rigol ds2102E vs sigilent sds1202X - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 01:22:18 am
content: Apologies in advance for starting yet another scope thread. But I really am torn about a future scope purchase.I want.100 mhz BWdeep memory.2 channels only.nice to havewave viewer function to inspect long memory captures.serial decode ( both have now )But the rigol is around $300.00 more than the siglent.Dave's prior video shows the rigol is solidly built. Is that worth $300.00 more.What does the rigol give over the siglent.Again .... very sorry to start a scope thread.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 01:28:19 am
content: SDS1202X or SDS1202X-E ?Either are 200 MHz models.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 01:57:07 am
content: If you want real deep memory, SDS2102X (100 MHz, 2ch) but Decode is extra:https://store.siglentamerica.com/product/sds2102x/

author: Bob Sava
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 02:22:54 pm
content: Looking at specs, Rigol SD2102E is better than SDS1202x but it's not $300 more. If you mean SDS1202X-E then you'll get smaller display, half the sampling rate and quarter the memory. In both comparisons, SD2102E comes up on top unless you're short on cash. Note that in two channel mode SDS1104X-E will get you closer to SD2102E (1Gs sample rate, 2x memory than SDS1202x-e) for less cash and with better decode for SPI.SDS2102X is better, although, if you decide on Siglent I suggest you double-check if you like their user interface - I think it's less intuitive (my experience is with SDS1000x-e) than Rigol's.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 04:00:09 pm
content: If you are going to spend money then be sure to check out the scopes from GW Instek as well. They have a faster platform compared to Rigol, their support responds to questions and their firmware works.

author: Bob Sava
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 04:14:53 pm
content: GDS have the least memory (10M) of the three. My SD1104x-e has 14M/Ch and I think it would be nice to have more.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 04:17:52 pm
content: why pay twice for less 2 channels and older model? when there is new half the price, extra 2 channels DS1054Z? what extra 4MB of DS2102E can do for you? if you want serial decode function, get a clone saleae logic.

author: Bob Sava
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 04:28:38 pm
content: You are confusing ds2102E with older model. 'E' was introduced a year ago. ds2102E has 2x the sampling rate and 2x memory, larger screen, dedicated keys for browsing waveform, 50Ohm inputs.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 05:02:02 pm
content: i dont see 2x sampling rate 2x memory here...https://www.ebay.com.my/itm/RIGOL-DS2102E-Digital-Oscilloscope-2-Channels-100-MHz-1-GSa-s-28-MB-8-0-TFT-LCD/142545190935?hash=item21305b0017:g:y5oAAOSw8UZZ6fAqhttps://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rigol-DS2102E.htmlhttps://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/2000a/are you talking about DS2102A?

author: Bob Sava
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2018, 06:27:25 pm
content: DS2102E is 1Gsa, 28M per channel

author: boggis the cat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 01:29:09 am
content: The Rigol has twice the memory depth (28 Mpoints vs 14) and a slightly larger display (8" vs 7") compared to the Siglent SDS1202X-E. It is 100 MHz bandwidth whereas the Siglent is 200 MHz, so that is a negative unless you pay for the 200 MHz variant (about US$850). The Siglent is much cheaper: US$650 (or US$850) for the Rigol, US$380 for the Siglent. The GW Instek GDS-1102B is also worth considering, at US$460 -- 'only' 10 Mpoints memory depth, though.Do these newer Rigols run faster? Have they moved to a processor with more grunt? The Siglent uses the same processor that GW Instek use, and so is very fast to respond. (Except for the very slow XY mode, which is a result of a weird sample processing decision.)This Rigol is probably as good as the Siglent with the benefits of the extra memory depth and larger display, but I would want to see it being used to assess if it is responsive or laggy like the DS1054Z. (YouTube 'review'?)

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 01:58:18 am
content: Quote from: boggis the cat on April 27, 2018, 01:29:09 amCorrect but the OP has listed SDS1202X, a previous series to the X-E and that does have an 8" display.https://www.siglentamerica.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds1000xx-series-super-phosphor-oscilloscopes/Nice DSO's they are but the newer X-E's do have an edge performance wise.In this 2ch DSO class the SDS1202X-E is hard to beat for the $.

author: Bob Sava
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 04:33:38 am
content: Rigol has 56Mpoints not 28.

author: boggis the cat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 05:08:35 am
content: Quote from: Bob Sava on April 27, 2018, 04:33:38 amThis is implied, yes -- however, 28 Mpoints per channel is maximum: "Max. Record Length 28 Mpts on both channels" in the spec. (You can't have a record length of 56 Mpoints.)The Siglent yields 14 Mpoints for asinglechannel, or 7 Mpoints each ifbothchannels are active.

author: Bob Sava
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 05:26:14 am
content: It's worth mentioning that since in two channel mode Rigol has 4x more memory than Siglent (28M vs 7M).Also, with two channels active Rigol has 2x the sampling rate of Siglent (1000Gsa vs 500Gsa).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 11:07:58 am
content: The big question is: what can a scope do with deep memory? Search function? Math traces and/or measurements based on decimated data or acquired data? Free form math? Decoding the entire memory? There are many scopes out there with deep memory but only a few manage to do something useful with it beyond being able to scroll through it manually.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 11:49:22 am
content: Build quality is important. From Daves scope reviews the Rigol really shined, the Sig was fairly good but he didn't think much of the GW Instek build.Is that a fair assessment?The Rigol has a wave viewer function to help navigate long record lengths. I have uses the TEK version and it seems helpful.Oh and regarding the Sig the X-E version is what I am considering.Still can't decide if the build quality and wave knob is worth $300 more.Thanks everyone for you advise

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 11:54:16 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on April 27, 2018, 11:49:22 amNo. Dave just doesn't like GW Instek (and apparantly he got a pre-production prototype). All 3 have equal build quality. All have a metal chassis and the BNCs are bolted to the front so plugging / unplugging probes and cables doesn't put mechanical stress on the circuit board. Purely based on the construction (mechanical and electronics) I really can't say one will be significantly better or worse than the other.

author: boggis the cat
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 12:29:13 pm
content: Per ‘build quality’: the Rigol ‘scopes are the heaviest, by far. GW Instek and Siglent ‘scopes are much lighter. Whether lots of metal is a good or bad thing probably depends on the application.In terms of ‘finish’, they’re all pretty good. Not as good as old HP ‘scopes, of course, but then they aren’t anywhere near the cost of those beasts. Modern Agilent (Keysight) stuff has been ‘cost reduced’ somewhat, unfortunately.Responsiveness — the lack thereof — is what makes the cheap Rigols awful, in my opinion. Try to adjust a trigger level, or even shift the vertical position, and watch the ‘scope struggle to comply — tedious when you need exact settings. The Siglent and GW Instek use much more capable processors so don’t have this responsiveness problem. A lot of people don’t seem to consider this to be an issue, however. Perhaps this newer Rigol has a better processor and thus improved usability.Ideally, you would check each option out in person. Looking for at least a couple of YouTube reviews of each (beware those enthusiastic reviewers of everything) should give you some assurance as to what you’ll get.

author: Bob Sava
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2018, 01:30:05 pm
content: SD2102E is $550 at arrow this week and I would have had second thoughts if I was getting SDS1104X-E right now. I still think that SDS1104X-E is a better deal than SDS1202X-E.