Siglent SDG5082 any good? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2013, 09:52:07 am
content: It seems Siglent has come up with a new series of AWGs (SDG5000) with 80MHz (SDG5082), 120MHz (SDG5122) and 160MHz (SDG5162). They offer 500MSa/s, 14bit and 2ppm stability which doesn't sound bad. I wonder if the SDG5000 suffers from the same jitter issue as some SDG1000 do, but if not it then this might be a decent AWG for my home lab.The SDG5000 is already offered on ebay, albeit only from Chinese sellers, so I guess they must be out in the wild already. Did anyone here had a chance to play with one of these AWGs?And can anyone recommend a reseller in the EU who ships to the UK and offers decent pricing for Siglent stuff?

author: KMSL
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 20, 2013, 05:10:33 pm
content: Any EU Dealer:Bulgariahttps://www.rtelecom.net/product/175/waveform-generator-80mhz-siglent-sdg5082.htmlSpain (expensive)http://hameg.es/index.php/generadores-de-funciones/sdg5000-detail

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2013, 07:03:35 pm
content: I'm interested in these, I've seen a UK seller on-line for £550, the specs offer the first sub £600 useful arbitrary waveform generator (a decent squarewave, pulse, rise/fall time and arb frequency capability)Everything preceding it including the Rigol DG1022 has poor frequency specs once you get past the headline sinewave figure.I think Siglent are ODM's for LeCroy, and when I can justify using it more (or when the price drops below £400 I will certainly be getting one)It seems to me as if the vast majority of buyers don't know that these various 1000 series models from China and elsewhere have been superseded, I'd like Siglent to drop Dave a call and send one, as the marketing for these in the west is clearly very poor.I've been looking for something 2nd hand for months, but this is the closest thing to what I want for a fair price by miles.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2013, 08:48:37 pm
content: Quote from: maiakaat on April 28, 2013, 07:03:35 pmMind to share which seller this is? So far I've only seen sellers from China with that price, and they usually charge another £50 for shipping on top of it.QuoteYes, for their low end stuff. The LeCroy WaveAce scopes and the WaveStation 2000 are rebadged Siglent devices, and the firmware comes from Siglent, too. The LeCroy counterparts also suffer from the same flaws and problems the original Siglent devices do (especially the WaveAce scopes are really bad). It's way below par on what one would expect from LeCroy, especially considering that the LeCroy badge and a different case color cost more than three times as much as the Siglent originals.The good LeCroy stuff is either made by them or by Iwatsu (which is ODM for the WaveJet Series).The Siglent SDG5082 looks interesting spec-wise, but I am a bit worried about their quality control (which is very poor), and quite frankly it's not too much cheaper than the Rigol DG4062 which unlike the Siglent comes with LAN, too.

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2013, 02:03:36 pm
content: http://www.tester.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=siglentI can't verify the seller, or the location, so this would need to be investigated.The Chinese sellers on Ebay are still nearly £100 cheaper when you factor in shipping, and some offer to quote the actual value as lower, but this seller asks £550 (with VAT), and that is quite a bit cheaper than the Rigol from within the UK, the DG4102, the equivalent overall - although it still has an inferior spec rise time, is £850 with VAT, so it's nowhere near.I saw a video on the older models by Siglent, and they used premium parts and it looked well made to me, its probably the only unproven/semi-proven Chinese brand I would buy, I see them as an early Rigol.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2013, 04:05:40 pm
content: Quote from: maiakaat on April 29, 2013, 02:03:36 pmThat's indeed a good price for an UK-based seller.QuoteI don't know what you mean with 'premium parts' but I do have the previous model (SDG1000) and I can assure you that, while the quality is ok for that price (~£220), the part that are used are cheap generic components and a set of cheap capacitors, which is what one would expect for that price range. You certainly won't any hand selected super low tolerance components in generators of this price range.In addition, it seems the SDG5000 uses the same crap PC software as the SDG1000.

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2013, 07:21:12 am
content: I watched a video on youtube and all of the semiconductors were brand name, I didn't pay attention to the capacitors, but it genuinely looked as if they had gone for relative quality.I wouldn't buy anything else they sell, certainly not the older products or their scopes, but this looks like they are worth the money to me if you can't afford £850Bearing in mind this video is for older parts, and that the new model seems to go for a higher quality spec (7ns rise time and genuinely usable square and arb generators is a significant improvement for me)

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2013, 03:44:59 pm
content: Quote from: maiakaat on April 30, 2013, 07:21:12 amSemiconductors will always be brand name as the manufacturing process is very complicated, so it's obvious why you will find them in these cheap generators.What's more important however are peripheral components like capacitors, quality of soldering, construction of the housing, cabling, etc.QuoteThat's an SDG1020, exactly the model I have.QuoteIt's not really a new model, but a larger model. The SDG1020 (which is still sold and produced) covers 5MHz to 50MHz, the SDG5000 covers 80MHz to 160MHz. Of course it has a better spec as it is supposed to support a much higher frequency band.I'm positive that the general build quality is acceptable considering the (for such a device) very low price, but I wouldn't expect any wonders. And Siglent's quality control is somewhere between sloppy to non-existent, so it might well be that the SDG5000 will again suffer from some design problem (some of the SDG1000 generators do).Nevertheless, it looks like an interesting device, but I'd wait for someone else to take the plunge and do a thorough review first.

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2013, 04:12:33 pm
content: Yeah, I lost an auction for a HP 8165 with option 002 at about £140, but new and used equipment seems to offer really poor value generally below about £600.Since moving the electronics to somewhere with more space I haven't really used them enough to justify the outlay on a signal gen with decent performance for digital applications, so I don't think I'll be buying the signal generator soon.I've got some cheap AD9850 boards to play with in the meantime as and when I get back into it a little, hopefully the Siglent will either be reviewed or prices will have come down.I'm hoping that Siglent have taken a step forward with quality and design, time will tell I guess

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 01:23:54 pm
content: Siglent sent some new information on the SDG-5000 series, on the pulse gen, and indicated they would be willing to send a unit to Dave I think, to increase exposure.I've attached the doc

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 04:14:30 pm
content: Quote from: maiakaat on April 30, 2013, 04:12:33 pmI wouldn't say it offers poor value, at the end of the day it depends on what you need. For example, the Siglent SDG1020 I have is quite acceptable for a £220 device after I fixed the terrible jitter issue. And the build quality is admittedly quite good.But I agree to some extent regarding used equipment offering poor value below £600, but this is mainly because as long as a familiar name like 'HP', 'Agilent' or 'Tektronix' is written on it then people bid like mad even for very old low end devices from these manufacturers. 2nd hand prices for midrange and high end devices are often better, as these devices generally deprecate faster, so often you can get a high end device for roughly the same price as the low end device.QuoteI doubt prices will come down, as they are already very good for 60+MHz AWGs.

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 04:39:34 pm
content: I think the Rigol DG1022 and the Siglent's offer pretty good value, but the limitations on non-sine waveforms means they are not really adequate for me in the longer term, so I may as well double the money and try to get a good value item in the higher price range.If the new Siglent can get some reviews I will likely take the plunge as long as an approved distributor doesn't add more than £200 to the import price of around £450 (leaving £100 tax and £100 distributor revenue)I don't know if Dave reads these types of threads, if he would be willing to talk to Siglent, I've made the suggestion to them anything else would be inappropriate now probably.They take 3-5 days to respond to email.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 13, 2013, 12:32:57 pm
content: Siglent have contacted me and want to send a SDG5000 directly.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2013, 03:06:52 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 13, 2013, 12:32:57 pmNice! Hopefully this thing is a bit more mature than the SDG1000.

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2013, 05:33:34 pm
content: It'd be cool to see it looked at on EEVBlog, I hope you don't mind that I put the suggestion to them, it looks impressive on paper.

author: PA4TIM
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2013, 06:59:45 pm
content: Nice possibilities but what about performance on paper.Dave I hope you will test those sort of things in a review before you take it apart. You have the gear and knowledge, most potential buyers have notSpecs tell how great it is but often without numbers. (like very stable timebase, >= 6ns Tr ( < is normaly used , > is weird).Most specs that matter are stated " typical" a figure for 80% of the production and only at 23 degrees, but that 80% is also not garanteed.2ppm frequency accuracy ( this is 80 Hz at 80MHz) but no specs for the counter are given. They state 6 bit/s but I do not understand that means.and a tempco of 2ppm/CPhase noise -116dBc/Hz at 100 kHz !! (isn't this a rather useless figure regarding the 100 kHz ?.) and only in SSB (A Hameg hmf2550 has -115dBc/Hz at 10 kHz)Harmonic distortion is rather high (0,2% and only stated upto 20 kHz) (hameg has 0,04% upto 100 kHz)spurious and harmonics for higher frequency is not bad for a FG but rather high for RF use. (-36dBc > 10MHz and -30 dBc above 100MHz)Squarwave 50% dutycycle but 1% +/- 5ns typical. That is rather bad. Better use the pulse function to make a squarewave Tr = < 8ns and that is not real bad, the pulser is a bit faster with 6nS but they say better as many professional more expensive pulsgenerators. My ancient Philips 100 MHz pulsegenerator is < 3ns and I have several even faster pulse generators. But again 6 ns is not bad.Jitter is 100 ps, that is good but to bad only typical. (and 2 ns !! in AWG mode)Amplitude. 10Vpp in 50 Ohm upto 40 MHz is not very high but usefull and most modern generators are handicaped in that areabut above 40 MHz it drops from 5Vpp down to 1.5Vpp. If that is a problem depends on the use. For RF you do not need much more as +10dBm most times and 1,5Vpp is 0.53Vrms so 5.6mW in 50 ohm and that is +7,5 dBm.vertical accuracy is 1%. so +/- 100 mVpp at 10Vpp. Not impressive but useable.The sync out and trigger out are more for show (1 and 2 MHz max)This are just specs, I do not care about specs/dollar. Something is good or it is not and if it is not, but you do not care for that certain spec and like the price, it is OK for you but general speaking still bad. I do not expect a cheap generator to be as good as an very expensive R&S or Agilent but I do not like the to much used saying " it is good considering its price" or " bang for buck" Those who can read data and spec sheets can see themselve but many review viewers can not so they only hear the " it is good" part.How I liker to see it: Tell how it is, compare it to a reference and then let everybody decide for them selve if they can live with that.(Dave, I like your reviews this is ment as a possitive comment and general speaking because a lot of reviews here are not made by you and often just show an instrument, tell it is great but not a single test about how great. I thought back then, my first homebuild generator was great too ;-) ).

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2013, 07:47:43 pm
content: Quote from: PA4TIM on May 13, 2013, 06:59:45 pmTiny sidenote.lt is not 0.2% it is <0.2%in specs it is same as SDG1000 series: DC~20kHz,1Vpp<0.2%some amount off topic but becouse SDG5000 is same family as SDG1000.I have measured SDG1010,1020 and 1025it looks like they have <0.03 - <0.1% THD between 20Hz - 20kHz. (1Vpp)Measured with Keithley 2015THD. With some reason this Keithley THD have limits 20Hz - 20kHz.

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2013, 08:27:33 pm
content: Looking at the specs it seems to be very closely based on the Rigol DG4000 series but going a little better on specs. In particular the approach of having different amplitudes for different frequency ranges which Rigol started (previously specs tended to be 10Vpp for whatever bandwidth the generator was designed for - Rigol was clever enough to spot that they could have much higher headline frequency specs as long as they reduced the amplifier gain for the higher frequency ranges).Though the Siglent goes to 40MHz at 10Vpp while the Rigol DG4000 series only goes to 20MHz at this level.The 2ns max jitter for the arb is just one clock tick of the 500MS/s DAC.They have also gone quite a bit up on memory on one channel 512k vs 16k.It would be good if the same sort of tests could be done have been done by AndyC_772 on this thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/250-mhz-out-of-a-rigol-dg4102-a-100-mhz-waveform-generator/By using the arb the actual frequency response can be seen (for sin and other outputs the droop with frequency is compensated by calibration (pre-distortion)).Edit: I've just gone through the specs side-by-side with the Rigol specs and there is a very close correlation (normally it is hard to compare specs because they are given differently between manufacturers) - it seems that Siglent has produced a Rigol clone with some improvements (more arb memory on one channel and greater bandwidth at 10Vpp output) at the cost of more distortion. Jitter is a bit mixed with a claimed typical rms of only 100psecs but then 2nsecs on arb.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2013, 10:58:15 am
content: Quote from: jpb on May 13, 2013, 08:27:33 pm(1)Do you think there "pre-distortion" what ever it is?But if you mean that there is some kind of flatness correction curve (or table) for keep level constant over frequency band - do you know there is it.SDG5000 service manual do not explain it in calibration section.(2) what clone? What part of equipment is cloned? Have you compared these?Perhaps Nissan is cloned MB becouse both model what I look have same highest speed and both have same size of tyres and same volume in motor. But this is not "cloning" in any meaning.Learning from others... it need do. It really need do. I know many companies (also big names) they buy competitors units as fast as new model is available and they start more or less heavy work for inpections. How many Tektronix or Lecroy and others example former HP have dismantled in they lab.There is also some rouhg drawings in "service" manual about internals... have you compared Rigol service manual. Where is similarities?Overall this is very pity that big names take this practice that many datasheet important things are told RMS. This is really bad becouse no one know what rules they use for measure it. Some common "good practice" fake standards or really some own solution for it. Is it ok just becouse "big names" do this trick. Of course all follow them, exept if manufacturer is "stupid honest" and then they suffer more "bad specifications. But, chinese learn fast... also bad things.Now someone tell that it is "normal practice" or normal "standard" to tell just this.Then I ask who have selected this for use and why they did not select example p-p value inside 100 second time interval. Or somethin or both together.Then if there is flatness setup in calibration memory, as in many expensive RF generators, why it not used for correct this what can see in table (attachment)But, soon I can test some things with this model in real life with my own eyes and tools. Before it, I can not know anything if it is fish or bird.(I do not know if there is flatness cotrreection table or not but my suspect is that there is not.)Here service manual "Frequency response verification"Can we compare this "clone" to Rigol service manual?

author: maiakaat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2013, 03:18:41 pm
content: How do these new signal generators compare with generatorssuch as the current TTI TG10xx arbitrary generators, or Hameg and HP's slightly older DDS generators? As these seem to cost much more.Do they all have their own strengths and weaknesses, or do the frequency TTI/HP/Hamaeg units offer much higher quality for general use?I'm finding it hard to see how they can compete with the prices/

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2013, 03:40:14 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on May 17, 2013, 10:58:15 am"pre-distortion" is just the term Agilent use, and I think many function generators apply, certainly to sine waves, to allow for the frequency dependence of the image reject filter.I'd be surprised if Siglent don't use it, Agilent do and so do Rigol. I think it generally applies to signals with more than one harmonic (e.g. square waves) but I was loosely applying it to increasing the sine amplitude at higher frequencies to allow for the greater loss of the filter (or lower gain of the amplifier). Rigol don't mention it in their manual but if you look at the experiments done by Andy_722 on this forum with sin waves using the arb the output droops much more than the built-in sin waves do - clearly the built-in ones are suitably compensated to give good flatness.By "clone" all I meant was their specs and features very closely match the Rigol, the specs are given under the same conditions and nearly in the same order as those given in the Rigol data sheet. Perhaps Siglent came first but I don't think it did. I'm not suggesting the internal circuit has been copied directly, it obviously hasn't because bandwidths are different and the Siglent has more memory on one channel. I've been comparing a lot of data sheets recently as I'm looking to buy a function/arb generator and normally they are all very different and difficult to directly compare. In contrast the Siglent one and the Rigol one match very closely. This suggests that the architecture of the two instruments is very similar, though this is not surprising as all such DDS generators will have a similar architecture.The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a clone (applied to technology) is"Something thing produced in imitation of, or closely resembling, another; esp. a microcomputer designed to simulate the functions of another (usu. more expensive) model."It doesn't mean that internal circuitry is directly copied, rather it is the functionality. Given that the Siglent has the same family of three generators, takes the same approach of allowing higher frequencies but at lower amplitudes split into the same number of divisions and generally matches most of the features (or goes a bit better on some) it is not unreasonable to call it a clone.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2013, 04:02:25 pm
content: Quote from: jpb on May 17, 2013, 03:40:14 pmSorry I was just loosy thinking (related to amplitude flatness/freq response) that you perhaps think flatness correction. Or perhaps I have worked now too much with some RF gens and all in head are these things.Now it is clear, linearisation, yes perhaps use something like it but no information can find.Frequency response adjustment (what is other thing) procedure is there."Frequency Response Adjustment which could properly compensate theamplitude as the frequency increases."(it is made by power meter (Agilent U2004), SDG + PC Siglent EasyTest software.)And of course I will look some things like Andy_722 after it arrive and I have appropriate time to arrange some tests.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 11:06:41 am
content: If someone want specify some special test for SDG5082 I will try after I get if for tests.Most tests what I will do are related to signal quality.I will collect some "wish" list for tests but please try also specify what and how to test. I will try if I have test equipments for it.

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 11:21:39 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on May 25, 2013, 11:06:41 amAn interesting test is to put some sine curves into the arbitrary data and run frequency sweeps at different amplitudes. As was done for the Rigol.Because the generator doesn't know it is a sin curve it can't compensate so you get to see the true frequency response. With the Rigol it switches gains (I think) at different amplitudes so that the flatness is very different between 4.0Vpp (50ohms) and 4.1Vpp (50ohms) I think (I may have those figures wrong).So what I'd like to see is an arbitrary wave form of 10 sin curves run as a frequency sweep with the amplitude set at 1Vpp, 2Vpp, 4Vpp, 8Vpp or what ever makes sense from the specs.see this thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/250-mhz-out-of-a-rigol-dg4102-a-100-mhz-waveform-generator/msg220649/#msg220649

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 11:38:24 am
content: As a postscript to my last post -Another test I'd like to see would be square waves both the standard ones and ones using the arbitrary waveform.In particular some at maximum amplitude as well as at lower amplitudes to see how the overshoot and rise times change. Though I guess you'll have to set a low duty cycle to protectthe scope if you're using a 50 ohm input.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 12:14:54 pm
content: Quote from: jpb on May 26, 2013, 11:38:24 amIf need I can use enough big power feed thru 50ohm RF "dummy load". (high power attenuator)

author: Siglent
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2013, 03:07:05 am
content: There is an Easypulse introduction about the SDG5000: