Author Topic: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent  (Read 29449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HalFET

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2019, 11:31:19 am »
Which optional features ?
For the X-E they are:
16ch MSO
WiFi
AWG plus external HW box.
The logic analyser is nice to have, IF they include the connector (which they usually don't). I end up using the ones from my HP 1652B on my scope, but knowing the price of buying these cables and probes separately, you're better off buying the LA on its own. Don't quite see the point of the WiFi, always end up resorting to GPIB because it actually works.  |O  The AWG is of poor quality on most of these, I see it like the transistor tester they include in those cheap multimeters: sounds nice, limited use.

Not all are as experienced as you, consider yourself lucky.  :-+
Yes, and it doesn't take much time to learn it, additionally it allows you to spot actual issues that the decoders will fail to see. Reliance on automation makes for a bad engineer.

For most an AWG is not a necessary option but to have one as part of an instrument can save space and yes standalone AWG's inevitably offer better output drive and more features.
However the X-E's ability to do FRA/Bode plots with the optional AWG, another Siglent AWG or with some little trouble another brand AWG, is a distinct advantage for the novice with limited $ and experience to characterize their own filters and pass band filters with a modest additional outlay.
The bode plot can be of some use if you do a lot of analog work, but the error on them is quite bad.

So you are blind to the many on this forum using 30+ year old equipment for serious hobbyist use and some for professional use ?
What the hell are you going on about? I didn't say he needed the newest and best equipment, in fact I'm arguing against that. A few years ain't going to make the difference. My favourite scope is a 20 year old HPAK I picked up second-hand for the price of one of these newer scopes. But I'm simply being realistic about the quality and capabilities of these scopes, they're not very usable if you're doing serious circuit design. There's a reason why you'll find very few rigol scopes in a professional or academic environment: you don't want to be fighting your equipment.

It might appear you have never used a cheap and good DSO.  :-\
I started out with a GW Instek from yesteryear. If you want to know why I'm so adamant about UI you might want to use one of those, they're horrible. Sure they had fancy features such as component testing built in (sounds familiar doesn't it), but were entirely useless because you spent half the day bashing your head into the wall because of how cluttered the control panel was.

Well yes, once I would've agreed with you but when asked to beta test SDS1104X-E and previously only used scopes with dedicated individual channel attenuators I dreaded the thought of using a shared control.
With my DSO experience, in that much of what you want to do is parked within menus behind buttons, the adaption to shared vertical controls was far easier than I first envisaged.
Getting things for free always makes them a lot more attractive.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21127
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2019, 11:35:41 am »
Not sure about you, but the decoder I stopped using years ago, it's quicker to just look at the waveform with the Mark 1 Eyeball for I²C and SPI. And the built-in waveform generators and multimeter options are usually a sorry excuse for a real instrument which you can pick-up of ebay for less than the license cost for one of these modules.
I agree about the multi-meter and internal generators. On many oscilloscopes you can't even trigger on the internal generator  :palm: But I don't see how decoding is useless. I'm using decoding quite often on various DSOs (albeit not the really cheap low-end ones) and it saves me a ton of time trying to figure out how and where things go wrong when writing firmware.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline drescherjm

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2019, 12:11:19 pm »

There's no clear statement of "XXXX is best, buy that!", which I guess he/she/it was looking for.

(and the explanation is that neither is much better bang/buck ratio, it all comes down to budget)

I can tell you this was what I was looking for with the thread. A clear buy XXXX over YYYY because of features Z1 .. Z5 are a bargain for the extra $40. Or even don't buy XXXX because it is unreliable.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 12:13:49 pm by drescherjm »
I have BS degrees in CS and EE both in 1996. Since this time I have worked for the same medical imaging research team primarily as a programmer. Now at 47 I am trying to get back into electronics projects.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12243
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2019, 12:39:05 pm »
I can tell you this was what I was looking for with the thread. A clear buy XXXX over YYYY because of features Z1 .. Z5 are a bargain for the extra $40. Or even don't buy XXXX because it is unreliable.

Sorry.  :-//

For the difference in price you can buy the Rigol+something else (decent soldering iron, Brymen multimeter....) and for most people the difference in the Siglent will be small (eg. if you don't do FFTs all day long)
 

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21428
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2019, 07:34:00 pm »
For most an AWG is not a necessary option but to have one as part of an instrument can save space and yes standalone AWG's inevitably offer better output drive and more features.
However the X-E's ability to do FRA/Bode plots with the optional AWG, another Siglent AWG or with some little trouble another brand AWG, is a distinct advantage for the novice with limited $ and experience to characterize their own filters and pass band filters with a modest additional outlay.
The bode plot can be of some use if you do a lot of analog work, but the error on them is quite bad.

That's not what I found when doing a simple Bode plot exercise.
You can see it written up in detail here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854

And further when using a second Bode plot trace:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1436912/#msg1436912

Well yes, once I would've agreed with you but when asked to beta test SDS1104X-E and previously only used scopes with dedicated individual channel attenuators I dreaded the thought of using a shared control.
With my DSO experience, in that much of what you want to do is parked within menus behind buttons, the adaption to shared vertical controls was far easier than I first envisaged.

Getting things for free always makes them a lot more attractive.
[/quote]
Well you might think so but I have any # of DSO to use if I wish, however when accepting the chance to beta SDS1104X-E in 2017 I committed to having to use it and get used to it like it was my only DSO.
I stand firmly behind the highlighted comments I made earlier. ^^^^




As for the eternal R vs S question, if we can read and understand specification documents, features of one vs another become quite clear.
A comparison chart compiled by member rf-loop outlines the major differences:

Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 
The following users thanked this post: drescherjm

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12243
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2019, 07:45:04 pm »
Oh, not that stupid chart again.  :palm:

Cherry picked data points? Check.
Unhacked Rigol, no options unlocked? Check.  (nb. Alloptions are now standard since that was written)
Posted by a Siglent distributor? Check.

Real value: 0
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 07:50:03 pm by Fungus »
 

Offline tkamiya

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1992
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2019, 07:48:53 pm »
I have more than dozen scopes.  Tektronics, HP, Siglent, Rigol, Owon, etc, etc, etc.  Owon which is a PC scope is a toy.  But all the rest are remarkably similar. 

95% of things I do can be done with any of them, so I just use whatever is conveniently situated.  Last 5% gets tricky.  Maybe some of mine can do it, or none of mine can do it.

Most often used scope is HP and Siglent, just because one is side of my desk and one is in front of me.  When you buy a scope at the price range you are talking about, there are things that are omitted, and performance is somewhat limited.  Which one is better is really strictly personal preference.
 

Offline bitseeker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8793
  • Country: us
  • Lots of engineer-tweakable parts inside!
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2019, 08:53:11 pm »
There's no clear statement of "XXXX is best, buy that!", which I guess he/she/it was looking for.

That interpretation makes sense.

Quote
(and the explanation is that neither is much better bang/buck ratio, it all comes down to budget)

Yes, that's been my position as well. In a way, it makes choosing much easier than if they were also vying for the same price point.
TEA is the way.
 

Offline SWR

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Country: dk
  • Without engineering science is just philosophy.
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2019, 08:54:18 pm »
How many times do you use these optional features? Not sure about you, but the decoder I stopped using years ago, it's quicker to just look at the waveform with the Mark 1 Eyeball for I²C and SPI. And the built-in waveform generators and multimeter options are usually a sorry excuse for a real instrument which you can pick-up of ebay for less than the license cost for one of these modules.
I actually like the AWG and the DMM in the MDO-2204EX. Sure, it's not 6½ digit resolution, but it is actually pretty solid performance. I was pleasantly surprised that the metal joint thermistor temperature sensor had a selection of 8 different metal combination settings to match the different sensors I had lying around. Another convenience apart from having everything in one pachage to carry is that you can put the friggin display on the screen and save a screendump together with the scope picture and save it to the USB stick. It makes it much easier to get the readings into a report. I know many multimeters have digital connections, but a USB stick is just less complicated for me that setting up a connection and finding the right program/app for that particular instrument. I like to keep it simple. Taking pictures with your phone is also a drag. :(
You should never go down on equipment!
 

