Siglent SDS1104X-E vs. Rigol DS1054Z Advice?

[KungFuJosh]

It's funny, because I actually quite like the design of the DS1054Z and loathe that of the Siglent. The oval channel selection buttons drive me nuts. It's completely out of tune with the rest of the design.

Admittedly, Rigol jumped the shark on some of the newer designs that followed the same basic idea of the DS1054Z. Regardless, there's no accounting for taste. There's plenty of professionally designed junk around to prove that once and for all.

Absolutely, everybody has their own taste. I agree, the ovals are a little weird.

But compare the X/Y control layouts. Siglent has obvious boxes with grey backgrounds, clearly outlining each section. Rigol uses awkward, asymmetrical lines that make no sense at all, and aren't clearly visible.

Obviously I don't think the Siglent is perfect since I want to make my own version of the overlay, but I don't hate it. I could live with it. The Rigol looks stupid to me.

This is all superficial, but it's something these companies should pay attention to. R&S seems to get this right. The RTB2004, for example, is a great looking scope.

[JS]

Obviously not. No company leaks information like that.

So you're speculating?

Hopefully they have a new design for the front panel too. I hate the arbitrary, asymmetrical goofy outlines. Looks better than Instek, but that's a low bar.

Meh. You probably wouldn't notice it after a day of use.

I had the DS1054Z for 3 weeks. I noticed it every single time I looked at it. I hated the design. It annoys me. My primary job is web/graphic design; I can't help but notice that stuff. It drives me batty when designs are that bad. The Instek also seems like a better choice than the 1054Z, but I simply won't put it on my bench because I can't look at it.

The situation should flip around now the respective new models have been launched. Let's see if Rigol startes dropping some hints a few weeks from now.

(to make anybody who's thinking of going from DS1000Z to SDS1000X-E wait a while before deciding )

Given the business model (from most of these companies) of releasing the scopes and letting the customers do the debugging, I think I'll pass. It'll be a minimum of a year before any new scopes are reliable at all. 

I also think Rigol does have something new comming up, such company might started working in a new asic few years ago, knowing the ds1000z would need replacement at some point, now there are a few clues pointing the release date is close. Other than the x-e competiton, might be an extra reason for them to drop the prize and release options for free, they mastered the market, the options alone already bring it pretty close to the siglent and the price was already differentiating at about $100 or 25%. Quite a few years have passed for them to be in time to release a new one and as said, the market is getting more competitive so they're likely to lunch as soon as it feels ready.

I don't mind the looks, what really bothers me is the two blue channels, like there were not other colors around...

About the debugging, I'd expect any new gear to have some problems, the important fact is what they do with them. Rigol has prooven to be very proactive solving the issues, upgrading firmware and tweaking stuff. Waiting a year might be good if you don't want to find yourself in that trend, but a shorter period should be enough so any major HW problems are solved so you don't get in a callback or have a defective unit with lower specs than intended.

JS

[KungFuJosh]

I don't get why design is so important. As long as the user interface is not cluttered and easy to use all is well. IMHO it is way more important a tool does a good job.

To each their own. I'm a designer by trade, I can't look at bad designs without it bothering me. You're right that the tool needs to do a good job as the highest priority. That doesn't mean there aren't other things to consider.

[KungFuJosh]

I also think Rigol does have something new comming up, such company might started working in a new asic few years ago, knowing the ds1000z would need replacement at some point, now there are a few clues pointing the release date is close. Other than the x-e competiton, might be an extra reason for them to drop the prize and release options for free, they mastered the market, the options alone already bring it pretty close to the siglent and the price was already differentiating at about $100 or 25%. Quite a few years have passed for them to be in time to release a new one and as said, the market is getting more competitive so they're likely to lunch as soon as it feels ready.

I don't mind the looks, what really bothers me is the two blue channels, like there were not other colors around...

About the debugging, I'd expect any new gear to have some problems, the important fact is what they do with them. Rigol has prooven to be very proactive solving the issues, upgrading firmware and tweaking stuff. Waiting a year might be good if you don't want to find yourself in that trend, but a shorter period should be enough so any major HW problems are solved so you don't get in a callback or have a defective unit with lower specs than intended.

JS

I'm not disagreeing that it's likely they'll release something soon, but it's still speculation at this point. I would hope they do.

lol, maybe they just love blue. The next model will feature 4 shades of blue.

I have no interest in being part of their debugging process unless I'm being compensated for it. It's as simple as that. If they gave me a unit for free, then I'd use it and be part of that process. There's no way on Earth I would pay them to do their debugging work for them. Not gonna happen.

[Fungus]

It's funny, because I actually quite like the design of the DS1054Z and loathe that of the Siglent. The oval channel selection buttons drive me nuts. It's completely out of tune with the rest of the design.

The new Rigol 7000 has probably gone too far with its blue backlights and stuff but the DS1054Z seems about right to me. Test gear isn't supposed to be a fashion statement.

The Instek is fugly, yes.

The Siglent is no beauty. It has the same oversized dark screen bezel as the Instek (trying to make the screen look bigger than it is?). The grey panels on the front are horrible, IMHO - something about the title bars being the wrong color and not quite tall enough for the title text.

Black text on grey backgrounds is a big eww to me.

Pointlessly colored buttons that seem like they belong to one of the channels (ie. 'print' and 'default')? Who chose those? Do they have any idea what "color coding" is?

Whatever the reasons are for choosing Siglent over Rigol I wouldn't say "looks" are one of them.

[Fungus]

I also think Rigol does have something new comming up, such company might started working in a new asic few years ago, knowing the ds1000z would need replacement at some point

There's no way they would design that ASIC without planning for a low-end version, not after the success of the DS1054Z (which must have made them a lot of money - they basically created a whole new market with it).

[KungFuJosh]

The Siglent is no beauty. It has the same oversized dark screen bezel as the Instek (trying to make the screen look bigger than it is?). The grey panels on the front are horrible, IMHO - something about the title bars being the wrong color and not quite tall enough for the title text.

To each their own regarding aesthetic, but that bezel statement simply isn't true. The bezels between the GDS-1004B and the SDS1004X-E series are nothing alike. The size, layout, and proportion of the Instek actually make the screen look much smaller by comparison even though they're all the same viewable size screen. The Siglent's black bezel covers the non-viewable area where the Instek doesn't cover any of the non-viewable area. The Instek implies a larger viewable area than it has; the bezel on the Siglent assures it isn't implying anything.

[JS]

I also think Rigol does have something new comming up, such company might started working in a new asic few years ago, knowing the ds1000z would need replacement at some point

There's no way they would design that ASIC without planning for a low-end version, not after the success of the DS1054Z (which must have made them a lot of money - they basically created a whole new market with it).

I think you are saying nthe same thing I do... I think they will aim to be the mkst prize competitive option in the market, as they did at the point, with a full featured scope for cheap, with all the extra features the 1000z is missing but likely cheat in the non paper specs, as noise, as theh did at the time.

JS

[Mr. Scram]

Absolutely, everybody has their own taste. I agree, the ovals are a little weird.

But compare the X/Y control layouts. Siglent has obvious boxes with grey backgrounds, clearly outlining each section. Rigol uses awkward, asymmetrical lines that make no sense at all, and aren't clearly visible.

Obviously I don't think the Siglent is perfect since I want to make my own version of the overlay, but I don't hate it. I could live with it. The Rigol looks stupid to me.

This is all superficial, but it's something these companies should pay attention to. R&S seems to get this right. The RTB2004, for example, is a great looking scope.

I must admit I'm quite partial to the angular design of the DS1054Z. It's a little less boring than just the same plain boxes and in this case it seems to work quite well without any excessively strange parts that plague similar designs of the same manufacturer. That being said, the DS1054Z isn't know for its sophisticated UX. It's a bottom of the barrel bang for buck device and rough edges are to be expected. Siglent doesn't seem to be much different, generally speaking.

