| Products > Test Equipment |
| Siglent SDS2204X+ or alternative? |
| << < (3/3) |
| Domitronic:
I would not recommend a RTB2004 if you want decent FFT in low frequency range. I have had it, returned it and bought a SDS2104X+ instead. The FFT of the RTB2004 is or at least was a nightmare in the low frequency range. I wanted to measure harmonics of 50Hz signals and had to wait more than one minute for a single FFT sweep. At least check if they improved the firmware for the FFT before you buy it. |
| 2N3055:
--- Quote from: nctnico on June 15, 2023, 08:00:12 am --- --- Quote from: kimballa on June 15, 2023, 03:18:31 am --- ...And a great point about having budget left over for the 1032X if necessary. The RTB2004 makes you buy a lot a la carte; they actually seem to have a promotion going right now that would include everything I need for "only" $4,700... which, when compared to $1400 for the SDS2104X+ ...well, that's awful hard to swallow. (I'm kind of impressed that they managed to actually seem to find even finer-grained ways to slice the feature licensing than anyone else.) --- End quote --- Until you start to do protocol decoding... Siglent scopes aren't really setup for that but the RTB2004 has the best decoding UI I have ever come across. As a whole the UI of the RTB2004 is way more polished compared to the competition. If I where you, I'd try to buy an RTB2004 second hand (from a test equipment dealer) if buying a new one is out of the budget. Good deals for lightly used test equipment can be found. --- End quote --- I am of the opinion that it would highly benefit discussion here, if everybody would be so kind and prefix blank and highly generalized statements with things such as "in my opinion", "for the way I work" or "I like best ". I try to do the same lately, as something you (rightly so) taught me in many of our discussions. Looking at your statements one could get a wrong assumption that there is some industry standard how these things should work and be concepted. And some scopes are implementing it right and others wrong. Which is absolutely not the case. All manufacturers make scopes differently and to some one concept is better and to other something else... That being said, RTB2000 has some very nice graphical design in GUI, some good stuff, and also some illogical or missing stuff, in comparison... I tried it and found it quite nice... But far from perfect. And then you go to SDS2000X+ and realize it does the excellent job for a fraction of price.. Which also have many features that RTB does not have, like arbitrary math, histicons, 50Ω inputs etc etc... Rudi made excellent comparison between the two.. RTB2000 is nice scope but not worth the money they ask for it... In my opinion... |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: tautech on June 15, 2023, 08:31:58 am --- --- Quote from: nctnico on June 15, 2023, 08:00:12 am ---Until you start to do protocol decoding... Siglent scopes aren't really setup for that ....... --- End quote --- Absolute garbage ! --- End quote --- Coming from the Siglent sales guy... :horse: |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: 2N3055 on June 15, 2023, 10:32:26 am --- --- Quote from: nctnico on June 15, 2023, 08:00:12 am --- --- Quote from: kimballa on June 15, 2023, 03:18:31 am --- ...And a great point about having budget left over for the 1032X if necessary. The RTB2004 makes you buy a lot a la carte; they actually seem to have a promotion going right now that would include everything I need for "only" $4,700... which, when compared to $1400 for the SDS2104X+ ...well, that's awful hard to swallow. (I'm kind of impressed that they managed to actually seem to find even finer-grained ways to slice the feature licensing than anyone else.) --- End quote --- Until you start to do protocol decoding... Siglent scopes aren't really setup for that but the RTB2004 has the best decoding UI I have ever come across. As a whole the UI of the RTB2004 is way more polished compared to the competition. If I where you, I'd try to buy an RTB2004 second hand (from a test equipment dealer) if buying a new one is out of the budget. Good deals for lightly used test equipment can be found. --- End quote --- I am of the opinion that it would highly benefit discussion here, if everybody would be so kind and prefix blank and highly generalized statements with things such as "in my opinion", "for the way I work" or "I like best ". I try to do the same lately, as something you (rightly so) taught me in many of our discussions. Looking at your statements one could get a wrong assumption that there is some industry standard how these things should work and be concepted. And some scopes are implementing it right and others wrong. Which is absolutely not the case. All manufacturers make scopes differently and to some one concept is better and to other something else... --- End quote --- Agreed, and since the OP mentioned wanting to venture into digital electronics (Arduino / Rpi) so chances are high that the OP comes across wanting to use bus decoding. Rudi made an in-depth video comparing protocol decoding between Keysight, R&S and Siglent: In the end it is not about how many features this/that but how efficient a tool is to use for the actual work in front of you. IOW: which features are important and which aren't. In reality you can't do all jobs efficiently with a single oscilloscope. You'll need several ones (even without looking at differences in bandwidth) >:D |
| mawyatt:
As usual we don't comment on things we don't have, but do have a pair of SDS2000X+. We've utilized the SPI decoding capability with a RPi & PC with our DIY Logic Probe without issue. Was nice to be able to view the analog outputs of a multichannel precision 16 bit DAC and subsequent circuitry in relation to the decoded digital SPI commands :-+ Best, |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Previous page |