Offline BillB

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2019, 09:11:41 pm »
I hope OP hasn't been scared off, realizing he just dipped a toe into the shark tank.  :)

A nice feature of the Siglent scope I don't believe has been mentioned yet is the web interface.  It's handy to remote control the scope from a PC web browser, and get a larger view of the scope display on my monitor.
 
The following users thanked this post: drescherjm

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21127
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2019, 09:24:17 pm »
(and the explanation is that neither is much better bang/buck ratio, it all comes down to budget)
Yes, that's been my position as well. In a way, it makes choosing much easier than if they were also vying for the same price point.
I disagree. In many cases it is better not to get tempted to buy a low quality cheap tool which looks good on paper. In the end you'll realise you need a good tool to move forward and by that time you have wasted money on a cheap tool, accumulated a lot of frustration, wasted time and on top of that need to spend more money on a good tool.

All in all the question is: what kind of budget do I need to buy a good tool which fullfills my needs.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 09:29:02 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14911
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2019, 11:24:29 pm »
You could just flip a coin. Chances are you'll be happy with either one, they're both good entry level DSOs, just get one and then spend your time learning how to use it to the fullest rather than worrying about what you may be missing out on by not getting the other instead.
 

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3128
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2019, 11:25:15 pm »
One point in the Rigol's favor.  They are popular and selling one would not be hard.  The resale value should be very good.  A DS0154Z is $375; a DS1052E is $259.

With a tight budget I'd buy the DS1052E and, as much as I despise the company, a 30 or 60 MHz  F***Tech FY6800 for $100-110 (do not get an FY6600!!!).  I'd add a $20 BSIDE ESR02 Pro and a $10-20 DMM.  That's around $400 and gives you all the essential measurement capabilities needed for basic electronics work.  Add $100 in parts assortments, resistors, capacitors, transistors. op amps and a cheap ($20) copy of "Electronic Principles" by Malvino and Bates and in a year's time you will be quite skilled if you work through all the examples and exercises in the book.

I have no intention of selling my DS1102E.  It's a very good scope for the $400 it cost me.  I no longer use it much, but it's more than adequate for a *lot* of work.  It's also compact and solidly built. so I'm more likely to grab it if I'm trying to help someone sort out installing a dimmer on their boat  than any of my other scopes.

No matter what you buy.  No matter what your budget.  There will be issues whether bugs or bad design that will cause problems.

A hacked DS1054Z will give you 100 MHz.  A stock Siglent 1202X-E will give you 200 MHz as will a hacked SDS1104X-E.  When I get some of my other projects finished I plan to put all the entry level DSOs in a task by task comparison against a Tek 485, LeCroy DDA-125, Tek 11801 and whatever else I have by then.  I might even get inspired and resurrect my Tek 465 and Dumont 1060.

The SA function on the Instek MDO is very good despite showing the series resonance of a crystal as a peak rather than a notch.  The regular FFT on  the other members of the GDS-2000E line are in the "it works, but it's really crappy" category.  But the MSOX3000T and RTM3000 are in the "it doesn't work" category along with Rigol.
 

Offline HalFET

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2019, 01:01:17 am »
That's not what I found when doing a simple Bode plot exercise.
You can see it written up in detail here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854

And further when using a second Bode plot trace:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1436912/#msg1436912
May I recommend a book on the concept of measurement uncertainty before we continue this conversation? That 8 bit ADC + a scope's noise tends to have a rather profound effect on the measurement error/uncertainty. ;)  As a result, these bode plot measurement systems are often nothing more than a gimmick, they'll give you something and might work semi-well to debug a very simple active filter. For anything decent you'll still need a true setup (i.e. function generator and a multi-channel high-speed voltmeter) Please don't try to represent this functionality as something it really isn't.

Well you might think so but I have any # of DSO to use if I wish, however when accepting the chance to beta SDS1104X-E in 2017 I committed to having to use it and get used to it like it was my only DSO.
I stand firmly behind the highlighted comments I made earlier. ^^^^
Of course you do, you're trying to make a sale here.

As for the eternal R vs S question, if we can read and understand specification documents, features of one vs another become quite clear.
A comparison chart compiled by member rf-loop outlines the major differences:


Stop comparing apples and pears, that chart is incredibly biased and misrepresents the capabilities of the scope entirely. It's pure marketing wank of the highest order and by pointing it out I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse. But since you insist:  :horse: Lets take the SDS1000X-E series from Siglent, some of the numbers on the datasheet seem rather ambitious, i.e. <100 ps channel skew on interleaved sampling seems awfully nice if you can't even guarantee the stability of your clock to that degree. (What happened there is that they accidentally forgot to mention you got to lob that 25 ppm uncertainty on the timebase onto that number. )

But what's really unforgivable is how they tacked on low voltage modes that probably don't exist. Ever wondered why the noise and error seems to differ when you dive under 5 mV/div? That's because the scope frontend is most likely incapable of actually doing these ranges and it's probably multiplying measurements at a higher range. Decent manufacturers like Keysight put the following warning in their manuals: "1 mV/div and 2 mV/div is a magnification of 4 mV/div setting. For vertical accuracy calculations, use full scale of 32 mV for 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div sensitivity setting."

I could continue for a while, but I think you get the gist of this comparison? It's easy to claim you're awesome if you happen to have selective amnesia when writing datasheets.


Oh, not that stupid chart again.  :palm:

Cherry picked data points? Check.
Unhacked Rigol, no options unlocked? Check.  (nb. Alloptions are now standard since that was written)
Posted by a Siglent distributor? Check.

Real value: 0

Mind you, that chart is still better than Siglent their datasheets, which is scary in a way...

I actually like the AWG and the DMM in the MDO-2204EX. Sure, it's not 6½ digit resolution, but it is actually pretty solid performance. I was pleasantly surprised that the metal joint thermistor temperature sensor had a selection of 8 different metal combination settings to match the different sensors I had lying around. Another convenience apart from having everything in one pachage to carry is that you can put the friggin display on the screen and save a screendump together with the scope picture and save it to the USB stick. It makes it much easier to get the readings into a report. I know many multimeters have digital connections, but a USB stick is just less complicated for me that setting up a connection and finding the right program/app for that particular instrument. I like to keep it simple. Taking pictures with your phone is also a drag. :(
I can't comment on the AWG of that series, never got my hands on a recent GW Instek. But most of the built-in DMMs are hard pressed to reach even a true 3.5 digit measurement. :) And personally I just write down the number in my lab notebook, because the screenshot is usually more difficult to relate to what was happening on my bench at the time than my scribbles.
 

Offline Aidanator7000

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 18
  • Country: nz
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2019, 01:23:56 am »
How about we actually get an opinion from someone who has actually used both scopes before rather than hearing the biased opinions of those who have one or the other. It's frustrating to see the same argument being had over and over again in so many different threads.

My advice would be to go for what ever scope your gut says, at the end of the day either will do the job (or buy both  :-DD)

 
The following users thanked this post: james_s

Offline HalFET

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 488
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2019, 01:29:23 am »
How about we actually get an opinion from someone who has actually used both scopes before rather than hearing the biased opinions of those who have one or the other. It's frustrating to see the same argument being had over and over again in so many different threads.

My advice would be to go for what ever scope your gut says, at the end of the day either will do the job (or buy both  :-DD)

That's pretty much my point. :)  Go to an electronics tradeshow/fair/university lab where they happen to have both/... and try them out. Buy the one who's user interface you like the most, the performance is roughly the same of all these models anyway.
 

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3128
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2019, 02:17:11 am »
I've not tried the Bode plot on a Siglent yet.  The Instek version is a joke.  When I attempted a sweep from 13.3 to 13.6 MHz  of a 40 MHz 3rd overtone crystal, I got 2 data points.  One can do better with the MDO SA function, but it takes the square root of the power specrtrum, so the series resonance is a peak.

However, a person with the requisite mathematical skills and the ability to transfer data to a PC can match the performance of *any* instrument  up to the BW of the DSO and signal generator.  My "To Do" list has writing the software for that close to the top.  Fixing the Tek 11801 sampling scope I just bought and testing my SD-22 sampling heads are at the top with  setting up my 8753B and 85046A close behind.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12243
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2019, 06:41:08 am »
A hacked DS1054Z will give you 100 MHz.  A stock Siglent 1202X-E will give you 200 MHz as will a hacked SDS1104X-E.

A hacked DS1054Z is much closer to 200Mhz than 100Mhz. The Siglent is also well over 200Mhz.

eg. 1.7ns rise time on a DS1054Z (as measured by TurboTom with his rubidium source):


As mentioned earlier, both those numbers are well into the area where you need to really know what you're doing in terms of probing and connecting the cables. You can't simply poke at a circuit with the supplied probes and get those results.

Bandwidth shouldn't really be a factor when deciding between these two 'scopes, both have enough for everyday use, neither has enough for "serious" work.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 07:01:46 am by Fungus »
 

Offline Aidanator7000

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 18
  • Country: nz
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2019, 07:03:22 am »
A hacked DS1054Z will give you 100 MHz.  A stock Siglent 1202X-E will give you 200 MHz as will a hacked SDS1104X-E.

A hacked DS1054Z is much closer to 200Mhz than 100Mhz. The Siglent is also well over 200Mhz.

eg. 1.7ns rise time on a DS1054Z (as measured by TurboTom with his rubidium source):


As mentioned earlier, both those numbers are well into the area where you need to really know what you're doing in terms of probing and connecting the cables. You can't simply poke at a circuit with the supplied probes and get those results.

Bandwidth shouldn't really be a factor when deciding between these two 'scopes, both have enough for everyday use, neither has enough for "serious" work.


And yet the argument can be made that the -3dB bandwidth of the 1000X-E is much greater than 200MHz... you just gonna keep going round in circles over and over again.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12243
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2019, 07:06:13 am »
The Siglent is also well over 200Mhz.

And yet the argument can be made that the -3dB bandwidth of the 1000X-E is much greater than 200MHz...

Um, yes, I think I said that.
 

Offline Aidanator7000

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 18
  • Country: nz
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #45 on: March 23, 2019, 07:29:15 am »
lol, sorry i missed that  ;D
 

Offline TheNewLab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #46 on: March 23, 2019, 07:33:03 am »
IMHO the Rigol DS1054Z is pretty much outdated. It is cheap but it has several large drawbacks. Look at Dave's recent DIY EMC probe FFT comparison video for example.

Sure, but who needs FFT? Not me.  :-//   :popcorn:

(and it's not as if the Siglent has an amazing FFT either)

But hey, FFT ia fun to experiment with..it can give you new idaeas of how to scope and build projects...Doesn't both of them do FFT? even Hantek offers that feature.
 

Offline TheNewLab

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • Country: us
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2019, 07:55:20 am »
Just my two quid..do they still have quid??

It is true that the Siglent can handle two channels and maintain 100MHz, only for me it was so fun to hac the Rigol. Despite it was just going to a key gen and enter a code...

My experience is, I never intended to get so deep into electronics to buy such a piece of equipment. In fact, my orignal plan is to limit myself with an average DMM. It was to be a hobby in which I could blow off steam and something a could not, would not turn into a business...So for my health's sake.

Long -story short.  it took years to break down and buy a real oscilloscope. I just plunged into the Rigol 1054..it was such a great price, and learning it could be hacked just sounded fun. Then I came into some extra money that I could burn..and finding a scope that could really measure signals with accuracy..I began researching the Siglent...It seemed even better..able to have two channels at 100MHz, not dropping to 50MHz, that it included other forms of signal measurement. reading Can bus made me curious since I had just gotten back into auto repair..and updating myself with auto diagnostics..A used Prius.
And I thought finally having a real logic probe included on a scope would be fantastic.

