The more i read, the more clueless i am of which scope to buy - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: Mateusz
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 08:20:58 pm
content: HelloI start to look for my first "real" scope (i have this 10$ subsitute i bought to basically poke around at those basic "learn how to solder" kits, and to check a full bridge rectifier-based car battery chargers, they output 15V peak rectified output max so it was suficcient). I got pretty decent budget for one, and thus i have been looking for a more capable one. However the more i read on scopes and the more i learn how those operate, the more questions i begin to ask about what i want to do with them.First of all, i am well aware of the "banger for buck" Rigol 1054Z, i could get it from the local market (cheaper because those damn ebay sellers and their choice of UPS literally make the product nearly double the price, or even quadruple (UPS delivery from america to my country cost nearly 1100$ on some heavier scopes), however i would like to have a more capable machine and i would like to avoid buying and then selling one as "used" and going through the hassle of buying yet another, more powerful one. Especially if i can afford better one from the start. I am also aware of the Analog Devices one (ADALM2000) that could provide some really nice features and is pretty tiny which would fit the next point in my post.Second is that, even if i buy some of the cheaper options, with what people say is "an essential trio of electrical engineer" - an oscilloscope, a function generator, and finally spectrum analyzer, i would like to avoid having multiple devices in my garage, since i really lack the space for this atm (i share this with my father, and he has a ton of stuff laying around). Thus i would like to look at oscilloscope that could substitute (even if it means only a little bit) other functions that those other tools provide.Third of all, i came to a conclusion (correct me if i'm wrong) a better oscilloscope could provide more diversity in options and badwidth. I recently bought some books, some are to catch up with maths (i'm chemical technologist by diploma, but i forgot some), and electronics (Art of Electronics set to be precise), so it would be nice to have a more capable scope that would scale up the more knowledge i gain, without constant need of buying more equipment (a more of sporadic need).So there are couple questions:1. Would it pay off to buy a scope that has like 500MHz or even like 2GHz 10Gb/s or so bandwidth as a beginner?2. A lot of more powerfull scopes provide more frontend options - some of them are - built in logic analiser, built in function generator, many more different math options and specific, better refresh rate, better resolution (the ADC are lets say, 10-12bit instead of 8 bit), are "mixed domain", are digital instead of analog (for example usefull if i would like to save some waveforms in, heck even bmp/png format to print out later on).Thus the question - what is the quality of those additional features in those scopes? Like function generator or logic analiser? Can they compare to dedicated solutions that i would have to pay separately for and would get separate box on my bench? I read the simple dedicated function generator can go up to 30MHz, but suddenly when i search for more complex ones they pick up on price quickly. Same for Spectrum analyzer, how does it compare to FFT in better scopes? What is the difference between spectrum analyzer and Network analyzer that now keep seeing in my recommendations in youtube?3. I do indeed see some "cheap RF" spectrum analyzers/network analyzers, that are like, single naked board with 2 connectors, or like this "NanoVNA" that can go up to 900MHz for real cheap. Are those pretty good, or nah? i see that one have some sort of tracking generator, and the big specialized spectrum analyzers that go (typically from what i see on ebay and manufacturers) 9kHz - 3.1GHz cost $1500. I saw an offer on 1GHz LeCroy Wavepro 950 for that much (used, it is listed at , and it got FFT, math, all the different stuff (even some I2C decoding functionality).4. What is the application of the higher bandwidth of the scopes? What i mean by that is, why manufacturers decide to go with that exact separation of products? I get that some applications literally don't need even 200MHz bandwidth (like DIY projects, audio freq is 20kHz tops, most basic microcontrollers are couple dozen MHz), and that some applications might need more (searching different modules on mouser, i read some FPGA's can get to 250MHz, and projects like LED driver on The Signal Path channel got close to 200), but what is the application at 500MHz bandwidth, DDR/DDR2 mem troubleshooting? and why out of the sudden scopes go into literall 1-2GHz and then some huge leaps? WiFi is 2.4/5GHz i get it but there has to be more than meets the eye isn't it? I couldn't find the answer to this questionI'm sorry for long post and so many questions, but looking through specifications on lower end entry scopes, medium range scopes (i looked through Keysight "used" category for example - MSOX2000 series) and at the same time "RF" scopes (is 500MHz and "entry to RF"? i don't know), and very powerfull, but old design scopes (Like the LeCroy Wavepro 950/960, the old Infiniuum series, HP old CRT digitizing scopes (holy shit i really love the display of one from one of the Dave's repair episodes, HP digitizing 500MHZ 2GS/s one)) and at the same time all the other equipment i could get, it gets reallly daunting...

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 09:09:38 pm
content: Quote from: Mateusz on August 31, 2021, 08:20:58 pmYour range of scope choices far exceeds my equipment. I have a Tek 485 (bought used for about $200) for its 350 MHz bandwidth but I bought the DS1054Z a few years back and it's been great. I just use if for hobby projects and it has been excellent. Today I would buy the Siglent SDS1204X-E - 200 MHz 4 Channel. I WANT 4 channels... 200 MHz would be a plus. Don't forget, Fourier gets in the way; a 100 MHz scope will probably only represent a 10 MHz signal with any accuracy (9th harmonic). If you want to see a 250 MHz signal coming off of an FPGA, you're going to need a scope with multiple GHz of bandwidth. Of course, you can choose which harmonic gets close enough... Could be its 5 or 7 or whatever.As to the ADALM2000, take a look at the Digilent Analog Discovery 2. I really like that gadget, it can do everything! Sure, it has limited input voltages, fairly low bandwidth, and a few other restrictions but the list of things you can do with it is amazing. I use it all the time in preference to my scopes and AWG (Siglent SDG2082). BTW, read the manuals for the AWGs. My Siglent is called 80 MHz but that only applies to sine waves. Everything else is limited to 25 MHz. Just a hint...Here is an epic thread re: the Siglent 1202X-E. Charlotte finally buys the scope around reply 150 and then we play with features. There are some pretty good demonstrations.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/what-an-oscilloscope-recommended-for-a-woman-passionate-about-electronics/

author: CaptDon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 09:12:42 pm
content: I never really liked digital FFT spectrum analyzers. They have their place but they can calculate several different categories of FFT mathand only approximate what I see with a real double or triple conversion swept I.F. analog signal chain analyzer. When I do alignmentsor look for harmonic levels I still prefer the old HP or the older Tektronix units. They remain expensive because they work very well andeven in the days of digital everything the old workhorses are still preferred over most of the new whiz-bang units!! My Tektronix TDS644Aand TDS644B have the FFT spectrum analyzer functions enabled from the factory but as a spectrum analyzer they suck. They are fantastic2gs/sec 500mhz scopes although prone to alias if you look at an unknown signal and get your sweep settings wrong. An entire book couldbe written on 'How not to use a digital oscilloscope'. For almost anything analog that I work on below 150mhz I pull out an analog scope.I go to the digital scopes when I need to create a .jpg or .csv file and certainly mostly use my digital scopes for trouble shooting digitallogic because of the multitudes of triggering options that can help trigger on fault conditions. I like the Tektronix 'lunchbox' scopes likethe TDS2014 or TDS3014 series but they remain costly. I bought my TDS2014 because I knew a manufacturer that had nearly 100 ofthem in house for several years and only ever had one fail. They seem to be reliable!! Let's see how others feel on this chain.

author: bob91343
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2021, 11:38:17 pm
content: I agree that an analog scope is the way to go. It's less likely to fool you and will always have a place on the bench even after you get a digital. A better learning tool as well, since the controls have a more direct function.Sure digital scopes are great for study but for general troubleshooting and speedy results the analog is simpler to use and won't play games with your head.I have two digital scopes and one analog scope on the bench, plus two spectrum analyzers. I end up using the analog scope for most work; it lets me concentrate on the circuit under test rather than the scope.

author: JustMeHere
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 12:33:18 am
content: DS1054Z

author: Doctorandus_P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 01:14:48 am
content: When you start talking about more then "entry level" oscilloscopes the sort of functions you want to have depend on the sort of projects you want to do.Apparently you have not used a scope yet, just some toys resembling a scope.Something like an entry level Rigol or Siglent is orders of magnitudes better than what you have now.From what I heard about the other budget brands (gwInstek, Atten, etc) they tend to have bad user interfaces, bugs or other weird things.If you don't even know if you need a spectrum analyzer, then don't overthink it.I would buy a Siglent over a Rigol, and partly because of the better spectrum analyzer. The Siglent implementation is quite usable, while in the Rigol it more resembles a toy. I also like the browser based interface of the Siglent more. That just works on my Linux box, while the last time looked into PC control for my old Rigol DS1052E it was just not available, or so bad and laggy it was unusable. But it's been years since I checked last. My Rigol DS1052e is also bugged by the faulty rotary encoders that several other people here have mentioned. Not very difficult to replace, but a nuisance nonetheless.And don't stare yourself blind at bandwidth. Whole generations grew up with 20MHz analog scopes.Have you looked at Batronix? They're quite close to Poland, and within the EU.

author: bob91343
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 04:41:57 am
content: I feel that the best move would be to get a used analog scope at a swap meet or from an old timer who doesn't use it much. Often you can borrow one to get a feel for what you like. Or pick one up privately without spending too much.A simile I read somewhere here is kind of like asking what kind of car I should buy. Doesn't that depend on you more than anyone else? Get an old car and see what's involved before you do any major purchasing.The more you spend, the fancier the device, the harder it is to learn and make use of the instrument. Start small and get some perspective.

author: Mateusz
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 02:17:53 pm
content: Quote from: CaptDon on August 31, 2021, 09:12:42 pmI never really understood the need of having couple different scopes for seemingly different uses. Isn't it just sufficient to have really good digital one that could cover most of the options?Quote from: bob91343 on September 01, 2021, 04:41:57 amWell that is good and bad analogy, you can buy a car depending on your needs, or the one that you like the looking of.Quote from: rstofer on August 31, 2021, 09:09:38 pmI actually did read that thread, but not fully, it was really big so i decided to go and look further on more options. Good catch with Digilent one, i'll look into thatThere are 2 comments recommending Siglent, is there a reason i should get 1202X-E over 1204X-E? It seems like 4 channels and further upgradeability (logic analizer + function generator) is worth a try, no?It seems like there are still voices to get analog scopes, but as i watched Dave's video on "how to get a scope" (one of first videos, i belive it's 8 years old or so) he mentioned a situations when people can't afford one, and then he pointed that there is a market for those cheap analog oscilloscopes. I certainly CAN afford one, and i have decent budget so the question is "should i go for expensive one that would scale, or should i not".

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 02:34:56 pm
content: Quote from: Mateusz on September 01, 2021, 02:17:53 pmIMO there's no reason to consider the 1202X-E unless your budget is very tight and it is a lot cheaper than the SDS1104X-E, since the latter can easily be hacked for 200MHz and options. The only difference between a hacked 1104X-E and the 1204X-E is the probes that come with the 200MHz version are slightly nicer--but that's not a big deal. The logic analyzer I won't comment on, but the function generator option really doesn't mean much, it is just a separate module that the scope can control via USB. You are far, far better off saving your money and putting it towards a separate function generator as the add-on module is very limited. Siglent makes several very nice models that can also be controlled by the scope via USB for Bode plots.Skip the analog scopes. I repair, restore and occasionally sell them and I usually have a dozen or so hanging about, but unless you have a niche use case, are just used to using an analog scope and don't want to change or you like the look and feel of them, it would be a bad idea to have one as your first or only scope. If you have room and later on you see one for sale cheap and you like the look, sure, grab one. But not starting out--first it will probably need repairs and second it will be missing a vast amount of functionality that any decent modern DSO has.

author: CaptDon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 03:43:59 pm
content: As some have mentioned, A 150mhz squarewave sure looks a lot more square on a 150mhz Bandwidth analog scopethan it does on a 150mhz Bandwidth digital scope!! I have looked at some high frequency signals with 500mhz digitalscopes and the complex waveform display was useless!!! The different frequency components of the waveform wouldalias at different sweep speeds!!! They don't alias on a pure analog scope and if I slow the sweep down to capture oneentire repetition of the complex waveform I can still use the Sweep Magnifier or Delayed Timebase at a fast sweepspeed to examine the waveform in great detail. Most digital scopes give a terrible display of an audio modulated RFcarrier such as looking at the very common 3.885mhz 80 meter ham band where old AM military radio equipment junkieslike to play. You slow the sweep to see the audio component of the RF carrier and then the carrier will alias and look likecrap!! I will always have a high bandwidth analog scope AND a high bandwidth digital scope on my bench. In manycases a 'claimed 500mhz' bandwidth digital scope can look like pure crap on complex signals over 100mhz. Digital scopesdo excel at capturing and storing high speed data streams like USB, analog scopes can't do that unless they are a storagemodel and most of the storage scope still aren't worth a crap over maybe 100mhz. Again, for my work I need one of eachtype and high quality analog scopes with impressive features are dirt cheap these days. Think Tek 453, 454, 465 etc.

author: Doctorandus_P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 04:03:07 pm
content: Don't trust those guys who can not distinguish between the 9 orders of magnitude between milli and mega.They probably still use analog scopes too.Or blame it on the guys who invented the SI prefixes, but the're all dead, deceiesed, cone to see their makers and no more. It may even have been Napoleon himself.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 05:32:25 pm
content: Quote from: Mateusz on September 01, 2021, 02:17:53 pmIt's not until after Reply 150 that things get interesting. Charlotte wanted to learn to use virtually every option in the menus. It will be worth the time, I promise.As to 1104X-E versus 1204X-E, it is a fairly simple operation to enable the 200 MHz feature so the 1104X-E is perfectly adequate. For a 200 MHz scope. The unlocking has been tested over in the Test Equipment forum.https://siglentna.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds1000x-e-series-super-phosphor-oscilloscopes/I WANT 4 channels, it is the only reason I bought a digital scope. I wanted to see all 4 signals of an SPI transaction and my Tek 485 wouldn't let me see more than 2 plus an external trigger connected to CS'. The decoding is a real plus.What I didn't realize is just how much I was missing when I didn't have a DSO. I can't figure out why anyone would recommend an old analog scope. They can't do 1% of the stuff you can do with even an entry level DSO Go ahead, show me your analog scope can give a numeric response to the integral of sin(x) for x in the range of 0..<something>. For 2*pi, it is zero, for pi it is 2 and so on. Siglent scopes can display something resembling a Bode' plot when coupled to a compatible signal generator (like the Siglent SDG series) but I don't know that the trace is on a log-log scale. I have read that the FFT on the Siglent is pretty good. I'm not thrilled with the Rigol version but I haven't used it enough to actually do it properly so it is probably my fault.The single shot trigger mode of the DSO is worth the price of entry.In the end, there is no substitute for bandwidth except channels. I don't have a need for much beyond my DS1054Z but if the 1204X-E had been on the market, I would have bought it. Those who have the scope really like it. I understand the UI is much more responsive. Well, I probably would have bought the 1104X-E and unlocked the 200 MHz feature.For giggles, I have attached a Bode' plot and FFT from my Analog Discovery 2. Eat your heart out DSOs!

author: bob91343
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 09:35:09 pm
content: CaptDon has it right. The analog is a great instrument for learning electronics. The digital is a great instrument for learning how to use it. Without a pretty good understanding of how a digital scope works, you will rapidly become frustrated with it. Yes the Tektronix 465, 456, and several others of the bygone analog era are the best for someone who wants to get into this stuff.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 10:00:53 pm
content: Quote from: Mateusz on August 31, 2021, 08:20:58 pmThe NanoVNA is anetwork analyzer, not aspectrum analyzer. There is a big difference. The NanoVNA is a very useful network analyzer, but definitely not a lab-grade unit. I have one and I get good use from it.There is a similar "tinySA" -- a spectrum analyzer that looks much like the NanoVNA. It's adequate for some tasks (I have one -- for about $80 I couldn't resist!), but doesn't have the dynamic range or narrow-band measurement capabilities of my "real" spectrum analyzer. My TEK scope also has spectrum analyzer capabilities, but the UI and performance is lacking. I don't know if the more recent scopes are a significant improvement in this regard.But I wouldn't bother getting a spectrum analyzer until you need one (and you will know when you do).

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 10:06:56 pm
content: Quote from: CaptDon on September 01, 2021, 03:43:59 pmIf they work...https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/tektronix-2215-with-short-trace/A lot of tears have been shed over used analog scopes. Among other things, it probably requires a working scope to fix a broken scope. A new DSO comes with a warranty and is pretty much going to work right out of the box.I like my 485, I really do! But it isn't 1% the scope my DS1054 is. Sure, it has a lot more bandwidth but it doesn't measure anything. Decode I2C? You must be kidding! Worse yet, I2C is one of the hardest protocols to get working. But I2C only takes 2 channels so at least something will be visible on the 485. SPI is a 4 wire interface so 4 channels is the way to go.And the 485 will NEVER be capable of a one shot capture. This feature alone is the reason for buying a DSO.The DS1054Z, unlocked to 100 MHz has an actual useable bandwidth of around 130 MHz. Put a very sharp filter somewhere around this number if aliasing becomes a factor. Digital sampling has limits but they are pretty well known.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 10:07:32 pm
content: Don't become paralyzed by indecision. Your first scope doesn't have to be your last scope or your only scope. Take a look at what used Rigol, Siglent and similar entry level scopes sell for on ebay, it is frequently as much or even more than the cost of buying a brand new one online. I don't understand why this is but it is. My point here is take good care of your scope and save the box, if you ever decide it isn't meeting your needs and you want something else, you should be able to easily sell it for a substantial fraction of what you paid.I personally do not like all in one devices. You can get perfectly serviceable and very compact function generators and most hobbyists never need a spectrum analyzer. I use my scope all the time, I use my function generator occasionally, I do have a spectrum analyzer but I admit I bought that more as a toy than to fill a genuine need but it does come in handy when I build or repair radio transmitting devices.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 10:09:17 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 01, 2021, 10:06:56 pmI absolutely love my Tek 465B, I will part with it when I leave this world. I would never recommend a beginner go out and buy one though unless someone offers it very cheaply and they really can't afford anything else. Other than XY mode and nostalgia I will admit there is nothing my 465 can do that my DSO can't.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 11:17:16 pm
content: Witam, MateuszAnother analog/digital scope question, gotta love it! Everyone has own opinion, here is mine:Depends on what you want to measure. I have a digital Agilent scope and a couple analog. The digital needs a lot of getting used to with the various different functions.After many years of using analog scopes I have arrived in the 21st century and use my digital almost all the time.In general analog is better for low freq and both are good for DC measurements.Any scope over about 500 MHZ requires special powered probes and they are horribly expensive.The "standard" today is probably a 400-500 MHz digital.Digital scopes have lots of "On Screen" information like Freq and rise time etc...The probes are just as important as the scope. The probe capacitance has to match the scope input or you will get funny traces. Applies to both analog and digital.Fournier Analysis can be useful but most people use a spectrum analyzer rather than use this function.There are cheap computer based Logic Analyzers and spectrum analyzers that work pretty well. Probably better to have scope and logic analyzer separately.None of the cheap SA or VNA have narrow band capabilities, you cannot see Hz just KHz, probably does not matter.Analog scopes are more straight forward to use after you figure out the controls. Most do not have "menus" to look through.The Tek scopes like 465, 475 etc are just great but they have a lot of controls and it is easy to push the wrong button.The Tek 465 series is kind of the standard really good analog scope. I have the 475.Some analog scopes have "on screen" stuff like amplitude and freq readout, most do not.Analog scopesdo not have"autoscope" (whatever they call it) where you push a button and the scope finds the right settings to display the signal (I have one that does, however)Analog scopes are cheap right now but they are getting old and require maintenance. They are not the easiest thing to work on but there are groups that can help especially with Tek scopesHere is a link:https://groups.io/g/TekScopes/topicsAnalog scopes are FAR, FAR easier to use at audio frequencies (my opinion) (pick up a 20 MHz old scope cheap for this??) If you are going to look at audio freq this would be a good place to start. If you pick up one that works, you will quickly learn what you like and dont like. Even if you need a higher Freq digital scope in the future, you will probably keep the analog for audio, if you do any audio work. I think audiophiles like them a lot.Analog scopes are BIG and take up room in your garage.Usually analog scope "bandwidth" is listed as where the scope goes down to 80% of real amplitude. (if I am wrong please tell me) Digital scopes really do not do this, they just stop working somewhere around their bandwidth limit.The other posters here probably know more about scopes and electronics than I do, I am just a hobbyist as you areMaybe there is some sort of amateur radio club or a "Makers" club in your area where you can go and actually use one of these things before you buy.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2021, 11:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on September 01, 2021, 11:17:16 pmThat's not entirely true. Yes, if you want to take measurements of high frequencies using a probe then you will need an active probe and those can be expensive, but you can certainly use a high bandwidth scope with a passive probe, you will just reach the limitations of the probe before that of the scope. There are also applications where you can wire the scope directly to the circuit you are testing without using a probe at all, I occasionally use the 50 ohm input on mine to do just that.This is all academic though really, most hobbyists are going to be just fine with a 100MHz scope, maybe 200MHz if they know they're going to need the extra bandwidth. There is no such thing as too much bandwidth but in the real world most of us have to live within a budget and prices rise VERY sharply beyond around 200MHz. In the analog world it's rare to find a scope that even goes that high, they do exist of course and examples have been mentioned here but they were always expensive specialty items. A new 300+MHz analog scope cost as much as a brand new luxury car in its day.

author: CaptDon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 12:39:06 am
content: I sometimes use the 'intensity modulation' feature of my analog scopes. None of my digitals have that feature.I also use the X/Y feature on occasion and most scopes seem to lack sensible stepped gain functions for thehorizontal input. I do radar work as a side business and designed locomotive diesel engine fuel injection systemsthat included natural gas fumigation as an 80% energy substitute for diesel oil. We experimented with multi-pulseinjections to reduce emissions. These are some very weird waveforms because it is the current flow not the voltageamplitude that defines what the injector is going to do and of course we used PWM to control the current. Thereforewe had components of frequency collectively in the waveforms from tens of hertz up to the PWM frequency whichwas around 100khz, or is that Khz?? Boy did I get called out for using 150mhz to mean 150 megahertz althoughI am sure anyone reading my post knew what I meant. I don't rate oscilloscope bandwidths in millihertz, althoughI never see the rolloff of the A.C. coupling of these scopes defined for looking at low frequency low amplitude rippleon D.C. supplies using high gain and A.C. coupling. It would be a tough job to measure millihertz with an A.C. coupledscope of any design and it is tough to measure a few millivolts of ripple on any D.C. supply over about 1 volt usingD.C. coupling. There are limits to the D.C. offset feature of any scope. I have never looked at millihertz (mhz?) exceptin P.L.L. control loop long term stability and usually had to use an external P.L.L. frequency multiplier with a good hour ofsettling time for the entire system.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 12:55:18 am
content: There are certainly esoteric examples where an analog scope is superior. XY mode is the one I use, although not very often, it is useless on every DSO I've tried. For the VAST majority of people though a modern DSO is going to be a better choice, especially those that don't know what they want.

author: Jwillis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2021, 01:41:58 am
content: A lot of formation and a lot of opinions . In the end it usually falls to price , budget and your intentions . For automotive and power electronics you probably won't need anything above 100MHz .Yes there are oscilloscopes with AWG and spectrum analyzer but at a price . MDO's (mixed domain oscilloscope) run from $1000 and up . If that's what your budgeted for then check out the MDO-2102EG Instek Mixed Domain Oscilloscope .For a bargain bottom price for beginners for a DSO , take a look at the Hantek DSO2D15 or DSO2D10 . They run in at around $300 . Not a bad scope for the price . They have a AWG but not a spectrum analyzer .Don't knock the analog scope completely . Without the expensive of a DPO (digital phosphor oscilloscope) , a budget DSO has difficulties with displaying a range of trace intensities of complex-modulated analog signals. Analog scopes will . But analog scopes have limitations . Very difficult to track one time transients and ringing .Again it depends on the field of electronics your interested in . For Power and automotive a basic DSO will be fine . For audio just an analog or a DSO with an analog scope or even a DPO . For digital you might look into and MSO or a DSO with that option. For higher frequencies you need go much higher on the band width .Personally I prefer separated equipment . If one fries then your not out all three as you would with an all in one package. And really these units are so compact now they take up very little space on the work bench .

author: wizard69
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2021, 12:03:05 am
content: If you don't know what scope will fill your needs it might be a good idea to consider holding off a high end scope purchase.It actually makes a lot of sense to buy a cheap used scope to learn with until you better understand where your interests are. You can learn while you contemplate the best scope deal for you.You can only make the best purchase with the knowledge you have at the time you go shopping. However that does not mean in 5-10 years you will not have other needs. It isn't unreasonable to end up with 2 or more scopes in the lab to do different things. The same thing applies to lots of things in the lab, be it multimeters, power supplies, computers or counters; your needs can change or you can simply need 2+ at the same time. Power supplies are a perfect example as at one time you could go a very long ways on a simple 5VDC power supply.Technology often dictates instrument requirements. Simple audio projects can often do fine with a scope of very limited bandwidth for example.Buying through a local supplier is often the smart move. You might not think it is important for a hobby but service and support is a wonderful thing. Of course here in the USA we have a lot of local or semi local suppliers. Some things it is worth going overseas but I wouldn't put high end instruments into that category.

author: jaycee
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2021, 12:58:13 am
content: My first scope was a second hand Tek 2213A CRO. Its served me well for many years. I recently replaced it with the Siglent SDS 1104X-E, and it's brilliant. I prefer the user interface to the equivalent Rigol. Bear in mind though that I'm quite often diagnosing old computers such as the Commodore Amiga for faults, so it's not really beginner stuff any more.There's still a lot of benefit from getting an old CRO oscilloscope, so if you can pick one up locally for around £100 do so. Dual channel with at least 20MHz bandwidth is good for a beginner. Forget (most) USB and those cheap mobile-phone like toys from Aliexpress.

author: Mateusz
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 06, 2021, 03:17:58 pm
content: Ok then, it seems like1104X-Eis on the lead, and Siglent in general.Before i buy i will however use a "free trial" methODE. I'll go to local hobbysts group, i heard there is one called "Hackerspace" in the capital. I'll poke around with some of theirs and then decide what should i get.

author: Maxoverdrive
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2021, 03:36:55 pm
content: I use Siglent too , I have two of them both in 100MHz and 4 channels , plan tu update the older one with a 10 bits always from Siglent

author: WattsThat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2021, 03:42:34 pm
content: QuoteLousy quote. It overlooks the most basic, important tool. A good quality digital voltmeter. You can never have enough dmm’s with at least one properly rated for mains with appropriate probes.IMO, a spectrum analyzer doesn’t belong on the list unless you’re an RF engineer.Don’t waste time on finding a scope with a built in FG. They may be fine for learning things about the scope but that’s were it ends. A very usable FG can be had for <$100 these days. FeelTech and other similar devices are fine for hobby projects.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2021, 07:29:53 pm
content: I don't understand why so many people seem to be stuck on combination units that have multiple instruments built into one package. They are inferior in almost every way, yes you do get to carry all those instruments in a single package, but they are also permanently married together, you cannot upgrade one of them later, you cannot use them in separate places at the same time, you are stuck carrying the whole instrument around when maybe you only need one of the combined devices. Modern equipment is compact and there is a lot of reasonably good stuff that is very inexpensive. There is just nothing much gained by combining it all into one box.Completely agree that very few will ever need a spectrum analyzer, it's for working with RF, quite a specialized application. A professional EE could go their whole career never touching one if they are not designing RF systems.

author: Mateusz
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 12, 2021, 08:41:18 pm
content: Hello again, long time no see.After so much time my budged due to different situations (i had to pay some things and didn't have work for pretty long time) decreased, and after hearing many vioces of people that aren't specialists in the field (meaning my family) I decided to buy the sub 250$ scope. My final choice come to be the HP 54645D. I don't know if this was a good choice, many of you will propably say it was a bad one, but i'll stay with it for now.I bought it from ebay with delivery to Poland (which cost me another ~$200 in delivery/import payments), however the seller and the offer itself (there was like 20 photos with all/most the functions tested in there, and already 16 watchers of that particular offer) was decent, i liked what i saw from Dave's video about the newer Agilent 54622D scope, and then just decided. The one that i bought have the RS232 FFT+storage module, i saw those modules going for some good amount, so i bought this scope since i wanted to avoid paying 2x for two separate items in 2 different orders.Would anyone like to look at some sort of "stream" where i would test this out and someone could 'guide' me through most of the basic things i can do with this? I also ordered a set of 2 probes (Keysight 10074C, at a total of 94EUR for both, i asked seller for a recommendation on this one), and i bought 1 probe with 100:1 factor (T3100 for $25 locally with like $2 delivery, i don't know if it was good choice since it might barely not have proper compensation trimmer cap mounted).Any sugestions on what equipment i might go with that scope as well? I don't have the logic probe for this one, and i don't have any good coaxes in my possesion, but idk if this is important, would like to hear some voices of help.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 12:58:14 am
content: Got enough money left to buy an Arduino? You can easily generate square waves of various frequencies using just the tone() function. Use the tone(pin,frequency) function in the setup() portion of the code. It's the only line of code you need to add to an empty project as generated by the IDE.Or, you can implement one of the MANY PWM projects and watch the pulse width change while the frequency stays the same. You can come up with a R2R ladder (a bunch of resistors on an 8 bit port) and generate just about any waveform you wish.https://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/olearyds/arduino-sinewave-generator-10377ahttps://www.arduino.cc/reference/en/language/functions/advanced-io/tone/https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Foundations/PWMhttps://create.arduino.cc/projecthub/instrumentation-system/dac-8-bit-using-r-2r-ladder-964837Most scopes have a "Compensation" output on the front panel to allow you to adjust the probes in 10x mode. This will usually be a high quality 1kHz square wave.Note that these are all low voltage tests. There's a reason for that! Stay away from 'mains'...

author: Bearded One
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 01:52:05 am
content: Personally I think you need at least two scopes so get a cheaper one first. Once you've fleshed out your needs you can get a better one. Sometimes I find I need to probe at different time bases, for example I might probe a SPI interface while monitoring an analog output. Two scopes is the easiest way to do it since scopes that support multiple time bases are rare.

author: Mateusz
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 14, 2021, 09:22:50 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on November 13, 2021, 12:58:14 amI have a polish lang. edition of "Art of Electronics", there is a project proposal for making a function generator in the last chapter. You think that one would be decent enough?Idk about the arduino, I'll look later at their prices, but i glanced at the video from "w2aew"-something-something (i'm really sorry i can't remember this yt channel name) channel on R2R ladder DAC's. Looks promising, and i also have seen crude DAC's like these used in older consoles.About the additional gear in regard to osciloscopes: should i try to buy a signal 3-way splitter? i see people use it in many YT videos ( i think i saw Dave used it in one of the videos, and for sure i have seen it used here:). Or maybe logic analyzer probe? i have 54645D which has those channels.

author: BrokenYugo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2021, 05:01:46 am
content: The first thing you need to do isthoroughlylearn how not to blow up your scope. Dave has a video with a title along those lines that goes into detail. But basically just understand that the ground lead is a direct connection to mains earth, and that a typical laboratory oscilloscope isn't a CAT IV multimeter, the voltage limit (likely printed next to the input jacks) is never to be exceeded, same goes for the probes, note that probes must be derated at high frequency, graphs are provided in the datasheets. If you are working with voltages exceeding the input limit, consider fixed 10x or 100x probes to avoid a costly mistake. Do not probe mains without a proper high voltage differential probe. Think things through before probing anything.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2021, 02:49:24 pm
content: I don't see a function generator project in my version of "Art of Electronics"For a specific frequency, you can use the Arduino to generate a square wave and use a 4 stage filter to get back to a sine wave.https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/making_wavesGoogle for 'diy function generator', there are a LOT of projects. Pick one!Here is a function generator chip:https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/a/analog-devices/ad9833-programmable-waveform-generatorAnd project:https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/projects/how-to-DIY-waveform-generator-analog-devices-ad9833-ATmega328p/Amazon (in US) has a kit for $10 and it could arrive 'Today' where I live in California:https://www.amazon.com/ICQUANZX-Precision-Generator-Adjustable-Frequency/dp/B07V674HZYAmazon has a lot of inexpensive function generators. They don't come within miles of a Siglent AWG but maybe they don't have to.