Siglent SDS1104X-E vs. Rigol DS1054Z Advice?

[nctnico]

the FFT on the GW Instek is 1Mpts versus 128k.

Yes, but the R&S is 10bit so it'll be better.

Long buffers are used to compensate for lack of bits. 

No. Short FFT reduces the ability to see both a sensible part of the signal and the frequency domain in a sensible way. Last year I worked on a project where my GW Instek GDS2000E (the version without digital channels) really helped me because of the input filtering and long FFT. It was just perfect for the job.

[Fungus]

Haha, that's true. But I do like the idea of it. More than that I like the idea of not being limited by the DS1054Z. If I ever need more, I have to replace the Rigol. With the Siglent, I might not need to add to it, but if I want to, I can.

Have you seen the price of the Siglent logic analyzer option? It costs nearly as much as the 'scope. You can buy an Analog Discovery 2 for much less than that 'upgrade'. An AD2 will do 16-channel logic analysis and be much, much better for Audio work (it has 14 bit ADC, AWG, can do Bode plots, etc.). In fact: For your stated needs you might want to forget the 'scope for a while and get an Analog discovery instead.

https://store.digilentinc.com/analog-discovery-2-100msps-usb-oscilloscope-logic-analyzer-and-variable-power-supply/

[KungFuJosh]

Have you seen the price of the Siglent logic analyzer option? It costs nearly as much as the 'scope. You can buy an Analog Discovery 2 for much less than that 'upgrade'. An AD2 will do 16-channel logic analysis and be much, much better for Audio work (it has 14 bit ADC, AWG, can do Bode plots, etc.). In fact: For your stated needs you might want to forget the 'scope for a while and get an Analog discovery instead.

https://store.digilentinc.com/analog-discovery-2-100msps-usb-oscilloscope-logic-analyzer-and-variable-power-supply/

I have no interest in the logic analyzer. I would probably go that AD2 route if I ever need it. Then I would have the Siglent plus the AD2, which still sounds like a better combo than the Rigol and the AD2...

Wow, I'm looking at the specs on the AD2, my interest is certainly piqued. This might be useful regardless of what bench scope I stick with. It's certainly a bargain for what it does.

[Fungus]

Wow, I'm looking at the specs on the AD2, my interest is certainly piqued. This might be useful regardless of what bench scope I stick with. It's certainly a bargain for what it does.

The supplied software is really good, too. 

(A lot of those sort of gadgets have good hardware but rubbish software. Not the AD2...)

[rstofer]

For digital oriented projects, the Digilent Digital Discovery is another nice tool.  I have both...

If I just want to look at something, my DS1054Z is fine.  But if I want to have nice printed results for documentation (or study material), the AD2 does a better job.  Not necessarily more complete, the DS makes a LOT of measurements, but I tend to copy the AD2 screen image to the clipboard and then manipulate it with Paint.

There's a lot to be said for the educational value of the AD2.  Particularly in the early years when filters and response curves are being discussed.  The AD2 Bode' plot is better than any scope version I have ever seen.  And the image isn't cramped on my 27" monitor!

[KungFuJosh]

Okay, that all makes lots of sense. I certainly like the idea of the AD2 and all the extra useful features it has for future uses. Besides being better quality, it's more cost-effective than the Siglent addons+required options.

Here's the remaining question between the Rigol vs. Siglent: some of you have convinced me that I will end up using 3 or 4 channels at a time eventually. Even if I'm only using 2, the Siglent does support double the sampling ability when running any level of multi-channels. It seems to me like this should be important in my decision making between the two models?

[tautech]

Here's the remaining question between the Rigol vs. Siglent: some of you have convinced me that I will end up using 3 or 4 channels at a time eventually. Even if I'm only using 2, the Siglent does support double the sampling ability when running any level of multi-channels. It seems to me like this should be important in my decision making between the two models?

It is but not the only one.
Have you discovered the UI latency in the 54Z ?
You won't experience that in the X-E !

[KungFuJosh]

Have you discovered the UI latency in the 54Z ?
You won't experience that in the X-E !

No, but I'd love to. My uses right now have been hooked up to a tube amp output jack. I'm assuming I'd have to do something fancier to get some screen lag to happen?

[Fungus]

It seems to me like this should be important in my decision making between the two models?

That's a good question.

Theoretically you don't need it, 2.5x the bandwidth is enough to perfectly reconstruct a signal (Rigol has exactly 2.5x with all channels on).

In practice? I'm not sure how much difference it really makes (screenshots, anybody?)

Remember though: You can turn a couple of channels off on the Rigol to get 1GHz sampling when you really need to look closely at a waveform. That makes this a convenience feature on the Siglent not a showstopper for the Rigol.

And on that note we're right back to, "The Siglent is 40% more expensive so it ought to be at least 40% better/nicer/whatever than the Rigol".

Have you discovered the UI latency in the 54Z ?
You won't experience that in the X-E !

Don't exaggerate. The only real difference is in the vertical position control and the Rigol works well enough.

(and (b), The Siglent is 40% more expensive, so...)

