Understanding Entry Level Scopes? (Limitations & Uses)

[Fungus]

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.

...and only 2.5x the price of a DS1054Z (and that's with the current special offer of free serial decoders - 3x the price otherwise).

[tautech]

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.

...and only 2.5x the price of a DS1054Z (and that's with the current special offer of free serial decoders - 3x the price otherwise).

Oh, and SDS1000X series come with a full BW true 500 uV range, dismiss that as not worth having. 

[David Hess]

Almost the only thing I wouldn't compromise on is the number of channels - 4 is much better than 2. And don't neglect the usefulness of an external trigger input.

Um, which is it?  4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.  If you look for one with both, your options will be very limited.

An MSO has 8 to 16 external trigger inputs!

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.
As previously linked:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

So my ancient 2440 has 2 channels + 2 external trigger channels (to support separate A and B trigger inputs) + 17 channels on the word recognizer which can be triggered on for 21 channels.

Some old analog oscilloscopes like the Tektronix 7000 series can be configured with 4 vertical channels and 4 external trigger channels but I cannot imagine a realistic use for that many external trigger inputs.

Is that 500uV/div sensitivity on the SDS1000X actually usable at full bandwidth or does noise prevent it?  Siglent naturally give no noise specifications which is what I would expect if they are hiding the actual performance.

[tautech]

Almost the only thing I wouldn't compromise on is the number of channels - 4 is much better than 2. And don't neglect the usefulness of an external trigger input.

Um, which is it?  4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.  If you look for one with both, your options will be very limited.

An MSO has 8 to 16 external trigger inputs!

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.
As previously linked:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

Is that 500uV/div sensitivity on the SDS1000X actually usable at full bandwidth or does noise prevent it?  Siglent naturally give no noise specifications which is what I would expect if they are hiding the actual performance.

2 images borrowed from 2 posts by rf-loop that should answer that ^^^
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-series-oscilloscopes/msg825532/#msg825532
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-series-oscilloscopes/msg825633/#msg825633

Baseline noise, no signal. Full BW both scopes @ 500uV/div.




rf-loop said:

But, if I look image I can quess noise RMS is somewhere between 60 and 100uV.

[tautech]

Almost the only thing I wouldn't compromise on is the number of channels - 4 is much better than 2. And don't neglect the usefulness of an external trigger input.

Um, which is it?  4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.  If you look for one with both, your options will be very limited.

An MSO has 8 to 16 external trigger inputs!

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.
As previously linked:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

So my ancient 2440 has 2 channels + 2 external trigger channels (to support separate A and B trigger inputs) + 17 channels on the word recognizer which can be triggered on for 21 channels.

Similar can be done with a SDS2*04X, 4 ch + Ext trig + 16 LA channels = 21 channels

[rf-loop]

Almost the only thing I wouldn't compromise on is the number of channels - 4 is much better than 2. And don't neglect the usefulness of an external trigger input.

Um, which is it?  4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.  If you look for one with both, your options will be very limited.

An MSO has 8 to 16 external trigger inputs!

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.
As previously linked:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

So my ancient 2440 has 2 channels + 2 external trigger channels (to support separate A and B trigger inputs) + 17 channels on the word recognizer which can be triggered on for 21 channels.

Some old analog oscilloscopes like the Tektronix 7000 series can be configured with 4 vertical channels and 4 external trigger channels but I cannot imagine a realistic use for that many external trigger inputs.

Is that 500uV/div sensitivity on the SDS1000X actually usable at full bandwidth or does noise prevent it? Siglent naturally give no noise specifications which is what I would expect if they are hiding the actual performance.

What is purpose for this kind of claim? Hiding what?

Datasheet tell this, so it is still quite limited information but better than nothing:

Noise
ST-DEV </=0.7 division (<1 mV/div)
ST-DEV </=0.3 division(<2 mV/div)
ST-DEV </=0.2 division(>/=2 mV/div)

*forum do not accept normal  less or equal symbol (really??)  so  I use this </=

"...actually usable at full bandwidth...?"

I do not know how usable, it depends needs. But BW is full and -3dB well over 200MHz.



Edit: tautech was first so only add this comment.

So or so but 1M ohm impedance  >200MHz front end have noise. (If change front "impedance" to 50ohm it nearly do not change much because front end itself is still 1Mohm circuit)  500uV in 50ohm system is bit different what 500uV is on 1Mohm system. So or so but in reality this is what it is.
Original image  from SDS1202X is not from noise tests, it is just from level test (it may also include square wave source noise but it is clear that SDS1202X front end noise is dominating.

[rf-loop]

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.

...and only 2.5x the price of a DS1054Z (and that's with the current special offer of free serial decoders - 3x the price otherwise).

Oh, and SDS1000X series come with a full BW true 500 uV range, dismiss that as not worth having. 

Btw, Rigol DS1054Z have only 5mV/div true sensitivity. Ten times less.

[Wuerstchenhund]

*forum do not accept normal  less or equal symbol (really??)  so  I use this </=

Just use underlining, i.e. <, > or + 

[rf-loop]

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.

...and only 2.5x the price of a DS1054Z (and that's with the current special offer of free serial decoders - 3x the price otherwise).

2.4x  ?   Really?  Why these claims without any connection to reality.

Here all prices VAT 0

Rigol  MSO1104Z-S
Batronix  Eur 999,-

Siglent SDS1102X+
Batronix Eur 719,-
MSO functions:
Siglent SDS-1000X-16LA (license alone)
Batronix Eur 115,-
Siglent SPL1016  (probe alone)
Batronix Eur 189,-
Total: Eur 1023,-

1023/999= 1.024   what is bit different as your claim  2.4.


Compare  these images.
Note also that in real life images are not same size at all.
Do you see what is around 2.4 times more or something like, perhaps your 2.4 come from this?
Yes, with Rigol you get nearly 2.5 times more... with lower price.





NOTE: Rigol  display is not same size.  S:8",  R:7".

Here relative size in real life.

[JPortici]

Rigol  MSO1104Z-S

HA
HA
HA YOU ARE WRONG
HA YOU MUST COMPARE WITH THE BASE MODEL BECAUSE EVERYBODY HACK IT ANYWAY

or simillar crap
don't waste time reasoning with someone immune to reason

[Fungus]

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.

...and only 2.5x the price of a DS1054Z (and that's with the current special offer of free serial decoders - 3x the price otherwise).

Oh, and SDS1000X series come with a full BW true 500 uV range, dismiss that as not worth having. 

Huh?

I'm not sure if you're saying that:

a) A scope that costs 3x the price shouldn't be any better

or that:

b) You expect a $400 'scope to have everything (and you'll mock it if it doesn't).

 

[Fungus]

Rigol  MSO1104Z-S

HA
HA
HA YOU ARE WRONG
HA YOU MUST COMPARE WITH THE BASE MODEL BECAUSE EVERYBODY HACK IT ANYWAY

or simillar crap
don't waste time reasoning with someone immune to reason

What are you monkeys yammering on about now?

The original post (not written by me) was comparing a 4-channel 'scope to an MSO.

Here it is:

Almost the only thing I wouldn't compromise on is the number of channels - 4 is much better than 2. And don't neglect the usefulness of an external trigger input.

Um, which is it?  4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.  If you look for one with both, your options will be very limited.

An MSO has 8 to 16 external trigger inputs!

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.
As previously linked:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

If the argument is that more expensive scopes (eg. 3x the price) have more features then you get a big 

If the argument is that nobody should ever consider an oscilloscope that costs less than the oscilloscope you personally own then:

a) I can point you to people who own more expensive oscilloscopes than you
b) You still get a big

[rf-loop]

Rigol  MSO1104Z-S

HA
HA
HA YOU ARE WRONG
HA YOU MUST COMPARE WITH THE BASE MODEL BECAUSE EVERYBODY HACK IT ANYWAY

or simillar crap
don't waste time reasoning with someone immune to reason

What are you monkeys yammering on about now?

The original post (not written by me) was comparing a 4-channel 'scope to an MSO.

Here it is:

Almost the only thing I wouldn't compromise on is the number of channels - 4 is much better than 2. And don't neglect the usefulness of an external trigger input.

Um, which is it?  4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.  If you look for one with both, your options will be very limited.

An MSO has 8 to 16 external trigger inputs!

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.
As previously linked:
http://www.siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

If the argument is that more expensive scopes (eg. 3x the price) have more features then you get a big 

If the argument is that nobody should ever consider an oscilloscope that costs less than the oscilloscope you personally own then:

a) I can point you to people who own more expensive oscilloscopes than you
b) You still get a big

What?

It was you and no one else and exactly here where you compare these prices..

Following on....
SDS1000X+ series.....2 ch + Ext Trig + 16 Ch LA = 19 channels.

...and only 2.5x the price of a DS1054Z (and that's with the current special offer of free serial decoders - 3x the price otherwise).

Now I ask WHAT is 2.5 the price compaperd to DS1054Z.

There was SDS1000X+

Yes this Siglent MSO is more expensive than Rigol bottom model without MSO and FG.

[nctnico]

If the argument is that nobody should ever consider an oscilloscope that costs less than the oscilloscope you personally own then:

a) I can point you to people who own more expensive oscilloscopes than you
b) You still get a big

Palm yourself. You are the one insisting everybody should buy a go-kart because it gets you everywhere you want to go with a comfort level + room for luggage you find satisfying. You totally fail to see that some people have more luggage, need more speed or just want more comfort and have the money to spend.

If the argument is that nobody should ever consider an oscilloscope that costs more than the oscilloscope you personally own then:
a) I can point you to people who own less expensive oscilloscopes than you
b) You still get a big

[Fungus]

Now I ask WHAT is 2.5 the price compaperd to DS1054Z.

There was SDS1000X+

Yes this Siglent MSO is more expensive than Rigol bottom model without MSO and FG.

And therefore should be better and have more features....right?

So you understand why I get confused when people come in here and say, "my 3x more expensive 'scope is better than that other one".

("...and his 3x more expensive scope is better than yours, neener neener!")

[rf-loop]

Now I ask WHAT is 2.5 the price compaperd to DS1054Z.

There was SDS1000X+

Yes this Siglent MSO is more expensive than Rigol bottom model without MSO and FG.

And therefore should be better and have more features....right?

So you understand why I get confused when people come in here and say, "my 3x more expensive 'scope is better than that other one".

("...and his 3x more expensive scope is better than yours, neener neener!")

Yes, this is always confusing.
And what is best for me in my use with my needs, my money, my taste and so on... this is very different question what is generally better, when generally best do not even exist and if we here loose totally what price class we are comparing we lost road totally.

This was "best" oscilloscope for me some time ago...  somewhere near end of -60's ? I can remember year exactly.
But, this was absolutely best oscilloscope (for me) because it was only available with money I have at this time for scope.
(also it was second hand but not old, like nearly new)


This (same model, not this individual) was my absolutely best oscilloscope around perhaps near end of -60's. It meets my needs and it meets at this time also my available money for this.

Still today, some times best (for me) is Tek 2246A and some times 2465  for my needs. (yes I use still also analog for some purposes with old equipments repaitr and when I want be fast. Turn on, connect probe, turn knob(s) and all is there, immediately, without thinking settings and worry if result is digital undefined bullshit - analog do not alias never.. no corners wobbling etc, all is just rock solid)

And in some cases these old Tek's can not serve me at all.

[vk6zgo]

Point is: Go back 5-10 years and not many people would have paid for a brand new, 100MHz, 4-channel DSO with their own money.

Who knows, maybe that's true, maybe not. I don't know (I have no sales figures for sales to consumers or B-brand in general) and you don't know either. Fact is that many hobbyists have bought scopes in the past. Back in the old days the Rigol equivalent would have been something like that:

].

I have one of those------ I bought it a while back (maybe 8 years ago),so I could use it to fix my BWD 511.
With 10 MHz bandwidth,the little Atten/Digitech has similar specs to the early 1970s BWD,but it has a tiny screen.

The Telequipment S31 Serviscope was an early (late '50s ,early '60s ) "cheap" scope with proper triggering (but only 5MHz bandwidth).
The price of an S31 in 1960 or so was,from memory,288 Australian Pounds ($A576) when my wage was around 6 Pounds ($A12) a week.

Most people in that era,or even up to the 1980s were most likely to use an Oscilloscope at work,Uni,or Tech School.
Personally owning a 'scope with the performance of a modern "Entry level" instrument would have been a distant dream for most of us.

There were certainly Oscilloscopes with fairly impressive specs available,but unless you were a large organisation,or a very rich geek,you would never have  been able to own one.

But it doesn't make current bottom-of-the-barrel scopes any more "mid-range". They still are what they are, the cheapest (reasonable) scopes money can buy.

Indeed,but they are better in so many ways than the things Tektronix & HP tried to foist on us in the dawn of the DSO era.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Most people in that era,or even up to the 1980s were most likely to use an Oscilloscope at work,Uni,or Tech School.
Personally owning a 'scope with the performance of a modern "Entry level" instrument would have been a distant dream for most of us.

Of course, if only because as I already said the capabilities of a modern bottom-of-the-barrel scope would have been pretty much in the mid-range back then, a time when the 'bottom-of-the-barrel' equivalent would have been a simple, cheap Asian or East European single channel analog scope with 5Mhz or so BW, like the one in the picture.

There were certainly Oscilloscopes with fairly impressive specs available,but unless you were a large organisation,or a very rich geek,you would never have  been able to own one.

Which could be equally said for modern mid-range and high-end scopes.

But it doesn't make current bottom-of-the-barrel scopes any more "mid-range". They still are what they are, the cheapest (reasonable) scopes money can buy.

Indeed,but they are better in so many ways than the things Tektronix & HP tried to foist on us in the dawn of the DSO era.

Yes, but again, this is due to normal technical progress and cost savings through high integration and cheap labor, not because the modern variant of a low-cost scope is inherently the better product (it is only 'better' because of the technical progress, after all HP & Tek had to work with the technology that was available back then). I'd even go as far as to say that inherently, these old Teks and HPs were the better products, because they offered better reliability and maturity as well as support. But then, hardly any of the early DSOs were classed (or priced) as entry-level scopes.

[nfmax]

Almost the only thing I wouldn't compromise on is the number of channels - 4 is much better than 2. And don't neglect the usefulness of an external trigger input.

Um, which is it?  4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.  If you look for one with both, your options will be very limited.

Sorry, not clear: I meant 4channels + external trigger > 4 channels > 2 channels + external trigger > 2 channels

[nfmax]

It must have been about 1980, I met the late Viscount Downe http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1388827/Viscount-Downe.html through an optical fibre start-up company I was contracting to & he was investing in. As well as an Aston Martin enthusiast, he was an electronic 'hobbyist' who owned a Tektronix 7104, when this was The Best Oscilloscope In The World!

There are hobbyists, and then there are hobbyists!

[rf-loop]

4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.

Even Siglent SDS2000X have 4 channel + Ext trigger (this Ext trig input is back side)

But, here need also tell that Ext trig performance is not like main channels trig.

In many new scopes trigger system is very different what previously.
There is two main working principles. Analog side pathway trigger system where trig circuit take signal from analog front end just before ADC and then some kind of comparator system produce trigger.

More modern way is full digital side trigger engine (like example in SDS2000X or SDS1000X and same in other brands) what give lot of more performance for many kind of complex triggering.
This can do only with fully digitized channel. Time ago it was very difficult and mostly only in expensive scopes. 

In this kind of  scope class if there is Ext trigger, it is afaik still  "old school" analog trigger with limited accuracy and limited features. Also acquisitions fine positioning (interpolation between sample points and adjust to trigger point) is far below good full digital side triggering system (yes it can also be good but this kind of high quality complex circuits are not typical in cheap oscilloscopes)

[nfmax]

4 channel oscilloscopes with external trigger inputs are very rare.

Even Siglent SDS2000X have 4 channel + Ext trigger (this Ext trig input is back side)

But, here need also tell that Ext trig performance is not like main channels trig.

In many new scopes trigger system is very different what previously.
There is two main working principles. Analog side pathway trigger system where trig circuit take signal from analog front end just before ADC and then some kind of comparator system produce trigger.

More modern way is full digital side trigger engine (like example in SDS2000X or SDS1000X and same in other brands) what give lot of more performance for many kind of complex triggering.
This can do only with fully digitized channel. Time ago it was very difficult and mostly only in expensive scopes. 

In this kind of  scope class if there is Ext trigger, it is afaik still  "old school" analog trigger with limited accuracy and limited features. Also acquisitions fine positioning (interpolation between sample points and adjust to trigger point) is far below good full digital side triggering system (yes it can also be good but this kind of high quality complex circuits are not typical in cheap oscilloscopes)

Hey, it wasn't me that said 4 channel scopes with external trigger inputs are very rare - I have two here on my bench!

The utility of an external trigger input is it lets you measure the times of events on all four (or both) inputs, relative to some datum like a chip select or 1PPS signal, which is used as the trigger. You can of course correct for the unknown bandwidth & delay in the trigger by temporarily probing the trigger source using a signal channel while triggering off the external input. This tells you the trigger channel to signal input delay (and lets you confirm you are triggering on the right part of the signal). You then move the probe to the signal you want to look at, measure the delay with respect to the trigger point and add the trigger delay offset from the first measurement.

[nfmax]

This was "best" oscilloscope for me some time ago...  somewhere near end of -60's ? I can remember year exactly.
But, this was absolutely best oscilloscope (for me) because it was only available with money I have at this time for scope.
(also it was second hand but not old, like nearly new)


This (same model, not this individual) was my absolutely best oscilloscope around perhaps near end of -60's. It meets my needs and it meets at this time also my available money for this.

The first oscilloscope I ever owned at home all to myself (around 1979) was a Solartron, rather like this one:http://www.thevalvepage.com/testeq/solatron/cd1183/cd1183.htm. However, mine used UHF connectors for the Y inputs, and I think it may have been 10MHz bandwidth. A chuck-out from the University. That plus an Avo 8, and home made PSU & function generator constituted my entire lab. Luxury!

[pascal_sweden]

@rf-loop: You had details on the noise floor of the SDS1000X and SDS2000X series. There was a big difference between both series and the SDS1000X was better in some areas than the SDS2000X series, but then again there was an issue with the noise on the offset level.

Where did you get these details? From Siglent or by your own measurements?
Can you summarize these details once more with more details on how you obtained that information.

I have only seen details on the noise floor for Rigol scopes, but never details about the noise on the offset level and wonder how Rigol compares there against Siglent.

Maybe that information can also be obtained with hands-on measurements?

It would be good to have the comparison in place between Rigol and Siglent

[tautech]

@rf-loop: You had details on the noise floor of the SDS1000X and SDS2000X series. There was a big difference between both series and the SDS1000X was better in some areas than the SDS2000X series, but then again there was an issue with the noise on the offset level.

Where did you get these details? From Siglent or by your own measurements?
Can you summarize these details once more with more details on how you obtained that information.

I have only seen details on the noise floor for Rigol scopes, but never details about the noise on the offset level and wonder how Rigol compares there against Siglent.

Maybe that information can also be obtained with hands-on measurements?

It would be good to have the comparison in place between Rigol and Siglent

There are many examples of noise floor (and 0V trace offset) screenshots spread throughout the forum.
From this post:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000-new-v2-firmware/msg807925/#msg807925
Done with my old SDS2304 (not latest X series)

Here's a GND input coupled screenshot.... Showing 0V offset


Edits
For clarity