new Oscilloscope choice

[hobbyelectronics]

Hi tautech,

I am in the UK. I could maybe push to get the RTB2004 instead (Or RTB2004EDU maybe).

Problem is with the basic 2002 / 4 its only 70MHz. All though I have never yet needed more than this, whereas the Siglent as options to 'Upgrade' to a higher bandwidth.
I am not sure why but I get the feeling that the R&S is a better quality scope overall. I am not saying the Siglent is no good, I would be very happy with either but just need to pick one!

I think the RTB2004 is priced at 1790 Euros, about £1550 which is a lot of money but I thing maybe a good investment.

I am not sure what features the R&S has over the Siglent which would close the deal as such. Just need to think hard and make a decision.

Thanks

John

[hobbyelectronics]

Hi Peter, Thanks for that review about the reflective screen. I don't want to make a big thing about nothing but it would bug me so much spending that sort of money and have an annoying reflection. But what you and other have said sounds like its not a major concern. I can always move my bench away from the window!

Do you know what the upgrade options are like for the R&S, compared to the Siglent. Everyone likes a free upgrade!!

Thanks

John

[tautech]

Problem is with the basic 2002 / 4 its only 70MHz. All though I have never yet needed more than this, whereas the Siglent as options to 'Upgrade' to a higher bandwidth.

SDS2104X Plus although rated/sold as 100 MHz has a proven BW of some 185 MHz....I didn't believe this when I got one but it was triple checked with 3 yes 3 HF signal sources.
Yes you can hack them however most would find that 180 MHz capability is plenty.

I really like them (of course I would) and as I get to handle all models from Siglent their SDS2104X Plus stands head and shoulders above anything else currently they offer except for bandwidth.
I've just ordered a pile of them as they keep selling out here in NZ.

[Fungus]

Hi Peter, Thanks for that review about the reflective screen. I don't want to make a big thing about nothing but it would bug me so much spending that sort of money and have an annoying reflection. But what you and other have said sounds like its not a major concern. I can always move my bench away from the window!

Maybe it's just me but I really, really don't understand why anybody would want a reflective screen, ever.

Reflective screens ARE a big thing, it's not just about them reflecting light sources directly, it's about them reflecting a pretty image of whatever room they're being used in. eg. When I look at something I want to see what's on the screen, not a reflection of my own face.

Bottom line: If there's even a single person on the internet who once commented "the screen's a bit reflective..." then I want to either see the device in person or get a full money-back garantee before parting with any money. I've been there, been burned by that. There's nothing worse than spending a lot of money on something that you hate using.

Watch the first 30 seconds of this video before proceeding:


Is that a piece of test gear or a mirror?


This video shows what I imagine it will be like in real life (nb. I've never seen one in person):


Like I said though, maybe it's just me. The shops are full of shiny screens and there's a world full of people who seem to prefer their screens that way. 

(or they only ever use them in dark places where it's much less of a problem...)

nb. You can get matte screen protectors for devices and they do work, eg. My micsig 'scope is much too shiny for me as-is but all Micsigs come with a matte screen protector in the box so I can choose shiny/not. I'm perfectly happy with the screen protector in place.

[nctnico]

Reflective screens ARE a big thing, it's not just about them reflecting light sources directly, it's about them reflecting a pretty image of whatever room they're being used in. eg. When I look at something I want to see what's on the screen, not a reflection of my own face.

The thing is that your eyes get rid of the reflection. It is basic optics; whatever is not in focus gets blurred away. Look at the screen; not the reflection.

[hobbyelectronics]

Hi Fungus,

Thanks. I totally agree with you. I do not understand why anyone would design a product with a reflective screen, unless it was for a specifice requirment of course. I don't even understand why manufacturers make the screens in the firts place when matte or semi matte screens are a proven technology.

I recently purchased a 4K and a 2K PC monitor. I sent both back due to how reflective they were. I then bought a Samsung screen which has a nice semi matte finish with no reflections and no haze, which you sometimes see with matte coatings.

Although the video shows the screen has a very reflective (deal breaker really), I would like to see one in real life, lit up in a normal workshop. To see what its really like. I suppose with todays online buying laws etc it can always be sent back as not fit for purpose if its that bad.

Things like this just make it harder to decide...Urrgghhh almost forget the spec of the scope what's the screen like and go from there.

Thanks

John

[Fungus]

The thing is that your eyes get rid of the reflection. It is basic optics; whatever is not in focus gets blurred away. Look at the screen; not the reflection.

Maybe that's the explanation: My eyes don't do that.

[hobbyelectronics]

Hi nctnico,

Ah, I don't agree I am afraid. I kept one of the monitors for 28 days used it everyday, and never could get used to it. Not even in the slightest. If anything it just seemed to get worse as my brain did not get used to it.

John

[Fungus]

Things like this just make it harder to decide...Urrgghhh almost forget the spec of the scope what's the screen like and go from there.

That's the way I purchase all monitors/laptops.

Even shiny bezels on monitors are a deal breaker for me - why would I want a ring of reflected lights around my screen?

(and I know there's non-shiny ones out there so why would I...? )

[hobbyelectronics]

So true, me too, even a shinny bezel stops me in my tracks! This might sound a bit strange to some people but that's exactly how I am. Sorry.
Problem is with a scope the choices are limited for the budget you decide and the must have basic specs like 4 Channels or 100MHz etc it really does limit the choice and it becomes a bit of a compromise.

John

[2N3055]

Hi tautech,

I am in the UK. I could maybe push to get the RTB2004 instead (Or RTB2004EDU maybe).

Problem is with the basic 2002 / 4 its only 70MHz. All though I have never yet needed more than this, whereas the Siglent as options to 'Upgrade' to a higher bandwidth.
I am not sure why but I get the feeling that the R&S is a better quality scope overall. I am not saying the Siglent is no good, I would be very happy with either but just need to pick one!

I think the RTB2004 is priced at 1790 Euros, about £1550 which is a lot of money but I thing maybe a good investment.

I am not sure what features the R&S has over the Siglent which would close the deal as such. Just need to think hard and make a decision.

Thanks

John

Quality is how reliable equipment is and how often it gets broken. Don't confuse fancy looking with quality.
RTB2000 is good equipment, but reliability is no better than new models of Rigol or Siglent.

And shiny screen is bothersome to me. At any time something in the room will reflect, depending where light is and where your head is...

RTB2000 gold plated BNC look cool. But, R&S more expensive equipment uses plain looking (but very good quality) and not gold plated BNCs.
They don't because RTB2000 is targeted at entry level market where customers get fooled by those tricks.

If you buy RTB2000 with 70MHz BW it will stay that way. No hacks there and upgrades to 300MHz cost more than whole Siglent SDS2104X+ or almost two Rigol MSO5000 with 70MHz BW. Ruminate on that.

Also RTB2000 has 10x less memory.
Despite good 10 bit A/D, it doesn't have less noise than SDS2104X+, so some gain from that, but not much and not everywhere.

RTB2000 is nice device. No doubt. But expensive, and you pay for brand and fancy look in addition to specs. They do have nice GUI. That does have value, how much it depends on how you like it.

But SDS2104X+ is great scope for the money. And ultimately more powerful. There is no substitute for long memory (that helps keep sample rate in a sweet spot), there is no substitute for bandwidth, there is  no substitute for low noise front end and there is no substitute for channels.

So I stand on my previous recommendation for that SDS2104X+ for that special price they offered you is your best deal..

[goaty]

And the strange waveform update rate / trigger rate at start as seen here

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-killer-scope-a-true-game-changer-from-rs-rtb2002-rtb2004/msg3559529/#msg3559529

is also something I hope the Siglent doesn´t have.

[Fungus]

But SDS2104X+ is great scope for the money. And ultimately more powerful. There is no substitute for long memory

It's just a pity that Siglents can't use all that memory to zoom out on a captured signal.

(or pan/left right on it - same problem really)

[nctnico]

So I stand on my previous recommendation for that SDS2104X+ for that special price they offered you is your best deal..

But that is only from comparing specs on paper, not from hands-on use. In the end it highly depends on what you need / value. Last week I had to pull my GW Instek scope from a different test setup because I needed band-pass filtering to look at the details of a certain signal.

[2N3055]

So I stand on my previous recommendation for that SDS2104X+ for that special price they offered you is your best deal..

But that is only from comparing specs on paper, not from hands-on use. In the end it highly depends on what you need / value. Last week I had to pull my GW Instek scope from a different test setup because I needed band-pass filtering to look at the details of a certain signal.

No not for specs. For actual use...

[2N3055]

But SDS2104X+ is great scope for the money. And ultimately more powerful. There is no substitute for long memory

It's just a pity that Siglents can't use all that memory to zoom out on a captured signal.

(or pan/left right on it - same problem really)

 

[Fungus]

RTB2000 gold plated BNC look cool. But, R&S more expensive equipment uses plain looking (but very good quality) and not gold plated BNCs.
They don't because RTB2000 is targeted at entry level market where customers get fooled by those tricks.

I assume the shiny screen was added for the same reason.

[Zlotnik]

Horses for courses.

I have an RTB2k myself and I:
- am not bothered at all by the glossy screen. There's no bright objects behind me when I work on the scope, so no reflections I notice. On the contrary, since the glossy screen doesn't scatter diffuse light my way, contrast is higher and it's easier to read. YMMV.
- find the 10bit ADC surprisingly useful. The front-end is quite low-noise, and would be wasted on a lower bit ADC. The Siglent eg is limited by quantisation, unless you go in hires mode, which limits BW and anyway can also be done with the RTB
- have not really been limited by it's memory in my applications. IMHO it's a huge memory, even if the Siglent has an even huger memory.. This might be more of a problem if I needed veeeery deep FFTs, or exceedingly long protocol decoding records. I was happy with the >100 packets I capture in my applications. More does not make sense on the scope for me, I'd use a PC based decoder for that.
- find the history function and zoom features super useful and very natural. I never had to think about it, for me it just worked. Having the history available post facto by default is super useful, but I retain control. Not to pour oil on a dumpster fire, but personally I'm not a fan of the Siglent/LeCroy implementation. YMMV.
- am quite impressed with the many little well thought out UI touches of the RTB. It doesn't get in my way, but I feel it actively helps me do what I need. It's the first touchscreen scope I don't hate! Little things like the "bits" display and dynamical scaling in the protocol decoder are brilliant, and I did not find this anywhere else. This kind of thing doesn't turn up on datasheets though, so some manufacturers focus less on this and rather include more headline features. This was the deciding factor for me in the end, and I'm still happy with my decision: My free time is too valuable for me to be frustrated with my tools, but again: YMMV

My recommendation:
- If you can't or don't want to afford the RTB, it's a no-brainer: Siglent SDS2k+! Don't even compare too much, just hope you love it, and learn to love it if you don't. It probably really is the best by far currently in that price bracket - for many it's even the best one price class above.
- Seems you get a sweet edu deal for the RTB so price may be less of a differentiator? The RTB has no option hack (yet?), but there's some good package deals. When comparing prices don't blindly go for maximum hacked-BW for comparison purposes, but spec what you actually need. Don't skimp on decoders and memory management options though! IMHO those are much more critical in most applications than maximum BW - if BW is critical you'll need >1GHz anyway, these days.
- Do try to hands-on test-drive all options! It's difficult to get access though as private buyer (unless you're fine screwing a shop over by just buying two, sending one back). A good distributor will help. Speaking of good distributors, ask for a discount, even as private buyer. They often can do something.
- Failing comparative test-drive access, at the very least get significant scope time on very different models so you get a feel for how different scopes can feel, and how your mate's super-great expensive all time favourite scope can drive you up the wall and make simple things a chore _for you_. Work, uni, friends, makerspaces etc.
- After that, watch as many videos of all options as possible. Ignore the reviewers' rants, teardowns and other antics, just watch how the scope behaves in as many real world scenarios as possible, and imagine yourself driving the scope. Watching so many scope videos of widely varying quality may make you angry - but are you angry at the scope or the reviewer? That will tell you a lot!
- Ignore eevblog forum users peddling their favourite scopes. Including me

/2¢

[kcbrown]

It's just a pity that Siglents can't use all that memory to zoom out on a captured signal.

(or pan/left right on it - same problem really)

It's beating a dead horse a bit, but just so that the OP isn't persuaded by your claim...

It used to be that there was something to this, because the only way you could get some sort of comparable capability is to use zoom mode, and in prior models that mode would be incapable of doing some things that were possible with normal mode.  But not on the SDS2104X+, at least that I've found.  Even mask testing works in zoom mode.   And while you give up some screen real estate for that, this scope has enough that it can get away with it (it's more of a problem on scopes with smaller screens).

The normal operating paradigm of the current Siglent scopes is "what you see is all you get".  This affects memory usage, sampling rate, waveform update rate, etc.  The disadvantage is that if you're just using normal mode, you have to do some planning in advance to ensure that you're capturing everything.  The advantage is that you instantly see everything that's relevant.  Because "what you see is all you get", you know that the time coverage of the capture is going to be what's on the unzoomed screen, no more and no less.  No guessing required, and no calculation required. 

If you're used to other scopes that don't behave this way, Siglent's approach might take some getting used to.  But the OP here is coming directly from analog scopes that don't have any zoom out capability in the first place.  The way the Siglent operates might easily be more intuitive to him as a result.

[Fungus]

If you're used to other scopes that don't behave this way, Siglent's approach might take some getting used to.

Uhuh.

The way the Siglent operates might easily be more intuitive to him as a result.

No 'scope is perfect but it takes extra steps to achieve something that other devices simply do then that's the opposite of "intuitive".

[2N3055]

It's just a pity that Siglents can't use all that memory to zoom out on a captured signal.

(or pan/left right on it - same problem really)

It's beating a dead horse a bit, but just so that the OP isn't persuaded by your claim...

It used to be that there was something to this, because the only way you could get some sort of comparable capability is to use zoom mode, and in prior models that mode would be incapable of doing some things that were possible with normal mode.  But not on the SDS2104X+, at least that I've found.  Even mask testing works in zoom mode.   And while you give up some screen real estate for that, this scope has enough that it can get away with it (it's more of a problem on scopes with smaller screens).

The normal operating paradigm of the current Siglent scopes is "what you see is all you get".  This affects memory usage, sampling rate, waveform update rate, etc.  The disadvantage is that if you're just using normal mode, you have to do some planning in advance to ensure that you're capturing everything.  The advantage is that you instantly see everything that's relevant.  Because "what you see is all you get", you know that the time coverage of the capture is going to be what's on the unzoomed screen, no more and no less.  No guessing required, and no calculation required. 

If you're used to other scopes that don't behave this way, Siglent's approach might take some getting used to.  But the OP here is coming directly from analog scopes that don't have any zoom out capability in the first place.  The way the Siglent operates might easily be more intuitive to him as a result.

Very nicely explained!

[nctnico]

If you're used to other scopes that don't behave this way, Siglent's approach might take some getting used to.

Uhuh.

The way the Siglent operates might easily be more intuitive to him as a result.

No 'scope is perfect but it takes extra steps to achieve something that other devices simply do then that's the opposite of "intuitive".

Indeed. If you are into embedded software development then having an oscilloscope which can zoom out is extremely handy.

Just two weeks ago I had to debug a problem with a chip (64 pin QFN so not the easiest to probe) not wanting to work and I wanted to check whether it was getting SPI messages for it's configuration. I used a Tektronix TBS2000 scope set to full memory length. The SPI messages just come in one burst during startup so capturing an entire sequence isn't easy. I set the scope up but with Linux and a whole bunch of other software layers on top the timing of the SPI messages isn't very predictable. Instead of the expected burst I only got one SPI message so the time between the SPI messages was longer than expected. By twisting the time scale knob (zooming out) I got the rest on screen too. So I didn't need to count to the right pin, push the probe onto a tiny pad and restart the software again in order make a new measurement. I don't get why people still want to insist being able to zoom-out isn't useful! 

[2N3055]

What trigger did you use? What was captured sample rate and total captured length?
TBS2000B has 5 Mpts of memory total. It has no serial decodes, no serial triggers..

If you took SDS2000X+ or Rigol MSO5000 you could have captured 25 times more time at same sample rate.
And be certain to capture whole sequence. You could have used serial triggers, or plenty other ways to make it more predictable.

For what you gave an example here, it wasn't useful in any way, in a sense that same thing couldn't have been accomplished in a different way, easier and more reliably.

There might be some scenarios where manual memory length might be a way to accomplish a goal, but sorry, that ain't one..

It is an example that some stuff can be achieved even if you have extremely limited equipment that is not meant for the task, if operator has imagination and skill.. It shows you can do things even with limited resources.  Makes you clever, but that is not what you want to do if you have choice to buy proper equipment that can do it better..

[nctnico]

What trigger did you use? What was captured sample rate and total captured length?
TBS2000B has 5 Mpts of memory total. It has no serial decodes, no serial triggers..

No. TBS2000 (no B) has 20Mpts per channel and it was the best scope I had around for the job. You can ofcourse try to setup all kinds of fancy triggers but if all you need to capture is a bunch of messages which only occur once then edge trigger is fine. Don't make things more complicated then they have to be. Actually using serial triggers / sequence mode could mess up a measurement like this due to missing/ignoring spikes etc. Having a single, long record with the entire message sequence is the best way to verify software is behaving as it should.

[2N3055]

What trigger did you use? What was captured sample rate and total captured length?
TBS2000B has 5 Mpts of memory total. It has no serial decodes, no serial triggers..

No. TBS2000 (no B) has 20Mpts per channel and it was the best scope I had around for the job. You can ofcourse try to setup all kinds of fancy triggers but if all you need to capture is a bunch of messages which only occur once then edge trigger is fine. Don't make things more complicated then they have to be. Actually using serial triggers / sequence mode could mess up a measurement like this due to missing/ignoring spikes etc. Having a single, long record with the entire message sequence is the best way to verify software is behaving as it should.

Ok sorry, 20MPoints, so other scopes have 5x more memory.
And you can just set edge trigger too, and let it rip. And then look around. Like you did.
All without manual memory control. Easy, peasy..

There might be occasions where it might be useful, but for this example not really..