Siglent SDS1104X-E vs. Rigol DS1054Z Advice?

[tautech]

I might knock up a quick test program to see how long it takes to grab a screen over LAN.

The DS1054Z isn't famous for fast network response though.

Already been done by member Lundmar with his LXI tools in the thread linked in reply #101 in this thread. He lists LAN address speeds for several DSO's in that thread, yes, 1104X-E and 1054Z.

[tautech]

I think we have pretty well talked this issue to death.

In some little way I agree however incorrect/misleading/wrong information must be addressed and real facts offered.

[JS]

I still don't know the issue with this, X-E has prove to been better but more expensive, both offer great price and functionality. Pretty well balanced what they offer to what they cost so there lies the trouble while picking one, but that's a decission for each person, considering needs and budget.

JS

[KungFuJosh]

I might knock up a quick test program to see how long it takes to grab a screen over LAN.

The DS1054Z isn't famous for fast network response though.

Already been done by member Lundmar with his LXI tools in the thread linked in reply #101 in this thread. The lists LAN address speeds for several DSO's in that thread, yes, 1104X-E and 1054Z.

Yeah. The LAN speed comparison over TCP/VXI11 was ~30 requests per second for the Rigol, and ~1100 requests per second for the Siglent. That's only slightly better performance for the Siglent.

[ttelectronic]

I still don't know the issue with this, X-E has prove to been better but more expensive, both offer great price and functionality. Pretty well balanced what they offer to what they cost so there lies the trouble while picking one, but that's a decission for each person, considering needs and budget.

JS

Indeed, that is what it really comes down to. Needs and budget. I agree both offer value for money in the budget scope range. For me the price difference would have been $250-$300 ish + tax  in Canada. I couldn't justify it and the Rigol suites me fine for my needs. Maybe one day when things are better I will grab the siglent or whatever else is out there. That being said there are a couple more useful things I would purchase before then.

I've found it quite useful but unfortunately it will probably be a couple years until I am able to get around to the project I initially bought it for. Life throws some curve balls sometimes.

[Mr. Scram]

In some little way I agree however incorrect/misleading/wrong information must be addressed and real facts offered.

These threads have been nothing but propaganda from the same usual suspects.

[KungFuJosh]

FFT+stats+measurements in a more sensible layout:

OK, it's only 16kpoints FFT. Siglent wins there.

I've been screwing around more, and the Siglent has that ugly view too. It does three different views. The split screen like I did before, an overlay screen like you showed, and then FFT only without the waveform. I attached my ugly parasite.

[KungFuJosh]

These threads have been nothing but propaganda from the same usual suspects.

I'm new to the site, and oscilloscopes. This thread has been very helpful to me. You're right about certain people's bias being very clear, but it's clear enough that I can see through it. My BS detector is strong.

I've personally purchased both scopes and posted honest praise and criticism of both of them. If I seem at all like I'm biased towards the Siglent it's because 1. it is better (at least for me); and 2. messing with people with bias is fun.

[BillB]

...I attached my ugly parasite.

I wonder if you one could get the cursors up there, and maybe the help info overlaid as well?  You can never have too much information, right?

[Mr. Scram]

I'm new to the site, and oscilloscopes. This thread has been very helpful to me. You're right about certain people's bias being very clear, but it's clear enough that I can see through it. My BS detector is strong.

I've personally purchased both scopes and posted honest praise and criticism of both of them. If I seem at all like I'm biased towards the Siglent it's because 1. it is better (at least for me); and 2. messing with people with bias is fun.

Your comments have been most helpful. Few people have actually used both or tried to compare them without ending up at a preconceived conclusion.

[KungFuJosh]

Your comments have been most helpful. Few people have actually used both or tried to compare them without ending up at a preconceived conclusion.

Thanks. I'm no fan of dishonest or BS reviews either, so I try to be as fair as possible. I've focused mostly on the user experience and visible options as my skills with this stuff are currently limited. As I get to understand it all better I may have more to say, but I think that higher level tech end of it has probably already been covered anyway / is easily comparable on the datasheets if people are being honest with themselves.

The thing I have NO idea about is why I get such a clearer reading of the issue with my amp I posted above in that screenshot. I don't know if it's the higher bandwidth or what, but I wish I had a clue. Oh well. 

[KungFuJosh]

...I attached my ugly parasite.

I wonder if you one could get the cursors up there, and maybe the help info overlaid as well?  You can never have too much information, right?

Ha, I mean, that sounds like it would be helpful. I need to play with that. I was thinking it might also help to try doing the event thingamabob I'm too tired to remember right now.

[KungFuJosh]

....and the parasite is dead!

It was so easy to see everything on the Siglent, it made it a lot easier to track down. For the hell of it, I tried out the differential probe in different spots to eliminate the power amp section / to confirm my suspicion that the reverb section was the cause of the parasitic. Nothing else was funky, so I connected it up to the output, and eventually found that it was the plate leads coming off the reverb tube causing the issue. Chopsticking them into different positions made the difference and everything is acting as it should be now.

It was a PIA to find because the leads were so short. Chopsticking them previously had no effect, especially without seeing the visual response on the scope.

[bitseeker]

Yeah I'm not sure why the parasitics were more visible on the Siglent. Was there a triggering issue on the Rigol? Did you have 50 or 100 MHz bandwidth running on it?

It'd be interesting if you could've recorded the bad waveform to replay it on an arb generator. Then we could potentially try it out, too.

And I'll second (or is it third or higher) the sentiment that your comparison of the two models was very good.

[KungFuJosh]

Yeah I'm not sure why the parasitics were more visible on the Siglent. Was there a triggering issue on the Rigol? Did you have 50 or 100 MHz bandwidth running on it?

It'd be interesting if you could've recorded the bad waveform to replay it on an arb generator. Then we could potentially try it out, too.

And I'll second (or is it third or higher) the sentiment that your comparison of the two models was very good.

I'm guessing it might have something to do with triggering, but I did not unlock the Rigol to 100MHz, so maybe that could be part of it too. I don't know what frequency range the parasitic was in, so I don't know if bandwidth was relevant or not (I also don't know how to check if somebody wants to enlighten me). It took a lot of tweaking to get anything out of the Rigol that I could use, but I'll attach some screenshots from both scopes showing the parasitic.

Actually, to be fair, I need to do that tomorrow. The best images I have from the Rigol are from a 2nd amp with the same reverb circuit with the same issue. I haven't fixed that one yet, so I can grab some screenshots with the Siglent tomorrow for comparison before I fix that one.

[tautech]

Yeah I'm not sure why the parasitics were more visible on the Siglent. Was there a triggering issue on the Rigol? Did you have 50 or 100 MHz bandwidth running on it?

It'd be interesting if you could've recorded the bad waveform to replay it on an arb generator. Then we could potentially try it out, too.

And I'll second (or is it third or higher) the sentiment that your comparison of the two models was very good.

I'm guessing it might have something to do with triggering, but I did not unlock the Rigol to 100MHz, so maybe that could be part of it too. I don't know what frequency range the parasitic was in, so I don't know if bandwidth was relevant or not (I also don't know how to check if somebody wants to enlighten me).

Often a Trigger level adjustment will cause the frequency counter to show a different value otherwise you can use the horizontal cursors. 

[JS]

Indeed, that is what it really comes down to. Needs and budget. I agree both offer value for money in the budget scope range. For me the price difference would have been $250-$300 ish + tax  in Canada. I couldn't justify it and the Rigol suites me fine for my needs. Maybe one day when things are better I will grab the siglent or whatever else is out there. That being said there are a couple more useful things I would purchase before then.

I've found it quite useful but unfortunately it will probably be a couple years until I am able to get around to the project I initially bought it for. Life throws some curve balls sometimes.

I was about to finish my post with something similar, I've already said in this topic but 250 posts ago... For me the difference was greater than yours, I payed $420 for the Rigol shipped, plus 50% custom fees, for the siglent plus shipping I was asked $800 and then 50% of that in fees. So in the end a coffee shy of $600 in difference! Or twice as much... Being in the position of rigging a whole lab, needing a lab PSU, a signal generator, hot air station, among other small stuff, yes, big difference saving those bux for all the other gear.

Today I went to look for a sig gen and power supply I found used online, testing them we found they were out of specs, the current limiting range was shifted like 300mA in one of the rails, a dirty switch and a noise in one of the waveforms of the sig gen, plus he haven't checked calibration on it (looked spot on, output atten -70dB was like -70.002dB in his 34401, freq, amplitude in the different ranges, all of it!) and the guy said that he will not give them to me out of specs, that I should come back in two days for the units in fully working condition and calibrated. He took all the fun from me! Let's see how it goes on tuesday.

JS

[Fungus]

I'm guessing it might have something to do with triggering

Nope.

I did not unlock the Rigol to 100MHz, so maybe that could be part of it too.

Nope.

I don't know what frequency range the parasitic was in, so I don't know if bandwidth was relevant or not

It that's a 1kHz signal on screen then it's in the 10s of kHz range. Both 'scopes had 10,000x the bandwidth needed to see it.

