Siglent Releases SDS1204X-E To US Market - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 04:35:07 pm
content: It's finally available:http://siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=5109&T=2&tid=1There are 3 models included in this release:SDS1204X-E = 200 MHz 4 Channels $759SDS1104X-E = 100 MHz 4 Channels $499SDS1202X-E = 200 MHz 2 Channels $379I was sort of interested in the SDS1204X-E but I think it's a little out of my price range given that I already have a Tek 485 and a Rigol DS1054Z.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 05:13:34 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 05, 2017, 04:35:07 pmNo need to update. The DS1054Z with only two channels on has the exact same sample rate, bandwidth, etc. as the Siglents.(But more memory and better trigger options, obviously)Edit: And obviously not the same as the 200MHz Siglent, only the 100MHz Siglents.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 06:42:24 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 05, 2017, 04:35:07 pmDouble the channels for double the price plus $1? Interesting economics they have there.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 06:51:15 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 05, 2017, 05:13:34 pmI wanted bandwidth. 200 > 100 and all of my work is digital so the number of harmonics within the bandwidth is an important feature.Otherwise, you're right, there might be no point (for me). That could change once some reviews come out. Just how good is the UI? Or, more to the point, how does it compare with the DS1054Z. Then it comes down to the cost for an upgraded UI.I think the SDS1204X-E is the best thing to come along in years. Higher bandwidth, 4 channels, upgraded UI, <other features> - this thing could RULE! Except for the price...I'm waiting for the heavy hitters to produce their reviews.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 07:12:18 pm
content: leave him to his delusion, what's been good for him must be good for everybody, sure...the bode plot and the fact it can control any (siglent) AWG so if you have one is another good featurein the very brief test videos by simone.pignatti you can already see it can decode in ways the 1054 wouldn't be able to.. with the rigol you'd have to zoom in and lose the bigger picture. i hate when i have to do that.however, if you just need bandwidth to look at waveforms wouldn't you be better off with say an older lecroy? with that money you can pick up scopes with an excellent front end, high bandwidth, waveform analysis and much more advanced math. They won't have a fast UI though, and no decodes..

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 07:19:45 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 05, 2017, 06:51:15 pmAre you expecting this to be more than just an SDS1204X-E with 2 more inputs? If so, why? Is there any available information to support that view?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 07:23:06 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on December 05, 2017, 07:12:18 pmI agree. An older Lecroy, Tektronix or Agilent 500MHz+ scope is excellent for looking at high speed signals and can be bought from $500. A simply DIY low-z probe made from a BNC female-female extension piece can measure 500MHz easely. You can also buy active (AC coupled) FET probes from Ebay very cheaply.Aliasing problems are also very overblown. A square wave only has odd harmonics and at higher frequencies these harmonics are spread further and further so the problem more or less solves itself because the next harmonic is way beyond the input filter cut-off frequency of the scope.

author: Old Printer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 08:31:45 pm
content: I was hoping when it was released in the US they would follow the Rohde & Schwarz lead and make a limited time low-ball introductory price to make the decision between a 1054Z and the Siglent 100 mhz 4 ch a no-brainner. So far there is enough room between the two to make me think on it some more and wait for more reviews to come in. Rigol did their part by getting the price down to a good DMM. I think they may be missing a chance to get a bunch of units out there and puh the 1054Z aside a bit. But then what do I know

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 08:32:05 pm
content: I already have a Tek 485 for bandwidth (350 MHz) but it doesn't have single-shot capture. I presume all DSOs have that feature (there may be one scope out there that keeps this from being a rule) and it's really the key feature of digital scopes.Decoding is a 'nice to have' but it IS nice to have. Decoding SPI is easier with 4 channels than 2. Yes, it can be done with 2 channels and an external trigger but something is STILL missing. You can have MISO, MOSI or SCK but only 2 at a time.The DS1054Z FFT is pretty poor - maybe it is improved on the SDS1204X-E. Apparently the 1204 can do Bode' plots and control the AWG. That's nice, I just so happen to own a Siglent AWG. The thing is, I don't usually have a need for either of these functions. They will be very handy for the analog circuits guys.Dave did a video on the 2 channel version a long time back and, at the time, there wasn't going to be a 100 MHz version. Well, that's kind of true - the 2 channel version is only 200 MHz. I had been hoping for a 200 MHz 4 channel version in the price range of the DS1054Z. Alas, that's not going to happen. Yes, the SDS1204X-E 4 channel version has twice the bandwidth of the DS1054Z but it also costs twice as much.We'll just have to wait on reviews to see whether it is worth the extra cost. In the meantime, the DS1054Z is pretty well understood at this point.

author: Old Printer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2017, 11:40:41 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 05, 2017, 08:32:05 pmHave to pretty much agree. I have a Tek 475 & 2225 and an Analog Discovery2 that gives me pretty good coverage on the digital side, albeit at a very low BW. I am just a beginning hobbyist and don't know at this point where the BW will impact me. Right now I don't really need a dedicated DSO, so I can wait and see what is on the horizion. I am no Rigol fanboy, but it seems like Siglent just took half a swipe at the 1054Z. Will see what the reviewers say, I don't know enough on my own to make any calls yet.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 11:42:43 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 05, 2017, 05:13:34 pmWrong.Rigol have 500Msa/s simultaneously for 2 channels and 6M for both channels out from box. Option (or hacked) 12M for both ch.Siglent have 1Gsa/s simultaneously for 2 channels and 14M for both channels.This is because Siglent construction is 1ADC14M/2 + 1ADC14M/2 and Rigol construction is 1ADC12M/4 and hacked or purchased option 1ADC24M/4Using all 4 channels simultaneously onSiglent have 500MSa/s and 7M memory for all channels.Rigol Z have 250Msa/s and 3M memory for all channels (out from box) Hacked or purchased option it have 6M for all channels.And then, it is not only memory. (note also MSO simultaneous max 14M for every 16 channel)And more. There is always background working waveform history buffer. There is max over 100M if all 4 channels is in use.(example 1us/div 4 channels on and wfm length 7k. History buffer length is max 3912 waveforms. Just stop scope and you can see max 3912 previous waverforms captured with full resolution, full true ADC data and time stamps.Lets calculate 4x7000x3912 = 109Mpoints wfm data. And this works always in bacround.Other example. 50ns/div 4 channels on. One single wfm is 700pts. Buffer length is 4x700x29140 = 81MTHis history buffering it do all time. So, stop scope and look what just happend. Also every these wfm can measure with full resolution. All these wfm use for analyze with FFT or do other math. THis history works just behind and just with current wfm/s speed.Other thing is fast sequence. In fast sequence mode it use just this history buffer and in this mode it can capture max 400kwfm/s speed. All these "segments" are just full acquisition resolution waveforms what cvan use just like also normal run bacround stored history buffer. For this there is same memory what in normal run background working wfm history buffer use if sequence mode is not in use.So, how is this memory question.And big difference is also. Rigol have 16k FFT, Siglent have 1M FFT what give superior resolution. It can try. take 60MHz signal, AM modulation, carrier level -10dBm and 1kHz modulation and 2% (yes two) modulation depth. Now take Rigol and look and measure these sidebands or try even find if they are there or not. Just, totally impossible and really far away, decades. With Siglent, still easy.Siglent 4 channel X-E models are also fully MSO ready. For using need buy this option license and probe.MSO LA have 16 digital channels max 1Gsa/s and max 14M / channelSiglent 4 channel models have also max 500 points Bode Plot out from box. For use it need external Siglent AWG and for BP, scope take full control of AWG. Depending available Siglent AWG it can do BP up to 120MHz.ok, lets run 1ms/div and 1Gsa/s (in Siglent, 14M memory length)Input 12ns risetime and 30ns fall time 50ns pulses every 1msTurn measurements on. Ask rise and fall time and pulse width from Rigol...Then open zoom window and zoom for 1ns/div for look this rising edge. Oh, with Rigol you can not, only 5ns/divor is it even possible from 1ms/div to 5ns.Now look zoom window trigger jitter. I do not know Rigol but Siglent well under 100ps. Oh well but with 5ns/div in Rigol perhaps impossible to even check.Price is different but performance and features - far more different.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 01:03:04 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on December 06, 2017, 11:42:43 amNobody's arguing details like that.(although Siglent fans should realize that a lot of Rigol userssimply don't care because they never use that)Quote from: rf-loop on December 06, 2017, 11:42:43 amStill no argument, but:a) Don't care.b) All extra money.Quote from: rf-loop on December 06, 2017, 11:42:43 amI think you exaggerate the difference that those paper numbers will equate to in real life use and most of them won't even be relevant to the Arduino hobby-hackers that are the main target of 4-channel oscilloscopes at this price point.Edit: To be honest I see the Siglent 200Mhz model as the interesting model of the lineup. Yes it's $760 but $760 for a decent 200MHz, 4 channel 'scope is something outstanding/new. If you've got excess arguing-energy then why not pop over to the Keysight threads and pick a real fight instead of bullying scopes which are almost half your price?As I see it the only way the 100MHz model would be a must-buy for everybody would be if it could easily be hacked to 200MHz.Thatwould be something.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 02:05:31 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 06, 2017, 01:03:04 pmFungus, to be perfectly honest you are the bully here. The thread is about Siglent and you came with an absurd statement saying the upper 200MHz scope has the same bandwidth as the 100MHz Rigol and then dismissed the excellent comparison topics posted by rf-loop. Take the backlash with grace.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 02:30:26 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 06, 2017, 01:03:04 pmAnd now you forget this main thing what was that you lie about sampling rate. Not even apologies.Just lie and after then it was corrected you forget it somehow.Oh, you have not argumented other things.QuoteExact same sample rate. This is simple full lie.But more memory. Only partially true. More memory in ONE case: One channel in use and oscilloscope have purchased memory option or get it using hack. In this case it have 24M for this single channel. This IS more than Siglent. For two channel on, Siglent have 14M for both, hacked Rigol 12. Four channel hacked or purchased option Rigol 6+6+6+6 and Siglent out from box 7+7+7+7.Then you use term "etc" but then when I take even small part of some small simple details about these "etc" things your result is: "Nobody's arguing details like that."I have never seen this level of total closed eyes bias or perhaps not bias, more like blind fall in love.Of course Siglent price is more high. It must be.Alone 500uV/div full BW full resolution for 4 channels is enough for this price difference when compare to Rigol 5mV/div front end. This amount of more real performance and only 32 eur / channel if look Rigol christmas offer price in europe and including VAT.But, if can not use more than Rigol price and need four channel but performance is not so important, still Rigol is good choice. With Rigol lowest price today, can not get its features from any other scope. It is good choice if need 4 channel and if can not use any more money than it need. Bit more money and get lot of higher level tool. But it need still remember. These all are still bottom level scopes if we start look whole oscilloscopes class. With 20 or 50 times more money can get The Oscilloscope and if use more, perhaps can get some state of art scope.

author: imidis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 02:31:45 pm
content: I think the new four channel scopes coming out is interesting and it will make a big difference if the 100mhz was hackable to 200. I think it will take some time for it to get fleshed out and see what unfolds. As with anything some features/funcions are more or less important between people. We can all get along.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 02:49:21 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on December 06, 2017, 02:05:31 pmRF-loop bites way too easy. I'm surprised he didn't mention full speed mask testing as the must-have feature which nobody uses. The reps from Keysight, R&S and Tektronix who visit this forum handle things much better.Also his comparisons are very much biased towards making Siglent's products look better which leaves room for others to point that out. Also just comparing 'on paper' specs may not match the reality.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 03:10:56 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 06, 2017, 02:49:21 pmI would say the opposite is the same; the oscilloscope rage wars here are quite infamous. tggzzz puts it nicelyhere.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 03:44:05 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on December 06, 2017, 02:05:31 pmNo I didn't. I can count. Why would I imply a 100Mhz 'scope has the same Bandwidth as a 200MHz 'scope?What actually might have happened is that I didn't realize we'd given up on the 100MHz model and were now comparing the $350 Rigol to the $760 Siglent.Silly me. It should have been obvious. Post corrected.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 08:18:43 pm
content: I don't think $759 for the 4 channel 200 MHz variant is a show stopper. At least in my case... I am thinking to buy the scope and compare it with the DS1054Z. Maybe I sell one of them, maybe I don't. The money itself is not a really big factor.What I would like to see is a head-to-head review something like what Dave was talking about. Yes, the Siglent 200 MHz 4 channel variant will have more bandwidth and blow the doors off the Rigol. Put that aside and compare everything else. FFT, Bode' (once sided comparison), UI, other features (that I probably don't really need but experts might). Stuff some signals in the ports and see how they work. A comparison of the 4 channel 100 MHz variant would be interesting but boring. There is already a 4 channel 100 MHz scope on the market and it's pretty well understood. The Siglent maybe not so much. Side issue: Who has faster response to firmware glitches?The comparison has to convince me that there is a reason to spend the money. Besides bandwidth.Sure, if I had $30 or 40k to spend I could get a pretty decent scope. Not top-of-the-line but decent. There is no way in the world I'm going to spend that much money on a hobby. Out of the question. But $759? Maybe...

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 09:09:11 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 06, 2017, 03:44:05 pmWell, if that is the case I don't know what you were drinking/thinking/eating when you quoted the last line of rstofer's post where he explicitly mentions the 200MHz version.Quote from: Fungus on December 05, 2017, 05:13:34 pmOh well... Moving on with the normal programming.Quote from: rstofer on December 06, 2017, 08:18:43 pmI also find it reasonable, especially when compared to the DS2000 from Rigol. Quite impressive if other specs are good as well.Quote from: rstofer on December 06, 2017, 08:18:43 pmIt never hurts tomake an offer.If I wasn't strapped this year I would certainly try.(edit) added details for clarity sake

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 09:13:21 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 06, 2017, 08:18:43 pmI think it's the most interesting model in the lineup.A semi-decent, 200 MHz, 4-channel oscilloscope for $759 is a bit of a game changer. I'm amazed everybody's focusing on the 100Mhz model.Quote from: rsjsouza on December 06, 2017, 09:09:11 pmRigol DS2000 is only 2 channel.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2017, 10:09:54 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 06, 2017, 09:13:21 pmThat's his point, DS2000 is 2 channel and for the same price you can get a 4-channel siglent, making it an impressive price.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2017, 11:26:22 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 06, 2017, 09:13:21 pmCan you explain why you are amazed?Only difference is analog front end before ADC. This part have have more wide frequency bandwidth and there is no any other differencies.Do you perhaps think that more analog BW is always better.With 100MHz BW this scope have 500Msa/s for all channels simultaneously. fNyquist/BWcorner = 2.5Also for 3.5ns risetime it have around 1.75 samples.Oscilloscope is made for characterize unknown signal what may have what ever frequency components.We can be quite sure that with 100MHz BWcorner frequency it attenuate well all frequency components what go over fNyquist what is 250MHz. And as we know Sinc interpolation in practice (as thumb rule) need that we stay under around fNyquist/x where x is something between 1.1 and 1.3 depending used Sinc interpolation performance. (1.25 is good thumb rule)Also 200MHz BW is more noisy than 100MHz. If typically need 100MHz max why want more noise just for "it is nice to have more BW".200MHz BW is quite borderline for 500Msa/s. It is just barely enough if we have 200MHz sinewave or if it is something else it must not have any meaningful amount over 250MHz components. 200MHz nominal BW means that front end with gaussian type shape do not attenuate well frequencies over fNyquist what may lead many kind of errors in measurements.I will recommend 100MHz model until there is reason for 200MHz and user also know some limits with 200MHz in some situations.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2017, 11:38:39 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on December 07, 2017, 11:26:22 amYou seem to already know.Quote from: rf-loop on December 07, 2017, 11:26:22 ama) We're assured that Siglent doeseverythingcorrectly so 2.5 times is enough.Quote from: rf-loop on December 07, 2017, 11:26:22 amb) You're allowed to switch channels off when you want to have a really good look at something. It willdoubleall those numbers.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2017, 06:13:16 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on December 07, 2017, 11:26:22 amWhere this reasoning breaks is where harmonics are always a multiple of the fundamental frequency. So a 200MHz signal's first harmonic will be at 300MHz which is well beyond the input filter cutt-off frequency and as an extra bonus the probes together with what is driving the signal will attenuate the harmonics even further. Harmonic distortion is way overblown. Besides that the analog front-end / ADC chips used in this scope (and many others!) are extremely low noise so having 100MHz versus 200MHz makes no difference in noise levels.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2017, 07:11:00 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 07, 2017, 06:13:16 pmNice example how you selective pick-up and then comment without original context.QuoteNNC

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2017, 07:55:36 pm
content: Yes, but even an unknown signal will have to comply with the laws of physics and thus have harmonics which are a multiple of the fundamental frequency. So in reality there are only very few signals which actually produce visual aliasing artefacts because those signals will need to be in a sweetspot where their harmonics are right in the (small) frequency band where signal reconstruction doesn't work very well. But even then the displayed signal will be within the oscilloscope's specifications because the harmonics are beyond the bandwidth anyway so there is no problem.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2017, 08:36:41 pm
content: Could the zealots please stop it with the "hur this scope can do so much more than the DS054Z it's amazeballs you can't even compare them" versus "it's no contest the DS1054 does pretty much the same and costs a lot less and the Siglent is sooo expensive".We know. We fucking know. You've told us. A hundred times.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2017, 12:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on December 07, 2017, 08:36:41 pmThey started it.

author: jgalak
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2017, 01:21:13 am
content: What I want to know is whether the SDS1104X is hackable to 200MHz....

author: kelchm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 04:18:08 pm
content: Ended up picking up the SDS1104X-E as my first oscilloscope. I went back and forth between this and the Rigol 1054Z, but I think I made the right decision.Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk