Help choosing DSO :) MSO5000 ?

[nubinstanley]

I forgot to ask one question : If I go with the SDS2104X+, in your opinion, what is something from the MSO5000 that I would absolutely miss ?

Nothing! Only the 500 bucks in the wallet.

So, if you can afford the SDS2kX+ go with it!

 

[bdunham7]

Is working with half a screen the latest Siglent owner's workaround to not being able to zoom out?

It still doesn't address the problem of zooming out on a one-off event that you just managed to capture.

It always has been, but it is 3/4 screen on the SDS2104X+.  You know what they say--3/4 of a loaf is better than half.

[nubinstanley]

I forgot to ask one question : If I go with the SDS2104X+, in your opinion, what is something from the MSO5000 that I would absolutely miss ?

That is the sort of question that results in "paralysis by analysis". 

 

I can't say what you would miss, but one feature I'd like to have that the SDS2104X+ doesn't is the HDMI output to directly connect a monitor.  16 LA channels and 4 analog channels on the screen at once is very crowded, especially when you're stuck losing 25% of your screen in the zoom mode.

 

[nubinstanley]

Think about what else you could have on your bench with $500 to spend.

Maybe a nice bench multimeter?

A good power supply and soldering iron?

Either would be a much better way to spend that money IMHO.

 

[kcbrown]

Prices converted to USD below :

• The Rigol MSO5000 (probably the 5074) : 1280 USD
• The Siglent SDS-2104X+ : 1862 USD
• The Siglent SDS-1104X-E : 670 USD
• The Siglent SDS-1104X-U : 525 USD
• The Instek GDS-1054B : 592 USD (from Amazon -> not confirmed from an authorized reseller)

At the lower end, I did some research and finalized on the SDS1104X-E. 

If digital is all you're doing and you don't intend to get the digital pod for the 1104X-E, then you should reconsider the 1104X-U.  It has the same decoding capabilities, number of channels, bandwidth (plenty for the kind of digital work scopes in this range are capable of), operating characteristics, etc., as the 1104X-E, but you're saving $100 in the process.  If you could elaborate on why you're interested in the 1104X-E over the 1104X-U, that would be helpful.

But see below.  Because digital is what you're primarily interested in, the 1104X-U or 1104X-E isn't likely to be as good an answer.

I could justify spending double that amount (to my wife and myself  ) and so I continued with my research. I landed on the MSO5000, which seemed like the perfect one for me and then I came across the front-end noise discussion. This in turn lead me to the SDS2104X Plus and the question I had was -> Should I spend the extra ~580 USD for it.

If you compare the 1104X-U (or the Instek GDS-1054B) against the 2104X+, you're looking at over a factor of three price difference.  That's a lot to swallow.  You can get quite a lot of additional equipment for the difference.   As nice as the 2104X+ is (I have one, and believe me, it's very nice indeed, my go-to scope for pretty much anything), it's hard to justify that kind of price difference unless the price of the 2104X+ (or the MSO5000, for that matter) wouldn't strain your finances.


The deal is this: if finances aren't really an issue, then get the best thing you can lay your hands on (within reason) and you're guaranteed to be happy with it.  If finances really are an issue, then go for the best bang for the buck you can get your hands on which will do the job adequately.

The way I see it, the Rigol doesn't really hit that bang for the buck sweet spot in terms of digital functionality. 

And because the 1104X-E and 1104X-U do decoding of whatever's on the screen (even if the non-visible portion of the capture itself contains crucial sections needed for that), and the screen is relatively small, neither are good candidates for digital work where you'll have multiple decoded traces on the screen at the same time.  This is so because in order to properly see the decoded contents, you'll need to use zoom mode.   The SDS-2104X+ will require this, and even the Rigol will require this (see https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2021533/#msg2021533).

There is only one scope in the list that decodes the entire capture irrespective of what's on the screen, and that's the Instek.

This means, for digital work, the two best candidates in the list are the SDS-2104X+, and the GDS-1054B.   The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue), you can build your own digital pod for it if you need additional digital channels, and its screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective.   The Instek decodes the entirety of the capture, so you can zoom in and out and move around to your heart's content and the decoded values will show up properly.   The Instek is also very fast, making for a pleasant experience.


So the way I see it is this: if finances aren't really a major concern, then get the SDS-2104X+ and call it a day.  If finances are a major concern, then get the Instek.

[2N3055]

1104X-E has 2 ADC and twice the memory and web control and 1 MPts FFT (U has 128k max). And no Bode plot.
I personally think it is worth the price difference.
U is made to directly compete (and be better than) Rigol DS1054Z.

Instek GDS-1054B is sweet little scope that I like better than DS1054Z but it also have only one ADC converter like Z and U.

[normi]

I forgot to ask one question : If I go with the SDS2104X+, in your opinion, what is something from the MSO5000 that I would absolutely miss ?

Nothing! Only the 500 bucks in the wallet.

So, if you can afford the SDS2kX+ go with it!

That's misleading, there are numerous features that persons could miss, that statement is specific to you. I saw one post where the an OP requested same advise and the SDS2kX+ was suggested and he said absolutely no way was he going to buy a scope that did not have individual channel controls like the MSO5000. That thread the go for long as he eliminated all the SDS2kX+ fans.

At the end of the day, the choice is based on the needs but you are tempted to spend more in the hopes  that it will cover every possible future unknown situation. But this does not work, as the scopes each have their strong points and if you have no idea why you need a scope then you won't be able say which features are valuable to you.

I am very pleased with my MSO5000, but I have stayed away from my own views and posted links to online users who are not doing reviews but are actually using the scope, so its unbiased use can be observed.

My advice to the OP is to buy a much cheaper scope wait a number of years if you are still into the hobby then at that time there will be even more advanced scopes out there at even lower prices. All reasonable persons here would agree that it would have been unheard of for a scope that has 8G sample rate to be available for $900-1000 but Rigol has proven it is possible with the MSO5000. The Siglents and Owons may one day get to this level so we could have greater choices with less compromise in the years to come.

[kcbrown]

1104X-E has 2 ADC and twice the memory and web control and 1 MPts FFT (U has 128k max). And no Bode plot.
I personally think it is worth the price difference.

For someone who's going to do mostly digital work?

I agree it would be worth the difference if the features were going to be used.  But it's unclear how much, if any, real analog he's going to be doing, and whether the nature of that analog work will require frequency domain analysis.

Instek GDS-1054B is sweet little scope that I like better than DS1054Z but it also have only one ADC converter like Z and U.

Which for the bandwidth of the scope and the use case (mostly digital at relatively low frequencies), is perfectly fine.  And it has a killer FFT.  No Bode plot, though.

[nubinstanley]

If you could elaborate on why you're interested in the 1104X-E over the 1104X-U, that would be helpful.

This decision was made quite some time back. I had compared all the ones in the lower end and decided on the 1104X-E.

The way I see it, the Rigol doesn't really hit that bang for the buck sweet spot in terms of digital functionality.

This means, for digital work, the two best candidates in the list are the SDS-2104X+, and the GDS-1054B.   The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue), you can build your own digital pod for it if you need additional digital channels, and its screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective.   The Instek decodes the entirety of the capture, so you can zoom in and out and move around to your heart's content and the decoded values will show up properly.   The Instek is also very fast, making for a pleasant experience.

So the way I see it is this: if finances aren't really a major concern, then get the SDS-2104X+ and call it a day.  If finances are a major concern, then get the Instek.

So far, the advice I have been getting was that for digital work, get the MSO5000 and for more of analog work (and if I have the money to spend), get the SDS2104X+. Why do you recommend the SDS2104X+ over the MSO5000 ? (Apart from : "screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective")

Also : "The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue)" --> Isn't this applicable for the SDS1104X-E as well when doing protocol decoding ?

I agree it would be worth the difference if the features were going to be used.  But it's unclear how much, if any, real analog he's going to be doing, and whether the nature of that analog work will require frequency domain analysis.

I can afford the SDS2104X+.  The fact that I'll be paying around 460 USD more, say,  when compared to someone from the US, does hurt.

I think that I'll be primarily using digital in the near future because I mostly work on micro-controllers and sensors right now. At the same time, another reason to get a scope is also that I have started getting back into electronics in general. I am doing some self study and hopefully would get better along the way.

The ideal scenario for me is to get an SDS-1104X-E (I felt that this was the best fit to handle digital and analog at the price point). Then sell it IF/WHEN I need to upgrade and then find the best scope at that point in time. The problem is that, I am certain that I'll not be able to sell it at a decent price. Which was why I was considering spending extra to get one that is decent enough to last quite a while. One with a basic inbuilt AWG preferably so that I don't have to invest in a stand-alone AWG right away. And here we are : MSO5000 vs the SDS2104X+.

Anyhow, thanks for spending all this time to explain this!

[nubinstanley]

At the end of the day, the choice is based on the needs but you are tempted to spend more in the hopes  that it will cover every possible future unknown situation. But this does not work, as the scopes each have their strong points and if you have no idea why you need a scope then you won't be able say which features are valuable to you.

My advice to the OP is to buy a much cheaper scope wait a number of years if you are still into the hobby then at that time there will be even more advanced scopes out there at even lower prices. All reasonable persons here would agree that it would have been unheard of for a scope that has 8G sample rate to be available for $900-1000 but Rigol has proven it is possible with the MSO5000. The Siglents and Owons may one day get to this level so we could have greater choices with less compromise in the years to come.

Seriously considering this advice now. Worst case I'll end up with 2 scopes!

[tv84]

That's misleading, there are numerous features that persons could miss, that statement is specific to you. I saw one post where the an OP requested same advise and the SDS2kX+ was suggested and he said absolutely no way was he going to buy a scope that did not have individual channel controls like the MSO5000. That thread the go for long as he eliminated all the SDS2kX+ fans.

At the end of the day, the choice is based on the needs but you are tempted to spend more in the hopes  that it will cover every possible future unknown situation. But this does not work, as the scopes each have their strong points and if you have no idea why you need a scope then you won't be able say which features are valuable to you.

I am very pleased with my MSO5000, but I have stayed away from my own views and posted links to online users who are not doing reviews but are actually using the scope, so its unbiased use can be observed.

My advice to the OP is to buy a much cheaper scope wait a number of years if you are still into the hobby then at that time there will be even more advanced scopes out there at even lower prices. All reasonable persons here would agree that it would have been unheard of for a scope that has 8G sample rate to be available for $900-1000 but Rigol has proven it is possible with the MSO5000. The Siglents and Owons may one day get to this level so we could have greater choices with less compromise in the years to come.

The OP has been evolving throughout the thread (for better or for worse, only him will be able to see it in the end). That was his goal when he made the initial post.

I don't consider myself a Siglent fanboy. I own a MSO5000. (ATM, if you want to call me a LeCroy fanboy, then I'll accept.    )

My first msg in this thread advised him to buy the X-E and get on with life. It's the only thing he will need in the foreseeable future. If the "individual channel controls" were a must have then there would be no point for him in continuing or, as a matter of fact, even considering the X-E.

The X+ is overall a better scope that the MSO5000. It is, and it costs 50% more! Plenty of threads in this forum have discussed this to exhaustion.

And to add to the misleading posts: the Rigol hasn't seen a FW update worth it of that name since it came out, leaving all the buyers drooling for it. Siglent has been much more consistent in hearing the users, in reading this forum and providing corrections and enhancements when it comes to the X+ (and extra reason is the fact that the X+ is in the same line of development as Siglent's current bigger brothers).

If buying the 5000, in 3 years time, the OP will have an exceptional high-samplerate (even for that time) with individual controls, etc but with 7-year bugs, features yet to be solved or improved!

So, in the end, maybe it's better to buy the X-E and, in 3 years, reevaluate the situation and see if there exists a MSO6000 that covers all these aspects.

 

[kcbrown]

The way I see it, the Rigol doesn't really hit that bang for the buck sweet spot in terms of digital functionality.

This means, for digital work, the two best candidates in the list are the SDS-2104X+, and the GDS-1054B.   The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue), you can build your own digital pod for it if you need additional digital channels, and its screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective.   The Instek decodes the entirety of the capture, so you can zoom in and out and move around to your heart's content and the decoded values will show up properly.   The Instek is also very fast, making for a pleasant experience.

So the way I see it is this: if finances aren't really a major concern, then get the SDS-2104X+ and call it a day.  If finances are a major concern, then get the Instek.