It's also hundreds of mV amplitude so nothing to do with noise or sensitivity or anything like that.

The Rigol should have seen it as easily/clearly as the Siglent.

(I also don't know how to check if somebody wants to enlighten me).

Lots of ways:

a) Just look at it visually. It's (very) roughly half a grid square in X and Y so about 100uS(10kHz), 250mV.
b) Want more accurate numbers? Go into cursor mode and draw little boxes around it.

[Fungus]

I might knock up a quick test program to see how long it takes to grab a screen over LAN.

The DS1054Z isn't famous for fast network response though.

Already been done by member Lundmar with his LXI tools in the thread linked in reply #101 in this thread. He lists LAN address speeds for several DSO's in that thread, yes, 1104X-E and 1054Z.

The figures he got for the DS1054Z were: ~30 requests/s via TCP/VXI11 and ~160 requests/s via TCP/RAW

There's no reason not to use RAW mode so 160 would be fine for screen capture (certainly "real time").

That obviously doesn't factor in the data transfer time though. I had a look in the manual and it lists five different image formats {BMP24|BMP8|PNG|JPEG|TIFF} and it looks like they use some inefficient ASCII encoding scheme to transmit it (no raw data stream).

Tthat makes it sound like there's going to be a lot of messing around and processing overhead.  Good for not having to mess around with USB sticks to grab a screenshot, bad for fast remote viewing.

I might have a play but I'm not hopeful it will give 60fps.

Edit: I just messed about with the image formats in the "storage" menu and TIFF is saved much faster than the default PNG. Go figure.

[JPortici]

In some little way I agree however incorrect/misleading/wrong information must be addressed and real facts offered.

These threads have been nothing but propaganda from the same usual suspects.

Yet Another Pissing Contest

[KungFuJosh]

Often a Trigger level adjustment will cause the frequency counter to show a different value otherwise you can use the horizontal cursors. 

I obviously tweaked the trigger level. On the Rigol, tweaking the trigger as much as I want didn't get me any useful info, and often couldn't freeze the wave. That's why you'll see the some of the screenshots are "stopped." On the Siglent, I hit the auto set button and I barely needed to tweak anything to have useful waves on the screen.

[KungFuJosh]

I'm guessing it might have something to do with triggering

Nope.

I did not unlock the Rigol to 100MHz, so maybe that could be part of it too.

Nope.

I don't know what frequency range the parasitic was in, so I don't know if bandwidth was relevant or not

It that's a 1kHz signal on screen then it's in the 10s of kHz range. Both 'scopes had 10,000x the bandwidth needed to see it.

It's also hundreds of mV amplitude so nothing to do with noise or sensitivity or anything like that.

The Rigol should have seen it as easily/clearly as the Siglent.

(I also don't know how to check if somebody wants to enlighten me).

Lots of ways:

a) Just look at it visually. It's (very) roughly half a grid square in X and Y so about 100uS(10kHz), 250mV.
b) Want more accurate numbers? Go into cursor mode and draw little boxes around it.

Thank you! That's all very helpful. Now I have a reason to play with cursors with the other amp before I fix the second parasitic.

I'll post the screenshots from the Rigol, they don't look anything like this. I guess we'll see once I connect the other amp if the other amp shows the same way on the Siglent. I have a couple screenshots from the Rigol of this amp, but they make even less sense.

[KungFuJosh]

Here's a point where both scopes fail: lack of persistent file naming.

If you format the memory stick, they start over from 1. That's annoying as hell. They should keep counting up from where they left off unless the user resets the counter. Now if I copy a file to my computer, I'll need to manually rename it. Both scopes make this a pain in the butt.

[TurboTom]

And it seems that both of them haven't got a real time clock (Rigol for sure and Dave's teardown shows that the correcponding locations on the SDS1104X-E's PCB are left unpopulated). If this is still the case with the "Curr."    production models is soemthing that needs to be figured out. Scopes with RTC usually also memorize the file designation counters in the battery-backed CMOS ram. It's also big "Plus(es)" to be able to sort stored waveforms / screenshot via the file date.

[tautech]

Here's a point where both scopes fail: lack of persistent file naming.

If you format the memory stick, they start over from 1. That's annoying as hell. They should keep counting up from where they left off unless the user resets the counter. Now if I copy a file to my computer, I'll need to manually rename it. Both scopes make this a pain in the butt.

Buy another memory stick just for use with the scope, simple !
In the US you should be able to get 8G sticks for less than $5.

Make folders on it and save project file to the same folder, simple !

Or if you want to properly document screenshots, save them from the Webserver using a PC connection and mouse and keyboard to properly name them, date them or whatever.