Suggestion on getting a new Oscilloscope

[tv84]

But I'm not seeing how the Siglent is 500$ better than the Rigol. It does some things better than the Rigol and some things less so. I mean, if we just added all the advantages of the Siglent to the Rigol for an extra 500 then yeah it would be an easy more $ = more features but it's not the case. at least to my eyes anyway, happy to be corrected if I am being dense. That would make my life easier

I didn't say it was $500 better. I said it is $500 more expensive.

You are precisely at the point that you should be. When you solve the above doubts (and believe me, ONLY YOU, can solve them), you'll have your decision.

You're on the right track!

[Ctrlocti]

But I'm not seeing how the Siglent is 500$ better than the Rigol. It does some things better than the Rigol and some things less so. I mean, if we just added all the advantages of the Siglent to the Rigol for an extra 500 then yeah it would be an easy more $ = more features but it's not the case. at least to my eyes anyway, happy to be corrected if I am being dense. That would make my life easier

I didn't say it was $500 better. I said it is $500 more expensive.

You are precisely at the point that you should be. When you solve the above doubts (and believe me, ONLY YOU, can solve them), you'll have your decision.

You're on the right track!

That's a hard but fair answer man.  I like it. I'll study some more and post back.

[nctnico]

Good to know, thanks. Is it a matt or glossy screen?

Do not worry about matt or glossy screen. It doesn't matter.

[2N3055]

I know Tautech will champion the Siglent, is there anybody to champion the Rigol? I'm leaning towards Siglent to be honest, just the lower sample rate and shared channel controls put me down a little bit.

The Rigol is 1000. The Siglent is 1500. Do you have anything else to do with those 500 bucks? If yes, buy the Rigol. If not buy the Siglent.  (I'll create myself a tagline with this...)

But I'm not seeing how the Siglent is 500$ better than the Rigol. It does some things better than the Rigol and some things less so. I mean, if we just added all the advantages of the Siglent to the Rigol for an extra 500 then yeah it would be an easy more $ = more features but it's not the case. at least to my eyes anyway, happy to be corrected if I am being dense. That would make my life easier

Hello and welcome!

These two scope are sufficiently different that it might be important to you.

Rigol will have faster Wfms/second, so screen will look a bit more like analog scope. Rigol does analog like display very good.
Also Rigol will have a bit limited sensitivity at lower range it goes to 4 mV/div (less than that is digital zoom), while Siglent will go all they down to real 500uV/div and together with 10 Bit mode it is better suited for low level analog work..
Siglent has more modern touch screen GUI, with a little better usage of screen for decoding...
Also measurements have more logical layout on Siglent, together with histicons and other nice stuff.

On the other hand Rigol has 4 decodes and 4 math channels while Siglent has 2 decodes and 2 math channels.

So both of them have pros and cons....

Regards,
Sinisa

[Elasia]

CAN FD was the deal maker for me.. thats a vital protocol im moving into which needs study, otherwise i might have gone with the rigol

They are both good scopes so really does come down to the fine details like others are getting at... just read over the spec sheets and go with what you like better or is more useful

[tv84]

CAN FD was the deal maker for me.. thats a vital protocol im moving into which needs study, otherwise i might have gone with the rigol

Rigol hasn't got CAN FD?

[bdunham7]

Dear All , Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions.

I end up getting "DSOX1204G" 100Mhz version.

I think it will be ok for at least 5 years!.

I will try to share my experience with it.

Good choice, actually.  I was going to suggest an EDUX version if you are just starting out, but if the price isn't too much for you, this should serve you very well for a very long time.  Let us know if you find any bugs.

[tautech]

I know Tautech will champion the Siglent, is there anybody to champion the Rigol? I'm leaning towards Siglent to be honest, just the lower sample rate and shared channel controls put me down a little bit.

The Rigol is 1000. The Siglent is 1500. Do you have anything else to do with those 500 bucks? If yes, buy the Rigol. If not buy the Siglent.  (I'll create myself a tagline with this...)

But I'm not seeing how the Siglent is 500$ better than the Rigol. It does some things better than the Rigol and some things less so. I mean, if we just added all the advantages of the Siglent to the Rigol for an extra 500 then yeah it would be an easy more $ = more features but it's not the case. at least to my eyes anyway, happy to be corrected if I am being dense. That would make my life easier

There's a few subtle differences easily overlooked that you might miss if you need/want them:

Probe sense.
2x 200Mpts mem depth. (200Mpts for each ADC)
50 MHz AWG.
10" display.
2 Mpts FFT
500 MHz analog front end and option.
50 ohm inputs.
Mouse control capable.

[Fungus]

I know Tautech will champion the Siglent, is there anybody to champion the Rigol? I'm leaning towards Siglent to be honest, just the lower sample rate and shared channel controls put me down a little bit.

Lots of people around here own the Rigol, not many people own the Siglent. Think about that.

Rigol looks pretty in black. Siglent is the same boring off-white beige...I know people like them but I think it's nice to have some color. I'd buy the hello kitty version, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, just looking for a good scope - I'm happy with my 1054z but I got cash to burn and want to upgrade.  I work in the audio range mostly, analog circuits. oscillators, envellopes, filters, stuff like that.

You should definitely consider getting a Micsig instead:

http://www.micsig.com/html/86.html

[nctnico]

I know Tautech will champion the Siglent, is there anybody to champion the Rigol? I'm leaning towards Siglent to be honest, just the lower sample rate and shared channel controls put me down a little bit.

Lots of people around here own the Rigol, not many people own the Siglent. Think about that.

Well... I'd like to see some hard numbers to back that statement. Several people have returned their Rigol MSO5000 due to bugs and missing of features. Siglent does seem to have a better handle on things and for audio the higher sensitivity is good to have.

[Fungus]

Well... I'd like to see some hard numbers to back that statement.

No surprises there.

You could start a poll... 

Several people have returned their Rigol MSO5000 due to bugs and missing of features.

Bugs get fixed later on, but... what did they buy instead?

[Elasia]

CAN FD was the deal maker for me.. thats a vital protocol im moving into which needs study, otherwise i might have gone with the rigol

Rigol hasn't got CAN FD?

nah... it probly would have though if released a tad later.. just has CAN listed; that said.. fantastic scope the siglent has turned out to be.. no regrets

[ashkan]

Thanks for your time and suggestions,

It seems that Keysight has less issue than others and better customer service. so I did not mind paying some extra. and this model covers my expectation at this stage.

I will definitely share my experience with others.

Cheers

[Ctrlocti]

I know Tautech will champion the Siglent, is there anybody to champion the Rigol? I'm leaning towards Siglent to be honest, just the lower sample rate and shared channel controls put me down a little bit.

The Rigol is 1000. The Siglent is 1500. Do you have anything else to do with those 500 bucks? If yes, buy the Rigol. If not buy the Siglent.  (I'll create myself a tagline with this...)

But I'm not seeing how the Siglent is 500$ better than the Rigol. It does some things better than the Rigol and some things less so. I mean, if we just added all the advantages of the Siglent to the Rigol for an extra 500 then yeah it would be an easy more $ = more features but it's not the case. at least to my eyes anyway, happy to be corrected if I am being dense. That would make my life easier

Hello and welcome!

These two scope are sufficiently different that it might be important to you.

Rigol will have faster Wfms/second, so screen will look a bit more like analog scope. Rigol does analog like display very good.
Also Rigol will have a bit limited sensitivity at lower range it goes to 4 mV/div (less than that is digital zoom), while Siglent will go all they down to real 500uV/div and together with 10 Bit mode it is better suited for low level analog work..
Siglent has more modern touch screen GUI, with a little better usage of screen for decoding...
Also measurements have more logical layout on Siglent, together with histicons and other nice stuff.

On the other hand Rigol has 4 decodes and 4 math channels while Siglent has 2 decodes and 2 math channels.

So both of them have pros and cons....

Regards,
Sinisa

Thanks!
re wfms/s: the siglent says 120k for "normal" mode and 500k for "sequence". I assume normal is single shot and sequence is ETS/reconstruction. The rigol just says 500k max. What's the single shot capture rate? I can't find it anywhere in the spec sheet.

re uv/dv . You are so right! I found this footnote, I would not have caught it otherwise (it's like 20pages after the reference is made) Note[3]: 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div are a magnification of 4 mV/div setting. For vertical accuracy calculations, use full scale of 32 mV for 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div sensitivity setting

 about the sample rate :
siglent: 2gsa/s (single / half channel) and 1gsa/s (4 channel)
rigol: 8 GSa/s (single-channel), 4 GSa/s (half-channel), 2 GSa/s (all channels)

this I don't know how to deal with. Obviously more is better but at what point does it stop mattering to me? let's say I don't have any sinusoid signals over 100mhz or squares over 10-20mhz. 1 gsa/s is 10x the signal frequency, right (1ghz/100mhz? can we convert gsa/s to ghz for this comparison?) ? so nyquist-shannon theorem is satisfied and most literature i have read says 3-4 sample rate over the signal frequency. How much more detail do I see with 40x and 80x sample rate:signal frequency ? does it matter in real life applications? anybody have pics?

ED: should I move the conversation to the main thread on the siglent?

[2N3055]

I know Tautech will champion the Siglent, is there anybody to champion the Rigol? I'm leaning towards Siglent to be honest, just the lower sample rate and shared channel controls put me down a little bit.

The Rigol is 1000. The Siglent is 1500. Do you have anything else to do with those 500 bucks? If yes, buy the Rigol. If not buy the Siglent.  (I'll create myself a tagline with this...)

But I'm not seeing how the Siglent is 500$ better than the Rigol. It does some things better than the Rigol and some things less so. I mean, if we just added all the advantages of the Siglent to the Rigol for an extra 500 then yeah it would be an easy more $ = more features but it's not the case. at least to my eyes anyway, happy to be corrected if I am being dense. That would make my life easier

Hello and welcome!

These two scope are sufficiently different that it might be important to you.

Rigol will have faster Wfms/second, so screen will look a bit more like analog scope. Rigol does analog like display very good.
Also Rigol will have a bit limited sensitivity at lower range it goes to 4 mV/div (less than that is digital zoom), while Siglent will go all they down to real 500uV/div and together with 10 Bit mode it is better suited for low level analog work..
Siglent has more modern touch screen GUI, with a little better usage of screen for decoding...
Also measurements have more logical layout on Siglent, together with histicons and other nice stuff.

On the other hand Rigol has 4 decodes and 4 math channels while Siglent has 2 decodes and 2 math channels.

So both of them have pros and cons....

Regards,
Sinisa

Thanks!
re wfms/s: the siglent says 120k for "normal" mode and 500k for "sequence". I assume normal is single shot and sequence is ETS/reconstruction. The rigol just says 500k max. What's the single shot capture rate? I can't find it anywhere in the spec sheet.

re uv/dv . You are so right! I found this footnote, I would not have caught it otherwise (it's like 20pages after the reference is made) Note[3]: 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div are a magnification of 4 mV/div setting. For vertical accuracy calculations, use full scale of 32 mV for 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div sensitivity setting

 about the sample rate :
siglent: 2gsa/s (single / half channel) and 1gsa/s (4 channel)
rigol: 8 GSa/s (single-channel), 4 GSa/s (half-channel), 2 GSa/s (all channels)

this I don't know how to deal with. Obviously more is better but at what point does it stop mattering to me? let's say I don't have any sinusoid signals over 100mhz or squares over 10-20mhz. 1 gsa/s is 10x the signal frequency, right (1ghz/100mhz? can we convert gsa/s to ghz for this comparison?) ? so nyquist-shannon theorem is satisfied and most literature i have read says 3-4 sample rate over the signal frequency. How much more detail do I see with 40x and 80x sample rate:signal frequency ? does it matter in real life applications? anybody have pics?

ED: should I move the conversation to the main thread on the siglent?

wfms/s of 120kwfms/s and 500kwfms/s respectively for Rigol are both for real time acquisitions (that is basically trigger event + grabbing of memory buffer as set)  and it is MAX for both in ideal circumstances and on very short timebases.  Both are good and more than fast enough in practice. These scope don't support classic ETS, only realtime. Using dot mode and short persistence will create effect similar to RIS sampling.

I'm glad you found it it datasheet. It is not obvious so I like to point it out.

Faster sample rate is better in theory. In practice both are good enough.

[Ctrlocti]

I know Tautech will champion the Siglent, is there anybody to champion the Rigol? I'm leaning towards Siglent to be honest, just the lower sample rate and shared channel controls put me down a little bit.

The Rigol is 1000. The Siglent is 1500. Do you have anything else to do with those 500 bucks? If yes, buy the Rigol. If not buy the Siglent.  (I'll create myself a tagline with this...)

But I'm not seeing how the Siglent is 500$ better than the Rigol. It does some things better than the Rigol and some things less so. I mean, if we just added all the advantages of the Siglent to the Rigol for an extra 500 then yeah it would be an easy more $ = more features but it's not the case. at least to my eyes anyway, happy to be corrected if I am being dense. That would make my life easier

Hello and welcome!

These two scope are sufficiently different that it might be important to you.

Rigol will have faster Wfms/second, so screen will look a bit more like analog scope. Rigol does analog like display very good.
Also Rigol will have a bit limited sensitivity at lower range it goes to 4 mV/div (less than that is digital zoom), while Siglent will go all they down to real 500uV/div and together with 10 Bit mode it is better suited for low level analog work..
Siglent has more modern touch screen GUI, with a little better usage of screen for decoding...
Also measurements have more logical layout on Siglent, together with histicons and other nice stuff.

On the other hand Rigol has 4 decodes and 4 math channels while Siglent has 2 decodes and 2 math channels.

So both of them have pros and cons....

Regards,
Sinisa

Thanks!
re wfms/s: the siglent says 120k for "normal" mode and 500k for "sequence". I assume normal is single shot and sequence is ETS/reconstruction. The rigol just says 500k max. What's the single shot capture rate? I can't find it anywhere in the spec sheet.

re uv/dv . You are so right! I found this footnote, I would not have caught it otherwise (it's like 20pages after the reference is made) Note[3]: 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div are a magnification of 4 mV/div setting. For vertical accuracy calculations, use full scale of 32 mV for 1 mV/div and 2 mV/div sensitivity setting

 about the sample rate :
siglent: 2gsa/s (single / half channel) and 1gsa/s (4 channel)
rigol: 8 GSa/s (single-channel), 4 GSa/s (half-channel), 2 GSa/s (all channels)

this I don't know how to deal with. Obviously more is better but at what point does it stop mattering to me? let's say I don't have any sinusoid signals over 100mhz or squares over 10-20mhz. 1 gsa/s is 10x the signal frequency, right (1ghz/100mhz? can we convert gsa/s to ghz for this comparison?) ? so nyquist-shannon theorem is satisfied and most literature i have read says 3-4 sample rate over the signal frequency. How much more detail do I see with 40x and 80x sample rate:signal frequency ? does it matter in real life applications? anybody have pics?

ED: should I move the conversation to the main thread on the siglent?

wfms/s of 120kwfms/s and 500kwfms/s respectively for Rigol are both for real time acquisitions (that is basically trigger event + grabbing of memory buffer as set)  and it is MAX for both in ideal circumstances and on very short timebases.  Both are good and more than fast enough in practice. These scope don't support classic ETS, only realtime. Using dot mode and short persistence will create effect similar to RIS sampling.

I'm glad you found it it datasheet. It is not obvious so I like to point it out.

Faster sample rate is better in theory. In practice both are good enough.

Thanks, I've been reading the siglent manual and it's clear. Haven't read the rigoil one yet so I'm not clear on how they apply their 500kwfrms/s yet. I'll get to it.

Anyway, it's a pretty tough comparison between the two. The siglent is 40% more expensive so I'm trying to see what I'm getting:
+a bigger screen,
+more sensitivity,
+ hi res 10bit mode (im going to go ask on the rigol thread what the status is on this)
-less samples (1/2 to 1/4)
?maybe better software.

  i guess I'm getting the siglent

[Sighound36]

Just follow what you want to do.

Personally I would loan both units and make your own mind up in your test lab.

[tv84]

Anyway, it's a pretty tough comparison between the two. The siglent is 40% more expensive so I'm trying to see what I'm getting:
+a bigger screen,
+more sensitivity,
+ hi res 10bit mode (im going to go ask on the rigol thread what the status is on this)
-less samples (1/2 to 1/4)
?maybe better software.

  i guess I'm getting the siglent

You are basically only listing Siglent pros. And it seems you have the additional $500... So your mind/pocket is set.

What are you waiting for?

[Ctrlocti]

well I did put "-less samples (1/2 to 1/4)"
to expand on that, the rigol has the 8gsamples, 500kwfrms/s (still gotta check if that's on all the time) and per channel controls
the siglent has all the other stuff I listed.
that's all I managed to get so far. am I missing anything important.

I don't know if the positives of the rigol make it a better choice for me over the siglent. It's not like I've compared 8gs vs 2gs IRL. I think that's why Sighound36 is suggesting that i try them both.

you are right, I'm set. just last moment hesitation , making sure I didn't miss anything obvious.

it's not about the 400$ as such. just trying to see if it's "well spent". 

[tv84]

Many guys here can add plenty to the list of Rigol pros BUT that's not important anymore!!

You have already selected what you think are the most (subconcious or not) relevant factors for you.

So pull the trigger.  As I've said before, remember, this is your decision. If you have the $1500 you won't regret it.

[Ctrlocti]

eh I can still swing either way. I'm set, but its a soft set. just making sure it's an informed decision. I would love to hear more pros for the rigol. I've been reading spec sheets and manuals for a couple days now but spec sheets and numbers can't tell you everything.

Let's say that theoretically both scopes were the same price. both 1500 or 1000 (different scenario). how would that change the value proposition of either scope?

 It's not directly relevant to my choice between the two scopes. It was just a question I had going through my mind earlier, I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

[tv84]

Let's say that theoretically both scopes were the same price. both 1500 or 1000 (different scenario). how would that change the value proposition of either scope?

In China the Siglent is $1000!   In that case it's a no brainer.

So, the Siglent is the best one? No, for $1000 (in the west) the Rigol is best.

So, you just have to see if the Rigol covers all your needs (as many guys have advised). If so, why go higher? If there is a fancy detail (screen size, hires BS, etc) that tickles you, then add the extra cash.

[Ctrlocti]

OK, I see what you mean. Yeah I'm definitely splurging with the Siglent. It's luxury. On the other hand, my main question is what are the trade-offs? What am I losing that the Rigol has to offer, but the Siglent is lacking?
8 and 4 gigasamples
4 math channels
per channel controls
hdmi output

I couldn't find any info on the wfm/s capture rate in the manual. just says over 500k lol

I think I can live with this.

[Martin72]

Well... I'd like to see some hard numbers to back that statement. Several people have returned their Rigol MSO5000 due to bugs and missing of features. Siglent does seem to have a better handle on things and for audio the higher sensitivity is good to have.

Here, hands up...

Owned formerly a full optioned MSO5K I was disappointed on how they handle firmware update rate, also the noiselevel of the frontend was disappointing.
Then the siglent sds2k+ came along...
Bigger, brighter, better screen, better response of touchscreen, better UI, better performance in general (not overall), 50ohm inputs, autosense inputs, eres functions which works, comes with 200mpt memory without hacking, comes with several serial decodings without hacking, could be upgraded up to 500Mhz, more quality build and look in general and the first fw update got two new features...
Didn´t regret the change at any time, but both scopes got one thing in common:
For a beginner, there are more models wide under their prices avaible.

[Ctrlocti]

Well... I'd like to see some hard numbers to back that statement. Several people have returned their Rigol MSO5000 due to bugs and missing of features. Siglent does seem to have a better handle on things and for audio the higher sensitivity is good to have.

Here, hands up...

Owned formerly a full optioned MSO5K I was disappointed on how they handle firmware update rate, also the noiselevel of the frontend was disappointing.
Then the siglent sds2k+ came along...
Bigger, brighter, better screen, better response of touchscreen, better UI, better performance in general (not overall), 50ohm inputs, autosense inputs, eres functions which works, comes with 200mpt memory without hacking, comes with several serial decodings without hacking, could be upgraded up to 500Mhz, more quality build and look in general and the first fw update got two new features...
Didn´t regret the change at any time, but both scopes got one thing in common:
For a beginner, there are more models wide under their prices avaible.

What does the difference in gigasamples between the two scopes actually look like in real life? Did it make a difference to you and if yes, at what bandwidth?