Torn between the Rigol or a good analog scope - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: dmlandrum
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 12:08:58 am
content: I'm really, really sorry for being an absolute newbie to the board and starting yet another Rigol thread.I'm an electronics hobbyist, focusing mainly on audio circuits for music making, and a physics student at university. I really want to pick up a good scope, but being a poor college student, I'm not exactly wealthy. I want the scope not only for my electronics work, but I figure it might also come in handy for physics-related work (measuring minute phase shifts between signals, for instance), which is important since I want to start doing my own science and hobby engineering video podcasts. I've been told that you never truly understand the material until you try to teach it, so...So I'm torn between a good analog and the Rigol. A good analog scope would be cheaper, but calibration might be a bit hit or miss. Also, in physics, measuring very small signals is common, and thus the lower noise floor of the analog scope might be nice. On the plus side for the digital scope, we have single-shot measurements, memory, and easy-as-pie FFT analysis, and no having to futz around to get data into a computer.Anyone here have any thoughts? Thank you!-- Darren, who might have questions about digital data acquisition for scientific purposes later on.

author: Dago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 12:53:51 am
content: Rigol hands down.

author: flolic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 01:04:08 am
content: I have both, a shiny new 100MHz Rigol 1102E and a few years old analog GW Instek 20MHz. Yes, analog scope has virtually no noise and great 1mV/div sensitivity, but that's about it. Digital scope can show me a things that my old analog simply can't!To be honest, I was a little skeptical when I order my Rigol (never used ANY digital scope before) because I did not know what to expect. Fortunately, Rigol surpassed my expectations MANY times

author: dmlandrum
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 02:39:35 am
content: I should also point out that one of my planned future projects is a cinema camera. As it turns out, DIY cine cameras are quite possible. The Rigol is looking pretty good, I have to admit, and would probably be the greatest help in future digital projects. Thank you for the replies.Have any Americans who bought one of these had to pay import duties? I've read over the official government documents, and I think I know less about it now than I did before.-- Darren, who will undoubtedly also have questions about surface mount soldering as well.

author: dmlandrum
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 03:24:09 am
content: Blargh. This might all be moot anyway. In the time from my last post to now, my main computer blew up (I'm on the netbook now). I pulled out all of the stuff, RAM, drives, processor, cards, one at a time, and was never able to get any beeps out of the motherboard, so I suspect that that is the issue, but I still need to test the power supply. This is annoying as hell.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 06:30:20 am
content: Quote from: flolic on November 30, 2009, 01:04:08 amDitto both of those points. Plus the analog persistence can be superior for some applications over a low end digital scope like the Rigol. (High end digitals don't have the same problem)But the fact is an analog scope can cost you nothing, many people give these away for free!Ask nicely on any friendly electronics newsgroup or school etc and someone somewhere is likely to have an old 20MHz scope you can have.Failing that, eBay have tons of them for well under $100.And someone reported to me they got an older model Rigol for under $100 on ebay too!You can make do with an analog scope, but ultimately if you are involved in electronics these days you should have a digital scope (as well), it will open up another world for you.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 12:14:27 pm
content: Short answer: Rigol.I have an old (cost me about $100 used) BK-Precision 15 Mhz analog scope. Quality unit, got lots of use out of it. But once I bought the 50 MHz Rigol DS1052E, I've never looked back and haven't turned on the old scope ever. I paid $390 for the Rigol on ebay new, including shipping, from some Taiwan outfit on ebay that had a good seller rating. The import duties declared the unit to be worth $50, which is a lie (and I had no control over it), but that's what they declared it. Paypal protects the buyer, so the risk is zero. If I have a problem with the scope, I'll be dealing with Rigol directly, but for such a low price - hard to go wrong.

author: dmlandrum
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2009, 02:55:19 pm
content: Thank you for the replies. I think I could like this board.I'm going to have to wait a month to purchase now, but that's not too big of a deal. I think I'll pick up the Rigol, then if I can find a decent analog scope at a local hamfest (several are coming up in my area), I'll do that, too. As you said, the older ones are just about free anymore, but I'm not going to buy an analog scope unless I can get a really good one, like one of the Tek 465's, or even a 453 or 454.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 03, 2009, 12:35:04 pm
content: you need an anlog one

author: jimmc
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2009, 12:10:21 am
content: It is very difficult to say which is best analogue or digital both have their strengths and weaknesses.A few points to considerIt's easier to get a misleading display on a digital 'scope, get the sampling rate too low and you get aliasing.If you're looking for an cheap analogue 'scope, check the EHT voltage.As a rule of thumb most 'scopes up to around 20MHz B/W have about 2kV EHT which leads to a dim trace and the inability to see low duty cycle waveforms.Above 20-30MHz B/W the EHT is usually above 10kV which gives a much better display.Tektronix make some of the best 'scopes around but to obtain their outstanding performance they do tend to use a lot of custom parts. Not a problem unless they go wrong.Manufacturers such as Hameg and LG may not have the same reputation as Tek but use standard parts almost exclusively.Above a few tens of kHz the accuracy of the waveform you see is more down to the probe being correctly compensated than the 'scope itself.Above a few MHz earthing and loading effects become very significant.(Remember this is bandwidth, a low frequency square wave with fast edges can have components to many MHz)How many people realise that at 100MHz a 10M probe looks more like a few hundred ohmsresistivein parallel with a few pF!(Seehttp://ecee.colorado.edu/~mcclurel/tabcprobes.pdfp25)Jim

author: Ronnie
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2011, 02:25:24 am
content: Quote from: dmlandrum on November 30, 2009, 02:55:19 pmSo did you decide to get a Rigol DS1052E for your audio circuits design?

author: Lawsen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 04:02:54 am
content: Oscilloscope designers in the past felt the same way you are presently, "torn between an analog oscilloscope and digital oscilloscope." Sampling rates in the 1990s were not fast like today. Philips introduced a dual mode oscilloscope with both analog and digital in one case and sharing the same cathode ray tube display. This was the Philips Combiscope. The Rigol seems to be the standard beginners digital storage oscilloscope. I am middle age with earth science geology and electronics trade. I did not start with a Rigol. I started with a second hand, used Tektronix 2235 analog oscilloscope about the size of a blue sheet metal suit case. It looks so nerdy, that I hide it away from my friends. Science is not the "in thing," in Stockton. The Rigol and the Hantek hand held did not came later, until I have more work. It is my habit, that I always start with my analog Tektronix 22xx or Philips, unless I want to record something or just have more fun, then I will plug in the Rigol. I recommend this, you could not go wrong with a Rigol or an analog Tektronix 22xx, Philips, or other makes. Get the analog Tektronix 22xx or Philips 3212, or other makes the forum likes, that will teach you a lot of oscilloscope basics. You could always resell it, if electronics is not your interest in the future. If you still have the urge for a Rigol, then get one. The Hantek is just a visual multimeter, not really good oscilloscope, 250 Msamples/s for input bandwidth of 60 MHz. I worked with seismographs and never get that high frequency and great for use in the wilderness, "bush," away from my mother's house. The display in older analog oscilloscopes are nice by Philips or Tektronix are my favorite. The HP are heavier and often needs calibration service for their vintage. Second hand analog oscilloscope is not very expensive to begin with, then you could always try a new concept like a digital Rigol or an expensive Agilent or Tektronix in the future. The money spent on an analog oscilloscope cannot buy you a Rigol or Agilent, because those cost more. Just focus on your school and projects, not the oscilloscope, that is just a visual tool.When I was in electronics trade school, I used an Hitachi analog oscilloscope, 20 MHz bandwidth, standard analog parts on circuit boards.The Philips PM3212 analog oscilloscope, 25 MHz two channels is great for around $90.00 USD. It is very well made and good shielding and made in Holland. I like the intuitive layout of the analog Philips PM3065, 100 MHz analog oscilloscope. It has no aliasing, totally analog and heavy X-ray shielding in the picture cathode ray tube. I liked this one.http://www.hantek.com.cn/english/Lawsen

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 06:50:57 am
content: with this analog vs digital oscilloscope debate. i still dont get it. fyi, i was from background where i used 20MHz analog osc (Instek or some clone i'm not sure if i'm not mistaken, and it used aligator clips as probe, not the more standard needle type) that was damned confusing each time i opened it up, i have to tinker every button to get the display right (appear). so far with rigol i cannot say i have stumbled with some limitation in doing my stuffs. now looking back some of the older older post...Quote from: Dago on November 30, 2009, 12:53:51 amQuote from: EEVblog on November 30, 2009, 06:30:20 amQuote from: Simon on December 03, 2009, 12:35:04 pmwas these really helpful? for the sake of ee, care to elaborate the detail? dont get me wrong. i dont say analog is bad, i only say i just dont get it.btw: i wonder whats the OP has decided to buy (bought?)analog or digital?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 07:04:17 am
content: An analogue scope is fairly straight foward. When I got my rigol my knowledge of how to use a scope helped but I had to learn to use the digital scope too. Getting to know the principles of an analogue scope is best done first. Aalogue scopes are still handy as they have much less noise and are cheaper for the beginner.Later on you will still find a use for an analogue scope. As dave has shown a number of times digital scopes have to "emulate" the natural and useful properties of analogue scopes, sometimes the low end digital ones do this badly.If your dealing with repetitive signals an analogue scope is fine, you only need a DSO for when you need a DSO Digital Storage Osciloscope. If you want to view a repetitive you may not need the storage functionality of a DSO and can instead enjoy the clean outputof the CRT screen on an analogue scope.

author: Ronnie
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 07:11:56 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on March 25, 2011, 06:50:57 amMaybe this is synonymous to the phonograph vs. CD debate thing?

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 07:36:28 am
content: Quote from: Ronnie on March 25, 2011, 07:11:56 amNo they are two different beasts each qwith their merits in doing differnt types of measurements. The digital scope will possibly never replace entirely the analogue one. People still using phonographs are just being stuborn

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 09:55:39 am
content: Quote from: Simon on March 25, 2011, 07:04:17 ammaybe it just an UI thing, everybody will learn for a new thing, the same to me when i first got my rigol. but with the analog, i have to reopen the manual again and again and its still obscure. maybe that was a low quality one. lets move on.Quote from: Simon on March 25, 2011, 07:04:17 amwhat the natural and usefull property of phosphor got to do with measurement? yes rigol tried to emulate it by its limited "infinite persistent" (which i made it better) so far i only think of glitch which will remain on phosphor for several nanosecond which can be detected by eye if we patient enough looking at the screen. think continuous vs sampled data, am i right? the only thing can detect glitch in digital world is very high sampling rate which is expensive. maybe that explains it.Quote from: Simon on March 25, 2011, 07:04:17 amwell, both analog vs digital can do repetetive signal, but the dso got extra storage!the only thing thats rational for me right now on getting analog scope is if my work is relating to glitch detection, other than that, the digital one can do the job. pls correct me if i'm wrong. Cheers

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 11:02:19 am
content: DSO were just coming into being when I graduated, and most of my experience is with analog. Analog has some advantages over digital, and getting to know the limitations of a DSO takes getting used to, its more involved than analog. But afterwards, I pretty much don't use my old analog anymore.If a buyer can get a hold of a used/free/cheap analog do so, but know the used ones Dave suggests are past their service life and could fail at any time; you'd like your test gear to be perfect when working on projects, as all your efforts are getting a design to work, not troubleshooting erratic or failed test gear.A simpler analogy is analog multimeters, its still sold today and a few still think that nulling and trending is still better on analog meters. Fluke tried to emulate it with the fast bar graphs found in DMMs, but if you've used analog, its still not the same. So, will I buy a new Simpson or analog Sanwa? Nope, I have my old analog meter, but I can work around DMMs limitations using the bar graph and/or the relative function, as the digital offers more than I lost with analog.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 12:22:00 pm
content: ohh the analog multimeter! i miss the glitch detection feature, i can see if a capacitor is working allright or not or if there is very fast pulse goin on which unable to be read (or demonstrated) by digital (just as phosphor did). but my AMM sanwa is just sitting right infront of me. even though i missed it, i have no reason to arm it up anymore, neither do i have reason to throw it away as well. so now its only for display.

author: slburris
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2011, 10:37:51 pm
content: Jumping into the fray....An analog scope is going to have a much higher display update rate than the Rigol,which could be an issue if you have a jitter problem you're trying to visualize.It's also potentially easier to use, as everything is controlled by a knob or a switch.On the Rigol, there are menus and submenus, and modes you have to set -- notnearly as easy to use. Personally, I find that my Tektronix scope can trigger morereliably on complex signals than my Rigol can.The flip side is that if you are looking at single shot or rare events,there are things you can do with a digital scope which analog scopesjust can't do. Being able to set up a trigger, have the event happenand get captured, then study it at my lesure is invaluable. If you wantto do measurements on waveforms, like duty cycle, rise time, etc, thoseare really easy on the Rigol.I've had a few cases where the display on the Rigol didn't make muchsense to me, so I looked on an analog scope as well and was able to figureit out. I think I was caught by the Rigol's slow update rate. At highfrequencies, you can be bitten by aliasing on the DSOs, but that's notgoing to happen at audio frequencies.I own a Rigol DS1052E and a Tektronix 2465, so I've got the best of bothworlds. If I was just starting out from scratch, I'd probably get the Rigolfor it's size and versatility.Scott

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2011, 11:07:55 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on March 25, 2011, 09:55:39 amIt can help you judge the rise and fall time of a signal. A squarewave with a really fast rise/fall time will just look like two green dashes, the rise/falling edge of the waveform won't be visible because the phosphor won't be exposed to the electrons for long enough to light. A squarewave with a longer rise/fall time will have brighter lines on the rise/falling edge of the waveform because the electron beam will move more slowly across the phosphor allowing it to absorb more electrons and glow more brightly.The persistence can also help you see periodic sudden glitches in a waveform.A disadvantage of the phosphor is it limits the lowest frequency which can clearly be seen to around 10Hz or so depending on the persistence. The only way to get round this is to take a picture of the CRT with a long exposure camera.I can't believe no one has raised up the advantage of a DSO being able to display low frequencies better than analogue 'scopes because the persistence problem isn't an issue on a modern DSO.I don't have a DSO (unless you count a cheap velleman pocket 'scope) but I've used a DSO before at work and I liked the way it could be used to store short one-off events and for low frequency signals.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2011, 11:52:13 am
content: Yes this is something I noticed, my rigol can go down to a few seconds/Div but it handles very slugishly so I consider it as capable as an analogue scope.Yes as the CRT has fixed properties you can learn to read beyond the actual measurements

author: tekfan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2011, 11:29:49 am
content: QuoteEven this problem was addressed in analog scopes. Some use long persistance phosphor and glows for a much longer time than normal. Other analog scopes use variable persistance. There's a second gun in the CRT which is called a flood gun and that keeps the image on the screen for longer. This was basically the first form of oscilloscope storage (hence the name analog storage oscilloscope).I wonder why nobody has mentioned the combined digital/analog scopes like Dave's Hameg 1508 or the Tektronix 2230, Fluke/Philips Combiscope series...These really have the best of both worlds. They can function like a true analog oscilloscope or as a digital one (with cursors, readouts...)

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2011, 01:59:31 pm
content: Some side issues not mentioned. If you get a used analog, just remember they tend to be physically large vs an equivalent DSO, heavy and may have higher power consumption.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2011, 04:28:22 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on March 26, 2011, 11:52:13 amThat sounds odd. I don't see why it should be slow, perhaps it's a problem with the firmware?Maybe the screen can't be changed faster than the sample rate so the cursors can only move slowly when it's set to low frequencies?Quote from: tekfan on April 03, 2011, 11:29:49 amHow low can you go with analogue? Seconds, minutes per division?A Digital 'scope can go down to hours per division. Surely the only way to go that low with an analogue 'scope is to connect a solenoid to a pen moving across a piece of paper with a stepper motor like a seismograph but the upper cut-off would be really low.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2011, 06:54:26 pm
content: a matter of time, money and information processing.

author: Tony R
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2011, 03:35:27 am
content: I say get both, you can get your Rigol for the 400 bucks and if you look you can probably find an analog scope too.A digital scope will have more advanced features such as being able to do math adding waveforms and subtracting them, auto set is nice but not always the best thing.An analog one will give you a better picture at times, faster response.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 11, 2011, 09:26:25 pm
content: Quote from: Tony R on April 11, 2011, 03:35:27 amMost analog scopes can also add and subtract channels. Not so with more advanced math like multiplication or integration, though.

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2011, 10:42:33 pm
content: it comes down to the rite tool for the job. if you can manage it, get both for sure. I use a 40Mhz Analog and a Rigol Digital scope. I use the Rigol mostly, however the Analog is worth its weight in gold when i need it.Just my 2 cents

author: Joshua
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2011, 01:49:49 pm
content: Hello,I am in america, and did not have to pay any import taxes etc...In fact, I got mine from Amazon.comhttp://www.amazon.com/Rigol-DS1052E-Oscilloscope-channels-connectivity/dp/B003MYND5A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302788754&sr=8-1Right now, it's $400.00, but if you have a *.edu email address(I'm assuming you do, since you're a university student), then you can sign up for 'Amazon Prime'. In which case, the scope is 'prime eligible' meaning, you get FREE, yes FREE two-day shipping. -I love amazonhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info- place to sign up for prime.NOTE: there is only 8 left in stock on amazon, so... They might run out in a year, a week, or a day, I have no clue.Joshua

author: James Hinkson
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 04, 2013, 03:24:23 am
content: This is a very late reply. Users often think a digital scope is noisier than an analog scope. This isn't actually the case. I refer the reader to a short Tektronix blurb on the matter. Take a look athttp://www.tek.com/support/faqs/why-does-my-digital-oscilloscope-have-more-noise-then-my-analog-oscilloscopeJim Hinkson

author: mazurov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2013, 03:58:01 am
content: Quote from: dmlandrum on November 30, 2009, 12:08:58 amDefine "minute". You shouldn't expect any decent alignment between channels of cheap DSO. Here's the experiment I performed with my newly-acquired Hantek ->https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hantek-tekway-dso-hack-get-200mhz-bw-for-free/msg197085/#msg197085, it shows 1ns difference between channels where there is none.The analog rig used for verification can be bought for less money than I spent on this DSO.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2013, 04:54:12 am
content: C'mon mazurov, its not even fair to compare one of the fastest analog scope ever made on earth vs this poor low end Chinese DSO.

author: mazurov
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2013, 05:26:26 am
content: I'm not comparing. I'm showing that at this frequency the phase difference between these two probes is much less than presented by low-end Chinese DSO. The OP mentioned phase measurements and I just wanted to show the limitations of the instrument.Besides, if "one of the fastest analog scopes ever made on earth" can be had for less money than low-end Chinese DSO it is wise to buy it first while they are still available ( I have 2, both in excellent condition). I'm pretty happy with a Hantek, BTW - two clicks to the left on the timebase it starts measuring well and it makes nice screenshots too :-).

author: gotwood
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2013, 12:32:23 am
content: I chose to buy a used HP54645D on eBay and am glad I did

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 05, 2013, 12:08:40 pm
content: I find that I only use the analog scope when I need the bandwidth (or special plugins). The Rigol for example is so much more convenient with the measurements shown on the display, screenshots, delayed timebase etc. Toss it in a bag when you visit a friend to hack up some stuff.I don't think that the drawbacks mentioned, DSO noise and UI difficulties (the main knobs are the same as on the analog no?), are important enough for a beginner to choose an analog scope over a DSO. A very strong point for used analog scopes seems to be the price and the bandwidth. I also believe that all of us who have both an analog and a DSO and have used scopes for a long time are really biased. You don't need an analog scope as your first scope nowadays, you can do all those beginner mistakes (and more) with a DSO as well. Overall, I think that a DSO will be more useful to a beginner in the long run.With $400.00 I would probably try to get a Tek 2465B over a new rigol, since it has 4 channels and more bandwidth. Or a Tek 465B if money was tight. If 400 MHz DSO's were a bit cheaper I would never look back. For a beginner, not sure if it matters if it's analog or not, it's an exploration tool at that stage.