Is Rigol DS1054Z still a good option in 2019? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Sudo_apt-get_install_yum
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 02:16:00 pm
content: Hi everyone!I’m looking into getting a basic oscilloscope. I’ve been using the Siglent SDS2304X at work and its great but I’m heading back to school to finish of my studies and think it would be overkill for my private/school use.I’ll be using the scope for debugging low speed analog signals and digital protocols/ communication.I need a 4-channel scope mostly when debugging protocols and mainly never use more than 2-channels for just analog use.If I ever need more digital channels (Witch is rare) then I’ll just my knockoff Salea logic analyzer.I’m planning on using Sigrok's PulseView for the digital debugging.I’ve been looking in the huge thread of oscilloscopes (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/digital-oscilloscope-comparison-chart/) and it seems like the Rigol DS1054Z + unlock is the cheapest and best option.Got any other recommendations or is this still the way to go for budget oscilloscopes.I just wanted to hear other opinions before I purchase the scope.Thank in advanced!Below are the oscilloscopes from the sub 500$ category with 4-analog channels!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 03:10:25 pm
content: The DS1054Z is still a great choice.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 04:26:56 pm
content: Quote from: Sudo_apt-get_install_yum on July 30, 2019, 02:16:00 pmAs you're already familiar with Siglent's UI I'd recommend you you stick with them as it will save you a bundle of time learning a new UI. The SDS1104X-E is very similar to SDS2304X use in so many ways however the little X-E is more capable and powerful in many respects too.Yes I've owned and used both and while I miss some things the 2304X had, the little X-E has many updated features the bigger 2kX scope hasn't.The only thing you'll have to adapt to with a X-E is the multiplexed vertical controls and if you're anything like me dreaded the thought of using them but I very quickly adapted and far more easily than I had imagined.Just how the channel select buttons and the shared control interact has been worked out very well so that you can adapt pretty quickly.Good luck with your choice and further studies.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 04:38:20 pm
content: Multiplexed controls versus single channel controls makes a lot of difference. You can get used to it but having two scopes with different operating styles isn't going to be comfortable. From the list only the GW Instek GDS1000B has individual channel controls (and it can be found for less money than shown in the comparison).

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2019, 05:21:49 am
content: As you can see: They all have their fan clubs. (Apart from the Rigol "Plus" - don't get that one!)None will disappoint, all show wiggly lines on screen just fine, all have similar bang per buck in real terms.Where do you stop going up in price...? Obviously the Siglent is better but it's also about 50% more expensive and above the Siglent there's something even better. It's turtles all the way up.You can have a really nice multimeter or soldering iron with the difference between the Rigol and Siglent though.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 01:21:00 am
content: As for the DS1054Z vs the SDS1104X-E, I have them both. They both work fine, especially at their price points, but neither is perfect. Most of the things that are compared are relatively minor nuisance issues for me--for example, the Rigol has measurement buttons that make it quick and easy to select measurements, but I think the measurements on the 1104X-E actually work better overall. The Rigol is a little noisier at the lowest levels, but the difference isn't that huge--the Siglent is half as noisy at best and this really hasn't been an issue. Etc, etc. They both have their quirks, but both are very handy. The only quirk I worry about is that the Rigol has some issues about what it is actually displaying and how it is interpolating that I don't understand--this has been discussed elsewhere.One of the big differences is that the FFT on the Rigol is joke quality (both the function and the UI) while the one on the Siglent actually works pretty well and is decently configurable. Some others are:The Siglent has max sweep rate of 1ns/div while the Rigol is 5ns/div.The Siglent is hackable to beyond 200 MHz (and has twice the sampling rate with more than one channel), the Rigol, however, is much easier to hack.The Siglent has a Bode plot function that may be useful or interesting.The Siglent has more usable screen area.There are more differences and I'm probably forgetting some major ones.All in all the Siglent is more scope for more money. I can't think of anything that the Rigol does that the Siglent doesn't, or anything significant that it does better. But, the Siglent is 50% more at today's prices.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 08:50:41 am
content: Sudo,Like Fungus said:If you have only 339€+VAT, go for the DS1054Z. If you have 429€+VAT, go for the SDS1104X-E.It's that simple!

author: vinlove
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 09:13:56 am
content: I don't own 1054Z, but I recall someone on the forum saying that he has been using 1054Z in his work, and he doesn't like it, because display is sluggish.He rather prefers DS1052E for fast display and quick processing.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 09:21:12 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on August 01, 2019, 01:21:00 amThis.Dismiss any idea that the Siglent is "perfect", it has issues too.Quote from: bdunham7 on August 01, 2019, 01:21:00 amIt's not difficult to understand it's just that the Rigol-hater-club that inhabits this forum tries to exaggerate it beyond all reason and the details get lost.Some oscilloscopes have the option to turn off sin(x)/x signal reconstruction. Not all of them do (most expensive ones don't!) because it makes no sense to do so. It's a fundamental part of signal reconstruction and drawing the wiggly lines on screen.The Rigol does have it but it only appears when you turn on more than two channels enabled and it's sampling at 250Mhz. It's greyed out at all other times because the sample rate isn't anywhere near the Nyquist limit so sin(x)/x is the correct thing to do.What the Rigol-hater club discovered is that when you turn sin(x)/x "Off", it doesn't really turn off. Instead it changes to a "Rigol interpolation".We don't know the exact math of this interpolation, hence the FUD. The only 'issue' is that it's not what the OCD types think "sin(x)/x turned off" ought to be.(note: Nowhere is it written what "sin(x)/x turned off"shouldbe, it's undefined, it's an error condition...)OTOH we can see that Rigols' mystery interpolation reduces the Gibbs Phenomenon when you're on the limit, ie. it'sbetterthan sin(x)/x when you're on the Nyquist limit.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 09:33:00 am
content: Quote from: vinlove on August 01, 2019, 09:13:56 ama) "Display is sluggish" is a lie, the display is just fine.b) It's true that the vertical position control (andonlythe vertical position control) is a bit sluggish but in daily use it turns out to be a superficial, "First world" problem that doesn't affect work at all.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 10:51:05 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 01, 2019, 09:33:00 amThe fun part is that almost all oscilloscopes are sluggish. The Keysights seem to be the only real exception due to doing most things in hardware.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 03:17:37 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 01, 2019, 09:21:12 amEase up on the "Rigol-hater" rhetoric. The issues are more complex than that. Interpolation is involved with triggering, as well as drawing your squiggly line. IMO, the Rigol does a really good job of generating a stable trigger overall--better in fact than any of my analog scopes except the 2465B, and excepting low signal levels where some of the analog scopes trigger cleanly on much lower signals.However, the issue I have, and which has been discussed endlessly elsewhere, is that the 'DOTS' mode displays dots which are not necessarily data samples. The whole point of wanting to eliminate interpolation is that sometimes you want to see the raw data that the scope is receiving so you have a better idea of what it actually knows and what it is 'reconstructing'. This is very important because the reconstruction theory depends on certain conditions being met--bandwidth limitations and so on--and sometimes there isn't an actual guarantee that they ARE met. I've seen some pretty bizarre results from this on and not just on contrived corner-case examples. I think it is a limitation, and more importantly, it isn't an obviously apparent one. Sometimes the dots are sample points--and sometimes they aren't. I'm not sure what it is doing and I haven't seen a clear explanation yet.None of this would stop me from buying the scope again if I needed to stay at that price point.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 05:31:52 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on August 01, 2019, 03:17:37 pmI'm not sure how looking at dots tells you anything though. It's like looking at the pixels in a zoomed image and telling me you know the detail in between them.Thecorrectthing to do would be turn off other channels and get 500MHz or 1GHz sample rate on the channel you're interested in. That way you move away from the Nyquist limit and see the true signal.Quote from: bdunham7 on August 01, 2019, 03:17:37 pmIt's perfectly possible that they aren't being met on a Rigol DS100Z. It has about 130MHz bandwidth and the sample rate drops to 250MHz when you turn all channels on.The Siglent SDS1204 has the exact same problem, it has about 280Mhz measured bandwidth and sample rate can drop to 500Mhz with all channels on - not enough to garantee the conditions required by signal theory.To beat this you have to go up in price, eg. The Rigol MSO5000 has 350MHz bandwidth and at least 2GHz sample rate per channel. It's never going to get anywhere close to Nyquist with that ratio.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2019, 05:54:25 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 01, 2019, 05:31:52 pmNo, I think we're on two different pages here. First, just to clarify, the "measured bandwidth" refers to approximately the 3db point. The 1054Z will cleanly trigger on and display a signal out to 400MHz, which is near what you call the "Nyquist limit", but that is when it is fed a clean 400MHz sine signal. Nyquist, however, requires that all of the input signal above the limit be attenuated below the noise level or it will show up folded back in (aliased). You can demonstrate this doesn't happen with the 1054Z by using 500MHz, 600MHz and 700MHz signals--try it if you can.I'm not referring to the sampling/bandwidth issue directly, I'm referring to interpolation sometimes being implausible. How do I know what is between the dots? I don't--and this is my point. I want to see the samples displayed directly with no interpolation or interpretation so that I understand what information the scope is working with. With complex or transient signals, the interpolation is just defective guesswork that I don't trust--and that is because I've seen it be wrong.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 01:10:46 am
content: In my opinion, the Siglent and the Instek are the best bang for buck and have a longer roadmap of updates as they are newer platforms, with an edge for the Siglent as the manufacturer actually supports and advertises the protocol decoding. The Instek can have these enabled via hacking, but the manufacturer does not have them as an option, which increases risk as they may simply vanish in a future update. You don't seem too worried about this, thus you should be fine with either.The independent controls for each channel are nice, but the shared controls can be learned and one develops some mechanical memory over time. I personally prefer the independent controls, but YMMV.The discussions above on very specific details about each one's preferred brand are common here. The same regular actors tend to turn each question into a battlefield of ideas, preferences, assumptions and guesses... Don't feel bad feeling your question started a war - it always happens around here!

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 04:47:28 am
content: Quote from: tv84 on August 01, 2019, 08:50:41 amThis ^^^ should be a sticky.But it probably wouldn't curb the recurrence of this topic every week (nor the battle that ensues shortly after each new thread is created).

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 05:04:37 am
content: Nope, the OP is already using a very capable Siglent at work and likely very familiar with it, it would be a mistake he would very likely regret selecting the lowest value 4ch DSO for his home use when the X-E that he has pondered about has a very very similar UI and even has some features its bigger brother has not.In particular X-E's later and faster processor allows for snappy operation, a bigger feature set and far better FFT.Without throwing more $ at the selection for home use, selection of an X-E is a total no-brainer, no contest choice for the OP.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 05:30:53 am
content: Not nope (unless I misunderstood to what your nope refers). The OP implied his budget was up to around $500. So, tv84's statement does not preclude getting an X-E (in fact, it's in support of it) unless the OP's budget is in reality too low to do so.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 10:38:12 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on August 01, 2019, 05:54:25 pmMy points were:a) Looking at the dots doesn't tell you anything. If you disagree then feel free to start a thread with screenshots and explanations. I'm sure a lot of signal theorists will be interested in techniques to reconstruct information above the sample rate.And ... much more importantly:b) The onlycorrectthing to do is to turn off a channel or two to get a higher sample rate on the channel of interest.nb. When you do this the Rigol DS1054Z willdisablethe option to turn off sin(x)/x, which indirectly proves the point being made.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 10:57:38 am
content: Quote from: bitseeker on August 02, 2019, 05:30:53 amSo? Maybe the OP would like a nice multimeter with his oscilloscope, or a decent soldering iron.(but only the OP knows that)If the Rigol meets his current needs then it meets his current needs. Period. No point in crossing your fingers and hoping that you won't ever need more than something which is only asinglestep up the ladder (lets not lose sight of that particular point).

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 03:26:40 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 02, 2019, 10:38:12 amI'm not referring to deselecting sin(x)/x at lower sampling rates. I'm talking about one channel, 1GSa/s and selecting 'DOTS' instead of 'VECTOR'. If it did what I expected, the dots would actually tell me a lot--not about additional magically interpolated information, but rather about how much information I actually had and how accurate it is. Anyway, we've hijacked a thread over something that has been hashed to death elsewhere. The 1054Z would be fine choice for the OP--unless he has more 'additional information' for us.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 05:45:42 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on August 02, 2019, 03:26:40 pmIf you have 1GSs/s on a 'scope with ~140Mhz analog bandwidth then it's probably moot.Quote from: bdunham7 on August 02, 2019, 03:26:40 pmYep.The usage case was :"....debugging low speed analog signals and digital protocols/ communication. I need a 4-channel scope mostly when debugging protocols and mainly never use more than 2-channels for just analog use. If I ever need more digital channels (Witch is rare) then I’ll just my knockoff Salea logic analyzer."The Rigol DS1054Z can do that.

author: Candid
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 05:57:41 pm
content: Quote from: Sudo_apt-get_install_yum on July 30, 2019, 02:16:00 pmNo other recommendation from me, I would too get the DS1054Z with this recommendations. The right decision from my point of view. You learned to use a Siglent, you should not have a problem in using a Rigol. It's like with a driving license.

author: voltsandjolts
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 06:38:52 pm
content: These type of threads somehow feel like politely asking for a pint at the bar, which then triggers a pub brawl

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 06:43:06 pm
content: Quote from: Candid on August 02, 2019, 05:57:41 pmBut the DS1054Z is very old and does have several drawbacks. For a little bit more you can buy a much better oscilloscope nowadays. Technology has moved on.

author: Old Printer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 07:56:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2019, 06:43:06 pmBravo. Rigol has clearly moved on from the 1054Z to the MSO5000. Siglent is activly developing the 1104x_E and supporting it with regular firmware updates. Sorry, as I bought the Siglent, I have not kept up on the GWS.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 09:07:15 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 02, 2019, 10:57:38 amSo, yes. His choice.

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 09:12:20 pm
content: We got three new young colleagues in the developement this year- And now we got three new DS1054Z...It was the first they´ve ordered.Sure, technology have moved on, but at this price…We also got a SDS1104X-E in the laboratory too, cost a little bit more but in my opinion, it´s also a little bit more "better", especially what FFT concerns or the really useful ( shame on rigol) enhanced resolution function.So I want to sign this too:Quote

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 10:47:10 pm
content: If I got a DS1054Z on my desk at a new job I'd quit the next day. If a company can't afford proper tools for me to maximize my productivity then I will seriously question if I ever get a raise. The best paying companies I have worked for had good (top notch) equipment.

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2019, 11:19:10 pm
content: Fault.They request it by themself, we got lecroy stuff at all.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 07:48:31 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2019, 06:43:06 pmSure, but:a) 50% more isn't "a little bit" if you're on a tight budget. 50% more will buy a nice multimeter or soldering station to go with your Rigol.b) The Siglent isn't a perfect utopia either (people seem to forget this one).If you can get the GW-Instek at a reasonable price then it beats the Siglent in everything except sample rate,andit has a much better/faster UI. It has separate channel controls, a separate button for menu selections (no pushing a twisty knob...). It's the one to go for after the Rigol if we're being 100% unbiased in these threads but weirdly enough it never seems to get a mention.Prices and availability vary wildly though.Quote from: Martin72 on August 02, 2019, 09:12:20 pmI'll add: But if you can get a GW-Instek for $429 then grab it as fast as possible!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 07:51:58 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2019, 10:47:10 pmYou don't know the job being done. If you start demanding top end equipment for basic tasks then I wouldn't want to hire you.It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

author: shschris
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 08:00:30 am
content: What about the Owon XDS3064E? Anyone on here have experience with that one? It’s $400 on Amazon right now

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 08:14:58 am
content: Quote from: shschris on August 03, 2019, 08:00:30 amNope.a) There arethreadsdiscussing it. If it was any good, we'd know.b) In these threads there's an assumption that 'scopes will be hacked to enable all features including bandwidth upgrades. Discussing 'scopes with no known hack is pointless, the value is too different.What Dave thinks of Owon:

author: Adrian_Arg.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 12:07:19 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 03, 2019, 07:51:58 amI totally agree with Fungus

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 01:10:26 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 03, 2019, 07:51:58 amThat is utter nonsense. That boils down to 'if you only have a hammer then everything looks like a nail'.Good tools improve productivity. It is a poor workman who can't get an optimal productivity from good tools or recognize better tools can improve efficiency.If I hire someone and they want a DS1054Z as a scope then I'd tell them no. It is time for you to use a real oscilloscope (likely something in the 1.5k to 4k euro range).

author: BillB
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 01:34:13 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 01:10:26 pmWhy stop there? Why not the 15k to 40k euro range, or perhaps 150k to 400k? I think the answer to that question is the answer to why some companies might need to make do in the 400 euro range.At my company, we have a wide variety of tasking. Some can be easily completed with low cost equipment, some cannot. If an associate engineer wanted to use a DS1054Z to perform quick,basic I2C decoding then why not? If he asked to use a DS1054Z to take critical measurement in a microwave RF circuit, then of course he'd be directed to use more appropriate equipment.While I agree in principle that high quality tools pay for themselves, sometimes the reality is that we can't afford them all the time.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 01:42:47 pm
content: No, but a reasonable business (in a Western country) should be able to afford an oscilloscope costing about a one month's cost of an engineer. Otherwise it is likely they can't afford the engineer in the first place.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 02:39:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 01:42:47 pm"We sure could do the job with this tool boss, but we simply wanted to spend more of your money than the problem required. I'm sure you understand."If there's anything I've learnt it's that horrible bosses insist on meddling with how you do a job, rather than assessing the result. Besides, I think it was in one of Dave's videos where we saw the ubiquitous cheap Korad power supplies being used in a billion dollar telescope installation. Maybe we should be write those people they're doing it wrong and should have been using a Keysight supply all along.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 03:29:16 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 01:10:26 pmRubbish. If your only job is nailing things down then you don't need a 500 piece socket set and an angle drinder.Any employee who asked for those should be turned down, it wouldn't increase their productivity and the money can be spent on something the will increase productivity elsewhere.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 03:32:05 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 03, 2019, 03:29:16 pmWell, that employee could ask for a nail gun for example and do the same job 10 times quicker compared to using a simple hammer.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 03:37:48 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 03:32:05 pmYes but a better FFT won't improve anything if my job doesn't involve FFTs.A Rigol DS1054Z shows wiggly lines on screen just fine.If a company has to invest in 100 Oscilloscopes then the difference in price isn't trivial. In your system you might end up with a fancy oscilloscope that you don't really need and a shitty chair.Me? I'll tell the boss I want to trade a worse oscilloscope for a better chair.

author: Candid
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 04:23:22 pm
content: Don't feed the troll and get back to the purpose of this thread.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 04:25:30 pm
content: Quote from: Candid on August 03, 2019, 04:23:22 pmI'm amazed how people who only work for infinitely rich companies feel entitled to post advice on buying cheap goods for home use.

author: BillB
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 05:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: Candid on August 03, 2019, 04:23:22 pmOne quick story, and then I promise I'll stop.One customer I work with has a full, high-end Keysight suite (must be at least $40K per engineer) of equipment for each engineer. On many visits, I've never seen any of it really used very much, even though they're all on, all the time, connected to nothing.One engineer used his spectrum analyzer to determine when the microwave oven in the break-area was free. I think he could probably have used a Rigol for the same job.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 05:09:23 pm
content: Quote from: BillB on August 03, 2019, 05:07:29 pmHehe.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 05:12:36 pm
content: Quote from: BillB on August 03, 2019, 05:07:29 pmThey definitely employ at least one real engineer.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 05:55:20 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 03, 2019, 03:37:48 pmWho is talking about FFT? How about a big screen? Better than 8 bit ADCs, remote control, proper support, quick repairs, solid firmware, etc, etc. I don't get the inefficient make-do attitude. You make live miserable at work and are wasting money by doing your job slower. In what world does that benefit anyone? I've had my fair share of shoe-string budget employers but in the end it just came down to messing around. The most succesful companies I have worked for had good test equipment and didn't skimp on equipment.QuoteI guess you never heard of financing/leasing equipment which is what large companies typically do.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:05:16 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2019, 06:01:21 pmThe biggest fool is that one who gives a good engineer 10 shillings instead of a pound.QuoteNonsense. At one of my customers they have a couple of Rigols and a Tektronix TBS2000. The Rigols sit idle and the TBS2000 gets used all the time.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:21:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 06:05:16 pmProving what? That they bought too many oscilloscopes? That that bought a Tek when a Rigol could do the job? What...?

author: BillB
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:37:49 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2019, 06:32:12 pmThey should have just bought the Siglent SDS1104X-E.I'll see myself out.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:39:04 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2019, 06:32:12 pmYep. It's obvious that if there's a table with a $350 Rigol + a $2000 Tek on it, I'm going to use the Tek. Why wouldn't I?OTOH I can still domyjob perfectly well if you take away the Tek.(YMMV).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:41:14 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 03, 2019, 06:21:50 pmI'll spell it out for you: nobody wants to use the Rigols because the TBS2000 is just more convenient to use. Bigger screen, crisp traces and individual channel controls.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:42:05 pm
content: Quote from: BillB on August 03, 2019, 06:37:49 pmntnico already admitted that the Siglent isn't a "real oscilloscope".Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 01:10:26 pm

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:48:05 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 06:41:14 pmSo? If there were three cars in the company lot, two Ford Fiestas and a BMW, I bet the BMW would rack up more mileage.That doesn't tell us anything at all about the Fiestas though. If you're just popping out for lunch they'll get you there and back just fine.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 06:49:58 pm
content: Quote from: Vaiti on August 03, 2019, 06:45:18 pmSome forum members find it easy to spend other people's money.

author: BillB
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 07:00:56 pm
content: Quote from: Vaiti on August 03, 2019, 06:45:18 pmIn light of this discussion, the line should be drawn thusly:When the car needs an oil change, you drive it to the crusher and buy a new one, of course.

author: Candid
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 07:02:32 pm
content: @Sudo_apt-get_install_yumDid you make your choice now? I think everything is said now ;-) (well not from everyone) I wonder what your decision is.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 09:30:09 pm
content: What many of the armchair TE jockeys here do not have is the experience to assess an individual buyers needs and of you lot squabbling over brands nctnico is most in tune with this as he has used many brands in his professional career.The best solution for any buyer is not always straightforward and is certainly not always cost based is best.Just like selecting a hammer there are many that will do the job and some that are many times better than just a hunk of steel on the end of a handle.Aside from that the OP is no doubt enjoying these squabbles going by the lack of his participation but no doubt recognizes the advantages of staying with a brand an UI that he's already very familiar with.....that adds up to a significant saving in personal hobbyist time, something we are always short of to pursue our interests.Brand choice here is not so much the issue but UI so the OP can quickly use a familiar UI in his precious spare time and not return to work on a Monday having to relearn the UI in the scope his employer supplies. His 'at work' performance could also benefit from the ahrs use of a scope very similar to the one he uses at work.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 09:41:13 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 03, 2019, 09:30:09 pmI think you underestimate people. Oscilloscopes aren't that complex to use or wildly different from each other.Maybe he'll enjoy the simple column of buttons down the left side of Rigols for turning on measurements. It sure beats Siglent's popup-and-twiddle-like-hell system.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 09:53:14 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 03, 2019, 09:30:09 pmSiglent dealer says OP should buy "a very similar" oscilloscope to the one at work, which happens to be a SiglentThe comment about squabbles is amusing as almost all of the squabbles on this forum are ignited or fanned by a handful of usual suspects pushing "their" brand, at least two of which are Siglent sellers.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 09:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2019, 09:53:14 pmAnd you dismiss that as of nil value ?When the perfect scope is made and one can switch from one to another without impact on throughput and any fuss, then you might have some point.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 10:04:41 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on August 03, 2019, 09:41:13 pmYou couldn't be more wrong here... some oscilloscopes can be a real PITA to use. Especially if you want to use things like decoding, probe multipliers, math, etc. Some are easy to setup, others need going through menus endlessly. A good UI and clever tricks to improve productivity often don't make it to the datasheet but they make a huge difference. I used to own an Agilent MSO7104A. This is a higher-end scope (especially when introduced) but a total pain to setup beyond getting wiggly lines. Much to my own surprise I ended up liking the GW Instek (I bought as a brind-along scope) better because it is so much easier to use. I still have & use the GW Instek. The MSO7104A got sold a long time ago.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 10:12:45 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 03, 2019, 09:58:32 pmEssentially. One could argue in depth experience with more platforms and being better prepared for anything the world at large can throw at you is more valuable than being comfortable immediately. Flexible employees are valuable employees. Experiencing different design approaches and angles and seeing what works and what doesn't is also a valuable experience for any technician or engineer. It's one of the reasons we watch Dave's videos after all. Besides, a new oscilloscope isn't exactly a night and day affair.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 10:20:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 03, 2019, 10:04:41 pmYep all that.Of the Teks (CRO's and DSO's), HP's Telequipment, Philips, BWD, Atten, Siglent and yes Rigol I've used the variance in UI is immense just to do the same thing !That modern equipment all have deeper menu structures can make them harder to use, not just because of substantially more functionality but mostly hidden menu controls whereas they were once all on the front panel.Each piece of equipment takes precious time to learn and the buyer of any new brand must be aware if this as it can dramatically impact on productivity until familiarity and muscle memory builds to help out.A little time one on one spent with customers helps them immensely to get to grips with a new instrument and never do they think this to be wasted time.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 10:34:16 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 03, 2019, 10:20:42 pmYou're right. People who own a Rigol now should only upgrade to another Rigol. Siglents would confuse them and would mean a waste of time. Considering the popularity of the DS1054Z video it's probably best if everyone buys a Rigol. That's what people are already familiar with after all.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2019, 11:01:28 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 03, 2019, 10:34:16 pmReally, for once you see the logic in the above ?QuoteYes of course unless they want decent FFT, FRA, MSO, AWG, webrowser or Wifi capabilities.It is NEVER as simple as some might make it out to be !

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 12:11:37 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 03, 2019, 11:01:28 pmCorrect. If you want the relevant bits of those you'd opt for a Keysight oscilloscope instead of a Rigol. That's why Siglent made sure it was "inspired" by Keysight equipment. It facilitates that comfortable transition when people are done with amateur kit.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 12:17:29 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on August 04, 2019, 12:11:37 amAnd at what price point ?That line of thinking isn’t even relevant for this $500 limit thread.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 12:41:21 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 04, 2019, 12:17:29 amAbout $500 gets you a Keysight 1000X with a surprising amount of 2000X and even 3000T features. No problem if that's too much. Back to the comfortable familiarity of the Rigol kit we go.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 01:14:34 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 04, 2019, 12:17:29 amThe step from a Siglent to a Keysight is about the same as the step from a Rigol DS1054Z to a Siglent.You'd think a Siglent dealer would know that.With the Keysight you actuallywillget a "snappy" user interface and some decent processing power, too.Note that it's two analog channels and one digital channel ("2+1") so you can decode SPI, no problem.PS: You can also get the "edu" version for less than $500 and mod it to a full Keysight DSOX1102X. It's not a mod for the faint-hearted though.

author: tv84
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 09:01:36 am
content: Quote from: Vaiti on August 04, 2019, 07:56:17 amNo! Price is precisely the point!You can look at the hundreds of threads like this, in this forum, and you'll see that, in the end, all scopes that have been discussed do the job that the OPs require.So, if you can do the job with less buy the cheaper that does the job. If you want one that may someday be used in a unicorn situation, and are willing to spend that money, then go that way.This is all about bang for the bucks, andall these scopes have aprox. the same bang for the bucks ratio!!If you want more bang, then add more bucks. If the bang is enough, stop there!In case of doubts, go for the KS UXR and it should get you covered.PS: Definitely, this should be a sticky!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 09:36:11 am
content: Quote from: Vaiti on August 04, 2019, 07:56:17 amYep. Any argument that "spending a bit more is always worth it in the long run" should lead you to buying a $670 Keysight, not a $500 Siglent.If you can afford the Siglent there's no reason why you can't afford the Keysight and the Keysight makes the Siglent look like a toy (plus it has way better support, etc).

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 09:47:01 am
content: Quote from: tv84 on August 04, 2019, 09:01:36 amYep.You want to see four wiggly lines and do some basic decoding? Get a Rigol.You want to go further and do some real signal analysis or extended decoding then the Keysight is the way to go. It's ASIC based and has the processing power to do it properly.As far as number of channels goes? I think I could probably live with the Keysight 2+1 system (two analog, one digital).

author: BillB
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 12:20:24 pm
content: Quote from: Vaiti on August 04, 2019, 11:30:29 amYou could ask Dave to refund your price of admission if you think you aren't getting value from these posts?Seriously, the OP's question was effectively answered by post 7 or 8. Valid points were raised regarding the OPs brand familiarity, budget, and future requirements. Counterpoints were raised and the usual pissing contest ensued. If this theme bothers you, prepare to be disappointed with every other "What thing should I buy?" thread on the entirety of the internet.There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable posters here with a lot of professional experience that provide valuable insight into the nuances of using this gear. At the same time, everyone eventually develops brand loyalty just by usage and familiarity alone. Some features are more important to some than others, etc.I don't think anyone here said that Rigol belongs in the dumpster for home/hobby use. Some implied that it might not be a good choice for a professional setting. Some countered. Some stirred the pot (myself included)Welcome to the internet.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 12:31:30 pm
content: It's remarkable how those who value their personal hobby time are wasting a lot of it on the same discussion about brands over and over. Unless it's not personal hobby time but professional on the clock time, in which case I assume the forum moderators would have a rather different view on the forum participation.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 03:28:54 pm
content: People are free to do as they please with their time, I see a mate on here regularly when I know ho is at workI use the forum at work too but I deam it to be more of a learning experience.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 05:27:00 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on August 04, 2019, 03:28:54 pmSure, though being on the forum at work and trying to make a buck by working on the forum are two different things.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 07:35:11 pm
content: Quote from: tv84 on August 04, 2019, 09:01:36 amAgree!!In life, there is always something a bit pricier and somewhat better, and then something a bit pricier and better than that....You don't use or recommend Ferrari to deliver pizza, despite Ferrary being better car than VW Polo diesel...Quote from: Vaiti on August 04, 2019, 11:30:29 amAnd as Vaiti says it simply still is. You know why? Because it was in 2017 and 2018 and nothing changed or happened since then to change that. SDS1104X-E is not a competitor to DS1054Z, it is a step up on price scale. And above it there is Rigol MSO5000.. And .......My advice is to skip DS1054Z and give a little more money and get Keysight MSO-X 3000T... It IS a bit more money, but it is better scope, you know..But wait, MSO-X 3000T has small memory,and there are scopes that have 12-16 bit resolution.... Maybe give a bit more money and go for Infiniium S‑Series. It is better, you know..The whole idea of "bang for the buck" is what is best i can get for the money I have in my hand..For the Rigol DS1054Z kind of money, Rigol DS1054Z is still best bang for the buck.For the Siglent SDS1104X-E kind of money,SDS1104X is BBFTB .For Rigol MSO5000 kind of money MSOX5000 is BBFTB .For Siglent SDS5000X kind of money SDS5000X seems to be BBFTB.There are other scopes in those price ranges, that some might prefer for some reason (fancy brand, specific function etc.). But those wouldn't be BBFTB, just justified to the buyer for their own reason.Also, what kind of money people are willing to part with is their decision. Sometimes people have hard limit on money, and sometimes they just want certain technology level, and are willing to pay for it.This stands as of today, unless there is change in prices somehow, or a new scope comes to scene, those categories are standing today and will until something changes...It really should be a one page sticky..

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 09:29:53 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 04, 2019, 07:35:11 pmThere's light at the end of the tunnel. These threads get shorter every time.I predict the next one will be very short indeed.

author: uargo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2019, 08:09:34 pm
content: In my modest opinion, he will say that Rigol is quite good for its price, but if I stick to the parameters, in Spain:The Rigol DS1054Z costs € 400 with taxes included.The Siglent SDS1104x-e costs € 510 with taxes included.The price difference is € 100, it is 25% and not 50% with they say out there.If we have to hack the two oscilloscopes, we get:Rigol 4 channels, 100Mhz and serial decoders, for € 400.Siglent 4 channels, 200Mhz, serial decoders, Wifi, AWG license (option to expand to AWG) and MSO license (option to expand to MSO), for € 510.And if we enter into technical characteristics:Siglent is better than Rigol in:Siglent has 2 Adc of 1Gs, being able to work the 4 channels at 500MsRigol has 1 Adc of 1Gs, being able to work the 4 channels at 250MsSiglent Wfm = ​​100,000, up to 400,000 in segmented memory.Rigol Wfm = ​​30,000.Siglent has 14Mb x 2, that is 14Mbs per 2 channels = 28Mbs.Rigol has 24Mb.Siglent has FFT of 1Mp, really usable and reliable.Rigol has a toy FFT.Siglent has SFRA or Bode Plot with an AWG (any AWG from Siglent works).Siglent has Wifi, remote control by web, option to expand to AWG and MSO.Siglent moves faster in the menus because of its more modern hardware.Siglent has functions of tables and markers in FFT and serial decoding, etc. They really help a lot.With this I do not say that Rigol is a bad option, much less, but if seeing its technical characteristics the Siglent is one step above the Rigol, and the price is also a step above.It all depends on whether you want or can spend those extra € 100.

author: SmokeyTheElectrician
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2019, 04:38:36 am
content: With that MSO 5000 series,in particular the 5074 with hacks,IMHO,Rigol owns the knee in the curve ( ~$1000+/-)of diminishing returns for the hobbyist market.Even so,I am totally on board with either theSiglent 1104 or Rigol 5074 and hacks.However, I ended up "bargaining-out" witha $230 deal on the Rigol 1054 from my local uCenter,which with the "hacks", should more than support myfutzing around with electronics ( mostly rPi, ucontrollers,and FPGA / CPLD programmable logic ) for quite a while...Before stumbling across the uCenter deal on the Rigol 1054,I was much more thinking, "well, I have ~ $200 or $250 inthe budget today for such a purchase and PayPal has that6 months no interest payment plan, so I should get theSiglent 1104 with $250 as a down payment of sorts andthen pay it off with 6 payments of about $42 withoutincurring any interest.cheers to all.

author: SmokeyTheElectrician
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 11:52:44 am
content: confession:this is a duplicate post from the what did you buy today thread,but read on, I think it may help someone(s) score a total dealon a Rigol 1054z.--I found the caveat in the deal,the calibration just expired.Which is fine for my bench.I doubt my old GW Instek GOS-635Gwas ever calibrated outside the factoryand it has served me well for the pastcouple years ( bought used from someoneof whom I believed obtained it fromsomeone else who bought surplus fromwhen ITT Tech closed up shop ).It must have gotten lost and beenlaying around for 12 or 15 monthsand they just wanted to clear it out.If anyone is in the market for a great deal on a Rigol 1054z,uCenter's web store was showing they still have a handfulor two scattered around the USA and last I checked theywere down to 184.31.( store pick up only -- 1@Duluth-GA, 2@Rockville-MD, 2@Westbury-NY,1@Brooklyn-NY, and 3@Yonkers-NY )By the time they sell the last one, someone is going to walk awaywith a 1054z for something entirely ridiculous, like $35.Cheers.

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 12:42:19 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 04, 2019, 07:35:11 pmMemorable quote from "Top Gear" (when it was still Top Gear):Quote

author: Gandalf_Sr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 03:31:19 pm
content: Quote from: uargo on August 24, 2019, 08:09:34 pmAnd if we enter into non-technical characteristics:I bought a new Siglent scope that had missing capacitors that caused an issue where you had to re-calibrate the probes when changing Y gain. Siglent told me that this was an in-specification 'feature' and offered to send me the missing (surface mount) capacitors, they also confirmed that, if I took the back off the scope, I'd void my warranty.No doubt we'll be told by the Siglent fan boys that this is all now fixed, in fact someone was saying that Siglent was actively working on the firmware which I presume meant that Rigol weren't! That could be interpreted to mean that the Rigol is full debugged but the Siglent isn't.I own two $10,000ish 4-channel Keysight scopes but the DS1054Z still does 99% of what I need. IMHO, buy the DS1054Z and use Riglol (not a typo) to upgrade it to 300 MHz and all options enabled. Spend what you save on beer or a gift for the one you love.

author: bingo600
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 03:39:52 pm
content: Quote from: Gandalf_Sr on December 23, 2019, 03:31:19 pmHmm where did those 300MHz come fromCan a DS1054Z do 300MHz wo. any hw mod ?/Bingo

author: TK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 04:23:43 pm
content: Quote from: bingo600 on December 23, 2019, 03:39:52 pmWith just the 100MHz software hack (all other options are now included for free) I am able to see a 450MHz signal (very attenuated, but well formed sinewave) on my DS1054Z. Frequency measurement is spot on (450MHz).

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 07:53:30 pm
content: Quote from: bingo600 on December 23, 2019, 03:39:52 pmNo, the -3dB point is usually about 135MHzYou'll be able toseea 300Mhz signal but don't rely on the voltage measurements being accurate.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 08:45:06 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on December 23, 2019, 07:53:30 pmExactly. And there have been better options out there for a long time. GW Instek 1054B for example. Similar price but much better compared to the Rigol 1054Z.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 09:20:10 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2019, 08:45:06 pmNow that it's been fully hacked, yes. It's a great little 'scope if you can get one for a good price (price is very variable by distributor/country).

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 09:33:18 pm
content: Quote from: uargo on August 24, 2019, 08:09:34 pmhttps://www.tequipment.net/Rigol/DS1054Z-B/Digital-Oscilloscopes/(plus you get EEVBLOG discount if you buy there)

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 09:45:04 pm
content: For this price, there´s no alternative in sight..

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 09:53:46 pm
content: Quote from: Martin72 on December 23, 2019, 09:45:04 pmThere is. The GDS-1054B is only marginally more expensive and is well worth the extra money. More memory, individual channel controls, faster UI, freeform math, 1Mpts FFT and full memory decoding (when hacked).

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 10:08:34 pm
content: https://www.reichelt.de/digital-speicher-oszilloskop-gds-1054b-50-mhz-4-kanaele-gds-1054b-p176032.html?&trstct=pol_1https://www.batronix.com/versand/oszilloskope/Rigol-DS1054Z.htmlIf it was 50 bucks more, I would agree.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2019, 10:11:40 pm
content: Quote from: Martin72 on December 23, 2019, 10:08:34 pmOn Tequipment.net it is less than 50 bucks more compared to the DS1054Z. IOW: you have to shop around a bit to get a good price.

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2019, 12:25:43 am
content: Gwinstek I don´t know really.Got experiences with Tektronix, Lecroy, Siglent; Uni-T, Rigol.GW claims to have 10mpts per channel memory - If it were so, it would be a benefit (when needed).But in the specs it wouldn´t be claimed, only 10mpts in general.DS1000Z got 12mpts/24mpts optional/ hacked, divided when more channels are active.Also the same screensize and resolution.Tons of trigger-things they got both, except alternate which the gwinstek got.Rigol got lots of math functions, including filters.I don´t see really remarkable advantages.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2019, 12:43:32 am
content: Quote from: Martin72 on December 24, 2019, 12:25:43 amThen please read a review before making wrong assumption. For starters the GDS1054B has 20Mpts per channel in segmented mode. This is a GDS2024E review I wrote a long time ago:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/It basically covers everything the GDS-1054B has when hacked. The only differences are a smaller screen on the GDS1054B and half the samplerate (which is why the GDS1054B has a hardware fixed bandwidth of 100MHz). Other than that it is the same hardware & software platform:When hacked the GDS1054B is miles ahead of what the Rigol 1054Z can do. GW Instek has many clever productivity boosters in their firmware as well.

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2019, 12:49:34 am
content: QuoteIt should be enough to trust on the specs they disclaim, not to wait/ search for private peoples reviews…But thank you, I´ll read it soon.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2019, 12:52:42 am
content: Quote from: Martin72 on December 24, 2019, 12:49:34 amThe specs usually paint only half the picture when it comes to an oscilloscope. You really need to test an oscilloscope thouroughly yourself or go by thourough reviews. For me it was a nice surprise the firmware was quite mature on the GW Instek compared to what Siglent and Rigol tend to put on the market when a device is still relatively new. And bugs where fixed quickly too.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2019, 02:24:50 am
content: Differently than Rigol or Siglent, keep in mind that GW Instek does not offically support decoders on their oscilloscope. You need to hack it to get this functionality.Sure, others report that it works well, but it is surely worth noting. I personally would be very cautious, but YMMV.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2019, 05:22:32 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2019, 10:11:40 pmYep. The price of the Instek is very variable for some reason. If you can get one at a good price, go for it. If not, get one of the others.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2019, 05:27:40 am
content: Quote from: Martin72 on December 24, 2019, 12:49:34 amNot the Instek.Insteks use a software plugin system so things like serial decoders aren't officially available on the base model but they can be hacked using the serial decoder modules from higher models (they're all compatible).

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2019, 01:02:34 am
content: Oh...thank god, no gateway error 502 at last ( for nearly 12 hours here).I don´t like price comparisions when model xyz would be hacked.You pay for example 400 bucks, what do you get for ("raw").Despite from this, 1MP FFT is an advantage against the 1000Z what the GW Instek concerns.If 10Mpts memory is really valid for each channel independent, it would be an advantage too(I don´t think so, it would be).Display size and resolution are the same, don´t know about the intensity grade capabilities of the instek.Fact is, you can get the "old" rigol with nearly all options (official) for under 400 bucks, starting at 50 Mhz bandwith.The title of this thread was " is the rigol ds1054z still a good option in 2019" .I would say yes.Maybe for some reasons what so ever no, but in genereal yes, of course.

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 12:21:56 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 04, 2019, 07:35:11 pmIs the Rigol DS1054Z still good option for this money in 2024? (4CH 50MHz £352 )Siglent SDS1202X-E 2CH 200MHz £336Should I consider Rigol or keep looking for something else?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 12:39:06 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 18, 2024, 12:21:56 amNO!Get a Rigol DHO804, it's two orders of magnitude better for approximately the same money.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 12:45:02 am
content: Quotethe 804's 20% more than the 1054 here in the ukQuoteIf your in no rush it might be worth while waiting to see what price the new siglent comes in at,it may even force further price drops on older models

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 01:18:33 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on January 18, 2024, 12:45:02 amBrexit...?It'sreallynot a good idea to buy a DS1054Z just to save a few quid though. THE DHO804 can easily be hacked to 200MHz and the DS1054Z is an antique by comparison.I notice a two channel Siglent was mentioned as well, even though this is a Rigol thread. There's a cheaper, 2-channel Rigol DHO802 if 2 channels is enough (ie. simple, analog-only work)nb. I wouldn't buy that Siglent either, and for the same reasons. Siglent's response to the Rigol DHO800 is supposed to appear soon but AFAIK there's no launch date or definitive pricing yet.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 01:36:27 am
content: QuoteAlways been that way,sod the exchange rate just swap the $ for £ no one will notice.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 02:54:53 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 18, 2024, 01:18:33 amOfficially or to share.

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 10:59:48 pm
content: Yes Rigol DHO800 series shows nice specs but just noticed it doesn't decode CAN :'(I would like to have CAN to possibly learn something new in free time...Is the DHO800 much better than Siglent SDS1104X-E ??Both can be hacked to bring up performanceDS1054Z have some kind good well thought UIJust watched review about DHO800 and looks a bit more complicated for newbie than DS1054ZQuote from: themadhippy on January 18, 2024, 12:45:02 amI can wait a wee while, does a Siglent says something about new coming model?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 11:27:36 pm
content: Quote from: memed on January 18, 2024, 10:59:48 pmRelease is now just a few weeks away.Relevant threads:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds800x-hd-12-bit-dsos-coming/https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-hd-coming/

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 11:42:35 pm
content: Quote from: memed on January 18, 2024, 10:59:48 pmMuch better...Not.It is definitely "better" in terms of display, UI and resolution.On the other hand, there are features that the Rigol does not have.I still wouldn't want to go back to the SDS1000X-E, because its successor is in the starting blocks.QuoteWell...You can see it this way, I wouldn´t.With the Rigol it is the (unofficial) bandwidth and memory depth, with the Siglent it is the (official) bandwidth and WiFi (afaik).But that's about it.QuoteThat might be your personal opinion.QuotePhew...The DHO currently has one of the best UIs on the affordable market, if you compare it directly with the DS1054Z (but also with the SDS1000X-E), there's a world of difference.I wouldn't want to buy a DS1054Z or an SDS1000X-E today, given the successors of rigol and soon also siglent.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2024, 11:59:54 pm
content: Quote from: memed on January 18, 2024, 10:59:48 pmYou can easily enable CAN.Just change one file on the internal disk and a DHO800 will believe it's a DHO900.

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2024, 12:38:58 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 18, 2024, 11:59:54 pmAnybody tried that and decode worked?It would be good news to me

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2024, 06:46:15 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 19, 2024, 12:38:58 amI haven't tried using it but it's definitely listed as a decoder on mine.Martin72hastested it with his Batronix test board, I'm sure he'd have said something if CAN bus decoding didn't work. Right, Martin...?

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2024, 09:33:40 am
content: Hi,CAN I didn't test because I never hacked to 900.But I've tested all other decoders and they worked fine to me.No reason to think that CAN wouldn't function.

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2024, 11:02:17 pm
content: I would believe CAN to work in that case.In new Rigol models there is less 2 horizontal divisionsIs it not best to have more divisions on the screen?Even handheld Owon HDS models have more divisions on such a small screen 3.5". Why not new RigolI can afford DHO804 model (£406) but found on sale DHO1072 only 2CH for £480Is it worth to consider better model but only 2CH?I want to learn as much as possible with scope and not sure yet what for would need 4CH?

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2024, 11:27:09 pm
content: QuoteHm ?QuoteNobody can answer that, because we don't know what you want to do with a scope in the future.I only know one thing, if the day comes when you have to measure more than two channels at the same time and you only have 2 channels, then you're screwed...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2024, 12:15:34 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 20, 2024, 11:02:17 pmThere's a guy here doing CAN decoding:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5289073/#msg5289073Quote from: memed on January 20, 2024, 11:02:17 pmWhat do you mean?

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2024, 01:07:08 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 20, 2024, 11:02:17 pmI mean display division horizontal x vertical gridSDS1204x have 14x8DS1054Z have 12x8and DHO804 have only 10x8Is it not too few?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2024, 01:26:58 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 21, 2024, 01:07:08 amNo.You'll completely stop thinking about that after a day of using one. It makesNOdifference in practice.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 21, 2024, 02:07:40 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 20, 2024, 11:02:17 pmYou need a four channel scope if you want to look at more than the two signals that a two channel scope can give you.I know it sounds simple but it's pretty obvious really. I have only used a four channel scope (DS1054Z) to record four waveforms at once from some old Tektronix plug-ins in some of my repair threads, so people can see what the different parts of the circuit show when operating properly, so they can repair the same plug-ins.I upgraded to a Siglent SDS2202X-E last year from the four channel Rigol DS1054Z because I wanted more bandwidth and didn't really need four channels most of the time now. But the Rigol is still here on the shelf if needed.

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 12:46:34 am
content: True, 4CH would be better for sureQuote from: Fungus on January 21, 2024, 01:26:58 amI believe you because of your experience but just trying to figure out why shorter signal on the screen doesn't make difference in practice.No point to wait for new model from rigol because will be same I guess but maybe siglent will show up soon to answer to DHO800/900

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 04:55:56 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 22, 2024, 12:46:34 amWhat does it prevent me from achieving?I could still read a book if the pages weren't as tall.(...or even if they were longer, who decided the standard shape of a book anyway?)

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 07:01:20 am
content: QuoteWhich then also has 10 horizontal divisions.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-new-sds800x-hd-first-bactch-unboxing-and-noise-compare-with-dho800/msg5238453/#msg5238453

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 07:15:29 am
content: "These go to eleven!"-- Nigel Tufnel, Spinal Tap

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:27:04 am
content: Look more closely:The Rigol's grid uses a cinematic 16:9 aspect ratio while the others are still using a "last-century" 4:3 aspect ratio.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:33:58 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 22, 2024, 09:27:04 amIt's surprising on how many levels such a short comment can be wrong.You are comparing Rigol's new model with Siglent's old one there. The 4:3 ratio you state is clearly incorrect. And I can't see why 16:9 -- or the even narrower observation slit which the DHO800 and 900 leave for actual trace display -- would be considered an advantage per se. Displaying four curves in parallel, let alone 16 logic traces on the DHO900, is really cramming the usable screen area; this was one of the reasons I excluded these models from consideration.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:43:24 am
content: I guess it was too subtle.(Note: I did change it to say "the others" while you were posting that because I figured the "Siglent" trigger-word was too much... )

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:49:11 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 22, 2024, 09:33:58 amCalm down.I'm comparing the models that were mentioned in this thread using screenshots from the video that was posted formeto answer to, nothing more.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:56:19 am
content: I am calm enough, thanks. My main point is that the cinemascope display ratio is not actually desirable on a scope.It seems pretty clear that these displays are used because they are widely available and cheap. But for displaying multiple traces on top of each other they are actually a bad choice -- especially when combined with wide bands of status displays and controls at the top and bottom of the screen, which reduce vertical screen real estate even more.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 11:55:48 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 22, 2024, 09:56:19 amWe're not talking about the display, we're talking about the number of horizontal grid squares.Here's the post:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/is-rigol-ds1054z-still-a-good-option-in-2019/msg5290006/#msg5290006

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 11:59:26 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 22, 2024, 09:56:19 amMany a times I wished for portrait type of display...So I can have MSO display, and measurements and decodes....Cinematic displays are horrible on a PC too unless they are large enough size.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 12:29:40 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 22, 2024, 11:55:48 amI am aware, and had replied to that with the "goes to eleven" comment. The number of grid squares on the screen is pretty irrelevant in my opinion. I do like 10, since it makes it trivially easy to tell the total time of the displayed sweep.You brought up the "16:9" topic. The fact that Rigol's grid boxes are squashed is a direct consequence of the widescreen display, and the even wider/lower display area for the traces, of course. They just squashed 8x10 divisions into the available space; on the DHO800 they are even more compressed than on the DHO1000. Again, I don't think the proportions of the grid matter much, but the limited overall vertical space does.

author: Aldo22
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 12:58:37 pm
content: Quote from: memed on January 21, 2024, 01:07:08 amThe winnner is...... HANTEK!It has 15x8!

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 01:35:41 pm
content: Quote from: Aldo22 on January 22, 2024, 12:58:37 pmThey might even have 15.3!Hantek are following the other school of thought apparently: The grid must be square; let's use whatever odd fraction of grid squares fits on the screen...

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 02:10:33 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 22, 2024, 12:29:40 pmIt was a joke. I have no idea why they made them that shape.Quote from: ebastler on January 22, 2024, 12:29:40 pmNo it isn't. They could easily have used square boxes and got 12 or 14 of them.Quote from: Aldo22 on January 22, 2024, 12:58:37 pmOh, come on....No matter what else it should be an even number so there's a line in the center.

author: Aldo22
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 02:15:37 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 22, 2024, 02:10:33 pmThereisa line in the center.The two outer squares are halved. It's Hantek

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 05:07:00 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 22, 2024, 09:27:04 amUgh... rectangular graticule.One of the things that turns me completely off on the DSOX3000 series from Keysight and makes me much more favourable to the DSOX4000 series (although my budget is quite short for either families)

author: Wolfgang
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 05:13:11 pm
content: DS1054Z is OK for bench use without remote apps. All DS1000s have a USB bug that makes mass data transfer impossible.The new DHOs are nice, however, so maybe that one is better.

author: baldurn
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 05:28:42 pm
content: One axis is time, the other voltage. Completely unrelated, hence the need for the grid to have same distance does not exist. I agree that it is prettier.Also cursors exist and therefore the grid isn't very important for actual measurements.

author: KungFuJosh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 06:18:56 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 22, 2024, 09:27:04 amGeez, man. Get it right! 16:9 was set in 1984 = last century (20th). 4:3 standard for film was 2 centuries ago (19th). 😉

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 06:37:18 pm
content: Quoteand heres me thinking 1.85:1 was the standard aspect ratio for "widescreen" film or 2.35:1 for cinescope.

author: DaneLaw
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 06:37:56 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 22, 2024, 09:27:04 amGive me 4:3 any day of the week on a scope (if everything else is equal) or a minimum of 16:10 as the Cinematic TV aspect of 16:9 makes very little sense on a scope.You can counter it by making the 16:9 screen extra big, but the differences are significant when I compare the screen on these latest 7" 16:9 Rigol products to an 8" screen in 4:3It's a tad over 8cm vertical on these 7" 16:9 (83mm) and around 12cm on 8" 4:3. The horizontal gain is obviously less, and around 1 to ½ cm in the 8" 4:3 favor.Even though it's just a 1" inch difference, the vertical gain is almost +50% bigger on the 8" in 4:3 vs 7" in 16:9.. That's quite a bit on that precious vertical axis, not least with Rigol's scope UI that seems to be eating more than 33% of the vertical ratio in UI secondaries, and not valid for waveform display - most other scopes seem to be between 15 to 20%.

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 08:08:29 pm
content: The "more" on the screen is only noticeable in direct comparison, otherwise not, it never bothered me, on the contrary.As already mentioned, it makes counting the capture time easier, even if only marginally.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 08:40:15 pm
content: So how much more information one can see on a screen that fits 7 periods of a signal vs on a screen that fits 5 periods

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 08:49:50 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on January 22, 2024, 05:07:00 pmThere's absolutely no mathematical relation between the two axis, so... meh.Maybe better to have more detail horizontally.Whatever: It's obviously the way things are going so you might as well get used to it.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 08:51:08 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on January 22, 2024, 08:40:15 pmI demand longer books! I can readsomuch more before I have to turn the page!

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:02:02 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on January 22, 2024, 08:40:15 pmThere is something like a horizontal time setting, you could use that, every scope has it.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:08:23 pm
content: It seems to me that we are all in violent agreement that the number of horizontal divisions doesn't matter much at all? But of course it can't hurt to repeat. "Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone."

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 09:14:03 pm
content: And then there has to be someone else who finds out, thank you for your commitment.

author: artur0089
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 10:06:46 pm
content: 10-12-14-16 bits are a deception of marketers for gullible consumers. Very similar to Mega-Giga-Tera pixels in camera matrices.3% vertical channel error, are they serious?!! DS2072A - 2%, development for more than twelve years!!!A good Logic Analyzer replaces any decoders in an oscilloscope.The noise in my DS2072A is the same as in the 12-bit DHO8-9 from Rigol.DHO-HDO does not "search" for anomalies in large amounts of memory.DHO8-9 no Hi-Res! DS1000Z 12 bit Hi-Res...DHO8-9 small font.

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 22, 2024, 11:21:55 pm
content: What are you trying to tell us...QuoteProposal:You feed in a small signal, let's say a sine with 100mVpp, then you press stop and resolve to vertical and post the result.A DHO800 owner does the same and also posts the result.QuoteI think you meant the gain accuracy...QuoteOr did you mean the offset...QuoteQuoteBy the way, what is he like?QuoteLOL...DHO8-9 IS 12 bit Hi-Res...That was probably nothing, whatever you wanted to say.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 12:02:53 am
content: Quote from: artur0089 on January 22, 2024, 10:06:46 pmAt what bandwidth...?

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 02:00:14 am
content: Quote from: Wolfgang on January 22, 2024, 05:13:11 pmI used to dump full captures over ethernet. Went fast enough with no issues.

author: artur0089
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 05:01:00 am
content: Quote from: Martin72 on January 22, 2024, 11:21:55 pmAnother marketing ploy.No one ever “stretches” a saved (stopped) oscillogram vertically!“Stretching” horizontally is normal, this is why you need more memory.Quote from: Martin72 on January 22, 2024, 11:21:55 pmVertical Accuracy:TDS700D - 1% - 8 bit.DS2000A - 2% - 8 bit.DS1000Z - 3% - 8 bit.DHO & HDO -3%- 12 bit.It's like making a DMM 6½ characters, but leaving the accuracy at 4½...Quote from: Martin72 on January 22, 2024, 11:21:55 pmNoise comparisons must be made in the same room and on devices with the same frequency band! My device is hacked to 300 MHz.Limit 100 MHz.There is no noise in an open field, deep forest or in the middle of the ocean...Quote from: Fungus on January 23, 2024, 12:02:53 am≥5 μs/div, up to 500 kHz this is enough.Quote from: Martin72 on January 22, 2024, 11:21:55 pmThe HDO1000 and HDO4000 have Hi-Res 14 and 16 bits.DHO800 and DHO900 do not have this!--------------------------------------LOL...The conversation with you is over...

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 08:28:46 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 22, 2024, 09:33:58 amWhat model did you choose then?Quote from: Martin72 on January 22, 2024, 09:02:02 pmThis was my theory but wasn't sure if it work same in practice without any hassle and deformation of wave.Quote from: Fungus on January 22, 2024, 08:49:50 pmYes you are right, checked many other models and look like this is new standard now.So I'm considering now DHO904 or wait for bargain on DHO1074Unless find another model to confuse me

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 08:45:11 am
content: Quote from: memed on January 23, 2024, 08:28:46 amI bought a DHO1074 during the Black Friday sale: Larger screen overall, and a larger proportion of the vertical space is actually available for trace display. I was really pleased with the display, but ended up returning the scope due to other issues. Waiting for the SDS1000X HD now...

author: memed
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 03:27:04 pm
content: How much was black friday deal for this model(DHO1074) that time? What problem you had with that oscilloscope?

author: Veteran68
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 04:00:03 pm
content: Quote from: memed on January 23, 2024, 03:27:04 pmNot speaking for ebastler, but it was crazy cheap. Like $599 US and I believe the same in Euro. With my eevBlog Saelig discount I think I paid $562 US with shipping but before sales tax. I've since upgraded it to an $1849 US equivalent scope. Crazy deal for <$600.Yes, it's buggy. There are threads here full of the issues identified. I'm sure I'd be happier with the SDS1000X HD, and depending on its price when released, I may sell my DHO1074 to buy it.That said, it does indeed have a beautiful screen, and honestly the bugs haven't (yet) hindered my use. But I'm a hobbyist, and not a sophisticated user. So YMMV.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 04:34:35 pm
content: Quote from: memed on January 23, 2024, 03:27:04 pmThe Black Friday discount on the DHO1074 wasverytempting -- 40% off list price, which meant 720 Euro incl. our 19% VAT. I realize that I will have to pay quite a bit more for the SDS1000X HD when it eventually arrives in Europe.I did not find any showstopper bugs, but increasingly got the impression that Rigol just doesn't care. Some examples:The FFT is just as rudimentary as in my 9-year-old DS1054Z (no Averaging & Peak mode), and has the same bugs (messed-up window functions causing distortions of the peaks).Setting parameters via the dual Flexknobs was less useful than I thought: They operate at odd increments and without acceleration, so I found myself using the on-screen keyboard much more often than I liked. The knobs also got confused occasionally as to which parameter they were controlling, indicating a horizontal adjustment but changing vertical scale instead etc.Acquisition rates in Recording mode were painfully slow; less than one shot every 5 ms. And the indicated time stamps did not seem real, they did not match stop-watch time.Trigger coupling in AC or low-frequency rejection mode is useless, it has a massive jitter. Looks like nobody at Rigol ever tried this.The memory upgrade key which was included in the deal took three reminders to Rigol before it arrived, and then did not work at all. (Even though I had the proper instructions, courtesy of the hacking thread. With the non-documentation which Rigol includes, there's no chance in hell you could make even a functional key work.)Combine that with the fact that I had doubts regarding the longer-term future of this model: The Black Friday deal felt like a closeout sale, and the scope has not received the same firmware improvements which the DHO800/900 got. I sent it back within Amazon's generous "no questions asked" return window.If you are considering the DHO800/900 series, I would strongly encourage you to wait for the SDS800X HD from Siglent. It's a much more capable scope,although with a slightly lower-resolution screen. Not shipping in Europe yet, but Performa01 (who is a beta tester) has just started to publish an in-depth review series:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds800x-hd-review-demonstration-thread/

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 05:21:05 pm
content: Hi,QuoteResulution is the same (DHO800 1024x600, SDS800 1024x600).

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 05:26:13 pm
content: Quote from: Martin72 on January 23, 2024, 05:21:05 pmOops, I was thinking of the DHO1000 with its higher resolution screen (while the Siglent counterpart, SDS1000X HD, also has 1024 * 600). You are right, the competing smaller models have the same screen size and resolution.Text on the DHO800 nevertheless looks smoother than on the SDS800X HD since it is rendered using anti-aliasing. But the control and display areas also take up more room and leave less for the trace display.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 11:27:07 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 23, 2024, 04:34:35 pmBut it'smuchmore detailed, has much faster update rate, much lower noise floor, it's much easier to move the trace around and rescale it (touch screen!), and (most importantly) it has a table showing frequencies and amplitudes of the peaks.Quote from: ebastler on January 23, 2024, 04:34:35 pmThat's going to depend totally on your configuration and memory size. There are slow cases and fast cases, just like onevery other oscilloscope.Quote from: ebastler on January 23, 2024, 04:34:35 pmCan't say I've ever used that in 10 years of oscilloscope usage (I had to look up what it did when it was reported) and, given how long it took for it to be reported, I suspect hardly anybody else uses it either, including the people at Rigol.I've always triggered from what's visible on screen because it's visual and you can see what you're doing.IOW it's almost a non-bug in reality.Quote from: Veteran68 on January 23, 2024, 04:00:03 pmYep.Quote from: Veteran68 on January 23, 2024, 04:00:03 pmExactly.If you're a "sophisticated user" then get a Siglent SDS2000. This 'scope isn't aimed at you.(and neither is the SDS800 when it finally arrives)

author: Martin72
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2024, 11:44:58 pm
content: QuoteIt will arrive and relatively soon.And it will be a direct competitor in terms of price, at least at the 70Mhz level, but not in terms of performance, where it is superior to the Rigol, as you can see in Performa01's new thread.I didn't expect this clear superiority.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 24, 2024, 05:34:53 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 23, 2024, 11:27:07 pmBelieve it or not, I realize that. So when I came across the slow recording mode, I tried it with very favorable conditions: just channel 1 enabled, 2 µs/div, 1 kpts memory, simple edge trigger. Recording 1000 frames, the average time step between stored records was 5.8 ms according to the scope's timestamps.And even those timestamps are apparently wrong: Acquiring a series of 1000 frames took 14 seconds on a stopwatch, while the progress bar and frame counter moved forward in a linear manner. But the scope claimed that the last record has a timestamp of 5.8 seconds?!I am not ruling out a user error, since the recording is so absurdly slow. But egonotto observed the same "performance", we both published our findingshere, and nobody reported different results. Does the DHO800 fare better?

author: thinkfat
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 08:45:14 pm
content: Quote from: artur0089 on January 23, 2024, 05:01:00 am3% error doesn't mean that the higher vertical resolution is useless. Accuracy is not noise. If the noise was drowning out the 8 lower bits - yes, that'd be problematic.You still get a more truthful waveform reproduction, less vertical aliasing noise and that is interesting for signal analysis. OK, your measurements have 3% maximum error. But a DSO is not about measurement accuracy anyway. There's a reason why some DSOs have built-in multimeters.