PS: Have we mentioned how much twiddling is needed to enable a simple on-screen measurement on the Siglent? The Rigol has a nice row of buttons down the left hand side for that.

Here's a reminder:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1526209/#msg1526209

Have you discovered the UI latency in the 54Z ?
You won't experience that in the X-E !

No, but I'd love to.

Don't miss the Siglent UI apologetic thread above 

[KungFuJosh]

Don't miss the Siglent UI apologetic thread above 

  Between the two of you I can't decide which way to go, but at least it's entertaining.

Question: If YOU were running 3 or 4 channels at 100Mhz or better, would you really be satisfied with 250M per channel? I know I'm generally not doing that, but this is a theoretical question.

For that particular instance, the sampling is 200% better for only 40% more $$. Same story for the hacked bandwidth potential (not that I care about that personally at this point). I will read that thread though. I obviously intend this to be a more informed decision than my first purchase.

[Fungus]

Don't miss the Siglent UI apologetic thread above 

  Between the two of you I can't decide which way to go, but at least it's entertaining.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't trade a better response in the vertical controls for the row of buttons down the left side of my Rigol. I know which is more useful and which will waste more of my time.

Question: If YOU were running 3 or 4 channels at 100Mhz or better, would you really be satisfied with 250M per channel? I know I'm generally not doing that, but this is a theoretical question.

It depends on what you're looking at. If you're actually looking at four signals with 100MHz base frequencies then, no it's not enough.

Then again, a 100Mhz oscilloscope isn't suitable for doing that - you'll see four 100Mhz sine waves on screen but nothing much in the way of harmonics. In that scenario you should be looking at 300MHz+ oscilloscopes, maybe 500Mhz for real signal fidelity.

Back in real life: I know I'm only going to look at signals in the tens of MHz range on my DS1054Z, maybe 50MHz tops. In that scenario 250M per channel is enough for me (it's 5 times the Nyquist limit, plenty for signal reconstruction).

If we apply the same criteria to the Siglent then I don't believe the extra sample rate will make much real difference.

5x Nyquist vs. 10x Nyquist? Not much difference, maybe a pixel here and there.

(nb. I'm willing to look at some screenshots if anybody can demonstrate otherwise...)

OTOH: If you're going to hack the Siglent to 200MHz and look at four simultaneous signals with 100MHz base frequencies then it will come into play (though maybe not as much as you might think - Nyquist theory works, bitches!)

[KungFuJosh]

OTOH: If you're going to hack the Siglent to 200MHz and look at four simultaneous signals with 100MHz base frequencies then it will come into play (though maybe not as much as you might think - Nyquist theory works, bitches!)

You crack me up man. Reading the Siglent thread I see two big plusses in the Rigol's favor:

1. the side buttons like you mentioned
2. firmware update simplicity

In the Rigol you just dump the file on the USB and poop it in. The Siglent sounds like extra work for every update.

That leaves me here:

Rigol Pros:
Physical side buttons/UI simplicity
Price
Firmware update simplicity
Laziness *(already on my bench)

Siglent Pros:
Higher multi-channel sampling
1M FFT
400VDC input (vs 300VDC) (yes, I know it doesn't matter, but a plus is a plus)
Optional extras that aren't worth the money especially thanks to toys like the AD2


I'll have to test the Windows remote software for the Rigol and see if I hate it or not. If it's okay I suppose that neutralizes the web server on the Siglent...not that I think I'd use either too much.

[ttelectronic]

I'll have to test the Windows remote software for the Rigol and see if I hate it or not. If it's okay I suppose that neutralizes the web server on the Siglent...not that I think I'd use either too much.

DSRemote is Linux based, but I find it a lot faster and more useful than the Windows tools by Rigol. Especially when exporting large amounts of data from the scope. I use a virtual box of linux to run it. https://www.teuniz.net/DSRemote/

[Fungus]

I'll have to test the Windows remote software for the Rigol and see if I hate it or not. If it's okay I suppose that neutralizes the web server on the Siglent...not that I think I'd use either too much.

DSRemote is Linux based, but I find it a lot faster and more useful than the Windows tools by Rigol. Especially when exporting large amounts of data from the scope. I use a virtual box of linux to run it. https://www.teuniz.net/DSRemote/

Yeah, the official Rigol software is 1Gb of garbage.

[Fungus]

Siglent Pros:
Higher multi-channel sampling
...

For the reasons (I tried to explain) above, I wouldn't get too hung up on that number if you're not planning on hacking it to 200MHz.

[tautech]

Reading the Siglent thread I see two big plusses in the Rigol's favor:

1. the side buttons like you mentioned
2. firmware update simplicity

In the Rigol you just dump the file on the USB and poop it in. The Siglent sounds like extra work for every update.

Updates are easy.
The zip or rar is unpacked to find a changelog, instructions and the update. Pop the update onto a USB stick, insert into the scope and navigate to it and install.
Done hundreds of them as I dispatch every unit with the latest FW. Only stuff that's been shipped after a new FW version is released needs this treatment.

[KungFuJosh]

Updates are easy.
The zip or rar is unpacked to find a changelog, instructions and the update. Pop the update onto a USB stick, insert into the scope and navigate to it and install.
Done hundreds of them as I dispatch every unit with the latest FW. Only stuff that's been shipped after a new FW version is released needs this treatment.

I don't doubt that they're simple enough, but they require more effort/thought than Rigol. That's a point deduction.

For the reasons (I tried to explain) above, I wouldn't get too hung up on that number if you're not planning on hacking it to 200MHz.

Oh, I got what you said. But a plus is a plus is a plus. The feature is there, and the hackability is there. Technically that's two plusses. It's not as heavily weighing my choice as it was thanks to what you said.

The biggest thing now that sways me against the Siglent is that even if I wanted only the AWG add-on, the price difference of the Siglent + the AWG add-on (without the BS "option" cost) is already enough to buy the AD2 with the BNC port package...which obviously is a better choice for me to have the Rigol + AD2 than just the Siglent + AWG only.

[tautech]

Updates are easy.
The zip or rar is unpacked to find a changelog, instructions and the update. Pop the update onto a USB stick, insert into the scope and navigate to it and install.
Done hundreds of them as I dispatch every unit with the latest FW. Only stuff that's been shipped after a new FW version is released needs this treatment.

I don't doubt that they're simple enough, but they require more effort/thought than Rigol.

How so ?
Do the Rigol updates come ready to be installed and not zipped ?
If so, well they don't care about your data package and possible data cap.
Just checked here http://www.rigol.com/Support/SoftDownload/3 and the site's as slow as a wet week to grab a piddle arsed little 1.8MB rar. Still minutes to go FFS. 
If it ever finishes I'll take a look inside it and check what comes with the FW......................still waiting FFS.
Not a good first look !

Pre-release, the X-E's had an optional online FW update facility that was dropped as some felt buyers would be scared off by an 'ET phone home' configuration but it was entirely user driven and made for FW updates to be totally zero hassle. I hope Siglent reinstates this capability and keeps it entirely user configurable.

OK, finally downloaded and the rar contents structure is little different to anything I've ever seen from Siglent.
I'm gunna call 'Myth busted' !

[KungFuJosh]

I'm gunna call 'Myth busted' !

No myth. From your own description of the process, I'd have to go look for, and select the update files on the USB stick on the scope.

On the Rigol you place the firmware in the root of the USB and it auto-detects the file and does the rest after asking you if you want to update. That's less effort.

I don't really care one way or the other, that's not going to sway my decision that heavily.

However, reading through that Siglent thread, a lot of people had issues with updating their firmware or OS. This supports the point in Rigol's favor more. Even if one update wasn't a PIA, the other might fail.

[tautech]

I'm gunna call 'Myth busted' !

No myth. From your own description of the process, I'd have to go look for, and select the update files on the USB stick on the scope.

On the Rigol you place the firmware in the root of the USB and it auto-detects the file and does the rest after asking you if you want to update. That's less effort.

I don't really care one way or the other, that's not going to sway my decision that heavily.

Sure, any instrument is exactly the same if you have an empty USB stick.
The one I use has various folders for all Siglent FW and sub-folders as well so 'navigate' that I used previously is correct if your stick has nothing else on it.

However, reading through that Siglent thread, a lot of people had issues with updating their firmware or OS.

Guess how that's fixed: RTFM !

[KungFuJosh]

Guess how that's fixed: RTFM !

  nobody does that....actually, I did read (almost) the whole Rigol manual. That crap was long as hell.

EDIT: I read a lot of the Siglent manual too. They're both equally boring.

[tautech]

Guess how that's fixed: RTFM !

  nobody does that....actually, I did read (almost) the whole Rigol manual. That crap was long as hell.

EDIT: I read a lot of the Siglent manual too. They're both equally boring.

Nah, the FW manual ! It comes in the FW rar/zip package and for an OS update it's a different install process to FW.

[KungFuJosh]

Nah, the FW manual ! It comes in the FW rar/zip package and for an OS update it's a different install process to FW.

Oh, see, now that is more effort.

[tautech]

Nah, the FW manual ! It comes in the FW rar/zip package and for an OS update it's a different install process to FW.

Oh, see, now that is more effort.

Sure but an OS update is not an everyday occurrence and might only happen once in a products lifetime.
If the bowls of the instrument are significantly improved then the effort to install a OS update is worth it.
The 4ch X-E OS update made major improvements to the webserver in particular.
It was dead simple and only needed the update files in the root of the drive so to auto-install at boot.

The most common error is to use a USB stick incompatible with the OS, hell even Dave struggled getting one seen with the new DS7000 he looked at. FAT32 and under 8Gb and there's generally never a problem.

[KungFuJosh]

The most common error is to use a USB stick incompatible with the OS, hell even Dave struggled getting one seen with the new DS7000 he looked at. FAT32 and under 8Gb and there's generally never a problem.

I replied to a thread about people having issues with USB sticks. The trick is to use "SD Card Formatter" utility (from sdcard.org) to format them (not the OS's formatting utility), and almost any USB stick will probably work. I'm using a 32GB USB3.1 stick with the 1054Z and it's working fine.