So far, the advice I have been getting was that for digital work, get the MSO5000 and for more of analog work (and if I have the money to spend), get the SDS2104X+. Why do you recommend the SDS2104X+ over the MSO5000 ? (Apart from : "screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective")

Well, my thinking was that you could build your own digital pod and thus get 16 additional digital channels.  But the price difference between the Siglent and the Rigol would probably pay for a digital pod for the Rigol, so I guess that's not much of a difference after all. 

Now, zoom mode on the Rigol might be as effective as it is on the Siglent, but I can't say one way or the other on that.  I can say that it's highly effective on the Siglent.  It is very well implemented, and is essentially a first class citizen on the scope.

Also : "The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue)" --> Isn't this applicable for the SDS1104X-E as well when doing protocol decoding ?

No.  The much more limited screen real estate of the 1104X-E means that zoom mode isn't anything like as effective there as it is on the 2104X+.  Believe me, I know this because I own both.  Zoom mode just isn't implemented as well on the 1104X-E.  Just as one example of the difference, you can't use the mask test in zoom mode on the 1104X-E.  You can on the 2104X+.  If you've got a repeating digital signal that is occasionally malfunctioning, the mask test will make it possible to stop the scope when the malfunctioning signal shows itself.  If the size of the capture needed to properly get everything you need (e.g., if you need to decode some other part of the problematic signal) is too large to reasonably build a mask, then the 1104X-E just won't be usable in that situation.  But the 2104X+ will, because you can enter zoom mode, move to the part of the capture you want to build your mask against, start the mask test, and when the scope automatically stops due to the mask test being violated, you can then view other portions of the capture to see what preceded the problem.

That's just an example, but it illustrates the limits of zoom mode as implemented on the 1104X-E that aren't there on the 2104X+.  Screen real estate is also a major advantage on the 2104X+ over the 1104X-E.  Put simply, you have as much real estate in the 2104X+ zoom mode section as you have on the entire screen of the 1104X-E.  It appears the same is true of the MSO5000 compared with the 1104X-E.

Now, I did err in one regard.  The Rigol MSO5000 and the Siglent SDS2104X+ both have screens of the same resolution.  So you get the same resolution advantage either way.  And in looking at zoom mode photos for the MSO5000, it appears its zoom mode is dimensionally about the same as the 2104X+.

If the zoom mode is implemented in the MSO5000 as well as it is in the SDS2104X+, then I can't think of any real advantage the Siglent would have over the Rigol for digital work.  I don't know what decoding options are available, but I think both scopes provide plenty for the kind of digital work you're likely to do.

I agree it would be worth the difference if the features were going to be used.  But it's unclear how much, if any, real analog he's going to be doing, and whether the nature of that analog work will require frequency domain analysis.

I can afford the SDS2104X+.  The fact that I'll be paying around 460 USD more, say,  when compared to someone from the US, does hurt.

I think that I'll be primarily using digital in the near future because I mostly work on micro-controllers and sensors right now. At the same time, another reason to get a scope is also that I have started getting back into electronics in general. I am doing some self study and hopefully would get better along the way.

The ideal scenario for me is to get an SDS-1104X-E (I felt that this was the best fit to handle digital and analog at the price point). Then sell it IF/WHEN I need to upgrade and then find the best scope at that point in time. The problem is that, I am certain that I'll not be able to sell it at a decent price. Which was why I was considering spending extra to get one that is decent enough to last quite a while. One with a basic inbuilt AWG preferably so that I don't have to invest in a stand-alone AWG right away. And here we are : MSO5000 vs the SDS2104X+.

Well, in the end it's actually a tough choice.

If it's between the 1104X-E and the Instek, I'd go for the Instek in a heartbeat.  I happen to own one of those as well, so I know from experience how they compare, and for digital work, the Instek clearly wins.

If it's between the MSO5000 and the SDS2104X+, honestly, it's too close to call.  I just don't have any experience with the MSO5000 so I can't reasonably opine as to how well it works for doing digital work.  I can say that the SDS2104X+ works quite well for digital work.  I suspect the Rigol will as well.

Frankly, I think you'll wind up being quite happy with any of these.  About the only thing I can recommend is going over the MSO5000 thread and the SDS-2000X+ threads carefully.  Look over the complaints about each.  If the complaints about the MSO5000 aren't enough to dissuade you then that's probably what I'd wind up going for.  Unless you're planning on getting into low-noise measurements or something like that, I expect the noisy frontend of the Rigol won't be enough to prevent you from making good use of it in the analog domain.

Oh, and if you see a comment from me complaining about the unresponsiveness of the SDS-2104X+ front panel, it turns out that I had a hardware problem with the scope's timebase encoder, and that basically invalidates my prior experience in terms of the responsiveness of the UI.  I'll have to gain more experience with the scope before I can definitively say anything about that.

[normi]

That's misleading, there are numerous features that persons could miss, that statement is specific to you. I saw one post where the an OP requested same advise and the SDS2kX+ was suggested and he said absolutely no way was he going to buy a scope that did not have individual channel controls like the MSO5000. That thread the go for long as he eliminated all the SDS2kX+ fans.

At the end of the day, the choice is based on the needs but you are tempted to spend more in the hopes  that it will cover every possible future unknown situation. But this does not work, as the scopes each have their strong points and if you have no idea why you need a scope then you won't be able say which features are valuable to you.

I am very pleased with my MSO5000, but I have stayed away from my own views and posted links to online users who are not doing reviews but are actually using the scope, so its unbiased use can be observed.

My advice to the OP is to buy a much cheaper scope wait a number of years if you are still into the hobby then at that time there will be even more advanced scopes out there at even lower prices. All reasonable persons here would agree that it would have been unheard of for a scope that has 8G sample rate to be available for $900-1000 but Rigol has proven it is possible with the MSO5000. The Siglents and Owons may one day get to this level so we could have greater choices with less compromise in the years to come.

The OP has been evolving throughout the thread (for better or for worse, only him will be able to see it in the end). That was his goal when he made the initial post.

I don't consider myself a Siglent fanboy. I own a MSO5000. (ATM, if you want to call me a LeCroy fanboy, then I'll accept.    )

My first msg in this thread advised him to buy the X-E and get on with life. It's the only thing he will need in the foreseeable future. If the "individual channel controls" were a must have then there would be no point for him in continuing or, as a matter of fact, even considering the X-E.

The X+ is overall a better scope that the MSO5000. It is, and it costs 50% more! Plenty of threads in this forum have discussed this to exhaustion.

And to add to the misleading posts: the Rigol hasn't seen a FW update worth it of that name since it came out, leaving all the buyers drooling for it. Siglent has been much more consistent in hearing the users, in reading this forum and providing corrections and enhancements when it comes to the X+ (and extra reason is the fact that the X+ is in the same line of development as Siglent's current bigger brothers).

If buying the 5000, in 3 years time, the OP will have an exceptional high-samplerate (even for that time) with individual controls, etc but with 7-year bugs, features yet to be solved or improved!

So, in the end, maybe it's better to buy the X-E and, in 3 years, reevaluate the situation and see if there exists a MSO6000 that covers all these aspects.

I am aware that you own a MSO5000, I was not saying the OP would miss the individual controls since he does not have much experience.  I used that case to show one example of one feature that could be missed, he does not have an AWG the MSO5000 has a better version he would miss that. The issue most users have is whether spending $500 more is worth it, had the MSO5000 not been there I would have bought the SDS2kX+ as there are no other similar scopes in that price range.
This situation is not unique to oscilloscopes, he will go through this same analysis for soldering stations, signal generators, power supplies and the list goes on. There is more to experience with having lots of equipment that can do a good job, vs spending a whole lot on a few pieces with finer tuned functions that you may not need.
Another advise I would give OP is don't look to buy everything off the shelf building things yourself gives a great sense of accomplishment and provide a tremendous learning experience. There are DIY projects posted on this forum and elsewhere which can enhance your test equipment at a fraction of the cost of the vendor supplied version. These may not be perfect but they often get the job done and the experience gained would be worth a whole lot more. Example: Build a probe for oscilloscope logic analyzer for $50 vs $400 from the vendor.

[nubinstanley]

That's misleading, there are numerous features that persons could miss, that statement is specific to you. I saw one post where the an OP requested same advise and the SDS2kX+ was suggested and he said absolutely no way was he going to buy a scope that did not have individual channel controls like the MSO5000. That thread the go for long as he eliminated all the SDS2kX+ fans.

At the end of the day, the choice is based on the needs but you are tempted to spend more in the hopes  that it will cover every possible future unknown situation. But this does not work, as the scopes each have their strong points and if you have no idea why you need a scope then you won't be able say which features are valuable to you.

I am very pleased with my MSO5000, but I have stayed away from my own views and posted links to online users who are not doing reviews but are actually using the scope, so its unbiased use can be observed.

My advice to the OP is to buy a much cheaper scope wait a number of years if you are still into the hobby then at that time there will be even more advanced scopes out there at even lower prices. All reasonable persons here would agree that it would have been unheard of for a scope that has 8G sample rate to be available for $900-1000 but Rigol has proven it is possible with the MSO5000. The Siglents and Owons may one day get to this level so we could have greater choices with less compromise in the years to come.

The OP has been evolving throughout the thread (for better or for worse, only him will be able to see it in the end). That was his goal when he made the initial post.

I don't consider myself a Siglent fanboy. I own a MSO5000. (ATM, if you want to call me a LeCroy fanboy, then I'll accept.    )

My first msg in this thread advised him to buy the X-E and get on with life. It's the only thing he will need in the foreseeable future. If the "individual channel controls" were a must have then there would be no point for him in continuing or, as a matter of fact, even considering the X-E.

The X+ is overall a better scope that the MSO5000. It is, and it costs 50% more! Plenty of threads in this forum have discussed this to exhaustion.

And to add to the misleading posts: the Rigol hasn't seen a FW update worth it of that name since it came out, leaving all the buyers drooling for it. Siglent has been much more consistent in hearing the users, in reading this forum and providing corrections and enhancements when it comes to the X+ (and extra reason is the fact that the X+ is in the same line of development as Siglent's current bigger brothers).

If buying the 5000, in 3 years time, the OP will have an exceptional high-samplerate (even for that time) with individual controls, etc but with 7-year bugs, features yet to be solved or improved!

So, in the end, maybe it's better to buy the X-E and, in 3 years, reevaluate the situation and see if there exists a MSO6000 that covers all these aspects.

 

[nubinstanley]

The way I see it, the Rigol doesn't really hit that bang for the buck sweet spot in terms of digital functionality.

This means, for digital work, the two best candidates in the list are the SDS-2104X+, and the GDS-1054B.   The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue), you can build your own digital pod for it if you need additional digital channels, and its screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective.   The Instek decodes the entirety of the capture, so you can zoom in and out and move around to your heart's content and the decoded values will show up properly.   The Instek is also very fast, making for a pleasant experience.

So the way I see it is this: if finances aren't really a major concern, then get the SDS-2104X+ and call it a day.  If finances are a major concern, then get the Instek.

So far, the advice I have been getting was that for digital work, get the MSO5000 and for more of analog work (and if I have the money to spend), get the SDS2104X+. Why do you recommend the SDS2104X+ over the MSO5000 ? (Apart from : "screen is higher resolution than the Rigol's, thus making zoom mode that much more effective")

Well, my thinking was that you could build your own digital pod and thus get 16 additional digital channels.  But the price difference between the Siglent and the Rigol would probably pay for a digital pod for the Rigol, so I guess that's not much of a difference after all. 

Now, zoom mode on the Rigol might be as effective as it is on the Siglent, but I can't say one way or the other on that.  I can say that it's highly effective on the Siglent.  It is very well implemented, and is essentially a first class citizen on the scope.

Also : "The Siglent because its zoom mode is excellent (which takes care of the on-screen decoding issue)" --> Isn't this applicable for the SDS1104X-E as well when doing protocol decoding ?

No.  The much more limited screen real estate of the 1104X-E means that zoom mode isn't anything like as effective there as it is on the 2104X+.  Believe me, I know this because I own both.  Zoom mode just isn't implemented as well on the 1104X-E.  Just as one example of the difference, you can't use the mask test in zoom mode on the 1104X-E.  You can on the 2104X+.  If you've got a repeating digital signal that is occasionally malfunctioning, the mask test will make it possible to stop the scope when the malfunctioning signal shows itself.  If the size of the capture needed to properly get everything you need (e.g., if you need to decode some other part of the problematic signal) is too large to reasonably build a mask, then the 1104X-E just won't be usable in that situation.  But the 2104X+ will, because you can enter zoom mode, move to the part of the capture you want to build your mask against, start the mask test, and when the scope automatically stops due to the mask test being violated, you can then view other portions of the capture to see what preceded the problem.

That's just an example, but it illustrates the limits of zoom mode as implemented on the 1104X-E that aren't there on the 2104X+.  Screen real estate is also a major advantage on the 2104X+ over the 1104X-E.  Put simply, you have as much real estate in the 2104X+ zoom mode section as you have on the entire screen of the 1104X-E.  It appears the same is true of the MSO5000 compared with the 1104X-E.

Now, I did err in one regard.  The Rigol MSO5000 and the Siglent SDS2104X+ both have screens of the same resolution.  So you get the same resolution advantage either way.  And in looking at zoom mode photos for the MSO5000, it appears its zoom mode is dimensionally about the same as the 2104X+.

If the zoom mode is implemented in the MSO5000 as well as it is in the SDS2104X+, then I can't think of any real advantage the Siglent would have over the Rigol for digital work.  I don't know what decoding options are available, but I think both scopes provide plenty for the kind of digital work you're likely to do.

I agree it would be worth the difference if the features were going to be used.  But it's unclear how much, if any, real analog he's going to be doing, and whether the nature of that analog work will require frequency domain analysis.

I can afford the SDS2104X+.  The fact that I'll be paying around 460 USD more, say,  when compared to someone from the US, does hurt.

I think that I'll be primarily using digital in the near future because I mostly work on micro-controllers and sensors right now. At the same time, another reason to get a scope is also that I have started getting back into electronics in general. I am doing some self study and hopefully would get better along the way.

The ideal scenario for me is to get an SDS-1104X-E (I felt that this was the best fit to handle digital and analog at the price point). Then sell it IF/WHEN I need to upgrade and then find the best scope at that point in time. The problem is that, I am certain that I'll not be able to sell it at a decent price. Which was why I was considering spending extra to get one that is decent enough to last quite a while. One with a basic inbuilt AWG preferably so that I don't have to invest in a stand-alone AWG right away. And here we are : MSO5000 vs the SDS2104X+.

Well, in the end it's actually a tough choice.

If it's between the 1104X-E and the Instek, I'd go for the Instek in a heartbeat.  I happen to own one of those as well, so I know from experience how they compare, and for digital work, the Instek clearly wins.

If it's between the MSO5000 and the SDS2104X+, honestly, it's too close to call.  I just don't have any experience with the MSO5000 so I can't reasonably opine as to how well it works for doing digital work.  I can say that the SDS2104X+ works quite well for digital work.  I suspect the Rigol will as well.

Frankly, I think you'll wind up being quite happy with any of these.  About the only thing I can recommend is going over the MSO5000 thread and the SDS-2000X+ threads carefully.  Look over the complaints about each.  If the complaints about the MSO5000 aren't enough to dissuade you then that's probably what I'd wind up going for.  Unless you're planning on getting into low-noise measurements or something like that, I expect the noisy frontend of the Rigol won't be enough to prevent you from making good use of it in the analog domain.

Oh, and if you see a comment from me complaining about the unresponsiveness of the SDS-2104X+ front panel, it turns out that I had a hardware problem with the scope's timebase encoder, and that basically invalidates my prior experience in terms of the responsiveness of the UI.  I'll have to gain more experience with the scope before I can definitively say anything about that.

 

[nubinstanley]

After a lot of deliberation, I decided to get the SDS1104X-E + SDG1032X (need to decide on a power supply). Hopefully that should be more than enough for a few years. 

But, the only little "itch" I have is : the MSO5000 comes to about the same price as the above combo.  Should I just get that and rely on the built-in AWG. 

Anyhow, thanks you all, for all the inputs. I do have a question on an Owon power supply (https://www.owon.com.hk/products_owon_spe_series_%7C_spe-u_series_1_ch_dc_power_supply) without any reviews on this forum. I guess I'll start a separate thread for that.

[Markus2801A]

After a lot of deliberation, I decided to get the SDS1104X-E + SDG1032X (need to decide on a power supply). Hopefully that should be more than enough for a few years. 

But, the only little "itch" I have is : the MSO5000 comes to about the same price as the above combo.  Should I just get that and rely on the built-in AWG. 

IMHO this is a very good combo! Go for it! I think it will offer much more value for the money than buying the MSO5000! A dedicated AWG should surpass the built in one in the MSO5000.
Regarding the Power Supply Owon should be very okay, may also consider GW-Instek!

[nubinstanley]

After a lot of deliberation, I decided to get the SDS1104X-E + SDG1032X (need to decide on a power supply). Hopefully that should be more than enough for a few years. 

But, the only little "itch" I have is : the MSO5000 comes to about the same price as the above combo.  Should I just get that and rely on the built-in AWG. 

IMHO this is a very good combo! Go for it! I think it will offer much more value for the money than buying the MSO5000! A dedicated AWG should surpass the built in one in the MSO5000.
Regarding the Power Supply Owon should be very okay, may also consider GW-Instek!

 

Any experience with OWON SPE3102/OWON SPE6103/OWON P4305 (I can't find any review on the first two...) ? I am also considering getting the Korad KA3005D...

[Markus2801A]

The OWON P4305 seems to be rock solid units with toroid transformer!
I have one at home, very good!

But I wanted a laboratory power Supply with 4 Channels so I also went for the GW Instek GPP-4323 power supply incl. LAN module
https://eleshop.eu/gw-instek-gpp-4323-programmable-power-supply-lan.html

[rsjsouza]

Discussion about the Owon PS...
https://eevblog.com/forum/testgear/inside-the-owon-p4603p4305-linear-psu/

[nubinstanley]

The OWON P4305 seems to be rock solid units with toroid transformer!
I have one at home, very good!

I had seen the thread that "rsjsouza" posted. So,

1) Does the P4305 has that power on spike ? Could it damage the DUT ?
2) The OCP/OVP seems to kick in after a delay ? Also, settings are also stored after a delay ?

[Markus2801A]

I have not measured this on my unit. Sometime I think those "spike" measurements on Laboratory PowerSupplies are some kind of "Benchmark" some people like to evaluate those Units. But in reality most of the units are okay and will not damage the DUT unless you have to deal with very sensitive DUT`s but in this case you will know and be aware of it!

[nctnico]

I have not measured this on my unit. Sometime I think those "spike" measurements on Laboratory PowerSupplies are some kind of "Benchmark" some people like to evaluate those Units. But in reality most of the units are okay and will not damage the DUT unless you have to deal with very sensitive DUT`s but in this case you will know and be aware of it!

I disagree. There are a lot of parts out there that have a very limited supply voltage range. Think about 5V opamps for example. Many will break when subjected to supply voltages over 6V; their maximum voltage is often 5.5V. But these aren't really sensitive components, they just have a limited power supply range. In the end you will want a PSU that doesn't overshoot -period-.

[kcbrown]

I disagree. There are a lot of parts out there that have a very limited supply voltage range. Think about 5V opamps for example. Many will break when subjected to supply voltages over 6V; their maximum voltage is often 5.5V. But these aren't really sensitive components, they just have a limited power supply range. In the end you will want a PSU that doesn't overshoot -period-.

Certainly it's best to have a PSU that won't overshoot.

But damage is the result of delivered energy, not merely overvoltage.  Overvoltage just causes a barrier threshold to be crossed.  My (perhaps limited) understanding is that it's not sufficient to merely cross the barrier, that some minimum amount of energy has to be delivered in the process for damage to take place.

That minimum amount of energy could indeed be very tiny.  But how tiny?   Would a microjoule be enough to damage the device?  If the voltage is exceeded for a microsecond, would that be enough to cause damage?   I can imagine it would for some devices, but at the same time, the implication is that even normal anti-static procedures would be insufficient to protect such devices.

So I think the person you were responding to has something of a point.  If the device is so sensitive that it would be damaged by voltage overages that deliver minimal energy, you're already going to know in advance that you've got such a device on your hands, because you'll have needed to take extraordinary precautions to avoid damaging it through ESD.

You really need to understand the characteristics of your power supply to know whether or not it has the potential to damage any given device through overvoltage.