Well, I found the logic probe of the Siglent is not so fantastic..What I am learning is that it is not so responsive and kinda of slow, and hard to read on the oscilloscopes screen. i never bought it and am now looking into a dedicated USB type of logic probe..

I bought both. I enjoy both I use the Siglent more often..I like the larger screen and have not experiments with the CanBus feature.

I do not know about the GWinstek, or the newer models that keep coming out. IMO I would set a price point 1st. a hard price point and I will bet you will still go over it. look at what you are doing, and what you would like to do...I was interested in being able to work with good old fashioned TTL digital IC's and I had a collection of Fast TTL 74F ones.

One thing I did was not just price, but find and download the user manuals, however I kind of enjoy doing research into major purchases.

Only other thing I can mention..be patient. not knowing and just fiddling with the features is where I started too. Still, think about what you imagine you might use it for, after you move beyond playing and discovering how to use it.


Good luck, enjoy the journey!
 
The following users thanked this post: Aidanator7000

Offline rf-loop

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3561
  • Country: cn
  • Born with DLL21 in hand
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #48 on: March 23, 2019, 08:30:19 am »

But what's really unforgivable is how they tacked on low voltage modes that probably don't exist. Ever wondered why the noise and error seems to differ when you dive under 5 mV/div? That's because the scope frontend is most likely incapable of actually doing these ranges and it's probably multiplying measurements at a higher range. Decent manufacturers like Keysight put the following warning in their manuals: "1 mV/div and 2 mV/div is a magnification of 4 mV/div setting. For vertical accuracy calculations, use full scale of 32 mV for 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div sensitivity setting."



Rigol DS1000Z data sheet:
Vertical Scale
(Probe ratio is 1X) 1 mV/div to 10 V/div.

And same data sheet claim 12 bit resolution (High res) what is bullshit. After High res, data resolution is still 8bit and nothing else and "8 - 12bit" is only for reduce noise on the screen.
If look example some Tektronix they also use double bytes for keep high resolution averaging result data.


They do not tell 1 and 2mV/div is derived from 5mV/div. (I have owned DS1000Z and also used it and 4 years ago proofed these 1 and 2mV are not full vertical resolution what was one show stopper together with enormous signal noise and total lack of measurements horizontal resolution "highly decimated data like just from screen")

Siglent SDS1000X-E full resolution range starts from 500uV/div.
How useful it is, it is other question but it is not digital magnification from less sensitive range.







Images are from:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg2102305/#msg2102305


Quote from: rhb
I've not tried the Bode plot on a Siglent yet.  The Instek version is a joke.  When I attempted a sweep from 13.3 to 13.6 MHz  of a 40 MHz 3rd overtone crystal, I got 2 data points.

SDS1104X-E and generator SDG1032X
With Siglent you car run this using up to 500 steps (501 points)

Minimum BW is 500Hz with minimum step 1Hz

exactly same XTAL using 5kHz BW

500 steps, 10Hz steps.

Individual points in list.

And of course Siglent FRA ("bode plot") have 3 simultaneous channels (+ref)
Here this test setup was really poor due to device under test etc. Only what is tell is that there is 3 channel.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 08:35:50 am by rf-loop »
If practice and theory is not equal it tells that used application of theory is wrong or the theory itself is wrong.
-
Harmony OS
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12243
  • Country: 00
Re: the eternal question about rigol vs siglent
« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2019, 08:58:54 am »
Siglent SDS1000X-E full resolution range starts from 500uV/div.

True.

How useful it is, it is other question

This is the real question.

Siglent owners (and oscilloscope reviewers in general) love to zoom in and go "Ooooh! Look at that" but the reality is that 0.5V-1V/division is the usual setting and there's more than 1mV noise in just about everything you can poke at with one of those probes.

(and the way to get rid of it is to use one of the hires/average modes provided by these 'scopes - provided for a reason)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf