Upgrading to the Siglent SDS1104X-E versus my OWON SDS7102V - thoughts? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: MartyMacGyver
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 08:06:12 pm
content: I understand the SDS1104X-E can be upgraded to 200MHz in firmware, which is an attractive feature.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds1104x-e-hack-to-200mhz-and-full-options/https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-ads-firmware-file-format/Hopefully that's still possible for recently-purchased models.That said, I'd be upgrading from my old OWON SDS7102V scope. While I'd obviously have 2 more channels and what appears to be a better display,I wonder what are the drawbacks, if any?The lack of an EXT trigger input seems to be the most obvious thing, and I don't think this scope takes a battery (but that was the WORST thing about the OWON - the battery was terrible from day one).

author: MartyMacGyver
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 08:48:39 pm
content: I'll add that OWON's XDS3104AE is a consideration, but I'm not sure how well it compares.

author: SMB784
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 08:58:53 pm
content: The lack of an external trigger on the SDS1104X-E is a non-issue, considering the fact that you can trigger on any of the four channels - thereby giving you four possible trigger source options - while the 2 channel + EXT trigger of the OWON only gives you three trigger source options.Also there are ways of upgrading the bandwidth and all options for the SDS1104X-E for free that are firmware/hardware agnostic

author: MartyMacGyver
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 09:08:54 pm
content: Yeah, I'm not that concerned about the EXT. And as long as the firmware hacks aren't blocked now it will be nice to have that extra functionality.As long as it's a solid upgrade from my current scope, I'll be happy.

author: SMB784
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 09:21:54 pm
content: You can now obtain the bandwidth and option upgrades without hacking the firmware.

author: MartyMacGyver
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 09:27:06 pm
content: Quote from: SMB784 on December 16, 2018, 09:21:54 pmReally? How so?? Link?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 09:39:30 pm
content: Quote from: MartyMacGyver on December 16, 2018, 09:27:06 pmIn a thread you missed:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/unlocking-siglent-sds1104x-e-step-by-step/

author: MartyMacGyver
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2018, 09:46:58 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on December 16, 2018, 09:39:30 pmWell, then - it looks like I'll be upgrading!

author: daveyk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2018, 06:37:41 am
content: Quote from: MartyMacGyver on December 16, 2018, 08:06:12 pmI just paid the extra and bought the SDS1204x-E.It has a few quarks, but I have been able to work around the nicely. Operational learning curve isn’t too bad. Email tech support is excellent and they seem to take software suggestions and pass then on to their engineering team.I measure and image Ultrasonic pulser images. I found that this 200MHz s one compares very favorably to a $8k Tektronix TDS-3034 scope. These pulses range from -90volts to -500volts with ~8ns fall times and 80ns - 230ns pulse width (measured at -10% down from 0%, not at 50%.You can not change the pulse width measurement reference levels from 50% to what you need (-10% in my case), so you have to use the vertical cursors to properly measure pulse width. I have been told my need is in the software engineering hand now. Using a 100:1 probe the only difference in meAsurement compared to the expensive Tektronix is about 1ns higher fall time reading. The Siglent will report 9ns where the Tek reports 8ns. The specification To compare to is typically “<15ns”, so that is not an issue.Except for my need for variable pulse width measurement reference points, I find it works damn close to Tek TDS3000 series scopes costing a lot, lot more.It’s display is really nice and it is very lite in weight, perhaps too lite - lol. If I really wanted to spend $8000 to $11000 for a new scope, I would get a Tek TDS3034 or aTDS3054, but being cheap, I’ll take the $700 Siglent.Oh and using VB and VBA programming environment, I find the Siglent network communications much, much faster than GPIB!DaveSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2018, 08:23:56 am
content: Quote from: daveyk on December 18, 2018, 06:37:41 amUse math channel to create virtual offset or apply physical DC offset to move zero level? Or it will "AC couple" anyway to pulse (in which case more complex modding of pulse on math channel might still help)?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2018, 08:41:36 am
content: Quote from: MrW0lf on December 18, 2018, 08:23:56 amFor some background on what Dave is looking for see this thread.....a few posts in:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tektronix-tds3032-forgets-its-gpib-address-setting/The T@L measurement for the Siglents is Trigger level to 50% level across a pulse.....a measurement that I don't see a use for, whereas a measurement at the same level definable by the user.......

author: Performa01
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2018, 01:35:00 pm
content: Quote from: MrW0lf on December 18, 2018, 08:23:56 amAutomatic pulse width measurements use (Vtop + Vbase) / 2 as the 50% reference level, so any DC offset will just be ignored.It is similar for pretty much all time measurements, where a certain reference level is used.I support the request for user-definable reference levels, but this means a significant change in the UI, as up to now automatic measurements don't need/have any parameters.Apart from pulse width, there are also duty, rise and fall and maybe even channel delay measurements which would be candidates for custom reference levels.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2018, 04:31:36 pm
content: Some other scopes define lower, middle and upper threshold. By default at 10%, 50%, and 90%. Some measurements use 10 lower and upper (rise time for instance) and some use middle point (like pulse width.) All 3 threshold are user settable.

author: MrW0lf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2018, 05:01:31 pm
content: Quote from: Performa01 on December 18, 2018, 01:35:00 pmNot iffiddle with signal a little...

author: MartyMacGyver
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2018, 06:43:21 am
content: My new scope (and new SDG2042X signal generator) arrived today! now to begin tweaking them...The scope should be straightforward... the firmware for the SDG2042X, though, seems to be MIA:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-siglent-sdg2042x-thread/msg2066593/#msg2066593Fingers crossed on that one...Edit: SDG2042X is now an SDG2122X! It was a little more complicated but it's all good now as best I can tell. A nice holiday upgrade overall!

author: LogicalDave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 02:17:19 pm
content: I compared my SDS1104X-E (100MHz "liberated" to 200MHz) with my old OWON SDS8202 (200MHz) and found that the Owon had a better analog front end. With a 0dBm input sine wave from an IFR 2051 siggen, at 200MHz, the Owon measured 608mV p-p while the Siglent measured 554mV. That's still within the 3dB bandwidth, so the hack to 200MHz really works (mine was 3dB down at 235MHz), but the flatness of the Owon was much better, and was down 3dB around 325MHz.OTOH, the Siglent was able to measure frequencies out to nearly 500MHz whereas the Owon was able to trigger on and measure signals out to 500MHz (albeit very attenuated) whereas the Owon refuses to measure above 200MHz even though it could trigger out to 400MHz (so you could measure with cursors if you wanted).Overall, the Owon 200MHz scope seems to have a better analog front end than the SDS1104X-E hacked to 200MHz, at least with respect to flatness.