the eternal question about rigol vs siglent

[Gregi]

First of all sorry for my english....

I am a begginer in electronics. I mostly play arround with arduino,linear power supplies, audio amplifiers and everything else i can destroy . Now I am in a scope dilema. I want a scope. I am watching Rigol DS1054Z and Siglent SDS1104X-E. First of all I have no idea how to use a digital scope (I had an old analog hameg before). I dont care about the 100 € price difference between the two. So my question is which one to buy, or even better which one of them would you call a scope for dummies 

Ive red a zilion pages here on forum but i havent found even one straight answer like buy rigol because of this or buy siglent because of that...

I will order from batronix probably.

https://www.batronix.com/shop/rigol/DS1000Z.html
https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Siglent-SDS1104X-E.html

[nctnico]

Get the GW Instek GDS1054B and hack it using the simple license key generator from this forum. It costs about the same as the DS1054Z and it can do much more.

[tautech]

EEVblog isn't the only place that has healthy discussion on scopes.
If you haven't been here this thread is probably worth a read:
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/best-oscilloscope-right-now-under-500.156985/

Some past and present very knowledgeable EEVblog members are part of this ^ discussion.


You'll be fine with a DSO as that CRO experience will stand you in good stead and then all you have to master are the features a DSO offers.

[Old Printer]

If cost is not a concern I would go with the Siglent, as soon as stock is in at Saelig that’s what I am doing. The differences have been well documented here but if you are a noob like me you won’t understand all of them anyway. It has 2 ADCs and twice the sampling rate for starters. You really should keep reading here until you get a better handle on what you are buying.

[2N3055]

Rigol DS1000Z is nice, good quality BASIC scope. It is not very fast, FFT is not very good (still somehow usable) decoding is very basic but also usable for occasional packet here and there. Where it is very good is analog like display of waveforms, quite deep memory and generally good quality.  Also it is not very new, and pretty much no bugs in what people are using most of the time.
That being said, Siglent 1000X-E series (4ch) has dual A/D converters, more sample memory, segmented mode, measurements on full memory,  long FFT etc etc.
It also has lower noise frontend with real 500uV/div range.
It is a better scope. It is also much newer (hence better specs) but because of that, occasional bug is still found here and there, although basic stuff is sorted out and no major problems..
Mentioned GW-INSTEK is also nice little scope, but little bit more expensive than both. It is between the two mentioned ones in specs, and is also nice and stable.
There are also MICSIG tablet scopes, very good for the price and portable and battery operated. If you go out in the field or go to workshops and collaborate with other people, that one is great...

Any one of them will be HUUUGE upgrade from having no scope...
 

[tv84]

Ive red a zilion pages here on forum but i havent found even one straight answer like buy rigol because of this or buy siglent because of that...

If after the zillion you haven't found that, it can only be because you read the wrong zillion pages!

[Fungus]

I dont care about the 100 € price difference between the two.

You'd better buy the more expensive one then. You'll suffer from "I'm sure the grass might have been greener" syndrome if you don't.

So my question is which one to buy, or even better which one of them would you call a scope for dummies 

If you've never owned a 'scope before then either will blow you away.

The capabilities of both are really very similar, the bang-per buck ratio is very similar, don't expect to decide based on either of those.

eg. "Bandwidth".  A hacked DS1054Z has close to 200Mhz bandwidth (measured). The Siglent has more, yes, but once you get to these levels then probing technique and a dozen other factors are more important than raw bandwidth for getting good results. I wouldn't decide between the two based on "bandwidth".

The real difference is in the way they work, eg. I like the row of buttons down the left side of the Rigol for selecting on-screen measurements. The Siglent has to go through a whole series of popup windows and knob twiddles to turn on a measurement, it's a single button-press on a Rigol. Other people will fixate on other things.

ie. At the end of the day which works best for you will come down to what will be your most common daily tasks. Only you know that (or maybe not) so nobody can really decide for you.

If in doubt, toss a coin.

(...or go with the cheaper one so you've wasted less money when you decide to get a Rigol MSO5000 instead)

[Fungus]

Short version: If the question is "eternal" then there's no correct answer.

ie. You're on your own. 

[nctnico]

IMHO the Rigol DS1054Z is pretty much outdated. It is cheap but it has several large drawbacks. Look at Dave's recent DIY EMC probe FFT comparison video for example.

[Fungus]

IMHO the Rigol DS1054Z is pretty much outdated. It is cheap but it has several large drawbacks. Look at Dave's recent DIY EMC probe FFT comparison video for example.

Sure, but who needs FFT? Not me.     

(and it's not as if the Siglent has an amazing FFT either)

[nctnico]

FFT is just one thing. Low samplerate with all channels on is another. The newer scopes have more CPU power under the hood and therefore can do more sophisticated things like math, full memory decoding, etc. The DS1054Z just isn't a good buy because it is an outdated design.

[Fungus]

Bang/buck ratio is about the same IMHO. The Siglent costs forty-odd percent more and is approx. forty-odd percent more powerful.

If you have the money then get the Siglent but the Rigol is still more than enough oscilloscope for most hobbyists. It displays four wiggly lines on screen just fine.

[drescherjm]

This week I just put the  SDS1202X-E in my wishlist so I am very interested in the discussion about this since I have a similar need as the OP.

[Hydrawerk]

Get the GW Instek GDS1054B and hack it using the simple license key generator from this forum. It costs about the same as the DS1054Z and it can do much more.

Really? Can GW Instek GDS1054B do serial decoding?

[MarkF]

Most of the Siglent 1104X-E looks pretty good except that the measurements window is transparent and very hard to read (See video starting 13:30).

I bought the Rigol DS1074Z several years ago before the 50MHz model was available.  I've been satisfied but it has it's quarks too.

[nctnico]

Get the GW Instek GDS1054B and hack it using the simple license key generator from this forum. It costs about the same as the DS1054Z and it can do much more.

Really? Can GW Instek GDS1054B do serial decoding?

When hacked: yes. Just read the thread. 200MHz bandwidth is also possible but probably only with 2 channels active. The price is about equal to the Rigol 1054Z so buying the GDS1054B instead is a no-brainer.

[rhb]

What's important to you?

The Owon XDS2102A is only two channels, but it will give you 12 bits of ADC resolution for $400 US.  It will dump 20 MPts to USB reasonably quickly in a fairly simple format.  The UI is horrible, but as a DAQ it's usable.  If you're really good at DSP with MATLAB it's an excellent choice. I will be writing a Unix command line program to do vector network analysis with 100 dB dynamic range using the Owon as well as 8 bit DSOs.  I have an HP 8753B VNA, so I'll be able to make apples to apples comparisons.

In general, the Instek GDS-2000E line is probably the best.  You can easily hack a 207x to 200 MHz and enable a pretty decent SA interface which is officially only available on the MDO versions.  It's quite a bit more $$  But GW have been very good in my experience with bug fixes.

I have made extensive use of the Instek SA app for EMI work.  Downside of the Instek is it generates a *lot* of EMI from the SMPS.  There is *no* shielding.  That said it is my primary scope.

My Rigol DS1102E has the best UI of the 3.  My experience with a Siglent SSA 3021X SA was not very reassuring.  I've not played with an SDS1000X-E system yet.

The truly sad part is that if you buy an MSOX3000T from Keysight or an RTM3000 from R&S for up to $20K you will simply get a different collection of problems.  I was absolutely stunned at how poor both of those are. And damn glad I could return the MSOX3104T I bought for $10K.

Which is why I am reading "VLSI DSP Systems" by Parhi so I can write sensible FOSS FW  for Zynq and Cyclone V based DSOs.  So when I start actually coding FW I'll buy a Siglent for testing.  And fix or replace my GDS-2072E.

If I were severely cash constrained, I'd buy a Rigol DS1054Z  because it has a better UI.   The Instek is almost twice as much, but is also much more capable.  Until I fried it, the hacked GDS-2072E produced the same results from a 40 ps rise time square wave generator from Leo Bodnar as the MSO-2204EA.

If dynamic range mattered, I'd get an Owon despite everything else about it being crappy.  About the Siglent I can't say as I haven't tried one yet.  Even if you have the money, I would not recommend either the MSOX3000T or the RTM3000. The RTM3K has a wonderful UI. It will be a great DSO when the FW is finished.   But at the moment it's a very expensive beta version test instrument.

[HalFET]

May I give a totally different piece of advice: try to get some time on both and check which one you like the most in terms of interface. In terms of raw performance both Siglent and Rigol will be roughly similar for most applications.

[DaJMasta]

May I give a totally different piece of advice: try to get some time on both and check which one you like the most in terms of interface. In terms of raw performance both Siglent and Rigol will be roughly similar for most applications.

Not exactly, the Siglent has an edge because it's part of a much newer product refresh.  The Rigol has the benefit of the really easy unlocks (though the Siglent unlocks too, right?), but the Siglent is modestly more capable and is more responsive to use.  I'd go as far as to say if the cost difference is of no concern, the Siglent 1104X-E is definitely better than the Rigol DS1054Z.  If you're looking for bang per buck, maybe the Rigol has an edge unlocked, but its hardware is much older, so I'm not even sure it qualifies for that, maybe for some applications.  Personal preference for menus and such could swing it either way, I do think they're close, but given the OP's constraints and concerns, I would go with the Siglent or consider a different option if one's apparent (honestly, I just don't know many of the other entry level scopes, and Rigol/Siglent generally have the most polished UIs.)  Hopefully Rigol can refresh it soon!

[HalFET]

Not exactly, the Siglent has an edge because it's part of a much newer product refresh.  The Rigol has the benefit of the really easy unlocks (though the Siglent unlocks too, right?), but the Siglent is modestly more capable and is more responsive to use.  I'd go as far as to say if the cost difference is of no concern, the Siglent 1104X-E is definitely better than the Rigol DS1054Z.  If you're looking for bang per buck, maybe the Rigol has an edge unlocked, but its hardware is much older, so I'm not even sure it qualifies for that, maybe for some applications.  Personal preference for menus and such could swing it either way, I do think they're close, but given the OP's constraints and concerns, I would go with the Siglent or consider a different option if one's apparent (honestly, I just don't know many of the other entry level scopes, and Rigol/Siglent generally have the most polished UIs.)  Hopefully Rigol can refresh it soon!

How many times do you use these optional features? Not sure about you, but the decoder I stopped using years ago, it's quicker to just look at the waveform with the Mark 1 Eyeball for I²C and SPI. And the built-in waveform generators and multimeter options are usually a sorry excuse for a real instrument which you can pick-up of ebay for less than the license cost for one of these modules. Sure, some things like decoding for more complicated busses (i.e. USB) or advanced trigger options are nice, but given that he's asking for help choosing here I'm going to guess he's not quite at the stage where he's facedesking over how horrible of a protocol USB is.

Which is to say, I'd look at functionality for that specific person instead of citing stats and looking at the age difference, neither of these scopes will age beyond the first two years of being a serious electronics hobbyist. Just the combination of the channel Y settings into a single panel group for all channels is enough to annoy most folks out of a scope if they have other options available.

[tautech]

How many times do you use these optional features?

Which optional features ?
For the X-E they are:
16ch MSO
WiFi
AWG plus external HW box.

Not sure about you, but the decoder I stopped using years ago, it's quicker to just look at the waveform with the Mark 1 Eyeball for I²C and SPI.

Not all are as experienced as you, consider yourself lucky. 

And the built-in waveform generators and multimeter options are usually a sorry excuse for a real instrument which you can pick-up of ebay for less than the license cost for one of these modules.

For most an AWG is not a necessary option but to have one as part of an instrument can save space and yes standalone AWG's inevitably offer better output drive and more features.
However the X-E's ability to do FRA/Bode plots with the optional AWG, another Siglent AWG or with some little trouble another brand AWG, is a distinct advantage for the novice with limited $ and experience to characterize their own filters and pass band filters with a modest additional outlay.

Which is to say, I'd look at functionality for that specific person instead of citing stats and looking at the age difference, neither of these scopes will age beyond the first two years of being a serious electronics hobbyist.

So you are blind to the many on this forum using 30+ year old equipment for serious hobbyist use and some for professional use ?
It might appear you have never used a cheap and good DSO. 

Just the combination of the channel Y settings into a single panel group for all channels is enough to annoy most folks out of a scope if they have other options available.

Well yes, once I would've agreed with you but when asked to beta test SDS1104X-E and previously only used scopes with dedicated individual channel attenuators I dreaded the thought of using a shared control.
With my DSO experience, in that much of what you want to do is parked within menus behind buttons, the adaption to shared vertical controls was far easier than I first envisaged.

[Fungus]

Get the GW Instek GDS1054B and hack it using the simple license key generator from this forum. It costs about the same as the DS1054Z and it can do much more.

Really? Can GW Instek GDS1054B do serial decoding?

The Instek can do all sorts of things thanks to recent unlocks and an architecture based on plugins. If you're a hacker then it's really programmable.

[bitseeker]

First of all sorry for my english....

I am a begginer in electronics. I mostly play arround with arduino,linear power supplies, audio amplifiers and everything else i can destroy . Now I am in a scope dilema. I want a scope. I am watching Rigol DS1054Z and Siglent SDS1104X-E. First of all I have no idea how to use a digital scope (I had an old analog hameg before). I dont care about the 100 € price difference between the two. So my question is which one to buy, or even better which one of them would you call a scope for dummies 

In the current entry-level scope market, unless you have specific requirements that will point you to one model over another (which you don't seem to), your budget pretty much makes the decision for you.

Since you don't care about the price difference between the Rigol DS1054Z and the Siglent SDS1104X-E, get the Siglent. If you couldn't afford the Siglent or didn't want to spend that much, then get the Rigol.

Ive red a zilion pages here on forum but i havent found even one straight answer like buy rigol because of this or buy siglent because of that...

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Either you haven't actually read anything or you haven't yet understood what you've read. This "what scope should I buy" topic has been covered at least every week for as long as I've been a member and each thread is full of answers of why you should buy X because of this or buy Y because of that. It's OK if you don't understand the answers, but they are literally everywhere.

[Fungus]

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Either you haven't actually read anything or you haven't yet understood what you've read. This "what scope should I buy" topic has been covered at least every week for as long as I've been a member and each thread is full of answers of why you should buy X because of this or buy Y because of that. It's OK if you don't understand the answers, but they are literally everywhere.

There's no clear statement of "XXXX is best, buy that!", which I guess he/she/it was looking for.

(and the explanation is that neither is much better bang/buck ratio, it all comes down to budget)

[SWR]

This is also my experience:

In general, the Instek GDS-2000E line is probably the best.  You can easily hack a 207x to 200 MHz and enable a pretty decent SA interface which is officially only available on the MDO versions.  It's quite a bit more $$  But GW have been very good in my experience with bug fixes.

But as RHB writes: do you have the extra money and what are your needs?

The MDO-2204EX gave me the best value for money, but this is a very subjective topic.
I also have a Rigol 1052 modified to 100MHz analog bandwidth.
It's fine for the price, but it's not even close to the GWI in usefulness for my subjective requirements ... It was cheap though - I'll give it that.

Serial bus decoding was mentioned specifically earlier in this thread. The GWI will do UART/SPI/I2C/CAN/LIN bus and it has a very nice search feature including wild cards in case you don't want to flip through 29000 messages manually. Nctnico did a very good in depth review of it elsewhere in this forum.