That's not what I found when doing a simple Bode plot exercise.
You can see it written up in detail here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1435854/#msg1435854
And further when using a second Bode plot trace:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/msg1436912/#msg1436912
May I recommend a book on the concept of measurement uncertainty before we continue this conversation? That 8 bit ADC + a scope's noise tends to have a rather profound effect on the measurement error/uncertainty.
As a result, these bode plot measurement systems are often nothing more than a gimmick, they'll give you something and might work semi-well to debug a very simple active filter. For anything decent you'll still need a true setup (i.e. function generator and a multi-channel high-speed voltmeter) Please don't try to represent this functionality as something it really isn't.
Well you might think so but I have any # of DSO to use if I wish, however when accepting the chance to beta SDS1104X-E in 2017 I committed to having to use it and get used to it like it was my only DSO.
I stand firmly behind the highlighted comments I made earlier. ^^^^
Of course you do, you're trying to make a sale here.
As for the eternal R vs S question, if we can read and understand specification documents, features of one vs another become quite clear.
A comparison chart compiled by member rf-loop outlines the major differences:
Stop comparing apples and pears, that chart is incredibly biased and misrepresents the capabilities of the scope entirely. It's pure marketing wank of the highest order and by pointing it out I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse. But since you insist:
Lets take the SDS1000X-E series from Siglent, some of the numbers on the datasheet seem rather ambitious, i.e. <100 ps channel skew on interleaved sampling seems awfully nice if you can't even guarantee the stability of your clock to that degree. (What happened there is that they
accidentally forgot to mention you got to lob that 25 ppm uncertainty on the timebase onto that number. )
But what's really unforgivable is how they tacked on low voltage modes that probably don't exist. Ever wondered why the noise and error seems to differ when you dive under 5 mV/div? That's because the scope frontend is most likely incapable of actually doing these ranges and it's probably multiplying measurements at a higher range. Decent manufacturers like Keysight put the following warning in their manuals: "1 mV/div and 2 mV/div is 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."
I could continue for a while, but I think you get the gist of this comparison? It's easy to claim you're awesome if you happen to have selective amnesia when writing datasheets.
Oh, not that stupid chart again.
Cherry picked data points? Check.
Unhacked Rigol, no options unlocked? Check. (nb. Alloptions are now standard since that was written)
Posted by a Siglent distributor? Check.
Real value: 0
Mind you, that chart is still better than Siglent their datasheets, which is scary in a way...
I actually like the AWG and the DMM in the MDO-2204EX. Sure, it's not 6½ digit resolution, but it is actually pretty solid performance. I was pleasantly surprised that the metal joint thermistor temperature sensor had a selection of 8 different metal combination settings to match the different sensors I had lying around. Another convenience apart from having everything in one pachage to carry is that you can put the friggin display on the screen and save a screendump together with the scope picture and save it to the USB stick. It makes it much easier to get the readings into a report. I know many multimeters have digital connections, but a USB stick is just less complicated for me that setting up a connection and finding the right program/app for that particular instrument. I like to keep it simple. Taking pictures with your phone is also a drag.
I can't comment on the AWG of that series, never got my hands on a recent GW Instek. But most of the built-in DMMs are hard pressed to reach even a true 3.5 digit measurement.
And personally I just write down the number in my lab notebook, because the screenshot is usually more difficult to relate to what was happening on my bench at the time than my scribbles.