Rigol DG2102

[SignalArray]

Rigol DG2102 is still on sale for 700USD.

Can any current owner or user tell us their impressions of this AWG? 

[trp806mo]

It depends on what you expect. Try looking for dg2000 / dg800 (same function but not the same casing and I/O connectors). You may encounter some issues :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dg800-(long)-list-of-problems-and-the-sad-death-of-a-fpga/msg2878960/#msg2878960

There are a lot of comparison in the forum between Rigol/Siglent AWG so depending what you are looking for (pure sine, price, output voltage, user interface, hack) some are better than other.

I own personally a DG811 for 240€ upgraded to a DG992 and I'm quiet happy with it (for what I do)

[nctnico]

In that price range I'd take a long look at the Siglent SDG2024x. For starters having a keypad is a big plus so you can enter numbers instead of messing around with a rotary knob.

[TurboTom]

The entry level SDG2000X model is almost exactly twice the price of the DG811 (which is -- assuming the hack is applied -- performance-wise virtually identical with the DG2000). And the SDG2000X, albeit it's a great performer, isn't without its flaws either.

IMO, currently the DG811 ("improved") is the sweet spot value-for-money wise for a "serious" entry level AWG that works as supposed right out-of-the-box. The cheaper "Feeltech" or similar AWGs require some modifications to achieve similar level of performance and still may never match the professionally built units, let alone mechanics-wise (solidity of casing, EMI shielding, cooling approach etc.). As a bottom-of-the-barrel unit -- if the hobby budget doesn't allow anything else -- they may get the job done, though.

The next (small) step up from the DG800 may be the Siglent SDG2000X that's got a reputation of providing exceptionally clean output signals (distortion-wise), but on the other hand shows its age by the rather old-fashioned appearance of its user interface and the half-hearted utilization of the touch screen. The DG800 also provides a decimal input keypad, though it's accessible via its very well implemented touch screen instead of a tiny, physical silicone membrane keypad. Spec- and performance-wise, the fully "liberated" DG800 (~DG992) and the SDG2042X (SDG2122X) don't differ that much, the maximum frequency (sine) is 100MHz vs. 120MHz, and the "real" sampling rate is 250M vs. 300M (don't get confused by the maximum "oversampling" rate of 1.2G thrown into the ring by Siglent's marketing department, this has not much significance in the real world). The metal enclosure of Siglent's AWG is much more attractive, though, but since it's got a fan installed, its accoustical footprint has some effect in the lab while Rigol's entry level AWGs are completely silent.

There's one important drawback of both Rigol's and Siglent's AWGs: The output ground is earth-referenced and thus requires an isolation transformer or -amplifier (depending on the signal's parameters to be fed to the DUT) in order to break a possible ground loop.

In the end, everyone who's in the market for a new entry level AWG should ask his "crystal ball" what the important spec figures of his new goint-to-be instrument are, check the available offers and maybe his personal preference, decide wether hacking is an option or not (no big deal in both mentioned cases, can be applied by external means and it's fully reversible) and then place the order...

[SignalArray]

Thanks on good info to all of you.

I want to use an AWG to generate base wave forms as well as arbitrary ones.  The use case is to test algorithms developed for signal processing in FPGA and micros.  Sine frequency may go up to 50 MHz,square to 20 MHz, arbitrary to 10 MHz. 

I already own a Rigol scope and honesty I don't expect too much from Rigol and Siglent.  Not complaining tough, as these brands are good enough to bring project up to some level before making some money and buying upper class of brands. 

One thing, the Teledyne LeCroy T3AFG Series AWGs look identical as Siglent.  A former Keysight sales rep told me that Siglent once manufactured Keysight low end AWGs.  I wonder if Siglent also make T3AF for LeCroy.

[nctnico]

I wonder if Siglent also make T3AF for LeCroy.

Yes, they do. Siglent makes Lecroy's low end oscilloscopes, function generators and some of Lecroy's power supplies. Maybe one of the lower end function generators is also an option if you plan to upgrade to 'the real deal' at some point anyway. Uni-T utg932e (AFAIK software hackable to the higher end version utg962e) fits your requirements nicely and could be a neat function generator to keep around. But it has some rough edges like lower amplitude over 10MHz.

[mawyatt]

@ TurboTom Since you have both the Siglent & Rigol, how do they compare for output waveform accuracy at lower frequencies? I've been impressed with the SDG2042X, way better than specs!

Wouldn't be surprised if they both use the same DACs. AD and TI have, and are, producing some really nice ADC and DAC chips that make these AWGs and other instruments very affordable.

Best,

[TurboTom]

@ TurboTom Since you have both the Siglent & Rigol, how do they compare for output waveform accuracy at lower frequencies? I've been impressed with the SDG2042X, way better than specs!

Wouldn't be surprised if they both use the same DACs. AD and TI have, and are, producing some really nice ADC and DAC chips that make these AWGs and other instruments very affordable.

Best,

I haven't got an SDG2000X, it's the SDG6000X and, obviously the DG811(+). As far as my research went (by comparing with results that SDG2000X owners published), the SDG2000X is the cleanest of Siglent's pack when operated in its "comfort zone". Due to the wide bandwidth of the SDG6000X, its output is considerably more noisy and harmonics are also somewhat higher. But then, it still outputs some pretty decent amplitude at frequencies where the lower models are about to quit and it features all this I/Q modulation goodness... Otherwise, the generators are pretty much comparable.

What frequency range would be of special interest to you? Since I haven't got a digital scope with really high resolution, I may hook up a multimeter with the AWGs in the millihertz range to be able to characterize their D/A converters if that would help. I guess frequencies in the audio range are just like DC for these converter chips, so it should actually be valid to extrapolate the results.

[mawyatt]

@ TurboTom Since you have both the Siglent & Rigol, how do they compare for output waveform accuracy at lower frequencies? I've been impressed with the SDG2042X, way better than specs!

Wouldn't be surprised if they both use the same DACs. AD and TI have, and are, producing some really nice ADC and DAC chips that make these AWGs and other instruments very affordable.

Best,

I haven't got an SDG2000X, it's the SDG6000X and, obviously the DG811(+). As far as my research went (by comparing with results that SDG2000X owners published), the SDG2000X is the cleanest of Siglent's pack when operated in its "comfort zone". Due to the wide bandwidth of the SDG6000X, its output is considerably more noisy and harmonics are also somewhat higher. But then, it still outputs some pretty decent amplitude at frequencies where the lower models are about to quit and it features all this I/Q modulation goodness... Otherwise, the generators are pretty much comparable.

What frequency range would be of special interest to you? Since I haven't got a digital scope with really high resolution, I may hook up a multimeter with the AWGs in the millihertz range to be able to characterize their D/A converters if that would help. I guess frequencies in the audio range are just like DC for these converter chips, so it should actually be valid to extrapolate the results.

Agree the SDG2000X does seem "cleaner" than the SDG6000X, also more accurate at lower frequencies like 1KHz. We were just trying to use the SDG2000X to create some precise waveforms for testing to verify some system level performance. Setup a few waveforms that we knew the True RMS value mathematically relative to the peak value, and used a pair of KS34465A and a DMM6500 to verify (also a 16 bit PicoScope 4262). Honestly was surprised how good the AWG was when just using the peak to peak settings, about 10X better than I expected!! The SDG6000X isn't quite as good, but still better than expected if we didn't have the SDG2042X.

A one point we were considering developing a couple custom 16~20 bit AWG just to support these tests, but now may just recommend another SDG2042X for supporting the test at another site, hopefully the next one will be as good. Do you know what DACs are used in these various AWGs?

Thanks for the offer but no need to go thru any measurements or trouble with the RG811, was just curious.

Best,

[TurboTom]

The DACs in the mentioned AWGs are as follows:

DG800/900/2000: Analog AD9747
SDG2000X: Analog AD9122
SDG6000X: Texas DAC38J82