Best 350MHz scope in a hackable world (Siglent SDS2104X Plus or Rigol MSO5072)

[mawyatt]

But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something..

There you go...!

The noise isn't a fatal problem. I wouldn't pay $500 extra for the occasional times I need to look at that sort of signal, not when there's a simple workaround.

Well let's show what Martin72 actually stated rather than snip the bottom section, here's top part.

"One of my last measurings with the 5000 was ripple-noise from a 60Vdc linear power supply.
Specified with 1mVrms, you see nothing from it on the scope, because of it´s own noise, nevertheless what you try (high res, bandwithlimit, capacitor directly on the input, etc..)."

Note the waveform shown, it "appears" that this is just wideband noise, even tho high res, bandwidth limit and a shunt capacitor on the input was used!! A typical user would likely not suspect a hidden waveform from the linear regulator, but an astute user such a Martin72 knew this might not be accurate and had to invoke 64 averages to revel what the true identity of the linear regulator noise properties were, since the DSO noise is so high it completely obscures the DUT noise waveform.

BTW this type of measurement is quite common in the areas I'm involved with, measuring noise in systems,  power supplies and others, and tracing the sources.

So you are right There you go...!

Best,

[mawyatt]

a) I don't own anything made by Rigol

Seems you conveniently avoided my later question?

a) Didn't you own some Rigol equipment in the past, maybe a DSO?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/best-350mhz-scope-in-a-hackable-world-(siglent-sds2104x-plus-or-rigol-mso5072)/50/

Here's a quote from your post on 12/12/2020

I just went from a Rigol DS1054Z to a Micsig and it's awesome.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/whats-a-good-4ch-replacement-for-an-old-rigol-1052e-scope/msg3367438/#msg3367438

So no hidden agenda and just to be clear where you very recently actually owned something by Rigol, a DSO in fact! Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 


Best,

[Fungus]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

[Fungus]

Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 

Nope, I got the Micsig because it has a big screen, it has a battery, and the user interface is awesome. 

It can also do stuff like view web pages and datasheets when you're not using it as a 'scope. I built one of these two days ago while reading the instructions on my Micsig (which was running on internal battery). Show me a Siglent that can do that!

Bottom line: Micsigs are useful even with no probes attached.



PS: I don't remember my DS1054Z being noisy. 

[mawyatt]

But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something..

There you go...!

The noise isn't a fatal problem. I wouldn't pay $500 extra for the occasional times I need to look at that sort of signal, not when there's a simple workaround.

That is a crutch. It will only show repetitive signal. It won't show spread spectrum signal or real noise, in fact it will suppress it...
So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

Yes a crutch indeed, and avoidable with a DSO with a better designed front end. This isn't pushing the kTB noise limits of a receiver or other type system where physics and nature combine to obscure signals, but a measuring instrument that's supposed to be able to measure things to revel the noise and it's origins only to find it's self induced!! Granted averaging is useful but shouldn't require employment just to view a typical type signal, and is beneficial to revel a signal that is buried in it's own noise as "seen" from the input, rather than the instrument burying the input signal in noise from itself!!

Averaging doesn't help with non-repetitive type signals, and the whole basis for Spread Spectrum, where only the proper correlated average exhibits the "Processing Gain" and the signal of interest rises from the embedded noise.

Back in the research area & labs I retired from, this DSO would be shelved in favor of a DSO that doesn't portray these characteristics, we would have no time to mess around with this kind of non-sense. Seems almost every other quality DSO doesn't have this issue, so I'm sure the Rigol designers are aware of this limitation and working diligently to create a new a lower noise front end for their future DSO to remain technically completive competitive.

Best,

[mawyatt]

Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 

Nope, I got the Micsig because it has a big screen, it has a battery, and the user interface is awesome. 

It can also do stuff like view web pages and datasheets when you're not using it as a 'scope. I built one of these two days ago while reading the instructions on my Micsig (which was running on internal battery). Show me a Siglent that can do that!

Bottom line: Micsigs are useful even with no probes attached.



PS: I don't remember my DS1054Z being noisy. 

Just in case you aren't aware, that's what laptops & iPads are for, and they likely do this much better with a much better retina screen and touch effects, not to mention battery life!!

A DSO is for measuring signals and such, not for browsing the internet. Anyway, most new DSOs have ethernet, USB, and WiFi with Web based interfaces, so they can be operated from a remote desktop, laptop, phone to iPad and used for presentations, data collection, and of course surf the net.

Can't see having a DSO that can browse the net being a deciding factor, I'm more interested in how well it makes measurements.

I'm old and retired now, so maybe this is the wave of the future for DSOs

Best,

[TurboTom]

Add a miniature X-ray flourescense spectrometer and we've got a genuine tricorder...

[Fungus]

Just in case you aren't aware, that's what laptops & iPads are for

Yet more stuff cluttering up the workbench...

Averaging doesn't help with non-repetitive type signals

Maybe I wasn't defining the word "Averaging" clearly enough.

I mean averaging of neighboring samples. What Rigol calls "High Resolution" mode.

[Fungus]

A DSO is for measuring signals and such, not for browsing the internet.

Not any more.

I'm more interested in how well it makes measurements.

Very nicely, thank you.

And turning those measurements on/off is a lot faster and easier with a graphical touch screen than using an old-fashioned twisty knob to move around a grid of text labels (then mis-clicking when you push it to select one of them).

[mawyatt]

Maybe I wasn't defining the word "Averaging" clearly enough.

I mean averaging of neighboring samples. What Rigol calls "High Resolution" mode.

The noise obscured waveform shown (see attachment) was with your self defined "Averaging" mode, which as you say Rigol calls "High Resolution" mode!!

Here it is from the previous post, and waveforms below.
"Specified with 1mVrms, you see nothing from it on the scope, because of it´s own noise, nevertheless what you try (high res, bandwithlimit, capacitor directly on the input, etc..)
But then I´ve used averaging, in this case 64 times and now I could see something"

Note this reference to averaging is Waveform Averaging not to be confused High Resolution mode.

Heres what Waveform Averaging means from PicoScope:

"In PicoScope, waveform averaging is a mathematical function that computes the average of a sequence of waveforms. This is useful for removing noise from a repetitive signal. The result of averaging is a cleaner picture with the same frequency resolution as the original capture but with increased vertical resolution."

So in this case Waveform Averaging (64) is utilized to help remove the noise induced from the scope itself, not from the input signal, and revel the input signal waveform details!

Keep digging my friend, you are getting deeper and deeper 

[mawyatt]

A DSO is for measuring signals and such, not for browsing the internet.

Not any more.

We shall see what folks buy a DSO for, net surfing or measuring!!

I'm more interested in how well it makes measurements.

Very nicely, thank you.

That's good!! If the net surfing was good, but the scope measurements were not, I don't think you would be a happy camper


And turning those measurements on/off is a lot faster and easier with a graphical touch screen than using an old-fashioned twisty knob to move around a grid of text labels (then mis-clicking when you push it to select one of them).

Agree, the touch screen is quite useful, and with a mouse even more so!!

Best,

[Fungus]

Agree, the touch screen is quite useful, and with a mouse even more so!!

But still, the Siglent 2000 series it to supplement the twisty knob. The Micsigs were touchscreen-first so they're designed for touchscreen from the ground up (the side-knobs were added in later models).

The result is a much better design, eg. when things have many parameters you don't have to open lots of different sub-menus to set each parameter individually, you get all the parameters on a single page.

eg. Serial decoding


It's literally four presses to go down the page and say "UART" -> "CH1" -> "BaudRate" -> "9600"

(or whatever).

Yes, you can use a mouse, too.

[tautech]

 
What is a max 150 MHz Micsig doing in a 350 MHz DSO thread ?

Why would it even be considered as a contender in this class of scope ? Maybe in the 1 GSa/s DSO class although in this bracket it's expensive.

[mawyatt]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

The Siglent would not require a separate low-noise preamp for the measurement under discussion because it has a real input 500uv/div scale factor vs 2mv/div, so 4X advantage there. On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

So you are right again, the difference is indeed a crutch for the Rigol!!

Edit: Someone following these threads might infer that the Siglent has a built-in low-noise preamp, that would be correct, except this built-in low-noise preamp has the full DSO bandwidth capability, not a limited bandwidth as you might expect for a low-noise preamp!! In fact, just measured ~620MHz 3dB bandwidth at 500uv/div scale factor for a "500MHz enabled" SDS2102X Plus, now that's impressive!!

You are doing a great job of pointing out the limitations and differences of theses two mid-level DSOs, please keep up the great dialog



Best,

[nctnico]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

The Siglent would not require a separate low-noise preamp for the measurement under discussion because it has a real input 500uv/div scale factor vs 2mv/div, so 4X advantage there. On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

That is only true IF you can get the signal into the oscilloscope using the commonly grounded probe or cable. For low voltage measurements a differential pre-amplifier is a much better choice.

[Martin72]

Why would it even be considered as a contender in this class of scope ? Maybe in the 1 GSa/s DSO class although in this bracket it's expensive.

We recommend the Micsig if you are looking for an oscilloscope for mobile use or would like to have a touch oscilloscope. Compared to desktop oscilloscopes such as the Rigol DS1000Z series, the measurement technology and the range of functions of the Micsig devices cannot yet keep up.

But it got a huge advantage even against the 350Mhz scopes, you could use it as a tablet..

Back to topic:

For me it was a disappointment seeing nothing on my rigol because of it´s noisy frontend and it was a final disappointment to "hear" from the support, that the much more expensive 7000 series got the same frontend.
I don´t want to play around with averaging until a signal was visible, which could be the expected one.
As the SDS2K+ came up, it won´t come in my mind to change to it - Too "weak" performance against the rigol in the first view.
"Poor" Samplerate ( Rigol´s 8GSa/s in this pricerange...Rub your eyes guys, this is still incredible today) and a few things more, which was on the first view a loosing one(only 2 instead of 4 math channels, rigol got more maths functions).
But then I study the siglent specs closer...
1PPM timebase, real low noise frontend, integrated 50Ohm termination....
Brighter, bigger screen, good UI....But what about the "poor" samplerate of "only" 2GSa/s ?
Well, we got Lecroy scopes with 500Mhz bandwith and only 1GSa/s samplerate and they working good - So why bother about 2GSa/s.....
And so I did the change.
To get the threadtitle, for me the sds2k+ is the best 350(500)Mhz scope in the "hackable world" . 

[mawyatt]

So if you want to measure something like that it is useless without preamp that costs much more than a scope...

If you really need to measure that, you need a preamp with your Siglent.

The difference between having 2mV and 0.5mV is just a crutch.

The Siglent would not require a separate low-noise preamp for the measurement under discussion because it has a real input 500uv/div scale factor vs 2mv/div, so 4X advantage there. On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

That is only true IF you can get the signal into the oscilloscope using the commonly grounded probe or cable. For low voltage measurements a differential pre-amplifier is a much better choice.

No doubt a differential probe is ideal but also adds some additional cost and may not be readily available. Someday I'll probably get one, but now retired everything is out-of-pocket, so this must wait for a justified "need".

We've often use two identical conventional scope probes (sometimes just equal length coax cables) into the scope channels 1 & 2, then subtracted the channels for the differential measurement. Attaching both probes to a common pulse source and nulling the result using the compensation trim for the pulse null, and a channel variable scale for the DC amplitude null gives respectable results.  Not suggesting this as replacement for a quality differential probe, but certainly helped in a pinch with the old analog Tektronix scopes

Now it seems some differential probes are priced where it's getting attractive 

I know lots of folks like to bash Siglent, not sure why, but most seem heavily biased and are Fanboys or girls for other DSO brands. That's fine, I can quickly evaluate the source where they are coming from by the statements made, it's hard to hide bias with technical discussions. I actually prefer Keysight/Agilent/HP and Tektronix gear, and would have never considered anything else, but with a limited budget and out-of-pocket I ventured out and followed the numerous post on EEVblog, quickly realizing the biased views with all the enthralled BS. Later I picked the Siglent SDS2104X Plus, but settled for the SDS2102X Plus because the 2104 was BO. I was, and still am impressed with what I got 

I can say without a technical doubt that Siglent just got the front end design of this SDS2000X Plus series scope right, it is an absolute superb performer. If anyone doubts this I strongly suggest get one and see for yourself, then engage in discussions based upon real measurements not speculation. I would really appreciate if Dave or Howard would reengage a review of these various mid-level DSOs, think we all would benefit from this, especially new folks that haven't got the time to tread thru all the massive BS flying around this DSO subject 

Best, 

[nctnico]

Well, I never stated that the analog frontend from Siglent is bad. Actually from the information on this forum it turns out it is very good. In general Siglent's hardware is well designed; no problems there. Still, from experience I know that getting low amplitude signals into an oscilloscope can be tricky at times.

[Martin72]

It will always be a tricky one.
But to have it right to the topic, and the topic is in real a comparison between rigol 5000 and siglent 2k+, the siglent "win" although it lacks some of the fancy advantages the rigol got on the papers.
Why, the answer is clear to me.
Have a look on actual payable R&S scopes, have a look on actual keysight scopes.
What they got seems small against the rigol for example.
But what they got it works perfect.
Right what you expect from A-Brands.
And now, siglent seems to go the same way.
Not having fancy shining specs, but what they got it will work.
And therefore, as I said it once months ago, the siglent is the more "adulter" scope in the hobbyist range for me.

[mawyatt]

There is definitely some truth in what you say about Keysight (maybe R&S), and from our experience the older Tektronix. We hardly ever paid any attention to the HP/Agilent/Keysight or Tektronix detailed data sheet specs, just the key performance metrics were important. When using this equipment in the lab we knew that it would behave like we expected, and accurately give the measurement results we needed. Why, because these instruments were designed from the ground up to be useful instruments in the lab and not met some arbitrary data sheet parameter, they were designed by engineers that actually used this equipment. Had many discussions with "other" OEM equipment suppliers, they always touted that "their" instruments had better specs than HP or Tektronix, didn't care because they didn't have the HP or Tektronix DNA

Best, 

[TurboTom]

Couldn't agree more with the previous contributors -- the sad thing is that the guideline changed form "fit for the lab" to "adequate for the sales department". Probably, this happened alongside the decay of the sales prices of the insruments (and increase of the sales numbers), so nowadays the average instruments availabe to the hobbyist provide a performance level that previously had been available only to the professionals, prepared to spend a small fortune on their instruments. Still, this doesn't legitimate (IMO) the approach to "bend" specs and characteristics to best meet the market.

We, on the other side of the "supply chain", may have more power than we anticipate -- if we don't buy a certain product, the manufacturer will run into trouble sooner or later and will be forced to take care of the market more respectfully.

What really makes me wonder behind all this questionnaire is: Why don't the major TE manufacturers openly make use of a forum like this (maybe they do so in secrecy), with all its "power-users" and professionals around, to test their future entry and mid range level products for fitness to the market, or to put it differently, to use it as an inspiration for their design engineers, to match a product just to the demands of the potential users? There's so much knowledge and experience accumulated among the subscribers to this forum that I'ld really consider it unwise of the manufacturers to disregard this possible input to their design commitee.

Of course, it would require considerable experience on behalf of the manufacturers to distinguish between "noise" and real, useful information when skimming any forum, but anyway, I think a manufacturer, doing this seriousy, could gain a lot of invaluable information from places like this!

Whatsoever, I don't think my reasoning will change anything, but, at lest now I feel satisfied to have made my thoughts available to scrutiny regarding this issue, after having enjoyed almost half a bottle of brandy (...for different reasons...)  -- so bear with me.

Cheers, Tom

[kahuna0k]

On same 2mv/div scale factor the Siglent has a 0.192mvpp measured noise vs 1.18mvpp reported (don't have the Rigol to measure), so a ~6.1X advantage, and on the 500uv/div a measured 0.161mvpp or 7.3X advantage.

I have both (Rigol MSO5074@350Mhz and Siglent SDS2104X@500Mhz), and measuring the avg stddev of the noise at 1mV I get 75uV on the Siglent and 167uV on the Rigol, both on full bandwidth and default values for everything else. At 2mV and limiting both to 200Mhz bandwidth I get 283uV on the Rigol vs 51uV on the Siglent.

I think that the Siglent is better in terms of noise and UI, and I prefer it for everything except digital signals, but the Rigol is not as bad as some people are telling here. I'm pretty sure that many would have not even dream of something like it 10 years ago.

IMHO the big difference is that Siglent seems much better in terms of firmware updates.

[tautech]

Tom, it's happening already and as you surmise by very capable technicians some of which are members here. I know of at least 67 8 that have worked with Siglent on a number of projects.

What you can't see is the NDA's we've all had to sign in order to be fortunate enough to be involved in the beta development of instruments. 

[ResistorRob]

Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 

Nope, I got the Micsig because it has a big screen, it has a battery, and the user interface is awesome. 

It can also do stuff like view web pages and datasheets when you're not using it as a 'scope. I built one of these two days ago while reading the instructions on my Micsig (which was running on internal battery). Show me a Siglent that can do that!

Bottom line: Micsigs are useful even with no probes attached.



PS: I don't remember my DS1054Z being noisy. 

Fungus has 11,570 posts on this forum and I doubt even 70 of those added any value to the discussion. Sorry... Someone had to say it 

Here is a discussion of 350MHz oscilloscopes. Only two models to be exact. And here he is posting about a 150Mhz scope. It doesn't even have half the bandwidth of what would be on topic. His big selling point on the MicSig is the ability to view webpages? Even a $30 Walmart cellphone can do that, and won't take up any bench space because it fits in your pocket.

Every time I read a post and say to myself WTF is this nonsense I look at the author and it's usually Fungus. Is there anyway to filter his posts out of my view?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. For the longest time I have been considering the Siglent 1104x-e because it fits every one of my needs, but never pulled the trigger on it because it lacked touchscreen which I don't need but really want. So I waited for something to come along in price range because if I'm going to go over my budget it needs to last me a very long time. When the Rigol MSO 5000 hit the market I did love the way it looked. But it had a very dim screen and no 50 ohm termination. (Supposedly the dim screen was fixed in a firmware update but I see conflicting information on how good this was). Then the Siglent 2000x plus came out and I really do like the scope but people on here bashing it had me a little gun shy. After I did some research some things aren't ideal such as how it handles memory. It's out of my budget but I'm saving up for it. Probably as close to my dream scope as I will get.

After all that rambling here is my point. If you want to decide between the Rigol and the Siglent then do your research and figure out which one most fits your wants and needs. Something I have lusted over forever is the ability to customize trace colors, something just added to the Siglent. Neither scope dominates over the other. Each has pros and cons so decide what works best for you. People on this forum will suggest what they like best which may not be what best fits your needs. Ignore peoples opinions and focus on the facts they present and make your decision from that. If you didn't know about the color customization on the Siglent that brings me to my second point. They are awful at marketing and you won't find any mention of all the cool features and functions they added via updates since it's initial release. So my tip is check the firmware update notes of both scopes and there may be a hidden gem you didn't know about that really seals the deal for you.

[Fungus]

Fungus has 11,570 posts on this forum and I doubt even 70 of those added any value to the discussion. Sorry... Someone had to say it 

Let's go back two more posts, shall we:

a) I don't own anything made by Rigol

Seems you conveniently avoided my later question?

a) Didn't you own some Rigol equipment in the past, maybe a DSO?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/best-350mhz-scope-in-a-hackable-world-(siglent-sds2104x-plus-or-rigol-mso5072)/50/

Here's a quote from your post on 12/12/2020

I just went from a Rigol DS1054Z to a Micsig and it's awesome.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/whats-a-good-4ch-replacement-for-an-old-rigol-1052e-scope/msg3367438/#msg3367438

So no hidden agenda and just to be clear where you very recently actually owned something by Rigol, a DSO in fact! Maybe you jettisoned the Rigol in favor of the Micsig because the noise was so bothersome? 


Best,

He gets away Scott free...? Double standard much?

What is a max 150 MHz Micsig doing in a 350 MHz DSO thread ?

As if you've never invaded a thread with Siglent spam or posted a comment designed purely to goad other users.