Thanks duncan2.
Yes, I'm edging towards the Siglent, just that I've never seen either at first hand, only for general purpose use & RF work, so a two channel is enough for me.
"I know I am old fashioned but it looks more like a "real " (CRT ) oscilloscope ---IMO."
Bet ya' it isn't as heavy as my HP1744, when that's shifted out of way how many dy'a think will fill the space? Goodness knows what been tossed behind it.
Yeah, I like valves too, you can feel the voltage. Thanks for the reply.
Dave
Yes, I'm edging towards the Siglent, just that I've never seen either at first hand, only for general purpose use & RF work, so a two channel is enough for me.
"I know I am old fashioned but it looks more like a "real " (CRT ) oscilloscope ---IMO."
Bet ya' it isn't as heavy as my HP1744, when that's shifted out of way how many dy'a think will fill the space? Goodness knows what been tossed behind it.
Yeah, I like valves too, you can feel the voltage. Thanks for the reply.
Dave
The 4 channels Siglent SDS1104x-e I bought some time ago works well, it is easy to use and the most useful functions are ok. It successfully replaced on my workbench a CRT scope I bought in the late '80. It does have serial bus decoding features, if you ever need to check a microcontroller. My personal preference goes to Tektronix but it would have been overkill at home. I selected a 4 channels oscilloscope because it is useful to debug a stereo amplifier, and it was the most desired missing feature of my old oscilloscope. I added two x100 1KV probes to work safely on tube circuits. Check the specs carefully, because on this price level they are stretched as far as possible. I don't work on radio frequency circuits, but for audio frequency I am happy of the choice.
@pcan
Now then, I can't say about the modern Tektronix scopes, I read on a couple of forums they are not very good, I'll quote, "they're slow and buggy" said one, another said, "they're bottom of the barrel" on another forum.... these comments took me by surprise, if I had read this on one forum I may not have mentioned it but to read it on two, I don't know if these are true comments or not, since I have no need for a four channel or high-end scope or one with deep memory for my use 'I didn't go looking'.
Dave
Now then, I can't say about the modern Tektronix scopes, I read on a couple of forums they are not very good, I'll quote, "they're slow and buggy" said one, another said, "they're bottom of the barrel" on another forum.... these comments took me by surprise, if I had read this on one forum I may not have mentioned it but to read it on two, I don't know if these are true comments or not, since I have no need for a four channel or high-end scope or one with deep memory for my use 'I didn't go looking'.
Dave
Tektronix --sad to say was sold off to a massive US investment company specialising in buying up scientific /electronic companies-
Danaher--conglomerate -multi billion $$$$$ company maybe that's the reason ---big profit orientated.
My old Tektronix is still going strong but I would not be so keen to buy from a conglomerate fixated on money and share prices rather than technology which was reliable.
Stick to Siglent Pentode.
Danaher--conglomerate -multi billion $$$$$ company maybe that's the reason ---big profit orientated.
My old Tektronix is still going strong but I would not be so keen to buy from a conglomerate fixated on money and share prices rather than technology which was reliable.
Stick to Siglent Pentode.
I've used both Siglent and Rigol lower range 'scopes and spectrum analyzers and I think Siglent have the edge, but I suspect they are converging through the strong competition. You need to make a list of your must-have features to check against though, there are some gaps in either brand.
Now if Siglent or Rigol made a dynamic signal analyzer....
Now if Siglent or Rigol made a dynamic signal analyzer....
Both scope brands will do what I want to be doing with ease, my problem is I've never seen either at first hand, I do agree though it seems that Siglent has the better edge, it appears that Rigol have stuck with their designs.
Two channels and a minimum of 1Gsa/s per channel is good enough for me.... when I first started looking at them it was the Rigol DS2102 initially then I 'upped' the b/w to 200Mhz and 'finally' settled for 300 MHz, if I wait any longer I'll want it be making tea as well!!!! Thanks, I'll let you know which and when I order.
Dave
Two channels and a minimum of 1Gsa/s per channel is good enough for me.... when I first started looking at them it was the Rigol DS2102 initially then I 'upped' the b/w to 200Mhz and 'finally' settled for 300 MHz, if I wait any longer I'll want it be making tea as well!!!! Thanks, I'll let you know which and when I order.
Dave
Hi,
the imho two most interesting series of Siglent scopes are the 1000X-E and the 2000Xplus.
The 1000X-E offers outstanding bang for buck. Siglent managed to squash an almost unbelievable amount of functionality and performance level into it without the device becoming unuseable or unresponsive.
In fact the Siglent is easy and very intuitive to use. I typically get faster to results than with our LeCroy Wavesurfer or R&S RTH.
The 4-channel Siglent come with a highly responsive low-latency Webserver that allows full control via LAN almost in realtime. The SDS1202X-E misses the webserver as well as the Bode-plot functionality.
Also to be kept in mind is that the 4-channel types are rather 2x2-channel, so You can use the full specced samplerare for two channels.
Finally the 100MHz version can easily be 'upgraded'.
What the 1000 series leaves to wish for offers the 2000Xplus .... a larger touchpanel display and higher samplerate.
Siglent has at least at the moment the edge over Rigol.
Way more professioal layout ... Rigol appears to address hyperactive adhs-gaming kids or hardcore Hello-Kitty fans as customers, but not dedicated hobbyists, let alone engineers.
Rigol looks impressive on paper, but seemingly they also suck software-wise.
While Siglent earned themselves quite a good reputation regarding firmware update rate, functionality upgrade rate and 'listening' to the customer/community, Rigol seems to react slow and sluggish.
Don't get me wrong ... Rigol certainly made decent scopes available at affordable-for-hobbyists prices, but Siglent seems to do more things right at the moment from the customers pov.
jauu
Calvin
the imho two most interesting series of Siglent scopes are the 1000X-E and the 2000Xplus.
The 1000X-E offers outstanding bang for buck. Siglent managed to squash an almost unbelievable amount of functionality and performance level into it without the device becoming unuseable or unresponsive.
In fact the Siglent is easy and very intuitive to use. I typically get faster to results than with our LeCroy Wavesurfer or R&S RTH.
The 4-channel Siglent come with a highly responsive low-latency Webserver that allows full control via LAN almost in realtime. The SDS1202X-E misses the webserver as well as the Bode-plot functionality.
Also to be kept in mind is that the 4-channel types are rather 2x2-channel, so You can use the full specced samplerare for two channels.
Finally the 100MHz version can easily be 'upgraded'.
What the 1000 series leaves to wish for offers the 2000Xplus .... a larger touchpanel display and higher samplerate.
Siglent has at least at the moment the edge over Rigol.
Way more professioal layout ... Rigol appears to address hyperactive adhs-gaming kids or hardcore Hello-Kitty fans as customers, but not dedicated hobbyists, let alone engineers.
Rigol looks impressive on paper, but seemingly they also suck software-wise.
While Siglent earned themselves quite a good reputation regarding firmware update rate, functionality upgrade rate and 'listening' to the customer/community, Rigol seems to react slow and sluggish.
Don't get me wrong ... Rigol certainly made decent scopes available at affordable-for-hobbyists prices, but Siglent seems to do more things right at the moment from the customers pov.
jauu
Calvin
I understood Rigol was an OEM for Agilent for a while. Still my Siglent 1104-XE has largely supplanted anything I would do with a big Tek with a few specialized exceptions. On my to-do list is an adapter to use Tek 7K plug-ins into something like the Siglent or my Picoscope. But the to-do list is pretty long.
Just another 2¢ in the pot...
I picked up a Siglent 1202 about 1½ years ago as a handy portable. It is my sixth 'scope, and is quickly turning into the "go-to" unit on the bench whenver I need to look as a trace. I am so far impressed with the functionality, decent quality, and features. I looked at Owon and Rigol before pulling the trigger on the Siglent. I really liked the fact that everything in the firmware is enabled, even though I haven't used all the features other than to test them.
If the 4-channel/faster Siglent is done the same way, I would expect you would be very pleased with it.
I picked up a Siglent 1202 about 1½ years ago as a handy portable. It is my sixth 'scope, and is quickly turning into the "go-to" unit on the bench whenver I need to look as a trace. I am so far impressed with the functionality, decent quality, and features. I looked at Owon and Rigol before pulling the trigger on the Siglent. I really liked the fact that everything in the firmware is enabled, even though I haven't used all the features other than to test them.
If the 4-channel/faster Siglent is done the same way, I would expect you would be very pleased with it.
Same here. I picked mine up because I needed an inexpensive digital 4 channel, but not a project box, for some simultaneous measurements I had to do. Turns out to be the best scope I've ever used, much less ever owned. Tremendous device. Can't give comparisons to the Siglent (never used one), though I did use some newer Agilent scopes about 8 years ago, and thought they were really hard and confusing to use. For years I avoided digital scopes since the older ones tended to sometimes lie to me (aliasing caught me a number of times). But the cheap little Rigol is great.
When I were 'lad you had to build your own oscilloscope from a kit and you tell the young folk of today that and they don't believe you... [ with apologies to Monty Python! ]
[ this one in fact: PW - Purbeck - Oscilloscope Equipment Practical Wireless ]
[ this one in fact: PW - Purbeck - Oscilloscope Equipment Practical Wireless ]
I don't know how old you are Mark but yes I remember that article but I can go further back to the ,50,s and remember the large amount of exWD Lancaster bomber indicator units with an old CRT being used to build an oscilloscope.
1950 electronic magazines had conversion details and some London and Birmingham dealers even included conversion details, I think the tube was a VR97 but don't quote me on that.
1950 electronic magazines had conversion details and some London and Birmingham dealers even included conversion details, I think the tube was a VR97 but don't quote me on that.
Kit?? OK, my first 'scope had been a kit built by my predecessor. But my third 'scope had been factory built LOONG before I was born, used, abused, stripped, and finally tossed on the trash. Allen B DuMont circa 1937. The PT was there. None of the tubes except the CRT. And the CRT was funny: I could not see a spot until I held a magnet near the neck. Once I had verified a visible spot with a 330V supply I hacked a '555 a '324 and a couple Tandy 300V TO92 into a trigger sweep 19kcps 'scope.
EDIT: some like this except trash-can scars:
DuMont 164 Oscillograph 1939-40.jpg - Wikipedia
Last edited:
You would of course needed either magnetic deflection or electrostatic deflection coils to control the spot and in my day the "timing " as it was called then needed an array of tubes as well as an EHT section heavily screened in its own box.
TubeTime » Blog Archive » CRTs with Magnetic Deflection
Unlike the USA British television equipment wasn't isolated from the mains electricity ( no big transformer ) as that cost a lot of money reversing the plug connections got you a "live " chassis and that big line pentode had 800 Volts on its cap with enough current to kill you unlike the EHT which was only a few ma.
No easy job of conversion then.
TubeTime » Blog Archive » CRTs with Magnetic Deflection
Unlike the USA British television equipment wasn't isolated from the mains electricity ( no big transformer ) as that cost a lot of money reversing the plug connections got you a "live " chassis and that big line pentode had 800 Volts on its cap with enough current to kill you unlike the EHT which was only a few ma.
No easy job of conversion then.
In the US TV's became "hot chassis" pretty quickly and were connected with little 2 pin connections that were easily reversed. Consumer TV's did not usually have transformers, too expensive, and the filaments were series strung off the AC line. Lots of potential for lethal hazards. Back then TV's only had antenna inputs because anything else would be hazardous. Fortunately those are mostly now in toxic land fills. I think Motorola revolutionized TV's with a switching supply which actually was cheaper to produce.
With only a few specialized exceptions test & measurement oscilloscopes were all electrostatic deflection. Getting useful magnetic deflection above 40 KHz is not in the cards. . .
With only a few specialized exceptions test & measurement oscilloscopes were all electrostatic deflection. Getting useful magnetic deflection above 40 KHz is not in the cards. . .