From the perspective of of the commercial side of it I think the design of the DS1054Z been a raving success. When the DS1054Z was introduced Rigol was gaining more fame quickly but not quite as well known as they are today. The distinct look has massively contributed to the succes of this model and the wider brand. It has given Rigol a face and is instantly recognizable, which is invaluable when you're trying to build a brand.

I agree the new R&S scopes are very nicely designed. Their other designs tended to be very well laid out but excessively boring boxes, but the new oscilloscopes have a lot of aesthetic appeal.

[KungFuJosh]

From the perspective of of the commercial side of it I think the design of the DS1054Z been a raving success. When the DS1054Z was introduced Rigol was gaining more fame quickly but not quite as well known as they are today. The distinct look has massively contributed to the succes of this model and the wider brand. It has given Rigol a face and is instantly recognizable, which is invaluable when you're trying to build a brand.

I think it had little to do with the design, and everything to do with the complete lack of competition in a market they basically invented. No doubt about it, they're perty smart.

[Mr. Scram]

I think it had little to do with the design, and everything to do with the complete lack of competition in a market they basically invented. No doubt about it, they're perty smart.

I think both play a major role in the success. I don't think it would have been the icon it's now if it would have been generically mundane or butt ugly to most.

[nctnico]

Rigol will soon have their new ASIC in a low-end model, so... meh.

Using off-the-shelve parts will be cheaper in a low end oscilloscope so no way Rigol will go this route. I don't think Rigol will come up with a replacement for the DS1000Z any time soon. It still flies off the shelves so why would they?

From the perspective of of the commercial side of it I think the design of the DS1054Z been a raving success. When the DS1054Z was introduced Rigol was gaining more fame quickly but not quite as well known as they are today. The distinct look has massively contributed to the succes of this model and the wider brand. It has given Rigol a face and is instantly recognizable, which is invaluable when you're trying to build a brand.

I think you have a point here. Rigol's front panel design does set them apart.

I think it had little to do with the design, and everything to do with the complete lack of competition in a market they basically invented. No doubt about it, they're perty smart.

Rigol didn't invent the low end market! There have been cheap oscilloscopes for decades.

[KungFuJosh]

Rigol didn't invent the low end market! There have been cheap oscilloscopes for decades.

Seriously? I'm not talking about the garbage low-end market. I'm talking about the quality, entry-level scope market. There was nothing of that level of quality, in that price range before. Period. Hell, if you're going back decades, you can barely even compare the high-end scopes from 10 or 20 years ago against it, even with the 1054Z's faults. I tried. I looked at high-end scopes on the used markets, and most were still more expensive used, and pathetic on paper by comparison. Hell, I found a FRONT PANEL for one lame-by-comparison scope for more $$$ than the Rigol.

I'm not specifically a fan of either brand, nor do I have reason for bias, like some of our friends here. I don't care at all about the relatively small price difference, so for me the Siglent wins this round (for now - we'll see how I feel when I have the new scope in hand). A year or two from now, once their next-gen scope is stable, Rigol will possibly win the next round (again). That's how honest competition works.

[Old Printer]

I am just getting into tube amps, so I can work on my old Fender guitar amps. I have not been at this long enough to speak from experience, but i have read a lot and the consensus seems to be that a basic low BW analog scope is the tool for the job. I can see wanting a digital scope, I am going to get one myself, but I bought a couple old Teks first. I am interested to find out if an analog scope shows a better picture of tube amp signals, or whether a basic one is just adequate and cheaper. For now my AD2 gets me by on the digital front while I watch the 4 channel digital market grow.
Has anyone seen a compsarison of the Siglent & Rigol vs the GDS-1054B?  I really like the 4 individual channel knobs and I would really like HDMI or VGA output but that gets into another price bracket.

[KungFuJosh]

I am just getting into tube amps, so I can work on my old Fender guitar amps. I have not been at this long enough to speak from experience, but i have read a lot and the consensus seems to be that a basic low BW analog scope is the tool for the job. I can see wanting a digital scope, I am going to get one myself, but I bought a couple old Teks first. I am interested to find out if an analog scope shows a better picture of tube amp signals, or whether a basic one is just adequate and cheaper.

