Coupling
- - - Trigger Sensitivity
- - - Trigger Stability
- - - Triggering Noisy Signals
- - -Trigger Types
- - - - Edge
- - - - Slope
- - - - Pulse
- - - - Video
- - - - Window
- - - - Interval
- - - - DropOut
- - - - Runt
- - - - Pattern
- - - - Serial
- - - Trigger Frequency Counter
- - - Trigger Rate

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the documents. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   Some typos and formal issues addressed


SDS1104X-E Review 93-108
- Base Functionality
- - Measurements
- - - Automatic Measurements
- - - - Time Resolution
- - - - Sensitivity
- - - - Speed
- - - - Standard measurements
- - - - Channel Delay Measurements
- - - - Gated Measurements
- - - Cursors
- - - - Manual
- - - - Tracking

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the documents. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   Some wordings changed for better clarity
•   Some typos and formal issues addressed
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 11, 2017, 01:18:40 pm
 
Finally I can present parts 6 & 7:

SDS1104X-E Review 109-137
- Advanced Functions
- - Math
- - - Add & Subtract
- - - Multiply & Divide
- - - Integral
- - - Differential
- - - Square Root
- - Poor Men’s Differential Probing
- - FFT
- - - Basic Operation
- - - - Screen Modes
- - - - AUTO SET
- - - - Units
- - - - Window
- - - - Display Modes
- - - FFT-Bandwidth and RBW
- - - Setting up an FFT Measurement
- - - Looking at IF Signals

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the documents. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   Proper and fair review of the Differentiate function
•   Various typos and formal issues addressed


SDS1104X-E Review 137-162
- Advanced Functions
- - FFT
- - - Performance Test
- - - - Amplitude Accuracy
- - - - Harmonic Distortion
- - - - Two Tone Test
- - - Application Examples
- - - - Wideband Measurement
- - - - Narrowband Measurement
- - - - Signal buried in Noise
- - - - Broadcast
- - Mask Testing
- - Web Server

EDIT: Uploaded latest revision of the documents. The most important updates are:
•   Improved image quality
•   dBm to voltage conversion errors corrected
•   One more reason for mask testing vs. just persistence alone
•   Web Server: manual IP address assignment tested
•   Some typos and formal issues addressed
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 11, 2017, 01:19:58 pm
Today I can present another piece of information, regarding segmented memory:

SDS1104X-E Review 163-174
- Advanced Functions
-- Segmented Memory
--- History
--- Sequence Mode


Since I am running out of reserved postings, please find additional review documents later in this thread.

Right now there is an in-depth review of the optional SAG1021 AWG here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1432665/#msg1432665 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1432665/#msg1432665)

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: lundmar on December 11, 2017, 01:24:36 pm
Good job! :-+

Please provide a summary conclusion also. Thanks.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: nctnico on December 11, 2017, 02:29:18 pm
Why create PDFs instead of forum posts? Side node: PDFs on EEVblog never open properly in a PDF reader on my machine (unlike other websites).
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: imidis on December 11, 2017, 02:43:54 pm
I'm just guessing as I've used many forums over the years, but forums have post limitations as well as formatting issues. (it's usually a nightmare to post things like that on forums) Perhaps they have a website you can download the off of properly?

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: lundmar on December 11, 2017, 03:05:06 pm
I'm just guessing as I've used many forums over the years, but forums have post limitations as well as formatting issues. (it's usually a nightmare to post things like that on forums) Perhaps they have a website you can download the off of properly?

One could place them on github - github has a pretty decent built in pdf viewer that is compatible with most/all browsers.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: firstcolle on December 11, 2017, 03:51:42 pm
many many thanks for this huge review!!!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: H.O on December 11, 2017, 05:56:38 pm
Why create PDFs instead of forum posts? Side node: PDFs on EEVblog never open properly in a PDF reader on my machine (unlike other websites).
Parts 1 & 2 are 48 pages with 61 screenshots and some tables. I for one can't imagine Writing, formating and posting that on the forum with it's totally crappy and clunky way of handling images. Nice work Performa01!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: nctnico on December 11, 2017, 06:23:31 pm
Why create PDFs instead of forum posts? Side node: PDFs on EEVblog never open properly in a PDF reader on my machine (unlike other websites).
Parts 1 & 2 are 48 pages with 61 screenshots and some tables. I for one can't imagine Writing, formating and posting that on the forum with it's totally crappy and clunky way of handling images. Nice work Performa01!
Host the screenshots external and write the text in a text editor (with the forum tags to inline images). You don't need to use the forum edit box to create a post! I've wrote quite a few extensive posts like that myself.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on December 11, 2017, 07:15:52 pm
Personally I like this PDF idea for publish - really lot of.  This is far better than some forum posts.  Pdf can always read without any hassle with some forum software and without any hassle how some browsers handle these images and formatting in forum web side. Reading pdf is nearly like reading real book.  Lot of thanks you select this road!  :-+

Later some comments about the content of the review and some details.

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on December 11, 2017, 08:25:05 pm
File = Review 02

DC Accuracy, on last page table missing from pdf
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 11, 2017, 11:51:59 pm
File = Review 02

DC Accuracy, on last page table missing from pdf

... because the entire Signal Handling chapter is contained in Review 03!
Just that last page happens to hold one screenshot that still belongs to the Interpolation chapter dealt with in Review 02.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 12, 2017, 12:07:57 am
 
Thank you for your interest and feedback.

I have noticed by now that some screenshots are corrupted in the pdf documents for some unknown reason.
Also in the bandwidth document a few statements are either not correct or missing. Nevertheless, all the conclusions remain valid.

Unfortunately, I'm ill right now, but will correct these issues as soon as I'm well again.

As already stated, this review is far from being complete yet. Next will be math and particularly FFT, which is a huge topic. I hope I will be able to publish that next weekend.

As for an overall conclusion, it could only be for the content published so far and this would be very positive, except maybe for the X-Y mode and the displayed resolution of the time measurements. But X-Y mode will most definitely see a major re-design and I might be able to convince Siglent to offer one digit more resolution on some of the automatic measurements ;)

The reason why I publish the review as pdf should be quite obvious. The document is some 125 pages now, with enumerations, tables, diagrams and lots of screenshots. It will be 200+ pages once it's finished, I recon. I have a day job. I have a wife and I have even friends - in short, I have a life. It should be enough that I spend all the weekends with the new little scope in an attempt to compile a review that deserves the name, create bug reports, discuss proposals about improvements and new features with Siglent - really no time fiddling with forum HTML code and pictures that cannot be inserted directly.

And all this effort for a scope I personally don't even need, just because I already have a SDS2304X on the bench together with three PicoScopes which offer some important features otherwise only found in (at least) upper midrange bench scopes.

I am an old guy with plenty income, so I could easily afford a decent A-grade scope, but I have learnt to stick with what I really need and then I've been young and on a budget myself decades ago and my first scope (analog, CRT of course) was a 50MHz no-name instrument with delayed 2nd timebase, that served me well for several years. It was only $600,- in today's money, which was nevertheless a lot back in the eighties last century.

To cut a long story short, I sympathize with those on a budget, who still want a decent performance and I do enjoy to have a closer look when I think such a product has emerged, making my findings public and at the same time pushing the manufacturer to iron out any flaws and make certain improvements. And Siglent happens to listen. Just compare with the first "V2 firmware" in the SDS2304, which I've reviewed publicly back then. The vast majority of bugs and inconveniences that I've found have been addressed and aren't an issue anymore in the cheap new SDS1104X-E. As I'm in the process of writing the FFT review right now, this is a perfect example how a pathetic 1024 pts FFT turned into a great tool that deserves a very thorough and lengthy review.

By now you may have realized why almost no one is willing to publish a comprehensive review for a DSO/MSO - simply because this is some really serious work. I'm inclined to do that for you, so stay tuned, as there's a lot more to come!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: alreadystarted on December 12, 2017, 03:42:27 am
Thank you for producing this work, it’s very helpful.  I look forward to the additional parts.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: pascal_sweden on December 13, 2017, 08:36:09 am
Can you do a detailed review about decoding where you test all the supported protocols, use the full memory depth, and try to search for an event and navigate in the recorded data?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Gabri74 on December 13, 2017, 11:59:21 am
Why create PDFs instead of forum posts? Side node: PDFs on EEVblog never open properly in a PDF reader on my machine (unlike other websites).

This is a bug of EEVblog which returns the wrong mime type to the request  :-//
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Doofus on December 13, 2017, 09:26:31 pm
Awesome review! Thank you for the massive work you've put into this. Beyond characterizing this particular instrument, it provides good insight into the inner workings of modern digital scopes.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Geoff-AU on December 14, 2017, 05:32:40 am
That's a very thorough review and a LOT of work.  Great stuff   :-+
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: pascal_sweden on December 15, 2017, 09:03:50 am
Is that ever going to happen on this forum? :)

Can you do a detailed review about decoding where you test all the supported protocols, use the full memory depth, and try to search for an event and navigate in the recorded data?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on December 15, 2017, 09:07:19 am
Is that ever going to happen on this forum? :)

Can you do a detailed review about decoding where you test all the supported protocols, use the full memory depth, and try to search for an event and navigate in the recorded data?
Excuse me ?
Pull your head in and read reply #1 and #15.
Patience grasshopper.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on December 16, 2017, 02:18:48 am
In Pt 4 Trigger:

Quote
AC trigger coupling does not display a trigger level indicator, which I’m not happy with, but Siglent don’t
seem to be willing to change that.
This has always baffled me as to why a AC trigger level indicator isn't deemed to be necessary as your findings report:
Quote
The trigger level is set to zero which is actually always equivalent to the mean level of a symmetrical input signal.
Furthermore there's no mention in the User manual that no level indicator will be shown or at what the level might be, only this:

AC: block all the DC components and attenuate signals lower than 5.8 Hz. Use AC coupling to get a stable edge trigger when your waveform has a large DC offset.

One might ask for the less experienced user the use of AC trigger coupling could be better described so that it's usage conditions are clear.
What is Siglent's reasoning for no AC trigger level indicator, do you know ?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Peteg on December 17, 2017, 05:09:21 am
Just to say good job, enjoyed the review thanks.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: kahe40 on December 17, 2017, 10:06:44 am
yeah, a really outstanding work, there is another performance about SDS2000-v2
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000-new-v2-firmware/50/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000-new-v2-firmware/50/)
from the same @Performa01, there one can harvest a lot of knowledge too.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: saturation on December 17, 2017, 02:36:00 pm
Teardown and earlier review:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1044-siglent's- (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1044-siglent's-)$499-sds1104x-e-4ch-oscilloscope-teardown/50/
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: lundmar on December 17, 2017, 04:26:13 pm
For some this might be an important point not touched up in this review.

The remote (LXI/VXI11) programming speed of the SDS1000X is more than 10 times faster than e.g. the Rigol DS1000Z series.

This is useful if one needs to implement a poor mans data logger polling sample data from the scope at e.g. 100Hz.

I mean, we are talking about ~25 requests/second vs. 250+ requests/second here. A significant difference.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 27, 2017, 11:18:47 am
Thank you all for the nice comments! Today I can finally provide some updates.

New revisions of all documents have been uploaded in the old posts (see EDIT notes there) and review parts 6 and 7 have been newly released in Reply #3.

The new parts cover Math, FFT, Mask test and Web Server. Unfortunately, FFT is such a huge topic so it didn’t fit into a single 1MB document and I had to split it between parts 6 and 7.

The review is still not complete and I’ll certainly not stop at this point.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 27, 2017, 11:29:41 am
What is Siglent's reasoning for no AC trigger level indicator, do you know ?

Well, the AC trigger indicator has been there in an early version of the V2 firmware, but back then the AC trigger level was static, hence didn’t quite work as expected. I’ve been in touch with Siglent about this and it took several iterations until I was finally completely happy – but the trigger level indicator somehow vanished during this process and never returned, even though I’ve mentioned it a few times ;)

It probably is a speed problem. Just like tracking cursors cannot follow a dynamic signal very well (only the cursor lines, the measurements do!) I suspect it would be the same with the trigger level indicator, so Siglent may have decided to better hide it :)

As I said in the review, I’m not happy with that, but it really is only a minor inconvenience in my book. On the old analog scopes we had no trigger level indicator at all, no matter the trigger coupling ;)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on January 02, 2018, 03:35:49 am
Some are probably waiting for the serial decoding review, which I am certainly planning to publish eventually. As I’ve already stated in my initial posting, the serial decoders still need refinement, as they have some issues and at least one missing feature. Siglent is aware of that and promised to implement the necessary bug fixes and improvements.

We’ll probably get a new firmware soon, where at least sequential mode is fully working again and some other bugs from my list have been addressed, but not sure if serial decoding has already been improved as well, as I’ve reported these issues fairly late in December. So we need just wait and see…

Until then, I thought I’d show a little teaser here:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=383554;image)
SDS1104X-E_SPI_UART_Zoom_2

What you can see from this screenshot are two full duplex decoders working in parallel, one SPI and one UART. Of course this is an artificial setup, as this would not be possible with just 4 channels (it will be possible with the MSO option though). I just configured a custom baud rate of 2Mbit/s for the UART so it can find valid data in the 2.36MBit/s SPI data stream. The UART RX cannot work continuously, because it’s looking at the MISO stream, which in turn is just the inverted MOSI and has the wrong idle level for the UART decoder.

There is a record length of 700kpts for a time span of 7ms, zoomed in at 5µs/div so that we can read the decoding at the bottom of the screen. In the top area there is the decoder list for SPI, which is automatically adjusted for the center of the zoom window, showing three 8-bit data elements (which could be up to 32 bits and the list could be enlarged up to 7 entries), number 1740-1742 out of a total of 3492 entries for the complete record.

We can only display one decoding list at a time, but the one for the UART is quite similar, just with slightly less entries.

There was no protocol trigger used in this test, but a trigger on the falling edge of the ~CS signal. As a consequence, the trigger frequency counter displays the number of messages per second (27895).

Overall I think Siglent is on the right track with this.

EDIT: total time for one record corrected - it is of course 14 x 500µs = 7ms. Exact number of list entries added.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rigol52 on February 15, 2018, 05:43:55 pm
Excellent (rare seen) review, thanks a lot Performa01.

Regarding "an external USB powered 25 MHz AWG module (Option)" from SDS1000X-E data sheet.

Is this "Option" related only to some sort of universal driver software, suit to other brand external AWG too,
or it is strictly and only Siglent module / external AWG required?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on February 15, 2018, 07:53:52 pm
Excellent (rare seen) review, thanks a lot Performa01.

Regarding "an external USB powered 25 MHz AWG module (Option)" from SDS1000X-E data sheet.

Is this "Option" related only to some sort of universal driver software, suit to other brand external AWG too,
or it is strictly and only Siglent module / external AWG required?
There's two purchasable options:
The External SAG1021 USB AWG 25 MHz module.
The license to allow full functionality AWG control of it.

Bode plot usage requires no licenses, only the USB AWG HW or any other Siglent AWG. The scope takes charge of Siglent AWG's to do the Bode plot sweeps.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rigol52 on February 15, 2018, 09:36:42 pm

Bode plot usage requires no licenses, only the USB AWG HW or any other Siglent AWG.


Should this AWG be exclusivelly Siglent brand, or other brand of USB AWG can do too (to proper
communicate with scope over USB for Bode plot support)?

Curently I have Rigol AWG DG1011 and interested, if Siglent scope SDS1104X-E can support it
as external AWG for Bode plot?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on February 16, 2018, 12:42:56 am

Bode plot usage requires no licenses, only the USB AWG HW or any other Siglent AWG.


Should this AWG be exclusivelly Siglent brand, or other brand of USB AWG can do too (to proper
communicate with scope over USB for Bode plot support)?

Curently I have Rigol AWG DG1011 and interested, if Siglent scope SDS1104X-E can support it
as external AWG for Bode plot?
AFAIK it won't support your Rigol AWG, only Siglent models.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on February 16, 2018, 12:48:39 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.
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.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: BillB on February 17, 2018, 11:02:54 pm
Great in-depth review, Performa01  :clap:

Helped me decide to pick one up!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on February 18, 2018, 01:50:07 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.
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.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 18, 2018, 05:43:23 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.


You are perfectly right that RMS measurements always include the DC offset error, which has been around 10 LSB at that particular time, as can be seen in the graphs on page 66. Unfortunately, I tend to forget that and the data in the graph on page 67 comes from the automatic RMS measurement indeed.

Thanks a lot for the hint!

Here is an example for 1µs/div with the correct measurement included:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=396140;image)
SDS1104X-E_Noise_1us_500uV

Regarding the scope input termination, it makes no difference whether it is shorted or left open. A high voltage tolerant amplifier with its clamp protected high impedance input network cannot be low noise anyway, so the noise of the source impedance is absolutely negligible. Yet I’ve fitted a 50? through termination just to make the input insensitive to electrical noise that might be generated within my lab.

I will update the noise graph for the next revision of my review document, but here is a preliminary version as an immediate “hot fix”:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=396142;image)
SDS1104X-E Noise_vs_time BW_full


So we’re actually talking about a noise level of 39µVrms @ 1ns/div slowly increasing up to 68µVrms @ 1ms/div. I’ve also taken more time to determine the exact mean pk-pk noise level and as can be seen, it is a much smoother trace now.

Finally, I’d also like to show the absolute horror scenario for any general purpose scope input, i.e. 100ms/div, which should be equivalent to a lower noise bandwidth limit of <1Hz:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=396144;image)
SDS1104X-E_Noise_100ms_500uV

Now we have 705µV pk-pk noise, but rms noise is even lower (compared to 1ms/div) at 64µV. That’s most likely because the sample rate has now dropped to 10MSa/s (whereas it still was 1GSa/s at 1ms/div) and quite obviously the aliasing caused by the noise above 5MHz does not have much impact for a number of reasons.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: maxwell3e10 on February 18, 2018, 06:02:15 am
Thanks for quick measurements!

I wouldn't trust the rms noise for very short time scale (1 ns/div), because its beyond the bandwidth of the scope, so the data are largely correlated. The flat level of 60 uV rms is more representative of true noise.

As tautech points out, its also important to compare the BW. On many scopes the 1 mV/div scale is BW limited by default to 20 MHz, so for fair comparison it would be good to know the noise level on 20 MHz BW setting.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 18, 2018, 06:10:59 am
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.

Yes, I know it’s a pity and I also don’t like to change an instrument that does the job and that I’m used to. But you just cannot expect instruments from different manufacturers to remote control each other.

There is no universal standardized protocol to remote control signal generators (or any other instruments). It is sometimes not even the same for all instruments of the same class within one brand. So it’s no big surprise that T&M companies don’t make an effort in supporting instruments from competing brands, except when they have been established as a (quasi) industry standard.

You can only combine devices from any brands you like when you write your own application (on a PC) and remote control all instruments involved. By doing this, the many pitfalls associated with controlling instruments for a more complex application like network analysis will become clear quite quickly – apart from the fact, that it is way more efficient if that application runs directly on the instrument that has to do the majority of the work, i.e. the DSO in this and most other cases.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 18, 2018, 06:49:49 am
Thanks for quick measurements!

I wouldn't trust the rms noise for very short time scale (1 ns/div), because its beyond the bandwidth of the scope, so the data are largely correlated. The flat level of 60 uV rms is more representative of true noise.

As tautech points out, its also important to compare the BW. On many scopes the 1 mV/div scale is BW limited by default to 20 MHz, so for fair comparison it would be good to know the noise level on 20 MHz BW setting.

Well, even though the SDS1104X-E is only a 100MHz scope, the figures get much better with the 20MHz bandwidth limit. Here’s the graph:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=396148;image)
SDS1104X-E Noise_vs_time BW_20M


And here’s a screenshot for 1µs/div:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=396150;image)
SDS1104X-E_Noise_1us_500uV_BW20M
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on February 18, 2018, 06:55:28 am
Well, even though the SDS1104X-E is only a 100MHz scope, the figures get much better with the 20MHz bandwidth limit.
Dots or vectors ?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 18, 2018, 07:05:06 am
Dots or vectors ?

Vectors!

This is what it looks like with dots display:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=396153;image)
SDS1104X-E_Noise_1us_500uV_BW20M_Dots
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: nctnico on February 18, 2018, 05:25:53 pm
On many scopes the 1 mV/div scale is BW limited by default to 20 MHz, so for fair comparison it would be good to know the noise level on 20 MHz BW setting.
Which ones? The only scope I owned which switched the 20MHz BW limit on at 1mV/div was a Siglent SDS2000 series.
However comparing with the 20MHz bandwidth enabled does give a good comparison because more bandwidth usually means more noise.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on February 19, 2018, 09:16:11 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.

Here is added SDS1104X-E noise (bit explanation and 4 images)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1290409/#msg1290409 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1290409/#msg1290409)
Also explanation why RMS is not right for noise with more or less DC offset (non zero mean)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 21, 2018, 04:19:57 pm
Here comes an in-depth review of the optional SAG1021 AWG.

It’s a bit ridiculous, but I had to split the review for this humble little AWG into four parts (three would have worked too, but I didn’t want to tear the sine wave chapter apart). So here are the first two parts:

SAG1021 Review 1-8
- Operation
- Zero Adjust
- Frequency Accuracy


SAG1021 Review 8-25
- Waveforms
-- Sine
--- Amplitude Accuracy
--- Harmonic Distortion
--- Phase Noise

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 21, 2018, 04:21:49 pm
Here are the second two parts of the SAG1021 AWG review:

SAG1021 Review 25-32
- Waveforms
-- Square
-- Ramp
-- Pulse
-- Noise
-- DC

SAG1021 Review 32-46
- Arbitrary Waveforms
-- Internal
-- External

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 21, 2018, 04:43:22 pm
I have updated my review documents  that can be found in the initial posts in this thread.

This includes additional/corrected information on noise, XY mode, differentiate math, various typos and mistakes in the FFT review corrected.

An additional part of the review about segmented memory (history and sequence mode) has been posted there as well.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rigol52 on February 21, 2018, 05:41:19 pm
Great review again, Performa01.

Sine max limit is 25MHz. But this is standardized limit and generation probably don't stop at exactly 25MHz.

Curious what would be practical sine limit regarding sine shape (no matter of possible damped amplitude)?

Could it reach 40 or 50MHz and retain sine shape?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 21, 2018, 06:47:39 pm
Sine max limit is 25MHz. But this is standardized limit and generation probably don't stop at exactly 25MHz.

Curious what would be practical sine limit regarding sine shape (no matter of possible damped amplitude)?

Could it reach 40 or 50MHz and retain sine shape?

Well, you were asking for it … now fasten your seat belts.

Of course the SAG1021 can output much higher frequencies at slightly reduced amplitude as has already been demonstrated for the noise “waveform”.

But as I have stated in the review, we don’t get a clean signal anymore above 25MHz.

Here is an example for just 30MHz:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397164;image)
SDS1104X-E_Sine_P10_Play_3MHz_FFT

Yes, the harmonics are even lower at -40dBc, but you should also be able to see the upcoming jitter even in the screenshot. Then there is also that nasty spur emerging at 95MHz with an approx. level of just -25dBc…

You will not be surprised to see how matters get worse if we go even higher in frequency. At 40MHz it looks really bad already:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397166;image)
SDS1104X-E_Sine_P10_Play_4MHz_FFT

This time I did not even try to measure the harmonics, but used the strongest spur at 85MHz instead. It is only 18dB below the carrier and also in the time domain we can see really awful things going on.

You don’t want to know what it looks like at 50MHz output frequency, sure you don’t! ;)

It is only natural, as it is basically the same reconstruction problem as in the scope. But there we have some digital signal processing that can calculate the best possible filter for the data available. For a signal generator on the other hand, we need a real filter, i.e. an analog one. You bet your bottom dollar there is none, otherwise we would not be able to see so little amplitude drop at 1.6 times the maximum sine output frequency. Also look at the noise plot up to 200MHz – barely 6dB amplitude drop at the nyquist frequency of 62.5MHz. Nothing even close to the required brick-wall filter. Consequently, with a 2.5-times oversampling (125MHz to 25MHz) the output looks still reasonable (but not stellar, as the sine distortion tests have shown), but any higher, the lack of a proper reconstruction filter becomes just too obvious.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rigol52 on February 21, 2018, 08:07:51 pm
Informative and helpful.
Thanks for all your efforts with subject.

My need with possible new equipment is at least AWG with 40MHz sine.
So it is better to rethink about Siglent SDG1062X in line with SDS1104X-E.


PS: Sorry for typo with your nickname, Performa01, in my previous post.



Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on February 21, 2018, 08:43:33 pm
@Performa01

In sequence mode if I understand right you show average max sapeed. (how much time some amount of segments aka "frames".  But this is not whole truth about speed.  One thing is speed what it can use without missing any trigger.

How to test it. (guaranteed max speed)

It can do using pulse generato and burst.

If scope have max amount of frames example 80000 with some t/div.
Set burst n=80000
Set segments n=80000
Set generator example for 400kHz (0r period 2.5µs)
Set scope for normal trig and sequence mode on.
Start burst.
If scope can capture every pulse it can this speed.
Go to higher speed. And repeat until it can not anymore capture every 80000 segment from one burst.
Go slowly back to slower speed until it start capture full burst. Repeat this enough times, example 10...20... or more. (All t/divs with max segment amount.) If it pass every time without any sigle fail, this is guaranteed maximum speed - minimum trusted trigger period time.

Yes this test take lot of time. I have done it for some previous models including SDS1002X-E. Not for SDS10004X-E
For 2 channel model (note FW) it can find here (https://siglent.fi/oskilloskooppi-tietoa-sds1202x-e--wfm-segment-speed.html).
Side text is finnish but  in table there is finchinglish.

But also, this guaranteed speed what do not miss any single trig is not far away from max average speed today with these bit more mature FW's. (some early time there was more differences if I remember right in SDS2k (notX)).

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 21, 2018, 09:57:02 pm
@Performa01

In sequence mode if I understand right you show average max sapeed. (how much time some amount of segments aka "frames".  But this is not whole truth about speed.  One thing is speed what it can use without missing any trigger.

I see your point - this is certainly a good suggestion for yet another test/measurement. If I got you right, it's pretty much equivalent to a guaranteed max. re-arm time, which in turn determines the guaranteed min. event rate (frequency) that can be captured without losing an event.

Before the latest firmware, we could have measured it just by observing the trig-out signal and looking for the widest gap between two trigger events within a sequence (with a sufficiently high input frequency of course). As it is now, we really need to use your suggested method with the burst generator to measure this. I will try to include such a measurement in a future update of the sequence mode review.

EDIT: When looking at your table, I suspect there will not be much difference, as your guaranteed numbers are even a bit higher than my average ones. Most likely because we have used different input signals - mine was a 20MHz sine...
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 23, 2018, 07:49:53 pm
I have noticed some folks might be wondering how good the original Siglent probes are and if some other (maybe also more expensive) probes would provide better results, i.e. more bandwidth, faster rise time etc.

I thought it might be beneficial to compare different probes on the 200MHz SDS1202X-E just to give you an idea what can be expected.

Before I’m going to show the results, I feel inclined to remind you that the LF-adjustment found on every scope probe is not the end of the story. The input impedance of a scope channel is a bit more complex than just 1MOhm in parallel with the input capacitance, and the probe cable has some characteristic impedance that is severely mismatched on both ends and the frequency response would be awful if no counter measures were taken – but these depend on the individual scope input channel and its impedance over frequency. This is why the performance of the probes that ship with a decent scope are usually hard to beat, because they are matched with that particular scope input.

More expensive probes provide a separate HF-adjustment and should be more universal because of this. Certain probes have even more adjustments than that. One such probe with separate HF-adjustment has been included for this comparison – just to see if it can outperform the humble little PP215 that ships with the 200MHz SDS1000X-E entry level scopes.

The contenders are:

1.   Siglent no name (300MHz) that came with the SDS2304
2.   Siglent SP2030A (300MHz) that comes with the SDS2304X
3.   Siglent PP215 (200MHz) that comes with the SDS1202X-E and SDS1204X-E
4.   Siglent PP510 (100MHz) that comes with the SDS1104X-E
5.   Pico Technology TA131 (250MHz) that comes with their 200MHz scopes
6.   TesTec TT-MF312 (250MHz) that has a separate HF-adjustment, so should be pretty universal

First comes the probe adjustment, which is straight forward for all candidates except the TesTec TT-MF312, which has the additional HF-adjustment. The instructions tell us to use a 1MHz square wave and adust the edges for virtually no overshoot (just as usual for this kind of probes). But I suspected that my square wave might have a little overshoot (some 5%), so I’ve adjusted the probe accordingly.

The following table shows the frequency response of the Siglent SDS1202X-E with the various probes:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397961;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe_Comparison 1

The 2nd graph shows the frequency response of the probe alone, i.e. the frequency response of the scope has been subtracted:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397963;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe_Comparison 2

As can be seen, the differences are not huge, up to 260MHz the probe-only frequency responses match within 2dB. Yet when we look at the first graph, we can see the best probe would be the Pico Tech. TA131, closely followed by Siglent PP215 and PP510.
The Siglent SP2030A has the worst high frequency response above 210MHz.

Now let’s have a look at the pulse test results:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397965;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe  Siglent NN

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397967;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe  Siglent SP2030A

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397969;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe  Siglent PP215

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397971;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe  Siglent PP510

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397973;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe  Pico Tech TA131

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=397975;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe TesTec TT-MF312


Now that’s quite revealing!

The Siglent NN 300MHz probe is a representative of the bulky type and it’s HF-compensation clearly doesn’t match the SDS1202X-E input channel; the transition times are very slow: 2.72ns rise and 3.39ns fall time. We can also see this by the softly rounded pulse corners. Even though the frequency response didn’t look quite as bad, this probe is clearly not suitable for the 200MHz SDS1000X-E series scopes.

The Siglent SP2030A 300MHz probe is a better match, but now we get soft corners and overshoot at the same time, which comes from the +1.5dB peak in the frequency response at around 40MHz. Transition times are still not fast: 2.50ns rise and 2.57ns fall time. This probe is not for the 200MHz SDS1000X-E series scopes either.

The Siglent PP215 200MHz probe is a near perfect match. The top of the pulse is almost flat without overshoot and the corners are reasonably sharp – after all, we’re not talking about a superfast scope here. Transition times are as good as it gets on a 200MHz scope: 2ns rise and fall. There is a reason why this probe is shipping with the 200MHz SDS1000X-E series scopes!

The Siglent PP510 has been a big surprise when we were looking at the frequency response graph; despite being only rated for 100MHz, it performed very close to the PP215 in this regard. But the pulse test reveals the difference as the pulse top and bottom are no longer flat but slanted. Other than that, we still get nice sharply defined corners and the rise and fall times are only 2ns, just like with the PP215.

The Pico Technology TA131 250MHz probe pulse test result looks similar to the Siglent PP215, but corners are even sharper and we see very slight traces of ringing. Top and bottom of the pulse are almost flat and the transition times are the best by far in this comparison: 1.9ns rise and fall times. This probe would be worth a 2nd thought if someone plans to replace the PP215, but I still wouldn’t do that. The TA131 probe is an old-style bulky one with a wire type hook instead of a blade type. The cable is thicker and less flexible. But performance wise it is clearly a winner.

The TesTec TT-MF312 250MHz probe is mixed bag and rather disappointing overall. The Pulse top is not slanted and the transition times of 1.92ns for rising and 2.0ns for falling edges are even a tad better than the original PP215 (this might be due to the intentional HF-misalignment for 5% overshoot, which has most likely been unjustified after all), but we have to pay a high price for that in shape (literally!) of ugly overshooting, once again due to the +1.5dB peak in the frequency response at 50MHz. At the same time we have a pronounced -1.5dB dip around 175MHz, which makes this probe the worst in the whole contest. There is certainly no reason to use this probe instead of the original one and it’s another “bulky type” on top of that.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rigol52 on February 23, 2018, 09:51:07 pm
Good work Performa01, thanks.

Very informative. Till yet I was aware a little different, namely:

"Buy your scope-probe, at  least 3x bandpass of your scope."
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: nctnico on February 23, 2018, 10:27:46 pm
Several remarks:
- Don't try to measure anything over 100MHz with a high-Z probe. You don't know what you are looking at on the screen because the impedances are all screwed up.
- Probe bandwidths are defined using a source with a 25 Ohm output impedance so you should at least use that doing these kind of tests.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 23, 2018, 11:34:14 pm
Just to make sure no one gets alienated or confused by a couple misleading statements I’d like to assure you that probe manufacturers are no cheats. They don’t sell passive high-Z probes rated up to 500MHz just for fun.

The original PP215 probe deviates by no more than +/- 0.5dB from the direct measurement up to some 260MHz, as can be seen in the 2nd graph (SDS1202X-E_Probe_Comparison 2). That speaks for itself.

I recognize that some context and the reason for this probe test are missing, so here’s the reference:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1434294/#msg1434294 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1434294/#msg1434294)

The relevant parts:

Quote
The most important (and expensive) part of any scope probe is the cable, that should be low capacitance and needs to have some well defined resistance for the inner conductor (around 200 ohms) in order to damp the resonance effects from the ill-terminated characteristic cable impedance. The optimum cable resistance depends on the circuit details of the scope input and on the SP2030A it quite obviously is just right for the SDS2304X, but a tad too high for the SDS1202X-E.

Some people like to replace their multimeter probes immediately after purchase with “sexier” ones and that is perfectly fine (except that I never did it because I have no use for these impractical probes at all in a lab, be they sexy or not). But for a scope, you should not replace the original probes with random ones without a second thought, just because they look sexier or have a higher bandwidth rating – only inexperienced folks do that. You might end up with an unpleasant surprise if you take the time to actually measure the performance of the probe/scope combination. Of course there’s always a chance that it actually fits well, but you should be able to verify that beforehand.

Quote
As can be seen, the circuit already contains the standard test setup: Signal generator with 50 ohms source impedance and 50 ohms through termination directly on its output, resulting in a total source impedance of 25 ohms, as seen by the probe.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: nctnico on February 23, 2018, 11:41:37 pm
Just to make sure no one gets alienated or confused by a couple misleading statements I’d like to assure you that probe manufacturers are no cheats. They don’t sell passive high-Z probes rated up to 500MHz just for fun.
IMHO they do. Just do the math when taking the probe capacitance at the tip into account. Usually that capacitance is in the 10pf ball park. At 500MHz the circuit is loaded with a 31 Ohm impedance. With an active FET probe or low-Z probe you'll get a way more true representation of the signals you are measuring. One thing people shouldn't forget is that 'to measure is to interfere'. Less interference means you get more accurate results.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 24, 2018, 12:17:48 am
Just to make sure no one gets alienated or confused by a couple misleading statements I’d like to assure you that probe manufacturers are no cheats. They don’t sell passive high-Z probes rated up to 500MHz just for fun.
IMHO they do. Just do the math when taking the probe capacitance at the tip into account. Usually that capacitance is in the 10pf ball park. At 500MHz the circuit is loaded with a 31 Ohm impedance. With an active FET probe or low-Z probe you'll get a way more true representation of the signals you are measuring. One thing people shouldn't forget is that 'to measure is to interfere'. Less interference means you get more accurate results.

Of course you are right – it is not at all straightforward to probe high frequencies and people should always keep that in mind. And yes, I agree that 500MHz takes it to the extreme and the number of possible applications is reciprocally proportional to the frequency.

But confirming probe performance up to 300MHz is perfectly possible with 25 ohms source impedance, even though it might appear pointless, given the (low) number of practical uses.

The initial question was about rise time and I always like to check the frequency response too, as it provides additional information helpful for understanding the odd behavior we might see in the time domain.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 24, 2018, 12:09:13 pm
Some of you (any tube aficionados around?) might be interested in the performance of a HV (high voltage) probe, so I wanted to add the TesTec TT-HV250 (x100) to the comparison. This turned out to be much more difficult than expected and inspired me on touching another topic as well: probe performance with the supplied ground leads.

The TesTec TT-HV250 is a 300MHz rated 2.5kV x100 probe which means that even with a HF signal source capable of delivering rather high levels like 1.5Vrms into 50 ohms, the scope will still only see 15mVrms. In all my previous tests I had used 400mVrms with x10 probes, hence 40mVrms at the scope input. I would have liked to keep all test conditions equal, but that was just not possible for a x100 probe.

This was still the easy part. This probe does not have a metal shell around its neck, hence the BNC adaptor supplied with that probe cannot make ground contact. Do they even think at TesTec?
Even worse, there is absolutely no means for a ground connection at all, other than the slot where the ground lead is to be clipped in. So I had to use that – for a 300MHz rated probe, take notice please!

The results were as expected – or maybe even not quite as bad as that. Of course you get no chance to ever probe a 300MHz signal with a probe that forces the use of the ground lead – and it shows. But then I though it might be beneficial to demonstrate the performance (or lack of) for an ordinary PP215 with ground lead as well, because this is what many of us will be using most of the time.

First comes the frequency response graph. Dark blue for the TesTec TT-HV250 and orange for the Siglent PP215. As a reference I have included the results for Siglent PP510 (green), which performs very similar to the PP215, as well as Pico Tech TA131 from the last test (with BNC adaptor).

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=398288;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe_Comparison GL

We can see that the TesTec TT-HV250 performs quite normal up to 70MHz and still reasonable to about 100MHz, but goes increasingly haywire beyond that. It is quite surprising that it still remains within +/-3dB up to 180MHz – I wouldn’t have expected that. Above that frequency, it really gets dramatic and the 300MHz rating for this “groundless” probe can only be a bad joke.

The Siglent PP215 responds even more allergic to the ground lead and can only be used up to 30MHz without major issues. Hopefully this demonstration helps make users aware of the frequency limit for safe use of the ground lead – “safe” in the sense of still getting reasonable measurement results.

Of course my findings can only be some guide to give you an idea what to expect. Shape and area of the loop antenna formed by the ground lead affect the performance and maybe it would have been possible to tweak it for slightly higher frequencies, But then again, we usually move the probe hence also the ground lead while probing, thus any tweaking would be irrelevant for practical work.

Finally let’s have a look at the pulse responses:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=398290;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe TesTec TT-HV250 GL

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=398292;image)
SDS1202X-E_Probe  Siglent PP215 GL

The screenshots confirm what we could have predicted from the frequency response graph: the PP215 is much more violent when using the ground lead. The rise times are notably worse than with proper ground connection as well. By comparison, the TesTec TT-HV250 pulse response looks surprisingly benign.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on February 24, 2018, 04:06:31 pm
I have been wondering one thing.

In SDS1000X-E Bandwidth.pdf  there is example this image:

Square_50MHz_BW111MHz_500MSa_Dots

(also some other using dot mode)

I have some intuitio that perhaps there need be some re-thinking what it is or what combination about things leads this shape. This same kind of behavior exist also in SDS2000 series. Is it "aliasing" as we normally think what is aliasing. My hypothese is that not, or least some part is not aliasing.

I do not know how this trigger - fine interpolation - fine positioning system works and what kind of interpolation it do between real sample points for fine adjust this interpolated "imagined" point in signal to trigger time position.
Some very sophisticated scopes may do also there Sinc interpolation but with fast look it somehow looks like that there Siglent do linear interpolation (I do not mean this Sinc what we look in display what interpolate through displayed true samples. I think here fine interpolation between true sample points for fast fine adjust every single acquisition signal on display for minimalize time error in positioning. )
Perhaps this thinking is  meaningless but I'm somehow interested still how it produce these "fun" shapes in dots mode when we go to fast changes in signal related to sample rate. 
I have done some tests with SDS1104X-E and SDS1202X-E (Serial "BB" hardware) but they are not exactly comparable due to different input reactances (example 4 channel nominal input is 15pF and 2 channel model nominal is 18pF what leaads to different mismatch using feed thru termination - with fast risetimes this matters) so it need also bit thinking about what is what when look result images but this is now here quite meaningless.


ETA1:I will later, after test data gathering and organizing, add some images to "Siglent SDS1104X-E and SDS1204X-E Mixed Signal Oscilloscopes" for avoid extra hassle or possible highway to huge O.T. debate in this extremely good deep review thread.
They show well how 100MHz model is bit more protected from some aliasing due to different front end bandwidth before ADC.
ETA2: It takes more time. Problem is some tests made using SDS1104X-E FW .20 where is really some things out of order.  (there is perhaps much more wrong than just trace display disappear in some cases).
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 11, 2018, 12:59:09 am
The first implementation of the MSO option has become available with firmware 7.6.1.20 and I’ve received the SLA1016 digital probe about a week ago. Unfortunately the Sbus cable was missing and even though the connectors are identical, an HDMI cable cannot replace it. So I have to wait until I get the original one.

Until then, I’ll show some details of the hardware. First the contents of the box (minus the Sbus cable):

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402749;image)
SLA1016_Set 01

Top left is the interface box SLA1016 that connects to the SDS1004X-E through the Sbus cable at one end. The other end has a 2x34 connector for the ~80cm long high density flat ribbon cable, which in turn connects to the SPL1016 probe head. It is connected in the picture above, but can easily be detached.
The opposite side of the probe head has two standard 1/10” 2x8 pin male connectors where the supplied probe leads can be connected as well as user specific probes, e.g. with a 16 wire flat ribbon cable on a standard 1/10” 2x8 female header.

The two supplied probe leads consist of a 1/10” 2x8 female header with eight 140mm long digital input leads and two 100mm long ground wires. At the end of each wire there is a metal sleeve that connects to 0.64mm pins on hooks or any other test points/connectors.

Finally there is a bag with 20 cheap hooks.


The picture below shows the SPL1016 probe head. It has the relevant specifications printed on it as well as the connector layout and the color scheme for the supplied probe leads.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402751;image)
SPL1016_Head 01


The next image shows the probe connector side of the SPL1016 head together with one probe lead assembly and a hook.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402753;image)
SPL1016_Head 02


The tip of one of the hooks supplied with the SPL1016 is shown below. The diameter of the plastic sleeve is 1/10”.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402755;image)
SLA1016_Hook


Compare this with the E-Z hook (made in USA) supplied with the SPL2016 digital probe head that is an option for the SDS2000(X) oscilloscopes. The quality is appreciably better and the plastic sleeve has only 1/20” diameter at the tip.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402757;image)
SPL2016_E-Z-Hook


As a consequence the noname hooks supplied with the SPL1016 can only connect every other pin on a SOIC with 1/20” pin spacing, whereas the SPL2016 hooks can connect eight adjacent SOIC pins in a row if required.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402759;image)
Digital_Hooks_Spacing


Thankfully this is not an ultimate limitation for the SPL1016, because the E-Z Hooks (and probably most others) can be used together with the SPL1016 without any problems as shown below.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402761;image)
Digital_Hooks 01

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 17_29bis on March 11, 2018, 01:30:34 am
Thanks for additional info regarding the LA and included hooks.

I don't know what is the point  in including those really cheap test probes but that's disappointing. The total cost of  SLA1016 + 16 Channels MSO Software License here in Canada is 427+141 = 568 CAD (which btw is just 80$ less than the cost of a brand new SDS1104X-E)  - and now to add insult to injury they managed to save extra 40 bucks (the cost of  20 Tektronix  Mini Grabbers 206-0364-0)  by including those 5$ total cheap hooks  >:(
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: nctnico on March 11, 2018, 01:40:49 am
 :palm: Flatcable... again... really? Any chance to replace the flatcable with something decent which doesn't get damaged very easely and doesn't clutter your desk?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 11, 2018, 04:34:53 am
Bode Plot comparison
The most intriguing new feature of the Siglent SDS1004X-E series is the Bode plotter – others call it FRA (Frequency Response Analyzer). Checking frequency responses belongs to the daily business of analog circuit designers, as it's used for checking transfer characteristics and port impedances of passive and active components as well as circuits such as amplifiers, attenuators, splitters, filters and any combination of them, e.g. control loops.

I’ve not published a review for the Bode plot feature of the SDS1004X-E so far, simply because it is still work in progress and doesn’t quite meet my expectations yet. There are several optimizations and refinements that I’d like to see and also one major issue that prevents the Bode plotter from passing all my tests. I hope this will change with the next update.

Nevertheless several members here have already shown some experiments with the Bode plot feature, so I guess it’s time for me to make up leeway and publish a little teaser as well. My goal is not just to prove that it does exist, but also what level of performance can be expected (once I declare it mature) – at the very least, since I will not stop pushing Siglent really hard to keep improving it.

For now, I’ll just show a little benchmark test between the following contenders:

For this shootout I have built a simple 455kHz IF filter, consisting of a Kyocera KBF-455R-20A ceramic 6 element filter with two resonant 2nd order L-matching networks for the 50/1500 ohm impedance transformation at both the input and output. This is a rather complex structure with some unwanted responses typical for the ceramic filter, the analysis of which requires high frequency resolution and a wide dynamic range.


Let’s start with the Spectrum Analyzer as a reference.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402793;image)
IF_Filter_455kHz_Ref 01a

The markers show the amplitude levels of the three major peaks. The speed of just 1.1s for one sweep is second to none, but it shows as the amplitude accuracy below -50dBc is not that great, particularly obvious at the falling flanks of the filter and its unwanted responses. On the other hand, there is little visible noise and the dynamic range of the measured spectrum is about 75dB, which would have been even better on a wider span.


Now compare this with the excellent 16 bit PicoScope 4262. A signal generator with a sweep time of 120 seconds has been used to cover the frequency range from 100kHz to 1MHz. This span has been chosen because the FFT only offers a limited choice of analysis bandwidths and it makes no difference for this test setup anyway. Either linear or logarithmic frequency axis is supported; for filter analysis we typically choose linear. An FFT with just 8kpts registers the peak amplitudes for the entire frequency span, but at least two generator sweeps are required to get a reasonably nice plot. A total of 10 minutes for 5 sweeps were required to create the plot shown in the screenshot below. More FFT points would have significantly increased the sweep time without any additional benefit. For 8kpts, the frequency step is 244Hz and resolution bandwidth is about 710Hz using the Flat Top window.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402795;image)
IF_Filter_455kHz_Ref 02_FTZ

While this test setup is certainly anything but fast, it has high frequency resolution and >90dB dynamic range which is the best in this comparison by a clear margin. So this measurement can be considered to be the true reference with regard to amplitude levels. On the downside, this solution cannot provide a phase plot and works up to 5MHz only, as this is the bandwidth limit of the 16 bit PicoScope 4262.


Now for the dedicated frequency response analyzer, which I would have loved to try with the 16 bit PicoScope 4262, but unfortunately the FRA4PicoScope does not support external waveform generators and the integrated low distortion AWG of the PicoScope 4264 has an upper frequency limit of only 20kHz. As a consequence, the 8 bit PicoScope 3206B had to be used. The phase plot has been disabled for visual comparability with the previous measurements.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402797;image)
IF_Filter_455kHz_Ref 03

The frequency span had to be 100kHz to 1MHz because otherwise we wouldn’t get any annotation on the frequency axis. The application supports logarithmic frequency axis only, the grid does not look particularly nice and no cursors for precise measurements are available. There’s a lot of visible noise below -68dB and the dynamic range of the displayed spectrum is just about 66dB because of this. This is the worst dynamic in this comparison, particularly obvious at and below 250kHz. This is mainly because of the PicoScope 3206B ‘s mediocre sensitivity of 10mV/div and the rather low output level of its internal AWG of just 2Vpp.

Even more importantly, the AWGs in the PicoScopes have an output impedance of 600 ohms, which makes the level drop by another 22dB. So the dynamic range can be phantastic in high impedance networks, but it is nearly unusable for the widespread 50 ohm standard. Since we are constricted to the internal AWG of the scope when using the FRA4PicoScope, the upper frequency limit is only 1MHz and the practical applications are very limited because of this as well.

The limitation to 1000 frequency steps/decade rules out more extreme narrowband analyses.

On the positive side, there is the pretty fast sweep time of only 11.7s for 500 data points – the screenshot above shows 1000 data points (19.5s) because of the frequency span which is twice as wide as has been planned initially.


Finally we take a look at the Bode plotter in the Siglent SDS1104X-E and its current state with firmware version 7.6.1.20R1. It gives us the choice between linear or logarithmic frequency axis and for filter analysis, linear is what we want. For the first test, the phase plot has been shifted out of view to maintain visual compatibility with the other contenders. Center frequency and span are both 500kHz in accordance with the spectrum analyzer measurement.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402799;image)
SDS1104X-E_BP_455_500kHz_BP_500_nophase

We get a rather nice low noise trace and about 75dB dynamic range for the displayed spectrum. This looks quite usable in my book, even though the unwanted responses appear a bit too low in amplitude compared with the results from the spectrum analyzer or the 16 bit DSO. I have confirmed that this does not change the least bit with higher frequency resolution.


If we want a phase plot, then there are only two opponents left, the FRA4PicoScope and the Siglent SDS1004X-E. Let’s have a look at the PicoScope first.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402801;image)
IF_Filter_455kHz_Ref 03_Phase

Well, that certainly doesn’t look right and the phase plot is pretty much useless. But there is also an option to “unwrap” the phase plot, and that looks like this:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402803;image)
IF_Filter_455kHz_Ref 03_Phase_unwrap

It looks a lot clearer now, yet the phase plot shows only street numbers except for the filter pass band and the unwanted response. It looks like the system attempts to measure the phase of the noise, which is of course not going to lead anywhere. All in all, this solution is not useful for analysing 50 ohm systems.


Finally the complete Bode plot including phase for the Siglent SDS1104X-E. There is no “unwrap” option (yet), so it looks a bit confusing, especially at the spots where the phase jumps between -180° and +180° (which is the same of course) because of noise and/or minor inaccuracies, but at least it is much closer to the truth than the FRA4PicoScope Result.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402805;image)
SDS1104X-E_BP_455_500kHz_BP_500_2

Anyway, this screenshot already hints on a number of desirable improvements, like dynamic adaption of the threshold for the wrap-around when the phase plot is shifted, then of course the “unwrap” option as well as the possibility to completely hide the phase plot, as it isn’t always needed and for complex structures like this, the picture is much clearer without. In fact, nobody really cares for the phase when analyzing a high order narrowband filter like this.
It can also be seen that the phase plot overwrites the amplitude trace, particularly obvious for the 2nd unwanted resonance at 650kHz; this flaw needs to be resolved as well.


Finally, the table below summarizes the general features and the results from this test.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402807;image)
Bode Plot Comparison

The SDS1004X-E shines with its three analysis channels and offers a fairly complete feature set by providing a phase plot and giving the choice of linear or logarithmic frequency axis. It covers a wide frequency range up to 120MHz (a limit that is most likely to be further expanded in the near future) and offers convenient tracking cursor measurements.

The frequency resolution might appear a little on the low side, but it is certainly adequate, especially since this is the only device in this test restricted to a small 7” TFT, whereas all other contenders are essentially PC applications.

The speed is slow but bearable and I hope we’ll see some improvements in this regard.

Amplitude accuracy appears a bit off at the lower level resonance peaks in this test, but that is not conclusive yet and needs further investigation.

EDIT: Max. vertical sensitivity for PicoScope 3206B corrected to 10mV/div.

EDIT 2: Added some important information on the FRA4PicoScope: the AWGs are 600 ohm output impedance, which explains the very poor dynamic when used in a 50 ohm system. The 1000 poits/decade limit makes extreme narrowband analysis impossible.

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on March 11, 2018, 04:45:47 am
500 frequency steps, low res mode ?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on March 11, 2018, 09:50:24 am
First thank this SFRA test and compare with these PC scopes and what  have very highly limited frequency range.
Unclear (for me) is: when they say some amount of points for decade... is it really what I think...
SFRA from 999000 Hz to 999500 Hz how many steps...  or  just normal IF channel filter and SFRA example from 21.375000 MHz to 21.425000 MHz (oops, there was some PC scope limited to 1MHz "audio" so that only somehow usable for 455kHz IF filters).  So how these points per decade things...

For IF filters tests of course this is very very limited due to very low dynamic  so we do not know "anything" about good filters stop band characteristics. But this is not designed for these. Still many things can do - up to 120MHz depending generator in use.

Only roughly this price class stand alone scopes what have SFRA is Keysight and some chinese GoodWill.
It looks like Kysight have nothing but just feature listed in advertisements (least data sheet what I have seen tell that 10 points/decade)

I think SFRA may rise later more discussion (also about possible performance and UI improvements) but now this:




Top left is the interface box SLA1016 that connects to the SDS1004X-E through the Sbus cable at one end. The other end has a 2x34 connector for the ~80cm long high density flat ribbon cable, which in turn connects to the SPL1016 probe head. It is connected in the picture above, but can easily be detached.


This SPL1016 looks like exactly same SPL1016 what is used with SDS1002X+ models.
Only what I can not see enough clear in images is SLA1016 connector. (ribbon cable between SPL1016 head and SLA1016)
SPL1016 head include electronics, all comparators etc. After this head, in ribbon cable, signal is buffered.
I have used it with SDS1102X+

Now, because this kind of cables wear and damage quite easy in use it is nice if parts can buy separately and not need buy whole set including SLA1016 and SPL1016 together.
 
But question is: Is this SPL1016 head really same and cable with connectors also exactly same what is used in SDS1002X+ MSO.
If so, only new part is this SLA1016 control and converter box.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 11, 2018, 10:44:46 am
500 frequency steps, low res mode ?

I’m not sure if I quite understand your remark/question…

Anyway, it might do no harm to give some additional information on the frequency resolution topic.

The Bode plotter in the SDS1004X-E has three different resolution modes, that provide a total number of frequency steps as shown below:

Low          20
Medium   100
High        500

The number of measurements, hence data points, is the number of frequency steps plus one.

The above scheme has been chosen in order to get a full resolution sweep (high), where each horizontal screen pixel corresponds to a measurement or a fast sweep (low) for a quick overview and also wideband structures that don’t require high frequency resolution. The medium resolution is just a compromise between the two and might be universal for pretty much everything that does not contain any high-Q resonant structures.

Still the 501 data points in high-res mode might not be enough for the following two scenarios:

1.   Detecting narrow resonance peaks in a wideband scan.
2.   Gaining additional detail when zooming into a Bode plot after the measurement has been made.

The first scenario is not very common and would be pretty similar to using peak detect in Y-t mode at a slow timebase in order to capture narrow spikes. While this is a realistic use case for a DSO, it isn’t very common for the frequency response of a circuit. It is only possible if the circuit includes high-Q resonant structures, which should not happen by accident, at least not in the frequency range up to 120MHz. For high-Q resonant structures, we are usually only interested in the frequency span around the resonance frequency, just as for the IF-filter in my previous example and then the frequency resolution is perfectly adequate.

Getting additional detail by zooming into a Bode plot after the measurement on the other hand was just not a design goal for the bode plotter in the SDS1004X-E. We rather have to repeat the measurement (or even take more than one measurement) with a narrow span. This is also a question of measurement speed. If Siglent engineers manage to significantly improve the sweep speed and come anywhere close to the FRA4PicoScope in this regard, then we could always add a “Super High” resolution mode or just increase the number of frequency steps for the existing ones.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 11, 2018, 10:06:17 pm
First thank this SFRA test and compare with these PC scopes and what  have very highly limited frequency range.
Unclear (for me) is: when they say some amount of points for decade... is it really what I think...
SFRA from 999000 Hz to 999500 Hz how many steps...  or  just normal IF channel filter and SFRA example from 21.375000 MHz to 21.425000 MHz (oops, there was some PC scope limited to 1MHz "audio" so that only somehow usable for 455kHz IF filters).  So how these points per decade things...

For IF filters tests of course this is very very limited due to very low dynamic  so we do not know "anything" about good filters stop band characteristics. But this is not designed for these. Still many things can do - up to 120MHz depending generator in use.

Only roughly this price class stand alone scopes what have SFRA is Keysight and some chinese GoodWill.
It looks like Kysight have nothing but just feature listed in advertisements (least data sheet what I have seen tell that 10 points/decade)

Your thinking is absolutely correct. The FRA4PicoScope can handle up to 1000 steps per decade, which may sound like a lot in wideband applications, but makes it unusable for extreme narrowband analysis. For your frequency span examples, it would be just one step (and/or an error message).

I should have pointed this out more clearly in my comparison and I’ve edited my posting in the meantime to include some additional information on the FRA4PicoScope.

Just now it occurred to me that the internal AWGs in the Picoscopes are not only limited to 1MHz and 2Vpp, but have 600 ohms output impedance on top of that, which also explains the high noise floor and poor dynamic of the measurements. We’d need a booster amplifier for proper usage in a 50 ohm system – and then the dynamic would most likely approach 90dB (and up to 100dB if the booster could deliver 10Vpp into 50 ohms).

When talking about just 10 steps/decade, this is clearly a joke and would not even remotely cover my test scenario. Here’s the same 455kHz IF filter plotted with the FRA4PicoScope using only 10 steps/decade:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402900;image)
10 points per decade

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 11, 2018, 10:14:20 pm

Top left is the interface box SLA1016 that connects to the SDS1004X-E through the Sbus cable at one end. The other end has a 2x34 connector for the ~80cm long high density flat ribbon cable, which in turn connects to the SPL1016 probe head. It is connected in the picture above, but can easily be detached.


This SPL1016 looks like exactly same SPL1016 what is used with SDS1002X+ models.
Only what I can not see enough clear in images is SLA1016 connector. (ribbon cable between SPL1016 head and SLA1016)
SPL1016 head include electronics, all comparators etc. After this head, in ribbon cable, signal is buffered.
I have used it with SDS1102X+

Now, because this kind of cables wear and damage quite easy in use it is nice if parts can buy separately and not need buy whole set including SLA1016 and SPL1016 together.
 
But question is: Is this SPL1016 head really same and cable with connectors also exactly same what is used in SDS1002X+ MSO.
If so, only new part is this SLA1016 control and converter box.

I've never had a SDS1000X+, so I cannot comment on it. However I happen to have a picture of the SLA1016 connectors:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402912;image)
SLA1016_Interface
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on March 11, 2018, 10:33:33 pm

Top left is the interface box SLA1016 that connects to the SDS1004X-E through the Sbus cable at one end. The other end has a 2x34 connector for the ~80cm long high density flat ribbon cable, which in turn connects to the SPL1016 probe head. It is connected in the picture above, but can easily be detached.


This SPL1016 looks like exactly same SPL1016 what is used with SDS1002X+ models.
Only what I can not see enough clear in images is SLA1016 connector. (ribbon cable between SPL1016 head and SLA1016)
SPL1016 head include electronics, all comparators etc. After this head, in ribbon cable, signal is buffered.
I have used it with SDS1102X+

Now, because this kind of cables wear and damage quite easy in use it is nice if parts can buy separately and not need buy whole set including SLA1016 and SPL1016 together.
 
But question is: Is this SPL1016 head really same and cable with connectors also exactly same what is used in SDS1002X+ MSO.
If so, only new part is this SLA1016 control and converter box.

I've never had a SDS1000X+, so I cannot comment on it. However I happen to have a picture of the SLA1016 connectors:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402912)
SLA1016_Interface
Do you happen to have a SCSI drive cable and can maybe check if it's the same 68 pin/plug format ?

A cable such as this could then offer a better solution to the gawd awful ribbon cable:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/SCSI-3-Ultra-Cable-68-pin-HD68-Male-to-68-pin-HD68-Male-HP-166298-038-AF-0-60m/391907302964?hash=item5b3f7ede34:g:6GkAAOSwNsRZ41iJ (https://www.ebay.com/itm/SCSI-3-Ultra-Cable-68-pin-HD68-Male-to-68-pin-HD68-Male-HP-166298-038-AF-0-60m/391907302964?hash=item5b3f7ede34:g:6GkAAOSwNsRZ41iJ)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on March 12, 2018, 04:31:48 am

I've never had a SDS1000X+, so I cannot comment on it. However I happen to have a picture of the SLA1016 connectors:


Physically connector looks same as SPL1016 used with SDS1102X+. At this point I´m quite sure SPL1016 including cables is same. Interface with scope is of course different, outside of scope SLA1016 with Sbus. SPL1016 price alone without license and SLA1016 interface box is around 189 Eur (VAT0). This is what need buy if you have full MSO set and later want new probe if it is damaged or want more than just one probe.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on March 12, 2018, 06:48:31 am

I've never had a SDS1000X+, so I cannot comment on it. However I happen to have a picture of the SLA1016 connectors:


Physically connector looks same as SPL1016 used with SDS1102X+. At this point I´m quite sure SPL1016 including cables is same.
It is, I am very sure.
I still have SDS1002X+ option SPL1016 in stock.

I compare the MSO head I have with this photo from Performa01 and they are identical AFAICT.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402751;image)




BUT then I look at the grabbers offered with/for X+ or X-E MSO HW and wonder why Siglent must squeeze last $ from X-E MSO option and then supply grabbers better suited to DIP use rather than SOIC.  :-//  :(

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=402761;image)

Those I have for SDS1kX+ MSO option are black and Siglent branded but appear the same as the grey EZ-HOOK USA made, and have dual side entry connections too.  :)
If these are Chinese copy of some better brand then they look much better suited to be included with X-E MSO HW than what Perfoma01 has that might better be described as from a Aliexpesss bargain bin.



Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: pascal_sweden on March 12, 2018, 03:17:55 pm
Where are the pictures in the above posting?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 12, 2018, 03:54:17 pm
Do you happen to have a SCSI drive cable and can maybe check if it's the same 68 pin/plug format ?

A cable such as this could then offer a better solution to the gawd awful ribbon cable:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/SCSI-3-Ultra-Cable-68-pin-HD68-Male-to-68-pin-HD68-Male-HP-166298-038-AF-0-60m/391907302964?hash=item5b3f7ede34:g:6GkAAOSwNsRZ41iJ (https://www.ebay.com/itm/SCSI-3-Ultra-Cable-68-pin-HD68-Male-to-68-pin-HD68-Male-HP-166298-038-AF-0-60m/391907302964?hash=item5b3f7ede34:g:6GkAAOSwNsRZ41iJ)

It's been nearly two decades that I've last used SCSI and it has been SCSI II back then. I think this has smaller (50 pin?) connectors.

SCSI III might be worth a try, but I most definitely don't have such a cable.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on March 12, 2018, 06:33:03 pm
Where are the pictures in the above posting?
Is that better ?
Added  ;image flags for some browsers to see.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 16, 2018, 11:12:48 pm
There has been a discussion about unexpected inaccuracies when using AC-coupling in another thread:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/differences-in-measurements-50hz-keysight-1000x-scope/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/differences-in-measurements-50hz-keysight-1000x-scope/)

This made me think that my performance verification for the split path input buffer in the Siglent SDS1104X-E might have been incomplete and I should look into this once again more deeply.

My initial concern was that I might have overlooked something, because I’ve only checked the frequency response above 10Hz and only with DC-coupling. I did not check Ac-coupling and thought there might be a hidden issue, maybe even below 10Hz, especially since the corner frequency for AC-coupling is rather low at ~1.2Hz on the SDS1104X-E.

I’ve used the FFT with peak hold and an external AWG to perform a 500 second sweep for the frequency range of 1Hz to 100Hz in order to get a high resolution frequency response graph. I did this twice, first for DC-coupling, storing the result as the blue reference trace REFA and a 2nd time for AC-coupling, which is the white math trace in the screenshot below.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=404370;image)
SDS1104X-E_1-100Hz_DC_AC

As can be seen, there is actually a difference between the DC trace (blue) and the AC trace (white) and despite the low corner frequency the maximum deviation of the rms voltage is some 2.7% around 70Hz.

Knowing this, I’ve checked the difference at 70Hz in the time domain, see screenshot below.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=404372;image)
SDS1104X-E_70Hz_DC_AC

Once again, the DC-coupled signal has been stored as a reference trace REFA and the AC-coupled signal is the green CH.4 trace. The automatic measurements indicate 600mVpp for DC-coupling (REFA) and 612mVpp for AC-coupling (Ch.4). This would be a difference of 2% or 3LSB.

As a conclusion, while there is a difference, it is hard to spot in the time domain without automatic measurements and 3LSB is certainly bearable. Since I’ve played with a split path buffer design a little while, I know that it is not easy to get a result as good as this, so my hat goes off to Siglent R&D for that.

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on March 19, 2018, 01:35:48 pm
I do not want to disturb more this very valued deep review thread with this particular small thing so I do niot insert these example images here

Here in other thread can find some my tiny test about SDS1104X-E  AC and DC coupling low frequencies level flatness and AC corner freq (from low impedance source with).

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/differences-in-measurements-50hz-keysight-1000x-scope/msg1456048/#msg1456048 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/differences-in-measurements-50hz-keysight-1000x-scope/msg1456048/#msg1456048)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Willem2018 on March 22, 2018, 06:53:10 pm
As a newbee I am not sure if this is the right place to post a question about the SDS1104X-E.
I'm considering to buy this scope but what about the acoustic noise of the fan.
Is it acceptable and is there an advise to replace the fan for a quiter one?

Many thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 17_29bis on March 22, 2018, 07:14:54 pm
I am the owner of SDS1204X-E so I think I can share my experience.  The fan noise is noticeable but not to the point when I would think about replacing it right now (but may be in future). For comparison - this fan is the nosiest one among 5 running desktops ( I had to replace some of the stock fans with high quality NOCTUA  fans) , 2 RAID towers and 2 UPS running in the same room.  The second noisy one is the fan of APC Smart-UPS 1500.

I also owned SDS1202X-E for 2 weeks, its fan was more quiet. If its really critical for you I can probably measure the noise level using more scientific approaches.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Willem2018 on March 23, 2018, 08:11:46 am
Thanks for your quick answer!
The NOCTUA fans are selled in the Netherlands so if it is necessary I will replace them.
I own an old 2 channel Agilent 54621A and that unit had a very loud fan I replaced with a silent fan

Again many thanks. :)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Wessel Lemmer on March 23, 2018, 09:34:00 pm
There's a really annoying bug bothering me for a while and i'm wondering if someone else experienced it and know if some update is on the way to fix it.

43: Channel is inverted
45: Change the timebase a few clicks and the inverted channel goes back to non inverted, setting still shows inverted.
46: Change the inverted setting to non inverted and nothing happens
47: Change back to inverted and channel is inverted again on the new timebase

would appreciate it if someone knows something.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on March 23, 2018, 09:38:00 pm
Welcome to the forum Wessel.

Please state the firmware version in yours.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Wessel Lemmer on March 23, 2018, 09:45:01 pm
Thanks, i've joined long ago, i'm just not the posting type  :-[
Software version is 7.6.1.12E1
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Wessel Lemmer on March 23, 2018, 09:47:11 pm
sorry thats 7.6.1.12R1
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on March 23, 2018, 09:51:17 pm
Thanks, i've joined long ago, i'm just not the posting type  :-[
Software version is 7.6.1.12E1
Thanks.
Please install the latest version, 20R1.
You can download it here:
https://www.siglentamerica.com/service-and-support/firmware-software/digital-oscilloscopes/#sds1000x-e-series (https://www.siglentamerica.com/service-and-support/firmware-software/digital-oscilloscopes/#sds1000x-e-series)

After installing ensure you have ~30 minutes warm up time before running the Self Cal.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Wessel Lemmer on March 23, 2018, 10:13:57 pm
Thank you, i tried looking for where to find updates, obviously without success. I've applied the update 7.6.1.20R1 now but i'm afraid its still happening.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 23, 2018, 10:45:29 pm
Sorry, but I’m unable to reproduce this behavior. Everything works as expected with firmware 7.6.1.20R1.

Just to make sure it isn’t a problem with one specific channel, I’ve used all 4 channels in parallel, each of them fed with the same 50Hz sawtooth signal (for easy recognition of the signal polarity) and channels 2, 3 and 4 inverted.

First at 100ms/div:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=406248;image)
SDS1104X-E_INV234_100ms

Now at 5ms/div:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=406250;image)
SDS1104X-E_INV234_5ms

Quite obviously this works as expected.

Well, these tests are with a properly triggered signal in standard Y-t mode, so I tried to resemble the original scene with its somewhat unusual trigger settings (which don’t provide any trigger at all in this case anyway) and invoked roll mode. This results in untriggered roll mode at 100ms/div. Even changed the channel units to Ampere, just to make sure there is no hidden bug related to that:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=406252;image)
SDS1104X-E_INV234_100ms_untriggered_roll

Now switching timebase to 10ms/div results in randomly (auto) triggered acquisitions, yet the signal polarity hasn’t changed on any channel.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=406254;image)
SDS1104X-E_INV234_10ms_untriggered

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on March 23, 2018, 11:09:39 pm
Thank you, i tried looking for where to find updates, obviously without success. I've applied the update 7.6.1.20R1 now but i'm afraid its still happening.
Just check 20R1 is showing in the System info page. If not apply it again.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Wessel Lemmer on March 24, 2018, 04:29:08 am
Wow, thanks for the efforts. yes the version is now 20R1 in the system page.
There is a real possibility that i'm just an idiot, but here's what i did to replicate

Default
ch1 set to 5v/div
switch on ch3
ch3 invert on
ch3 set to 50mv/div
timebase all the way to 1ns
timebase back to 2ms,it happens when i go from 1ms to 2ms
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on March 24, 2018, 04:49:34 am
Wow, thanks for the efforts. yes the version is now 20R1 in the system page.
There is a real possibility that i'm just an idiot, but here's what i did to replicate

Default
ch1 set to 5v/div
switch on ch3
ch3 invert on
ch3 set to 50mv/div
timebase all the way to 1ns
timebase back to 2ms,it happens when i go from 1ms to 2ms


No, not an idiot at all :) - you have just found a bug that isn't easy to spot.

Following your sequence, I could reproduce it.

I've notified Siglent R&D about the issue and expect a fix with the next firmware version.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Wessel Lemmer on March 24, 2018, 05:01:29 am
Thanks, and apologies if this wasn't the right place to post. Excellent review by the way and i have to say i love this scope. 
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on May 21, 2018, 12:38:23 pm
A new firmware has passed the production test at Siglent and is ready to be released. This intermediate release has been triggered by a user request initially:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/using-a-ucurrent-with-siglent-sds1204x-e-or-sds1000x-e-series-(feature-request) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/using-a-ucurrent-with-siglent-sds1204x-e-or-sds1000x-e-series-(feature-request))

This was meant as a quick fix, but several other requests had to be considered as well. Together with other improvements that Siglent was already working on and/or had them ready, this is now not a small update at all.

Unfortunately I don’t have the time to take a closer look right now, but here is a brief overview and revision history.

Actually, there are three updates available:

•   Operating System
•   SDS1004X-E DSO Firmware
•   SLA1016 Digital Channel (MSO Option) Firmware


Operating System Update for SDS1004X_E_6.1.25R1 firmware

2018/04/27 7.1.6.1.25R1
1. From ADS version of 6.1.25R1, SDS1004X-E now indicates 5 sections of software versions, including the OS version ID.
2. Optimized the update rate for remote computer control.
3. Added support to include more versions of WIFI adapters.

You don’t need to update SDS1004X-E OS if you don’t care about these features - but the remote live view alone is certainly worth it.

CAUTION: You won’t see the additional field in the version number until you’ve updated to the latest firmware SDS1004X_E_6.1.25R1!


DSO Firmware Update SDS1004X_E_6.1.25R1

2018/05/02 6.1.25R1
1. Increased XY mode waveform refresh speed.
2. Changed the displayed system information screen. From ADS version of 6.1.25R1, the info screen now shows 5
sections of software versions, including the OS version ID.
3. Optimized remote webpage screen update rate. Requires both OS and ADS update which are located on the SIGLENT product webpage.
4. Add virtual control panel for PC and mobile terminals.
5. Added SCPI commands for Math waveforms (except FFT) and digital channel waveforms (ADS version of SLA1016
should be > 8.1.9). See the SIGLENT product webpage for software updates.
6. Added Digital Channel cursor support.
7. Optimized accuracy of horizontal measurement, especially when there are only a few samples at fast timebases.
8. ‘Link to Trigger’ menu modified to ‘Copy setting’.
9. Added ability to disable one direction of the full duplex encoders.
10. Fixed the bug related to displaying long IC2 decoded packets.
11. Fixed the bug: SDS1004X-E webpage update would sometimes fail.
12. Fixed the channel inversion bug when changing timebase from 1ms to 2ms.
13. Fixed the bug: Unreadable digital system information.


Digital Firmware Update SLA1016_8.1.9

2018/5/2 8.1.9
1. Added SCPI commands for remote digital channel control and data return


I just did a few quick tests and can confirm that the channel inversion bug has been fixed and the custom probes added. Here’s a demo screenshot for the custom probe D set to the smallest 1e-6 factor:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=438184;image)
Custom Probe D 1E-6


The most impressive thing is the new web server though. We now get a playful Teletubby-like user interface, but much more importantly a real time update for the DSO screen. This works really well and allows true remote operation. The screen refresh rate appears quite high and it actually feels like looking at the real DSO screen – just bigger.

Screen Save now stores in PNG format, which is very welcome.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=438190;image)
SDS1004X-E New Web Server

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: cardre on May 21, 2018, 12:55:07 pm
A new firmware has passed the production test at Siglent and is ready to be released. This intermediate release has been triggered by a user request initially:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/using-a-ucurrent-with-siglent-sds1204x-e-or-sds1000x-e-series-(feature-request) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/using-a-ucurrent-with-siglent-sds1204x-e-or-sds1000x-e-series-(feature-request))

This looks like a great update. I must be too quick though, I can't see it on any of the download pages yet. Do you have a link for it, or is this coming shortly?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on May 21, 2018, 09:18:30 pm
A new firmware has passed the production test at Siglent and is ready to be released. This intermediate release has been triggered by a user request initially:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/using-a-ucurrent-with-siglent-sds1204x-e-or-sds1000x-e-series-(feature-request) (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/using-a-ucurrent-with-siglent-sds1204x-e-or-sds1000x-e-series-(feature-request))

This looks like a great update. I must be too quick though, I can't see it on any of the download pages yet. Do you have a link for it, or is this coming shortly?
Thanks.

I got a non-public preview for the new firmware from Siglent R&D directly, just as a very last verification step so to speak.

Unfortunately, I only have time at the weekends and only the holiday today enabled me to check the update process at least to be hassle-free and some of the advertised (and also non-advertised, like the custom probe menu for example) fixes and features actually look good at first glance.

Since I've not immediately discovered any major problems that would warrant the pull of the emergency brakes, I expect the new firmware to be publicly released very soon - maybe already tomorrow. Since I cannot test it any further at the moment, it'll be your turn now ;)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 21, 2018, 09:39:27 pm
Interesting, thanks.
So no apparent input attenuation indicator added into the channel tab.  :-//

Can you share any discussion with R&D as to why that wasn't considered after we've discussed that in detail ?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on May 21, 2018, 10:31:59 pm
Interesting, thanks.
So no apparent input attenuation indicator added into the channel tab.  :-//

Can you share any discussion with R&D as to why that wasn't considered after we've discussed that in detail ?

Sorry, but I cannot remember that I'd ever been involved in such a discussion, hence cannot know if and what has been considered by Siglent R&D.

It sounds like you have requested something, but then I would rather expect you to know the status. What am I missing?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 21, 2018, 11:22:18 pm
Interesting, thanks.
So no apparent input attenuation indicator added into the channel tab.  :-//

Can you share any discussion with R&D as to why that wasn't considered after we've discussed that in detail ?

Sorry, but I cannot remember that I'd ever been involved in such a discussion, hence cannot know if and what has been considered by Siglent R&D.

It sounds like you have requested something, but then I would rather expect you to know the status. What am I missing?
It was WRT 1202X-E but applies to all Siglent models and I thought you'd seen all this.....yes we've emailed about a few things but didn't discuss this in detail.
Starts here
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/msg1373837/#msg1373837 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-technical-support-join-in-eevblog/msg1373837/#msg1373837)
On same issue here
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/here_s-how-bad-siglent_s-(sds1104x-e)-gui-is/msg1471679/#msg1471679 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/here_s-how-bad-siglent_s-(sds1104x-e)-gui-is/msg1471679/#msg1471679)

In actual use it's not so necessary as when you hit a channel button to enable control with this multiplexed setup the input attenuation is plainly visible in the selected channel menu.
However for documentation, screenshots could offer much more info if the input attenuation was visible on all channel tabs. This would be a great improvement to all Siglent models that run the V2 FW and with careful implementation input attenuation could be shown on each channel tab.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: toli on May 22, 2018, 05:46:01 am
The most impressive thing is the new web server though. We now get a playful Teletubby-like user interface, but much more importantly a real time update for the DSO screen. This works really well and allows true remote operation. The screen refresh rate appears quite high and it actually feels like looking at the real DSO screen – just bigger.

Screen Save now stores in PNG format, which is very welcome.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=438190;image)
SDS1004X-E New Web Server

Thanks for the update here. I've just ordered a unit with the MSO option, and some of these things will come in handy. One place where a larger screen can be great is when working with multiple digital signals + analog channels, where you need the extra resolution.
Is the resolution of the remote display identical to physical scope screen or is it higher (lower?)?
Does it keep all the front panel control active while using this remote control program?
What interface are you using for the control? LAN/USB/wifi?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 22, 2018, 05:56:55 am
Does it keep all the front panel control active while using this remote control program?
Yes.
Quote
What interface are you using for the control? LAN/USB/wifi?
Any of the above can control the scope but the webserver is accessible only to LAN and WiFi.
It's as simple as configuring the IP address.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: toli on May 22, 2018, 06:29:06 am
thank you.

any idea about the resolution of the display in this mode?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 22, 2018, 08:01:51 am
thank you.

any idea about the resolution of the display in this mode?
TBH we'd all be guessing until this new FW is released publicly.
Just checked the 3 Siglent sites I use and it's only on the Chinese one as yet.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 22, 2018, 09:03:33 am
25R1 XY teaser.

https://youtu.be/wUCdaVq3kL0
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on May 22, 2018, 09:28:50 pm
thank you.

any idea about the resolution of the display in this mode?

Resolution is the same as the scope. The web server does not do anything different than what the scope does when operated and viewed locally.

Yet depending on screen size and resolution, the DSO screen usually appears enlarged on the PC (I'm using 27" @ 1920 x 1080).
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on May 25, 2018, 03:15:51 pm
Someone was interested in getting a TESTEC TT-HV250 probe and after reading my reply #62

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1435196/#msg1435196 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1435196/#msg1435196)

could not believe that there actually was no means for a proper ground connection at the probe-tip end.

The following photos are intended to show what I have. First with the condom fitted  :)

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=441196;image)
TESTEC TT-HV250 01


And without:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=441202;image)
TESTEC TT-HV250 02


It should be immediately obvious, that neither the supplied probe BNC adaptor nor a ground spring (not supplied) could make a contact here- The white part is non conductive and too small in diameter on top of that.

I’ve purchased this probe a long time (>5 years) ago, so maybe the probe design has changed since then.

It might also well be that I just got a lemon.

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on May 25, 2018, 03:46:44 pm
I have same probe but sold as Hameg  HZ53..

You can pull the outer black plastic tube all the way... This is how it should look..

Regards,
Sinisa
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on May 25, 2018, 04:16:00 pm
I have same probe but sold as Hameg  HZ53..

You can pull the outer black plastic tube all the way... This is how it should look..

Regards,
Sinisa

Thanks for that. Yes, that makes more sense. That metal sleeve is definitely missing on my probe, as can be seen in my picture. I've already suspected something like that...

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Strat_84 on May 25, 2018, 04:33:23 pm
The Hameg HZ53 is rated for a much lower voltage (1.2kV vs 2.5kV), it looks the same as the TT-HV150 even though specifications differ.

I'm starting to wonder if they just didn't hide the grounded part in the 2.5kV version for safety reasons. Maybe a risk of arcing at high voltage ? On Testec 600V probes the metal part goes down to the black plastic next to the tip, on the 1.5kV probe it doesn't go as low and there's some white plastic in between, and on the 2.5kV one it's all covered.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on May 25, 2018, 06:27:15 pm
The Hameg HZ53 is rated for a much lower voltage (1.2kV vs 2.5kV), it looks the same as the TT-HV150 even though specifications differ.

I'm starting to wonder if they just didn't hide the grounded part in the 2.5kV version for safety reasons. Maybe a risk of arcing at high voltage ? On Testec 600V probes the metal part goes down to the black plastic next to the tip, on the 1.5kV probe it doesn't go as low and there's some white plastic in between, and on the 2.5kV one it's all covered.

I think you're right, definitely creepage distance will be different. But anyway, that means that Performa1's probe cannot be used with coaxial converter or ground spring...
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 25, 2018, 08:14:13 pm
Neither of my 100x probes have ground springs but the metal sleeve comes all the way to near the tip like any other probe.
http://www.pintek.com.tw/product_detail/landersound/img.php?Company_SN=6002&case=19272 (http://www.pintek.com.tw/product_detail/landersound/img.php?Company_SN=6002&case=19272)

The 1000x 8KV one I have has a long fixed reference lead and NO grounding anywhere near the tip:
http://www.pintek.com.tw/product_detail/landersound/img.php?Company_SN=6002&case=127265 (http://www.pintek.com.tw/product_detail/landersound/img.php?Company_SN=6002&case=127265)

Here's the 1kx on the Probe Cal SDS1104X-E

Normal acquisition
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=441322)

Averages engaged
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=441328)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on May 25, 2018, 10:25:27 pm
The 1000x 8KV one I have has a long fixed reference lead and NO grounding anywhere near the tip:
http://www.pintek.com.tw/product_detail/landersound/img.php?Company_SN=6002&case=127265 (http://www.pintek.com.tw/product_detail/landersound/img.php?Company_SN=6002&case=127265)

Yes, but we can forgive it that since it's only rated for 40MHz.

The TESTEC TT-HV250 on the other hand, has a specified bandwidth of 300MHz, which is totally unrealistic without proper HF grounding at the probe end.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Hydron on May 27, 2018, 09:30:55 am
RE the testec probe, if you take off the black plastic sleeve (just pull firmly) then the red plastic clip guide thing, you can put the black plastic sleeve back on with enough clearance to fit the BNC adapter. Spring clip would need the sleeve to be left off entirely. If you're poking around with the spring then you're probably using it for the low capacitive loading rather than high voltage so having a metal bit exposed to touch is less of an issue.

As for performance, I've tested these with a very fast rise time source and they behave rather well. Couldn't get the compensation 100% perfect in my setup (dead flat top of the waveform was elusive) but it was still a pretty good performance, especially for the price. Biggest downside I see is the friction fit spring clip - is a bit of a "how ya doing" way to retain it and they can come off easier than they should, especially as they get used a bit.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: bullonwheels on June 03, 2018, 05:19:27 pm
Amazing details about 1104X. I ended up buying 1 last in stock :) and cancelled Rigol 1052
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Willem2018 on July 03, 2018, 12:20:45 pm
Hello SDS1104X-E users!
I use this scope (software version 7.0.6.1.25R2) for a while and put my scope images on an USB-stick.
But to transfer the images to a document on my PC is time consuming and besides of this: they haven't a date/time stamp (because the scope hasn't an real time clock).

Is there a better/simpler way to transfer scope images to the PC?

Many thanks!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: BillB on July 03, 2018, 12:28:57 pm
Hello SDS1104X-E users!
I use this scope (software version 7.0.6.1.25R2) for a while and put my scope images on an USB-stick.
But to transfer the images to a document on my PC is time consuming and besides of this: they haven't a date/time stamp (because the scope hasn't an real time clock).

Is there a better/simpler way to transfer scope images to the PC?

Many thanks!

Can you connect the scope to your ethernet network?  It has a built-in webserver that you can remote control the scope and capture images.  You can also use the EasyScope software that Siglent provides.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tefe on July 03, 2018, 12:33:15 pm
Connect the box to your PC via LAN, set its IP, open the web browser(better chrome) on your PC and type the IP to address, you'll see the screen. Hope you success!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Willem2018 on July 03, 2018, 04:39:03 pm
Thanks BillB and tefe!

Is it also possible by connect it via the backside USB Type-B connector?
I have tried this USB connection but I haven't any response on my PC.
And do I have to install the SDS1004X-E Operating System software on the scope?
The function of this Operating System software is not clear to me.  :(
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on July 03, 2018, 07:22:35 pm
And do I have to install the SDS1004X-E Operating System software on the scope?
The function of this Operating System software is not clear to me.  :(
The new OS update includes the updated webserver so yes you need to install it to take advantage of the features it offers.
To use the webserver the IP on the scope must be set and then you enter this IP into a browser and get a landing page where you then select the webserver. Then expand the UI with the small blue X and use the buttons at the bottom to manage file saves and screen shots.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: youthsonic on July 04, 2018, 01:01:59 am
So... is it fair to say that the SDS1104X-E is the best bang for the buck scope for $500 USD and under? Or are we still recommending the Rigol 1054Z?
For my needs, I don't really know what I need. I like to tinker with electronics, and want to start fixing things that break instead of just buying new.
I also want to start building audio amplifiers, and Raspberry Pi hats for audio devices. I am happy to pay the difference, but is the Siglent worth the extra money for my use?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: BillB on July 04, 2018, 01:12:47 am
Thanks BillB and tefe!

Is it also possible by connect it via the backside USB Type-B connector?
I have tried this USB connection but I haven't any response on my PC.

To use the USB connection, you would need to install the EasyScope and NI VISA software.

So... is it fair to say that the SDS1104X-E is the best bang for the buck scope for $500 USD

With the bandwidth hack, I think it becomes a very good deal for the money.  :)  Since you aren't sure what you need, and if you are willing to spend the money initially, it will give you a lot of capability to experiment and room to grow.     
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on July 04, 2018, 01:21:09 am
So... is it fair to say that the SDS1104X-E is the best bang for the buck scope for $500 USD and under? Or are we still recommending the Rigol 1054Z?
For my needs, I don't really know what I need. I like to tinker with electronics, and want to start fixing things that break instead of just buying new.
I also want to start building audio amplifiers, and Raspberry Pi hats for audio devices. I am happy to pay the difference, but is the Siglent worth the extra money for my use?
Welcome to the forum.

In short, yes.
But let's look at why:
Dual ADC's permit higher sampling rates with 3 or more channels active.
No need to hack for 100 MHz BW. (plus also recent found hack to 200 MHz BW)
It's a fuller featured DSO with additional optional functionality to 'grow into' if and when needed.

4 channels will cover all bases while ability and knowledge develops but that's not to say the bit cheaper SDS1202X-E couldn't also suit your immediate needs.
Good luck with your hunt.

Bill sums it up quite nicely.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Old Printer on July 04, 2018, 01:26:28 am
So... is it fair to say that the SDS1104X-E is the best bang for the buck scope for $500 USD and under? Or are we still recommending the Rigol 1054Z?
For my needs, I don't really know what I need. I like to tinker with electronics, and want to start fixing things that break instead of just buying new.
I also want to start building audio amplifiers, and Raspberry Pi hats for audio devices. I am happy to pay the difference, but is the Siglent worth the extra money for my use?
If you don't really know what you need in a scope, it is going to be impossible for anyone to tell you what is the best bang for the buck scope for you. These two scopes have their differences and have been openly examined in many threads. You need to study the two scopes in detail and understand what each has as strong points and weak points, then look at your needs and see if there is a fit. This is a tall order for a beginner, which I am one and why I have not bought a DSO besides the Analog Discovery. My guess is that at this point it may be too soon for you to buy a scope and hope to get the best deal on exactly what you need. All you can do really is study and learn,  and when you cannot wait any more, make a decision on what you have learned. That's what I am doing :)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: TheNewLab on July 06, 2018, 04:53:58 am
OK, I have no idea how to capture another's comment and insert into my own post, so here's a cut and past from the previous entry

If you don't really know what you need in a scope, it is going to be impossible for anyone to tell you what is the best bang for the buck scope for you
I know people mean well, I have seen this so many times. From my own experience as more lame than a Newbie, At some point you just want an oscilloscope, you have seen so much YT's Argh Dave and Martin Lortin....My thing has to keep this thing a hobby, so only toys and a decent multimeter..well, a decade later and thousands of YTs I have really lost it.

As I was saying at some point you get to where you just want a scope,(or AWG, or whatever) so what can I afford. What can I justify so without ending up in  a divorce? Then comes what is the "best bang for buck" and various ways we need to rationalize, try to be logical, whatever. Of course I did not know what to use a real oscilloscope for. I still am not clear and i have just bought three entry level units..instead of my trusty ol' $100 Velleman HPS40, or the $125 plus DO Quad 203..

We just watch and learn all the amazing and cool things that such a tool can do. So, best bang for buck..If is can feel I get that, then I do have something to discover, and learn and what I am going to use it for?? no idea..However, I will find something.

Frankly, I would love to find a series of YT videos, on just using a 100MHz 4 channel (plus/minus) being used in the process of doing actual work, not the how to stuff. I want to discover the features and find some device and scrap electronics and follow along and say "HEY, a scope can also do THIS, too??" "cool!"

for me I am at: searching for this type of YT videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf0TgfzYQXE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf0TgfzYQXE)

and I said COOL! I have a recording engineer friend, I wonder if I could nag him to so some mic audio profiles of different mics!

or,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwbwq-AKbPc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwbwq-AKbPc)
12 minutes and he is pulling out some of his old projects and scoping them! "I can do that! a can find something and scope out that thing to find that issue!"
plus he has promised to do more videos using other scope features on some other gadgets he has.! Whoo Hoo!

I found a satellite set top box on the street. Now I am saying "how do I inject a signal..where do I inject a signal? ..how will I inject a signal? somehow 'cause I want to scope something in there.."

The detailed review of the Siglent SDS 1000x I saw a photo of him using the MSO and he connected a grabber to every pin on an IC. I said, " whoa...you can use logic probes all on one IC?? I thought it was for tracking signals in various parts of a circuit, not I single IC??" "Cool !! where do i have some digital IC and do that...hum..I need some circuit so it is active..hummm"

to all of this in my long winded post. Sometimes it is just the sheer excitement of getting a tool that can do so many things you just do not yet understand. I have no idea what I am going to use it for, I have no idea what options I should look for. I just want something I
1.) can afford without ending up sleeping on the couch.
2.) can make some explanation that sounds really good that I need that particular scope
3.) If has a lot of features so I can have lots of discovery time and hopefully do some amazing things.

That's all.

Sorry, I have run this topic into the ground.
I do mean to dis' the previous post at all. He really means well and in a good way...

only just sometimes us neo-newbies have gotten to a point, that we feel it is time to get something a little more expensive, and all we really want is as many features as we can get. and they are mostly useful features..

I hope I am not offending anyone here. We all mean well, and try to be as helpful as we can.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: BillB on July 06, 2018, 12:43:24 pm
OK, I have no idea how to capture another's comment and insert into my own post, so here's a cut and past from the previous entry

Frankly, I would love to find a series of YT videos, on just using a 100MHz 4 channel (plus/minus) being used in the process of doing actual work, not the how to stuff. I want to discover the features and find some device and scrap electronics and follow along and say "HEY, a scope can also do THIS, too??" "cool!"


To capture someone else's post, you click on the "quote" link that is to the far right of their post title.  Or once you start composing your message, you can scroll down and click on the "Insert Quote" link to the far right of the post title.

As far as cool scope videos doing actual work, there are tons of them available.  However, for scope usage and many of the topics he covers in general, w2aew https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiqd3GLTluk2s_IBt7p_LjA (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiqd3GLTluk2s_IBt7p_LjA) creates some great content.  It is concise, clear, and very approachable for all types.  He sets up real samples and does the work.   
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Old Printer on July 06, 2018, 03:38:19 pm
OK, I have no idea how to capture another's comment and insert into my own post, so here's a cut and past from the previous entry

If you don't really know what you need in a scope, it is going to be impossible for anyone to tell you what is the best bang for the buck scope for you
I know people mean well, I have seen this so many times. From my own experience as more lame than a Newbie, At some point you just want an oscilloscope, you have seen so much YT's Argh Dave and Martin Lortin....My thing has to keep this thing a hobby, so only toys and a decent multimeter..well, a decade later and thousands of YTs I have really lost it.

I did not intentionally leave you an empty answer to your question, but this section of the hobbyist digital scope market has been under a microscope for the last six months or so. Without knowing what, if any, particular tasks a new scope buyer wants to accomplish there is really not much more to be said. I now see you have very recently picked up a 1054Z at better than a third less than the best price I have seen. If it is new, from a legit dealer, then that is in itself a major break through, though I still see the older 1052 at $300 so I am really curious.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: TheNewLab on July 19, 2018, 02:15:53 am
Quote
apture someone else's post, you click on the "quote" link that is to the far right of their post title.  Or once you start composing your message, you can scroll down and click on the "Insert Quote" link to the far right of the post title.

Thank you so much BillB
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: TheNewLab on July 19, 2018, 02:18:24 am
-old Printer,
 I sent you a message in more detail.

For everyone else,
The price I quoted was what I ended up paying after Amazon made a screw up, and then they gave me a huge credit.. my net cost after the partial refund was $226. the original purchase price was $349. I have this kind of Karma where suppliers and shippers make mistakes they really shouldn't have. After running a large mail-order company..I guess I can kind of get under people's skin.

I was so hyped with coffee and two days without sleep when I made that post. And so delighted that I had the courage to try a hack and succeed the first time.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: lordvader88 on October 24, 2018, 03:00:04 am
So can these be hacked to 200MHz ?

I should really get 1 of these anyway. The SDS1204 is too expensive for now, and the 300MHz versions only have 2ch and are even more money.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on October 24, 2018, 03:24:54 am
So can these be hacked to 200MHz ?
Apparently.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds1104x-e-hack-to-200mhz-and-full-options/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds1104x-e-hack-to-200mhz-and-full-options/)

Quote
I should really get 1 of these anyway. The SDS1204 is too expensive for now, and the 300MHz versions only have 2ch and are even more money.
There are no 300 MHz versions of SDS1000X or X-E DSO's but the SDS2000X series offers 2 and 4 ch models to 300 MHz. Until the new SDS5000X models are released soon, the current top model is SDS2304X.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: lordvader88 on October 24, 2018, 07:52:14 am
Ok thanks

Well there's the siglent sds1302CFL that's 300MHz and with 2GS/s, but would cost +1000USD. Hmmm, they only have 24k memory tho, vs 2M for 1104x-e

Now I have my mind set on 4ch but faster than the ds1054z
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: lordvader88 on October 24, 2018, 08:30:07 am
Whats the fastest sec/div this can be set to ? I don't see it mentioned outright
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on October 24, 2018, 08:37:46 am
Well there's the siglent sds1302CFL that's 300MHz and with 2GS/s, but would cost +1000USD. Hmmm, they only have 24k memory tho, vs 2M for 1104x-e
All non X-series scopes from Siglent are outdated by now. The top models of these may have 300MHz bandwidth and a high sample rate, but slow waveform update rate, hence no intensity grading and lack many of the advanced features the newer scope generation offers. I guess the main reason why these old designs are still around is because there's a demand for such (high bandwidth/buck) instruments in some regions of the (mainly non-western) world.

By the way, the SDS1202X-E, SDS1104X-E, SDS1204X-E have a lot more memory than 2Mpts. A total of 28 Mpts (2 x 14 or 4 x 7) in normal use and up to >100Mpts total in History and Sequence recording.

As can be found in the data sheet as well as my review documents, the fastest timebase is 1ns/div.


Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: lordvader88 on October 25, 2018, 02:44:59 am
Ok thanks

In terms of NAND type memoroy or modern DDR(x) ram, what do these modern scopes use and how much ?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 07, 2018, 05:49:20 pm
I got a request for another noise demonstration, so here it is.

Ch.1: 20MHz BW-Limit, DC, open input
Ch.2: 20MHz BW-Limit, AC, open input
Ch.3: 20MHz BW-Limit, DC, ext. 50Ohm input termination
Ch.4: 20MHz BW-Limit, AC, ext. 50Ohm input termination

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=590872;image)
SDS1104X-E Noise TD 20MHz

There are no significant differences and RMS noise is about 29µV on average.

If we really need clean traces, we can use Average acquisition mode. This attenuates any modulation, but doesn’t affect the bandwidth. Since it’s HW-accelerated, the waveform update rate is also nearly the same as in normal acquisition mode.

Here’s an example how just 4 times averaging cleans up the traces very nicely:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=590878;image)
SDS1104X-E Noise TD 20MHz AVG4


Finally I can demonstrate the low frequency noise floor (which is always the most critical one) by showing an FFT from DC to 500Hz with ~1Hz frequency step, hence about 3-4Hz RBW with the flat top window:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=590860;image)
SDS1104X-E Noise FD 500Hz

FFT trace averaging 16 times to get a clear picture as is common for noise measurements.

EDIT: sorry, I've attached the wrong screenshots originally.

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 08, 2018, 12:52:24 am
In interleaved mode (full 1GSa/s per channel) the noise is even a tad lower.
Here's another screenshot showing the peak-peak measurement also.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=591130;image)
SDS1104X-E Noise TD CH4 20MHz
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 08, 2018, 01:17:50 pm
I got another request for a 150µV low frequency challenge.

Well, this is certainly going to be a problem for any 8bit scope, even if it has a low noise 500µV/div setting.

This is about a 150µVrms sine at 10Hz – the frequency where noise is strongest due to the low frequency path in the input buffer, which consists of a high value resistor network at the input and some FET OpAmp with considerable 1/f noise. Furthermore, this OpAmp has to make up for the attenuation of the resistive input divider and then feeds its output to the summing node of the split path input buffer via another high value resistor.

Here’s the test as requested, with 3.0 bits Eres, which acts as a lowpass filter and won’t help with the 1/f noise. Yet I’ve turned the memory down to 14kpts in order to achieve some 800Hz cutoff frequency and exclude at least the high frequency noise by this.

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=591400;image)
SDS1104X-E_Sine_150µV_10ms_Eres3_14kpts

Well, the result is certainly anything but pretty.

We get much better results by using Average instead of Eres – here’s an example for 16 times Averaging and deep 1.4Mpts memory:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=591406;image)
SDS1104X-E_Sine_150µV_10ms_Avg16_1.4Mpts

Now we get the full bandwidth (well, limited to 5MHz by the 10MSa/s sample rate) and the signal looks reasonably nice.


Just as a comparison, a true 16bit Picoscope 4262 with HiRes to 20bits (not even necessary) handles this much better, even though its highest sensitivity is just 2mV/div (I’ve used zoom in this screenshot):

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=591412;image)
Pico_4262_Sine_150µV_20ms_HiRes20_2Mpts

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: kahuna0k on December 12, 2018, 11:01:20 pm
The first implementation of the MSO option has become available with firmware 7.6.1.20 and I’ve received the SLA1016 digital probe about a week ago. Unfortunately the Sbus cable was missing and even though the connectors are identical, an HDMI cable cannot replace it. So I have to wait until I get the original one.

Until then, I’ll show some details of the hardware. First the contents of the box (minus the Sbus cable):

Did you finally got the SBUS cable and did the review of the SLA1016? I've been unable to find it in the thread. I'm thinking about getting it to be able to trigger on analog. I have a Digital Discovery (https://store.digilentinc.com/digital-discovery-portable-usb-logic-analyzer-and-digital-pattern-generator/ (https://store.digilentinc.com/digital-discovery-portable-usb-logic-analyzer-and-digital-pattern-generator/)) from Digilent that goes up to 800MS/s but is digital only. What's your opinon on the SLA1016?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tmbinc on December 13, 2018, 12:00:01 am
Also I'm still really, really curious if there's a Zynq in the SLA1016. Any teardown pics? :)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tv84 on December 13, 2018, 02:52:37 pm
Also I'm still really, really curious if there's a Zynq in the SLA1016. Any teardown pics? :)

I think there is. Because the SLA1016 has a specific .ADS (with specific Product_ID) with code, FPGA, etc.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 13, 2018, 03:20:54 pm
The first implementation of the MSO option has become available with firmware 7.6.1.20 and I’ve received the SLA1016 digital probe about a week ago. Unfortunately the Sbus cable was missing and even though the connectors are identical, an HDMI cable cannot replace it. So I have to wait until I get the original one.

Until then, I’ll show some details of the hardware. First the contents of the box (minus the Sbus cable):

Did you finally got the SBUS cable and did the review of the SLA1016? I've been unable to find it in the thread. I'm thinking about getting it to be able to trigger on analog. I have a Digital Discovery (https://store.digilentinc.com/digital-discovery-portable-usb-logic-analyzer-and-digital-pattern-generator/ (https://store.digilentinc.com/digital-discovery-portable-usb-logic-analyzer-and-digital-pattern-generator/)) from Digilent that goes up to 800MS/s but is digital only. What's your opinon on the SLA1016?

Thanks!
Well, I got the Sbus cable, but then I quickly found a couple issues and wanted to wait with the review until everything was fixed.
Time passed by and some of my complaints just couldn't be addressed because of the given architecture (external device with its own intelligence, hence integration into the DSO isn't great). I got busy with other topics and the SLA1016 review got never completed.

However I have posted some of the old material together with some comments here (Reply #1070):

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg2007983/#msg2007983 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg2007983/#msg2007983)
 

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: kahuna0k on December 13, 2018, 08:45:57 pm
Thank you! According to the other post, those tests were done 9 months ago, do you know if:
Quote
Mixed channel Pattern Trigger is not supported, so it has to be either an analog or digital pattern.
is still true? If that is the case I'll pass, as that's probably the only advantage of the MSO I was looking for. For the rest of the things I prefer a USB LA.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on December 15, 2018, 12:03:01 am
Thank you! According to the other post, those tests were done 9 months ago, do you know if:
Quote
Mixed channel Pattern Trigger is not supported, so it has to be either an analog or digital pattern.
is still true? If that is the case I'll pass, as that's probably the only advantage of the MSO I was looking for. For the rest of the things I prefer a USB LA.
It is still true, because the SLA1016 is an external device that has its own independant acquisition and trigger circuits.
There is a means to synchronize the records so that the time relation between analog and digital is maintained, but with this architecture, the individual trigger circuits cannot have a high speed link with single digit nanosecond accuracy to implement a combined pattern trigger.

While the combined analog/digital pattern trigger isn't available, the other advantages of an MSO over the LA are still there:

- Real time screen display, high maximum waveform update rate
- Time correlation between analog and digital

However, together with the other limitations, I am glad that the concept of having an external device with its own intelligence is limited to the low cost entry level DSOs (X-E series).
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tinhead on January 15, 2019, 07:44:33 pm
Here comes an in-depth review of the optional SAG1021 AWG.

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 (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)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=624244)

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Rerouter on January 15, 2019, 09:44:46 pm
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?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tinhead on January 15, 2019, 10:24:48 pm
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!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Rerouter on January 16, 2019, 01:53:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: MartyMacGyver on February 16, 2019, 08:42:35 am
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.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on February 16, 2019, 09:03:56 am
Yep Marty these 2 probes are physically identical.
Your mention is the first I've seen of any problems with the hook hat connection.
Have to tried swapping hats to confirm just the hat is the issue ?

In a YT video Defpom did with my demo unit (mid '17 manufacture) he had issues with the hat's coming apart, that is the plastic retainer was popping out of the hat so we sent Siglent this info for them to pass onto their probe supplier. Haven't seen any further reports of this problem so it must have been sorted.  :phew:
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on February 16, 2019, 10:25:08 am
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 would have to say that the (my) PP510 and PP215 are not physically identical, but – and this is a big “but” – I cannot really comment on the current situation.

Like most other brands, Siglent do not manufacture the standard probes themselves but rely on some company specialized in probe design and manufacturing.

My SDS1000X-E DSOs are very early pre-production units and the supplied probes are most likely not from the latest batch. Siglent might have even decided to change the probe manufacturer at some point. I would still expect the electrical performance to remain pretty much unchanged, since all probes are manufactured according to Siglent’s specifications, which ensure the best possible match with their scopes in terms of HF compensation.

I got my PP215 in Q1/2017, PP510 in Q3/2017.

At a first glance, they look very similar (see Probes_PP510_PP215_01.jpg, PP510 is at the top), but there are major differences in the electrical specifications already (see Data_PP510_PP215.png)

The voltage rating is marked on the probes and reads slightly different on the PP215 when compared to the datasheet: 600V DC PK AC CAT II

The tips are gold plated on my PP215 (see Tips_PP510_PP215_01.jpg, PP510 is at the top).

The hooks are different too. More like wire type on PP510, blade type on PP215.

The internals of the hooks look slightly different too (see Hooks_PP510_PP215_01.jpg, PP510 is at the left).

Both hooks fit perfectly fine on their respective probes, there really is no difference of practical relevance.

Tautech should have seen much more recent versions of the PP510 and PP215, so his comments are ultimately more relevant for the current situation.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: HendriXML on April 08, 2019, 03:19:00 pm
Here comes an in-depth review of the optional SAG1021 AWG.

It’s a bit ridiculous, but I had to split the review for this humble little AWG into four parts (three would have worked too, but I didn’t want to tear the sine wave chapter apart). So here are the first two parts:

SAG1021 Review 1-8
- Operation
- Zero Adjust
- Frequency Accuracy


SAG1021 Review 8-25
- Waveforms
-- Sine
--- Amplitude Accuracy
--- Harmonic Distortion
--- Phase Noise
I’ve read your review, thanks for all the effort!

I’ve found the following issue
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds1104x-e-and-sag1021-unwanted-dc-offset/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds1104x-e-and-sag1021-unwanted-dc-offset/)
Any thought or suggestions?

You did some precise DC measurements, did you dc-offset the AWG using the scope?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Rerouter on April 09, 2019, 08:51:36 am
The scope auto zero gets generally within 3-5 dac steps, the manual zero gets better, if it drifts, it seems to be a slow drift. but is does change after a week powered down.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Cpx on May 03, 2019, 01:02:17 am
Does this scope have have channel digital filers hidden somewhere?
From my current research i couldn't find any :(.
Are there plans to be added in the future like in  the CML series ?
Thanks! :-+
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on May 03, 2019, 07:10:06 am
Does this scope have have channel digital filers hidden somewhere?
From my current research i couldn't find any :(.


No.

Digital side filters are good in some situations with some notes related to aliasing and this depends also if filter input data is true full samplerate or if it use decimated samples. Filter itself do not know if filter input signal is ADC produced alias or true signal. So user need some times be careful and not always blind believe results.
Only really trusted filters are in analog side before ADC. Now and for (nearly) ever.

Of course SDS1000X-E  still have some in digital side but they do not name it as filter.
It works like  low pass filter but is in digital side.
And user can not adjust it using corner frequency. Not very handy but more than nothing.

Eres acts like Low Pass Filter. 

It is explained here (note that all details are not same in Siglent but still useful to read, same principles. http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/appnotes/an_006a.pdf (http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/appnotes/an_006a.pdf)

Example (LeCroy AN-006A, table 1) with full 1GSa/s  3bit Eres is around 8MHz LPF.
With 10MSa/s it is like 80kHz LPF.
I have not measured with Siglent but roughly in same ballpark.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: JPortici on May 03, 2019, 07:52:50 am
Eres acts like Low Pass Filter.

but you can't set the corner frequency, and you don't have highpass/bandpass/notch.
I would find digital filters to be useful to look at for example pwm signal. One can use the integrator math operator in conjunction with the offset to produce something that resembles a LPF but the result is rather poor. Same with HPF/Differentiator.
Another is to filter out specific content, BEFORE doing further analysis

Is there a plan to add them? I remember reading something about it a long time ago..
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on May 03, 2019, 08:33:56 am
Does this scope have have channel digital filers hidden somewhere?
From my current research i couldn't find any :(.


No.

Digital side filters are good in some situations with some notes related to aliasing and this depends also if filter input data is true full samplerate or if it use decimated samples. Filter itself do not know if filter input signal is ADC produced alias or true signal. So user need some times be careful and not always blind believe results.
Only really trusted filters are in analog side before ADC. Now and for (nearly) ever.

Of course SDS1000X-E  still have some in digital side but they do not name it as filter.
It works like  low pass filter but is in digital side.
And user can not adjust it using corner frequency. Not very handy but more than nothing.

Eres acts like Low Pass Filter. 

It is explained here (note that all details are not same in Siglent but still useful to read, same principles. http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/appnotes/an_006a.pdf (http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/appnotes/an_006a.pdf)

Example (LeCroy AN-006A, table 1) with full 1GSa/s  3bit Eres is around 8MHz LPF.
With 10MSa/s it is like 80kHz LPF.
I have not measured with Siglent but roughly in same ballpark.

I believe you misunderstood.
We are talking about user filters (Keysight and Rigol have them in Math, GW Instek has an App) whose purpose to apply filters to signals as way to  look at the signal. Instead of having signal routed trough some device to filter out what you don't want to see, you can do it on the scope. It is also useful to experiment how signal would look if you were to apply some filter etc..
On higher end LeCroy scopes you have Filter Toolbox so you can create and and test filters for your signal on a scope as a part of a design process..

I expect it to be added at least to new 5000 series, although there is no technical reason that would prevent it from being added to 1000 and 2000 series. They are more than powerful enough.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Rerouter on May 03, 2019, 08:47:18 am
The other scopes seem to use a FIR filtering scheme, where it generates a coefficient for the filter type you want, then just processes through the sample memory to spit out a math trace that is the filtered waveform,

In the scheme of things it does not seem to be an expensive operation, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/061d/3f5263b1a7e2f7b2d98f87d95257a123e1ae.pdf

But I am not familiar enough with editing at assembly level to understand how one could patch it in. I know the menu / help tool tips structure still exists in the scope configuration and is switched off, but Its not clear where that switch is. or if the related functions are still compiled in.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 03, 2019, 10:26:08 am
Does this scope have have channel digital filers hidden somewhere?
The best filters are the ones between you ears and knowing how to use them.

Filters, I do not want to risk removing any info but rather enhance it so we first apply the filter between ears and then the tools the scope provides.
When we connect a scope to DUT we do not always see nice lines that clearly show the info we seek but with enough sampling and WFM/s we know the info is there and then operator skill is required to display the info without losing important information.

There are some powerful Display and Acquisition tools without even engaging all the Trigger tools.
DPO is not to be overlooked too.
A few screenshots without resorting to any triggering or BW limit tools.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on May 03, 2019, 10:39:55 am
Eres acts like Low Pass Filter.

but you can't set the corner frequency, and you don't have highpass/bandpass/notch.

Yes, all just as I told in previous message. There is not this kind of user settable FIR filters in SDS1000X-E series. 

In my first answer this first "No." was answer to main question if there is these filters you ask.
(looks like some others also did not even read my answer. Perhaps two many words in whole answer.)


(after then I talk about other thing: Eres, what can use for do some LPF (it is couple of FIR's) but user need calculate or know corner freq with different samplerates and different Eres bit value (0.5 to 3.0 bits))


Quote
I would find digital filters to be useful to look at for example pwm signal. One can use the integrator math operator in conjunction with the offset to produce something that resembles a LPF but the result is rather poor. Same with HPF/Differentiator.
Another is to filter out specific content, BEFORE doing further analysis

If these filters are for just "nice image" or not so serious work they are ok and some times "wanted".
If they are used for real true qualitative and quantitative signal analysis and want trusted data. Then need enough  knowledge about all these filters specifications with data and even data about possible error building mechanisms.

Quote
Is there a plan to add them? I remember reading something about it a long time ago..

I have never heard or seen any official promise or forecast. (when we talk about SDS1000X-E series)
(Old SDS1000 models have digital LPF, BPF, HPF, they have even true dual independent timebase ALT with dual trigger engine. These advantages have dropped out from SDS1kX/X-E series.)

Only fact we know, there is not now this kind of filters. (SDS1000X-E series)
Prediction is usually difficult. Forecasting the future is particularly difficult.

It is best to think - food what is now ready in hand, only it can eat.

Of course this and that and even more can add and improve. One want this and other want that and those things - endlessy. If I make product I tell what it is. Buyer think if it pass for him as it is. If not, buyer buy other product what is ok for his needs. Simple. Different products have different pros and cons.

I know least hundred things, or even more, long wish list to Siglent Santaclaus what all I like to get. ;)

Waiting Santaclaus....
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: maxwell3e10 on May 03, 2019, 09:36:19 pm
Yes, digital filters are useful in a number of situations and in principle easy to implement. Micsig TO1104, Keysight 1000X and Instek GDS-1054B have build-in filter functions. So its a bit of a minus for Siglent.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Rerouter on May 03, 2019, 10:12:17 pm
To give context, This is what exists in the 1000X-E files, there is also a file "pro_filter_cfg.bin" in the same folder as where the licenses are stored, and in a similar format to those licenses.

Menu options
Code: [Select]
<channel_filter_menu>
<name>FILTER</name>
<button1>
<title>Filter</title>
<option1>Off</option1>
<option2>On</option2>
</button1>
<button2>
<title>Type</title>
</button2>
<button3>
<title>Low Limit</title>
<option1></option1>
</button3>
<button4>
<title>High Limit</title>
<option1></option1>
</button4>
<button5>
<title></title>
</button5>
<button6>
</button6>
</channel_filter_menu>

button help text
Code: [Select]
<channel_filter_menu>
<main_help></main_help>
<button1></button1>
<button2></button2>
<button3></button3>
<button4></button4>
<button5></button5>
<button6></button6>
</channel_filter_menu>

And an interesting section in the "TEMPLATE?" SCPI command
Code: [Select]
Record Type:
_0 single_sweep
_1 interleaved
_2 histogram
_3 graph
_4 filter_coefficient
_5 complex
_6 extrema
_7 sequence_obsolete
_8 centered_RIS
_9 peak_detect

PROCESSING_DONE:
_0 no_processing
_1 fir_filter
_2 interpolated
_3 sparsed
_4 autoscaled
_5 no_result
_6 rolling
_7 cumulative
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: CiscERsang on May 14, 2019, 02:21:49 pm
Hello everyone,

As far as I understood from  In-Depth-Review, SDS1104X-E is younger model than SDS1202X-E. Am I correct?

Thank you!
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: tautech on May 14, 2019, 06:11:20 pm
Hello everyone,

As far as I understood from  In-Depth-Review, SDS1104X-E is younger model than SDS1202X-E.
Am I correct?
Yes, correct.
The UI is very very similar with only a few different buttons and a shared vertical control for the 4ch model.

They were released less than 1 year apart.

Study the datasheet and user manual for the differences between the 2 and 4ch X-E models.
Title: PP215 minor probe annoyances
Post by: bobof on June 15, 2019, 08:45:34 pm
Picked up an SDS1204X-E from siglent.eu the other day (very fast service by the way).  Couple of annoyances with the probes:
1) the tips are pretty dull.  The probes I have from my previous inherited TDS220 scope (some Velleman things) had really nice sharp tips which would dig in a little and avoid slippage
2) the 1x 10x switches are very sensitive to being knocked.

I very rarely if ever come out of 10x - any suggestions for a nice quality economic 10x fixed probe with a nice sharp tip, that play well with the SDS1204X-E?  Thanks! :)
Title: Re: PP215 minor probe annoyances
Post by: 2N3055 on June 15, 2019, 10:31:09 pm
Picked up an SDS1204X-E from siglent.eu the other day (very fast service by the way).  Couple of annoyances with the probes:
1) the tips are pretty dull.  The probes I have from my previous inherited TDS220 scope (some Velleman things) had really nice sharp tips which would dig in a little and avoid slippage
2) the 1x 10x switches are very sensitive to being knocked.

I very rarely if ever come out of 10x - any suggestions for a nice quality economic 10x fixed probe with a nice sharp tip, that play well with the SDS1204X-E?  Thanks! :)
I use Testec. Not cheapest, but decent price for good quality..
Title: Re: PP215 minor probe annoyances
Post by: tautech on June 15, 2019, 10:43:47 pm
Picked up an SDS1204X-E from siglent.eu the other day (very fast service by the way).  Couple of annoyances with the probes:
1) the tips are pretty dull.  The probes I have from my previous inherited TDS220 scope (some Velleman things) had really nice sharp tips which would dig in a little and avoid slippage
2) the 1x 10x switches are very sensitive to being knocked.

I very rarely if ever come out of 10x - any suggestions for a nice quality economic 10x fixed probe with a nice sharp tip, that play well with the SDS1204X-E?  Thanks! :)
Welcome.

The Siglent SP2030A (300MHz) that comes with the SDS2304X is a 10x fixed auto-sense probe and somewhat smaller and nicer the the SDS1*04X-E probes so you might want to price them up from your supplier.
The list price I have is $59ea.

Performa01 swept their performance in the link below and while they're not a perfect match for the SDS1204X-E they just meet the -3dB 200MHz spec.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665)
Title: Re: PP215 minor probe annoyances
Post by: bobof on June 15, 2019, 11:53:24 pm
Welcome.

The Siglent SP2030A (300MHz) that comes with the SDS2304X is a 10x fixed auto-sense probe and somewhat smaller and nicer the the SDS1*04X-E probes so you might want to price them up from your supplier.
The list price I have is $59ea.

Performa01 swept their performance in the link below and while they're not a perfect match for the SDS1204X-E they just meet the -3dB 200MHz spec.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg1434665/#msg1434665)
Thanks :) I saw that post which was why I was asking if anyone had one that was a good match.  The Siglent SP2030A looks "OK" I guess. 
I don't suppose the tips are interchangeable at all on the PP215 probes?  If they were, I might settle for some heatshrink over the loosey goosey 10x switch... :)
I use Testec. Not cheapest, but decent price for good quality..
I guess see above re: matching, @performa01 thought the testec they were looking at was the worst match of the lot they looked at.  Was there a particular model you're using?
Title: Re: PP215 minor probe annoyances
Post by: 2N3055 on June 16, 2019, 12:12:38 am
I use Testec. Not cheapest, but decent price for good quality..
I guess see above re: matching, @performa01 thought the testec they were looking at was the worst match of the lot they looked at.  Was there a particular model you're using?

Testec TT-HF-212. They work well with Keysight, Rigol and Picoscope. Replaceable tips, nice accessories.
I also have Pico TA131 that came with Picoscope. Also good, but discontinued..
I rarely use fancy Keysight 500MHz probes...
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on June 16, 2019, 12:13:11 am
Yes, the Testec MF312 was not a good match for the little SDS1202X-E. It had the worst frequency flatness up to 200MHz, but the Siglent SP2030 was equally bad around 40MHz.

The PP215 are cheap probes and their tips cannot be replaced. However you could try to sharpen them with a grindstone...

Other than that, I would really recommend to get the Picotech TA131. They have nice sharp tips and the x10 switch has enough mechanical resistance so that it cannot be operated by accident.
I have heard from some other member who was able to get this probes fairly cheap on eBay. So you might try that.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on June 16, 2019, 12:21:29 am
If I get a bit of time I can sweep TT HF212 on Keysight. I don't have a proper leveled gen, but SDG6052X should be good enough for probe comparison..
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on June 16, 2019, 12:36:37 am
If I get a bit of time I can sweep TT HF212 on Keysight. I don't have a proper leveled gen, but SDG6052X should be good enough for probe comparison..
That would be interesting - even though it is not a definitive indication how this probe would perform on a Siglent SDS1204X-E.

Amplitude flatness of the SDG6000X is excellent - better than most levelled RF generators. Look here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2074x-actual-scope-bandwidth/msg1906445/#msg1906445 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2074x-actual-scope-bandwidth/msg1906445/#msg1906445)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on June 16, 2019, 12:45:00 am
If I get a bit of time I can sweep TT HF212 on Keysight. I don't have a proper leveled gen, but SDG6052X should be good enough for probe comparison..
That would be interesting - even though it is not a definitive indication how this probe would perform on a Siglent SDS1204X-E.

Amplitude flatness of the SDG6000X is excellent - better than most levelled RF generators. Look here:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2074x-actual-scope-bandwidth/msg1906445/#msg1906445 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2074x-actual-scope-bandwidth/msg1906445/#msg1906445)

It's a deal then. I don't have Siglent scope, but I will sweep both Testec and Pico 131 to get some comparison that could be at least partially correlated with your measurements..
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: BillB on June 16, 2019, 11:37:59 am
Looks like the Pico 131 are discontinued, replaced by TA386.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on June 16, 2019, 05:17:42 pm
Here, quick capture, sweep from 1kHz to 200MHz, 200mV P-P, 61 sec sweep, several passes.
Scopes used MSOX3104T and Picoscope 3406D MSO.. Flat top window on FFT.

Picoscope TA131 and Testec TT HF212..
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: bobof on June 16, 2019, 05:40:10 pm
Here, quick capture, sweep from 1kHz to 200MHz, 200mV P-P, 61 sec sweep, several passes.
Scopes used MSOX3104T and Picoscope 3406D MSO.. Flat top window on FFT.

Picoscope TA131 and Testec TT HF212..

Am I reading this right - does it tell you not much more than that you can't usefully compare results for different probes on different scopes without detail knowledge of how the input circuitry compares between scopes?

The HF212's look quite nice; I see RS rebadge them in the UK but that they can probably be had cheaper on their original label.
Am I right in thinking they don't come with any sort of identification bands for the connector / probe?  Do the ones from Siglent fit somewhere on the probe / connector?
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on June 16, 2019, 05:46:37 pm
Here, quick capture, sweep from 1kHz to 200MHz, 200mV P-P, 61 sec sweep, several passes.
Scopes used MSOX3104T and Picoscope 3406D MSO.. Flat top window on FFT.

Picoscope TA131 and Testec TT HF212..

No any word about test setup.
Please, can you explain how was probes connected to signal source, including also source impedance.
Test setup is least as important as result data - images.






Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on June 16, 2019, 06:09:09 pm
Here, quick capture, sweep from 1kHz to 200MHz, 200mV P-P, 61 sec sweep, several passes.
Scopes used MSOX3104T and Picoscope 3406D MSO.. Flat top window on FFT.

Picoscope TA131 and Testec TT HF212..

No any word about test setup.
Please, can you explain how was probes connected to signal source, including also source impedance.
Test setup is least as important as result data - images.

Like I said before SSDG6000X, probes with BNC tip adapter directly to the output of siggen. Before measurement, I grabbed 1 MHz square wave with direct BNC cable (50 ohm terminated) into reference trace, and compensated both probes to overlay their response over reference one.. and check with 1 kHz square wave for low frequency top flatness..

HF 212 has 3 trimmers, 1 for LF and 2 for HF compensation.. TA131 has only LF compensation on probe body. I didn't try to lift sticker on BNC side box to see if it has HF compensation there but hidden from user.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on June 16, 2019, 06:17:53 pm
Here, quick capture, sweep from 1kHz to 200MHz, 200mV P-P, 61 sec sweep, several passes.
Scopes used MSOX3104T and Picoscope 3406D MSO.. Flat top window on FFT.

Picoscope TA131 and Testec TT HF212..

Am I reading this right - does it tell you not much more than that you can't usefully compare results for different probes on different scopes without detail knowledge of how the input circuitry compares between scopes?

The HF212's look quite nice; I see RS rebadge them in the UK but that they can probably be had cheaper on their original label.
Am I right in thinking they don't come with any sort of identification bands for the connector / probe?  Do the ones from Siglent fit somewhere on the probe / connector?
Testec is available from many sources including Farnell in UK.
I mark them with label printer.

Unfortunately, it was a quick check so Picoscope is not same vertical scale, but if you look closely shape on lower frequencies track quite nicely. It is only as you go higher, Pico starts limiting things being 200MHz scope.
Shape shown on Keysight is pretty much pure probe response, Keysight being 1GHZ ...
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: bobof on June 16, 2019, 07:49:10 pm
Unfortunately, it was a quick check so Picoscope is not same vertical scale
I hadn't clocked that, thanks for clarification :)
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on June 16, 2019, 08:44:53 pm
Here, quick capture, sweep from 1kHz to 200MHz, 200mV P-P, 61 sec sweep, several passes.
Scopes used MSOX3104T and Picoscope 3406D MSO.. Flat top window on FFT.

Picoscope TA131 and Testec TT HF212..

No any word about test setup.
Please, can you explain how was probes connected to signal source, including also source impedance.
Test setup is least as important as result data - images.

Like I said before SSDG6000X, probes with BNC tip adapter directly to the output of siggen. Before measurement, I grabbed 1 MHz square wave with direct BNC cable (50 ohm terminated) into reference trace, and compensated both probes to overlay their response over reference one.. and check with 1 kHz square wave for low frequency top flatness..

HF 212 has 3 trimmers, 1 for LF and 2 for HF compensation.. TA131 has only LF compensation on probe body. I didn't try to lift sticker on BNC side box to see if it has HF compensation there but hidden from user.

SDG6000X output impedance is 50ohm. So you have tested probes frequency response using 50ohm source impedance.
Normal standard practice is - and have been tens of years - for test probes frequency and step response using 25ohm source impedance!

Also @Performa01 have used right source impedance, as can see example here:

As can be seen, the circuit already contains the standard test setup: Signal generator with 50 ohms source impedance and 50 ohms through termination directly on its output, resulting in a total source impedance of 25 ohms, as seen by the probe.
Title: The Siglent PP510 100 MHz probes are a steaming pile of excrement
Post by: graybeard on June 17, 2019, 06:47:29 pm
I have been using my SDS1104X-E oscilloscope for more than a month, and except for lacking a trigger reference in the data file I have been very happy with the ease of use, features, and performance of the scope. 

However the 100 MHz PP510 probes that come with it are a steaming pile of excrement because of the flaky X1/X10 switch on the probe.  The contacts on the switch are intermittent and easily tweaked while using.  If it was a dedicated X10 probe without the switch it would be fine, but the poor quality switch renders them highly unreliable and useless for me.
Title: Re: The Siglent PP510 100 MHz probes are a steaming pile of excrement
Post by: BillB on June 17, 2019, 06:54:21 pm
However the 100 MHz PP510 probes that come with it are a steaming pile of excrement because of the flaky X1/X10 switch on the probe.  The contacts on the switch are intermittent and easily tweaked while using.  If it was a dedicated X10 probe without the switch it would be fine, but the poor quality switch renders them highly unreliable and useless for me.

That's surprising.  To me, the switch has a decent amount of mechanical resistance to it, and I must make a conscious effort to switch them.  I really haven't noticed any particular flakiness during use.   :-//   
Title: Re: The Siglent PP510 100 MHz probes are a steaming pile of excrement
Post by: tautech on June 17, 2019, 07:58:10 pm
I have been using my SDS1104X-E oscilloscope for more than a month, and except for lacking a trigger reference in the data file I have been very happy with the ease of use, features, and performance of the scope. 

However the 100 MHz PP510 probes that come with it are a steaming pile of excrement because of the flaky X1/X10 switch on the probe.  The contacts on the switch are intermittent and easily tweaked while using.  If it was a dedicated X10 probe without the switch it would be fine, but the poor quality switch renders them highly unreliable and useless for me.
Chris, we do get the very occasional crook one.

I check every one like this:
Connect to Probe Cal output.
Find a V/div and Vertical Pos setting for 10x probe that can also display 1x probe switch setting without any other adjustment. Ensure a Trigger is maintained with each probe setting.
From one or the other probe attenuation switching must be displayed as a snappy clean change in amplitude, no laggy tails or instability at either 1x or 10x. Gently wiggle the switch at 1x, if it's not perfect claim warranty.

Check each probe carefully, they should be perfect.

When you know for sure how many are crook drop Jason a line and get them replaced.

Anyways, luckily the PP510 is a cheap probe and only $10ea and I keep a few in stock just because I do find the odd faulty one.
https://store.siglentamerica.com/product/pp510-1000-mhz-oscilloscope-probe
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: 2N3055 on June 17, 2019, 10:13:01 pm
SDG6000X output impedance is 50ohm. So you have tested probes frequency response using 50ohm source impedance.
Normal standard practice is - and have been tens of years - for test probes frequency and step response using 25ohm source impedance!

Also @Performa01 have used right source impedance, as can see example here:

As can be seen, the circuit already contains the standard test setup: Signal generator with 50 ohms source impedance and 50 ohms through termination directly on its output, resulting in a total source impedance of 25 ohms, as seen by the probe.

Thanks for pointing that out. You are right, that IS standard testing procedure.
As I said, it was just a quick scan, and it did impact high end response.
As a matter of a fact it's actually good to see as a comparison.
Passive probes are actually quite a load to a circuit, and response from them is pretty much not very useful when you pass some 100 MHz in a normal circuit...

So now follows with proper source impedance:

Source was SDG6052X, 50 Ohm Output, terminated with passthrough 50 Ohm terminator (combined 25 Ohm source impedance). Probes connected directly to BNC on terminator which is directly on siggen BNC. No cable.

Sinewave 200 mV P-P, sweep from 1kHz to 300MHz, 11 secs per sweep, multiple sweeps to build spectrum.  FFT uses Flattop window, Max-hold. Vertical scale Keysight 1 dB/div, Picoscope approx 1,1 dB/div (don't ask me why, ask Pico)

TA131 is very good for a nominal 250 MHz probe. It's very good match to 3406D with combined response of +0,5/-1,42 dB for a full 200MHz range. HF212 also does well on Pico, -1,5 dB at 200 MHz, with 0,5 dB dip at 100MHz.

On Keysight both probes have upward slope towards 300 MHz (TA131 +2,5dB, HF212 +3dB at 300 MHz.)

Regards,
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on June 22, 2019, 11:08:46 am
 I’ve learnt that the distortion in the frontend cannot be neglected when the FFT is used for distortion measurements. It turns out that the linearity is is not constant for the various vertical gain settings.

I have tested all vertical gain settings from 500µV/div to 1V/div for both 6 divisions and 8 divisions peak to peak signals. Here are the results:


Vertical Gain            Strongest Harmonic
                6 Divisions pk-pk   8 Divisions pk-pk
500 µV/div        -66.6 dBc           -68.1 dBc
1 mV/div          -62.6 dBc           -70.1 dBc
2 mV/div          -64.5 dBc           -68.1 dBc
5 mV/div          -66.6 dBc           -66.1 dBc
10 mV/div         -61.2 dBc           -66.3 dBc
20 mV/div         -66.0 dBc           -59.3 dBc
50 mV/div         -57.6 dBc           -55.3 dBc
100 mV/div        -53.7 dBc           -50.8 dBc
200 mV/div        -64.4 dBc           -62.7 dBc
500 mV/div        -59.6 dBc           -55.9 dBc
1 V/div           -53.9 dBc           -49.8 dBc

In order to get the best THD performance, you should prefer the underlined setups and avoid the ones that are crossed out.

It might be surprising that the 6 divisions peak to peak signal can have a higher distortion reading than the larger 8 divisions signal, but this is merely because of the noise floor masking the harmonics at the lower signal levels.
 
According to the table above, an 8 divisions full scale signal at 1mV/div is the winner (on my sample of the SDS1104X-E at least), as it allows measurements down to -70dBc (0.032%) with this setup.

Here’s the corresponding screenshot:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=769101;image)
SDS1104X-E_FFT_THD_8div_1mV

Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: rf-loop on June 22, 2019, 02:37:11 pm

According to the table above, an 8 divisions full scale signal at 1mV/div is the winner (on my sample of the SDS1104X-E at least), as it allows measurements down to -70dBc (0.032%) with this setup.


8div and 6div difference is 2.5dB

So it is value what loose in dynamic range if use 6div or 8 dif signal.
With low harmonics 8 bit adc and noise make result unreliable even if linearity is perfect, so how to setup is compromise between scope produced harmonics, DUT harmonics, noise floor and so on.


But other (partially other) question is why low harmonics measured levels are what they are and how these behave.
Individual scopes analog front end linearity can also differ in different V/div bands.

Other thread I show some images. I have also images what have other settings and totally unexpected results like something (error delta) turns like upside down. (Until I know more I have classified these my own not published images as bullshit)

But there comes noise and ADC resolution and perhaps some other things what I can not explain without lot of more detailed knowledge about front end and how system handle data out from ADC. Even errors are possible explanations for some weird things. Other hand, who is using these scope FFT's for scientific work where all, even error mechanisms and sources need evaluate and explain...

It have its limits.

For accurate low THD measurements this is of course wrong tool. Totally. (whole audiophile park is strange to me. I do not have my ear receiving fidelity specifications including its all impurities in signal handling etc. If someone is talking I do not listen his voice fidelity, I listen what he is talking... same with music. But it is other thing.
Title: Re: Siglent SDS1104X-E In-Depth Review
Post by: Performa01 on June 22, 2019, 06:29:46 pm
Here comes the complete data from my measurements, which might help to understand some unexpected results, such as the huge difference between 6div and 8div signals at 1mV/div.

First the absolute measurement data:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=769332;image)
SDS1104X-E_THD_20kHz_dBV

The following table shows the relative harmonic levels for convenience:

(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/?action=dlattach;attach=769338;image)
SDS1104X-E_THD_20kHz_dBc

Please note that the 2nd harmonic is not always the strongest, particularly not at the high sensitivities.

Title: Re: The Siglent PP510 100 MHz probes are a steaming pile of excrement
Post by: graybeard on June 24, 2019, 08:28:38 am
I have been using my SDS1104X-E oscilloscope for more than a month, and except for lacking a trigger reference in the data file I have been very happy with the ease of use, features, and performance of the scope. 

However the 100 MHz PP510 probes that come with it are a steaming pile of excrement because of the flaky X1/X10 switch on the probe.  The contacts on the switch are intermittent and easily tweaked while using.  If it was a dedicated X10 probe without the switch it would be fine, but the poor quality switch renders them highly unreliable and useless for me.
Chris, we do get the very occasional crook one.

I check every one like this:
Connect to Probe Cal output.
Find a V/div and Vertical Pos setting for 10x probe that can also display 1x probe switch setting without any other adjustment. Ensure a Trigger is maintained with each probe setting.
From one or the other probe attenuation switching must be displayed as a snappy clean change in amplitude, no laggy tails or instability at either 1x or 10x. Gently wiggle the switch at 1x, if it's not perfect claim warranty.

Check each probe carefully, they should be perfect.

When you know for sure how many are crook drop Jason a line and get them replaced.

Anyways, luckily the PP510 is a cheap probe and only $10ea and I keep a few in stock just because I do find the odd faulty one.
https://store.siglentamerica.com/product/pp510-1000-mhz-oscilloscope-probe

I was in the middle of my impedance measurement project and I did not want to take the time diagnosing probe problems, so I switched to an older HP probe to finish.  Once I switched, I had no more issues.

Today I had some time and played with the probe some more.  It is intermittent, but the problem is not with the switch.  The problem is the spring hook that fits on the end of the probe.  It's contact to the probe tip is intermittent.  The tip itself is straight and the probe works with another spring tip without issue.
Title: Re: The Siglent PP510 100 MHz probes are a steaming pile of excrement
Post by: tautech on June 24, 2019, 08:33:11 am
I have been using my SDS1104X-E oscilloscope for more than a month, and except for lacking a trigger reference in the data file I have been very happy with the ease of use, features, and performance of the scope. 

However the 100 MHz PP510 probes that come with it are a steaming pile of excrement because of the flaky X1/X10 switch on the probe.  The contacts on the switch are intermittent and easily tweaked while using.  If it was a dedicated X10 probe without the switch it would be fine, but the poor quality switch renders them highly unreliable and useless for me.
Chris, we do get the very occasional crook one.

I check every one like this:
Connect to Probe Cal output.
Find a V/div and Vertical Pos setting for 10x probe that can also display 1x probe switch setting without any other adjustment. Ensure a Trigger is maintained with each probe setting.
From one or the other probe attenuation switching must be displayed as a snappy clean change in amplitude, no laggy tails or instability at either 1x or 10x. Gently wiggle the switch at 1x, if it's not perfect claim warranty.

Check each probe carefully, they should be perfect.

When you know for sure how many are crook drop Jason a line and get them replaced.

Anyways, luckily the PP510 is a cheap probe and only $10ea and I keep a few in stock just because I do find the odd faulty one.
https://store.siglentamerica.com/product/pp510-1000-mhz-oscilloscope-probe

I was in the middle of my impedance measurement project and I did not want to take the time diagnosing probe problems, so I switched to an older HP probe to finish.  Once I switched, I had no more issues.

Today I had some time and played with the probe some more.  It is intermittent, but the problem is not with the switch.  The problem is the spring hook that fits on the end of the probe.  It's contact to the probe tip is intermittent.  The tip itself is straight and the probe works with another spring tip without issue.
OK, get Jason to send you another grabber hat. They should have some spares from faulty probes.