Adequate and cheaper is the answer. You can do most stuff for a tube guitar amp on a $100 used scope...assuming it's calibrated and fully operational.

I'm a doofus and like fancier things, that's why I'm looking at the DSOs...that and the other electronics stuff I'll potentially use it for.

[nctnico]

Rigol didn't invent the low end market! There have been cheap oscilloscopes for decades.

Seriously? I'm not talking about the garbage low-end market. I'm talking about the quality, entry-level scope market. There was nothing of that level of quality, in that price range before.

Sure there was. You make it look like the Rigol DS1000Z has set some kind of standard but you are forgetting that:
1) The Rigol DS1000Z isn't exactly a very good oscilloscope when looking at performance & features and it has taken years to get all the bugs fixed.
2) There are and have been other oscilloscopes from various manufacturers which also sell / sold very well into the entry level market.
3) When everyone was still working with analog oscilloscopes you could buy cheap low end analog oscilloscope as well. The only thing that changed is that technology has improved.

[KungFuJosh]

Sure there was. You make it look like the Rigol DS1000Z has set some kind of standard but you are forgetting that:
1) The Rigol DS1000Z isn't exactly a very good oscilloscope when looking at performance & features and it has taken years to get all the bugs fixed.
2) There are and have been other oscilloscopes from various manufacturers which also sell / sold very well into the entry level market.
3) When everyone was still working with analog oscilloscopes you could buy cheap low end analog oscilloscope as well. The only thing that changed is that technology has improved.

I believe you're joking now.

1) Include price in that equation, and you've had zero competition, literally until now.
2) None of them with the specs of the Rigol. Price Point + Technology Level = Niche Market. Cornered from 2014 to 2018. I'm guessing they're still dominating that market for now.
3) Yes, the tech has improved. That's the point. High or low-end, most of those scopes you refer to can't keep up with the entry-level Rigol from 2014.

You can still buy cheap low-end analog scopes. That's not the point. They're not as good, and they never were! You can make biased statements about the poor quality and performance of the Rigol all day long, but you prove nothing with generalized baseless claims. Obviously the 2014 $350 scope's front-end isn't going to be as clean as a current production $12,000 scope's front-end. That's a pointless comparison. Even comparing it to a newer $500 scope's front-end, you should expect the newer, more expensive scope to be cleaner. This seems like it should be obvious.

This, by the way, coming from somebody who returned his Rigol to buy a Siglent, because I believe it to be superior. That doesn't mean the Rigol doesn't have its strengths, and that doesn't change the past 4 years of the Rigol's dominance in its niche.

[SMB784]

Sure there was. You make it look like the Rigol DS1000Z has set some kind of standard but you are forgetting that:
1) The Rigol DS1000Z isn't exactly a very good oscilloscope when looking at performance & features and it has taken years to get all the bugs fixed.
2) There are and have been other oscilloscopes from various manufacturers which also sell / sold very well into the entry level market.
3) When everyone was still working with analog oscilloscopes you could buy cheap low end analog oscilloscope as well. The only thing that changed is that technology has improved.

I believe you're joking now.

1) Include price in that equation, and you've had zero competition, literally until now.
2) None of them with the specs of the Rigol. Price Point + Technology Level = Niche Market. Cornered from 2014 to 2018. I'm guessing they're still dominating that market for now.
3) Yes, the tech has improved. That's the point. High or low-end, most of those scopes you refer to can't keep up with the entry-level Rigol from 2014.

You can still buy cheap low-end analog scopes. That's not the point. They're not as good, and they never were! You can make biased statements about the poor quality and performance of the Rigol all day long, but you prove nothing with generalized baseless claims. Obviously the 2014 $350 scope's front-end isn't going to be as clean as a current production $12,000 scope's front-end. That's a pointless comparison. Even comparing it to a newer $500 scope's front-end, you should expect the newer, more expensive scope to be cleaner. This seems like it should be obvious.

This, by the way, coming from somebody who returned his Rigol to buy a Siglent, because I believe it to be superior. That doesn't mean the Rigol doesn't have its strengths, and that doesn't change the past 4 years of the Rigol's dominance in its niche.

You've made a solid decision based on your specific needs and the known facts about your instrument of choice.  Rest assured that you have made the right choice, and I'm certain that device will serve you well for many years.

[tautech]

Has anyone seen a compsarison of the Siglent & Rigol vs the GDS-1054B?  I really like the 4 individual channel knobs and I would really like HDMI or VGA output but that gets into another price bracket.

Don't thinks one has been done yet.

WRT a video output, the 4ch X-E's fast LAN and WiFi performance is such the inbuilt webserver provides great remote display performance. Some demonstration of this can be see in Jason's video starting from here:
https://youtu.be/Cxh_Liay09E?t=52

[wpwrak]

Sure there was.

For example the Rigol DS1000CD/D/E series: 1 GSa/s (this is still the same in the entry-level segment today), 1 MSa memory (as one would expect, this has gone up since, 12/24 MSa for the DS1000Z). Decent enough build quality and came with borderline (*) decent PC connectivity (USB), while others had that as an option, RS232, or not at all. (* at least in the 1000CD, it's very slow. I suspect there is a UART-USB translation in the scope.)

CD and D also has digital channels, though at least the CD had so poor signal integrity that you had to be quite desperate in order to try to use it. (I have an 1102CD, which has now been replaced by the Siglent 1104X-E.)

All these had only two analog channels. There was also a four-channel 1000B series, but with short capture memory. The main new features (for the low-cost segment) of the 1000Z were to combine four analog channels with long memory, and to add Ethernet. So it's really just an evolution, but one that hit a sweet spot. And of course the ability to unlock expensive options for free made it incredibly attractive. I think this may have been the real killer feature.

[KungFuJosh]

For example the Rigol DS1000CD/D/E series: 1 GSa/s (this is still the same in the entry-level segment today), 1 MSa memory (as one would expect, this has gone up since, 12/24 MSa for the DS1000Z). Decent enough build quality and came with borderline (*) decent PC connectivity (USB), while others had that as an option, RS232, or not at all. (* at least in the 1000CD, it's very slow. I suspect there is a UART-USB translation in the scope.)

CD and D also has digital channels, though at least the CD had so poor signal integrity that you had to be quite desperate in order to try to use it. (I have an 1102CD, which has now been replaced by the Siglent 1104X-E.)

All these had only two analog channels. There was also a four-channel 1000B series, but with short capture memory. The main new features (for the low-cost segment) of the 1000Z were to combine four analog channels with long memory, and to add Ethernet. So it's really just an evolution, but one that hit a sweet spot. And of course the ability to unlock expensive options for free made it incredibly attractive. I think this may have been the real killer feature.

Right. Evolution that created a niche. None of those models compare to the 1000Z. They were 2ch not 4, none had close to the memory even without the unlocks. Throw all the unlockable features including  deeper memory into the mix, and there was even less competition. I think that puts the competition in a negative somehow.

Now the main direct competitor is the Instek 1054B, which is a little better on paper, and has the added benefit of separate vertical controls. For a few bucks more the Siglent beats them both on paper. That's evolution and competition within the same niche.

I mean, look at Dave's videos. Every time he's torn down a new scope anywhere near that price, he had to compare it to, or comment about the 1054Z.

[KungFuJosh]

I finally bought an x100 probe. If anybody else is looking for one, I got the BK Precision PR2000B (2kV 200MHz) on Amazon for $48. They're over $100 everywhere else I looked. And they're red!

[bitseeker]

Saweet!

[Fungus]

Rigol didn't invent the low end market! There have been cheap oscilloscopes for decades.

Sure, and there were automobiles before the Ford model T...

[pascal_sweden]

As a side question. How is the noise on the new Rigol DS7000 series? This is much lower han lower Rigol series and Siglent?