What does "Rigol DS1054Z is the best oscilloscope for hobbyists" mean? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: eeguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 12:48:37 pm
content: I am a bit confused. I read many reviews and posts about this inexpensive oscilloscopes. Some users are strongly in favor of it. I heard that it is the cheapest one with lots of functionality. Many people consider it to be the "best" oscilloscope for "hobbyists". Some people mentioned that they are very satisfied with it even they have used more expensive oscilloscopes from other manufacturers. However, there are also people mentioning that it has many bugs, "you get what you pay for", Rigol does not know what they are doing while copying the design of others, since it is so cheap some faults can be tolerated, it is a piece of sh*t, etc.So, why many people consider it to be the "best" oscilloscope for hobbyists? Is it just because it is cheap? Does that mean it is just like a toy for hobbyists rather than a piece of instrument for serious scientific research and academic use at graduate/postdoc level? I can imagine that if a measurement instrument has bugs, it may not be a good idea to use it as incorrect measurements and incorrect scientific findings may result.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:02:44 pm
content: Your confused because you are stating and/or quoting very subjective opinions. Are you looking for validation on having bought one or considering getting one or justification for sending more on something 'better'? Your questions should be in context of what you feel your specific needs are.I've been involved in electronics for fifty years and I'm of the opinion that the human holding the test probe is the limiting factor in the effective use of any piece of test equipment. Concentrate on the use of, not the possession of, any specific piece of test equipment.

author: eeguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:07:58 pm
content: I plan to purchase an oscilloscope for academic/scientific use. I am considering this oscilloscope along with the ones from GW Instek and Keysight. The ones from GW Instek are less expensive than those from Keysight. However, the price differences are not so much. So, if I choose between the two brands, I probably choose Keysight. Given that there are so many positive reviews about the DS1054Z and that it is much less expensive than the Keysight 2K, 3K series, I also consider it. So, I want to know what it means by this oscilloscope is the best for "hobbyists". Is it not reliable enough for academic/scientific use? I read some posts that a Math function does not work properly.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:10:51 pm
content: a) No, it's not a toy. Far from it.b) It's the best bang for buck in the "hobbyist" price range.By far.c) You're spending far too much time reading in forums. Forums are where people go tocomplain, not to praise.Nobody here is posting long lists of all the things the DS1054Z does well (and the list would beverylong).d) The Internet is a place where old posts/videos never die. Bugs may have been fixed long ago but google will reliably keep on digging them up for you, years later. eg. Googling for "Rigol DS1054Z bugs" won't produce anything useful.If you've seen that "people mentioned that they are very satisfied with it even they have used more expensive oscilloscopes from other manufacturers" then try believingthat, not the sour grapes around here.If you want the truth in a forum then never ask "what's best?". Opinions are almost never helpful.Try asking for something concrete like "a list of current known bugs". Something factual like that.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:11:04 pm
content: Not sure what additional information you are looking for? The advantages and limitations have been discussed in quite some detail in the related thread you had opened, on a scope for robotics work.That thread also has a good cross-section of the opinions people have on the DS1054Z's bugs: Some are very annoyed by specific bugs, or just by the fact that an issue which is trivial to fix has not been fixed yet (namely the "pulses" vs. "pluses" spelling error). Others feel that the remaining bugs are in arcane areas and don't limit their use of the scope in any way.Personally, I am happy with my DS1054Z, which I have used in various microcontroller, FPGA, and old-tech-repair projects. For me, it was a massive step up from an old 2-channel analog scope. I would certainly not call it a toy (and reserve that category for some of the low-cost USB scopes). Compared to a $10k high-end scope, it might however feel toy-like to others.By the way, Rigol has just released a new firmware yesterday. According to several reviews on this forum, it makes the user interface (trace adjustment) feel more responsive, and it fixes a bug with RMS measurements. I am pleased to see that Rigol still actively care about the product, and look forward to trying out the new firmware.

author: eeguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:17:59 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on September 15, 2016, 01:11:04 pmThanks. Any video about the new user interface?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:27:32 pm
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 15, 2016, 12:48:37 pmIt's not just for hobbyists, but simply put it's the best "bang-per-buck" you can get for the money.QuoteNope, it's a very serious scope. NASA could use it just like they could use any other modern advanced 100MHz digital scope.5 years ago this would have been a very advanced scope worth 10 times the price.10 years ago it would have been an extraordinary bit of kit most would have lusted over.QuoteIf it had that serious a bug it would have been found by now by the community.

author: sainter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:31:44 pm
content: My university uses only Rigol DS1102E scopes. I bought DS1054Z and will never regret it. If I had more money when buying a scope.... I still would have gotten the DS1054Z and a SDG1050 signal gen or something like that.I would say this scope is best place to start from and move up if you need to.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:45:42 pm
content: It's the best you can get because it costs aroung 400 € after tax all around the world.. and while it gets sold as a basic 50 MHz scope you can hack it without consequences.that's why is the best bang/buck for hobbyist (and makers)if you compared the full-paid version to other brands it would not be that bargain, but nobody would tell you that because he could get accused to be a "rigol-basher"however while i don't share fungus' enthusiasm (it hasn't improved that much in speed in doing basic things like moving the trace up/down/left/right) it must be said that it has improven a lot since the beginning of this year.if you want better tools you pay more money. if you need a tool that is responsive, fast and has options like decoding standards not decoded by rigol, you get a different piece of equipment. if you are a hobbyist you probably have all the time in the world to play and make stuff so you won't care. go for it! you may like it or not, it's up to you. you will find out only after you play with it. infact, there are people that can do real work with that scope, i get easily pissed off by its lag to be productive so i mostly use an analog whenever possible.But point n°1. if i was in the US i would have got a GWi as a low end scope, which unfortunately costs at least 1.5 times more here in europe (all models), hence why i got a 1054 for myself, all i could afford for the hobby, that didn't suck too much. not what i use or would use at work

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:50:09 pm
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 15, 2016, 01:17:59 pmNot that I know of. Just read the last one or two pages of the DS1054Z mega-thread to get several opinions (from fans and critics of this scope) on the new firmware.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 01:54:35 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on September 15, 2016, 01:45:42 pmIt's not "enthusiasm" it's just that everybody here is on a constant downer about it.If it has 100 functions and one of them has a bug then on here it's somehow useless, not to be trusted for anything, a piece of junk.What about all the other 99 things it does brilliantly? Do they count for nothing?And the idea that if one function has a bug then nothing else is to be trusted is farcical. If justoneother function didn't work then you'd know all about it and be posting it here. Guaranteed.This weeks firmware update has fixed everything that matters. Can we just enjoy our 'scopes now?Quote from: EEVblog on September 15, 2016, 01:27:32 pmExactly.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 02:12:10 pm
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 15, 2016, 12:48:37 pmI can drive my truck to work and be pretty sure I'll get there. If I had one, I could drive my Ferrari to work and make a real statement. Is the Ferrari 'better' in some sense? Actually, probably not. It will spend more time in the shop because the least imperfection must be dealt with.I'm confused! I thought we dealt with all these issues in your other threads. You really should be looking at a much more expensive scope because, for your work, you need to make a statement. "My equipment produces perfect results and they are...". The rest of us, hobbyists probably, just want to see squiggly lines where we can state with certainty "the results areaboutthis and subject to interpretation..."You're confused! You seem to think that an oscilloscope produces an exact answer. That will never be the case. In the first place, your probing has altered the circuit. Maybe it's insignificant, maybe it's not. Every component you use will have a tolerance and when they stack up against you, none of your results are "typical".You will never be able to make a statement with anything less than Keysight. None of the other manufacturer's names carry the same impact as HP->Agilent->Keysight. In the analog days, only Tektronix was credible, everybody else was 'some other brand'. Back then, even HP was a step down from Tektronix. But that was a long time ago.Why is it the best scope for a hobbyist? Because there is nowhere on the planet where you can spend $400 on a scope and come anywhere close to its capabilities. Sure, you can match it with a $1200 <something or other> but you just dumped an extra $800 into something and got nothing for it.I am willing to concede that a $25k Keysight will be far superior to a $400 Rigol just as the Ferrari is far superior to my pickup truck. But the truck will get it done during the week and still be able to make dump runs on the weekend. Side issue: Back when I was racing Hare Scrambles (dirt bikes), there was one rider who showed up in a Rolls Royce with a trailer hitch. I guess that was his solution to making dump runs. Oh, and he didn't haul his bikes around. The team did that, all he did was show up and ride! Rock star!Nobody is going to take a paper or presentation seriously unless the equipment itself is serious and that isn't Rigol. If it isn't Keysight, everything falls apart from there.When you read about all the problems with Rigol, make sure the poster actually knows how to operate a scope.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 02:14:26 pm
content: to the OP: seeing all you topics my final suggestion is: get a 1054Z.altough you seem to have the budget for much better equipment you also seem to have no idea if you will need it or not. get a 1054, find out if you are able to get your work done with it.if you can good for you! you saved at least 2600.if you can't at worst you wasted 400 if you don't want to resell it, but having a spare wheel is always usefuli'm sure i'm not the first to say itQuoteoh boy, the topic from that guy that wanted to look at a 10Vpp sinewave with 10 mV per division vertical scaleor something like that. i don't want to dig it out... that was embarassing

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 02:16:53 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 15, 2016, 01:27:32 pmYou're joking, right?A very basic 50Mhz B-brand scope hacked to 100Mhz wouldn't have cost $4000 in 2011 (which is around the same time the DSOX2k came out, and the DSOX2104A with unhacked 100Mhz and Agilent premium didn't cost $4k). And even back in 2006 this would have been a very far cry from being "extraordinary", considering that on the bottom end there were already scopes like the Agilent DSO5000/7000 and various 20GSa+ 100Mpts+ Windows based scopes on the upper end.Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing in any way that the DS1054z is currently the best bang for the buck you can find in the $400 price bracket, but I'm sorry but that statement above is just silly.Let's stay realistic here.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 03:00:05 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on September 15, 2016, 02:16:53 pmThat is only true IF YOU HACK IT! Otherwise the DS1000Z series is actually rather expensive and limited compared to the competition.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 03:10:13 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 15, 2016, 03:00:05 pmthe average hobbyist/maker doesn't care

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 03:12:02 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 15, 2016, 03:00:05 pmYes, but then look at who'd buy a $400 scope. It'll be pretty much hobbyists and for them the idea of "hacking" a scope (which as I understand it is really using an online key generator) is probably exciting. Quality or maturity aren't necessarily top issues as long as the scope does mostly what they want. So it's fair game, and under that circumstances I'd say that the DS1054z is pretty much the best offer on the market.If I had to spend $400 on a brand new scope I'd probably buy the GW Instek GDS1054B because of its better FFT and because I assume it's more mature, but that's me. And frankly, I'd rather spend the money on a 2nd hand scope, which is exactly what I did when I needed a cheap simple scope (I thought about buying a DS1054z, but then bought a HP 54645D MSO instead for a bit over half the money)

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 03:41:55 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on September 15, 2016, 02:14:26 pmI don't see how the OP can publish papers for peer review with scope screenshots from a Rigol and not get laughed at. Serious research requires serious instrumentation. Not that the answers are any different, they probably won't be, but anything by Keysight will have more impact than anything by Rigol. Serious instrumentation implies serious costs. Keysight can easily fill that requirement.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 03:48:23 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 15, 2016, 03:41:55 pmi agree 100% with you last two posts but the op seems to be so uncertain that my advice can't be different than that. try and see the results/consequences.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 03:56:08 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 15, 2016, 03:41:55 pmI'd rather say: NIST traceable calibration.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 04:03:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 15, 2016, 03:56:08 pmThat's a given and applies to every instrument. But even a NIST traceable calibrated Rigol screenshot isn't going to look good in a published paper. I hate to think about how much cost all this rigor adds.Me, I'm just a hobbyist and the DS1054Z does far more than I will ever need. When it doesn't, I'll buy something else. But I'm not writing papers for peer review.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 06:42:24 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on September 15, 2016, 03:12:02 pmI'd skip low end scopes. Simply I'd save up until I can afford a better one, because if in the future I want to play with RF or stuff like that, I can and I don't have to buy specific gear again. I want to totally trust my instruments, because still making projects and stuff seems simple but it's not because bad mistakes can really happen and you may find yourself in a bad debugging situation (and I hate it).... if we add also that the instruments can't be trusted, you are in a never ending cycle.Not to mention that I want full support from the manufacturers even if the gear costs a little bit more...

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 06:55:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 15, 2016, 01:27:32 pmActually it was. VRMS measurment "digital crosstalk" bug.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 07:08:21 pm
content: Quote from: R005T3r on September 15, 2016, 06:42:24 pmBut it isn't just a 'little bit more', is it? Just moving from $400 to $2000 gets nowhere. Essentially low end scopes of dubious heritage. By the time you get to NIST traceable, you're up in the multiple 10s of thousands of dollars.We wouldn't be talking about an entry level 100 MHz scope but a full blown 1GHz+ scope with a datacenter full of sample memory.Maybe something like this:http://www.keysight.com/en/pdx-x202179-pn-DSOX3104T/oscilloscope-1-ghz-4-analog-channels?nid=-32541.1150356&cc=US&lc=engOddly enough, this $14,500 scope has less sample memory than the DS1054Z and its still only an 8 bit device with a 3 digit DMM. My grandmother had a 3 digit DMM!Even the $17k DSOX4104A has less memory and an 8 bit ADC with a 3 digit DMMhttp://www.keysight.com/en/pdx-x201951-pn-DSOX4104A/oscilloscope-1-ghz-4-analog-channels?pm=spc&nid=-32539.1150543&cc=US&lc=engAnd the $200k Infiniium Z series is only 8 bits (12 bits with averaging - this is making some assumptions about the nature of the signal):http://www.keysight.com/en/pcx-x205212/infiniium-z-series-oscilloscopes?nid=-32529.0&cc=US&lc=engThis entire scope selection game is pretty much nonsense! You can spend a metric buttload on high end scopes and all you bought was a bit of bandwidth and a name!

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 07:58:07 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 15, 2016, 06:55:02 pmIt was found by the community, and it was now fixed by Rigol (with yesterday's new firmware), if I understand the early test reports correctly.

author: alsetalokin4017
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 07:59:06 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 15, 2016, 01:54:35 pmOh come on. If that "one function" out of 100 is the one you happen to need to work properly for your usage and purposes, you can bet that it will be complained about, and validly so, since the scope should do what it says "on the tin", that is, work properly. That makes it useless if that one out of a hundred features is your required use. Like the RMS bug that was so serious Rigol got off their... er... chairs and fixed it with a quick firmware update.And over the past two years we have indeed identified several show-stoppers. Fortunately most of them have been fixed by firmware updates. Some or maybe even most of these major bugs might never have been fixed had not users called them to the attention of Rigol in these threads or by direct contact with the Support team at Rigol.And I am _not_ a Rigol basher, however much you like to characterize me. I use the scope every day, I have had good luck with their Support, and I like the scope. I just think that one should be _realistic_ about its shortcomings... which includes acknowledging that it isn't perfect. But it's getting better all the time, and no doubt will continue to improve as the firmware is refined. For sure it's a lot better than it was 2 years ago.

author: alsetalokin4017
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 08:06:51 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 15, 2016, 06:55:02 pmAnd at least two more: The Freeze bug which could make the scope freeze during use and even _start up_ completely non-responsive to the controls (except the power switch and the "5th left button" reset procedure) when Persistence and Horizontal Zoom were in use, and the Measurements Fail bug where all Measurements stopped working after a random time, requiring a power-cycle reboot to get them working again. I have posted video demonstrations of these serious bugs.Both of these were found by the communityand brought to Rigol USA's attention, and have been fixed in software updates over the past year or so.

author: alsetalokin4017
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 08:12:31 pm
content: As far as "academic" use goes.... sure. It should be the scope that sits on every undergrad student's workbench in the lab. Should it be the scope the _professor_ uses in academic research for publications? Maybe not, depending on the details of the research. Should NASA use it for critical applications? Let the astronauts decide that one.Is it the best oscilloscope for hobbyists? That depends on your hobby. If you are doing TTL circuits or Arduino or robotics or low frequency ham radio or stuff like that, sure. If you are developing microwave drone shoot-down systems in your garage, maybe not.

author: eeguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 08:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: JPortici on September 15, 2016, 01:45:42 pmMany years ago I bought a digital oscilloscope (20MHz, 25MS/s real-time sample rate, 1.25GS/s equivalent sampling rate). The lag was so bad that I also got pissed off and gave it to somebody else. Know the source of the lag? It would be nice if I could see how the lag is like after the just released firmware update for the DS1054Z. If the respond of the updated DS1054Z is similar to that of what I got in the past, I have to forget about it.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 08:43:33 pm
content: Quote from: alsetalokin4017 on September 15, 2016, 08:06:51 pmThose don't count as incorrect "incorrect measurements and incorrect scientific findings may result", though. Annoying yes, but don't produce misleading readings. RMS bug AFAIK hasn't been fixed yet.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 08:47:09 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 15, 2016, 08:43:33 pmActually it was, in a new firmware from few days ago...v00.04.04.01.01 2016/09/14

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:00:02 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on September 15, 2016, 08:47:09 pmHave a link with a bugfix stated or people actually tested it?

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:07:20 pm
content: People actually tested it, myself included..

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:15:02 pm
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 15, 2016, 08:30:06 pmThen forget about the DS1054Z! The lag is still there; I don't see one iota of improvement. Turn on 4 channels with Auto memory depth and the lag is huge! Others have reported an improvement so there you go, differing opinions. Or, maybe their firmware was even more out of date than mine before the latest upgrade.Analog scopes are the only ones that respond in real time to changes in settings. Digital scopes can only approximate that response and some don't do it very well.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:16:23 pm
content: Quote from: alsetalokin4017 on September 15, 2016, 07:59:06 pmExactly. The problem with many low end scopes is that they are put onto the market while the firmware is far from ready and it takes years for the major bugs to get fixed and functionality to be completed. AFAIK only the most recent DS1000Z firmware has taken the instrument to a level where you could say the DS1000Z does what it promises but how many years has it been on the market already?

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:18:21 pm
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 15, 2016, 08:30:06 pmvideo in the background just to prove everything is happening in real time. enjoy (and i didn't even use the horizontal knob)I was excited at first because the scope booted on the only timebase/memory depth combination where the lag is almost absent

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:40:46 pm
content: "What does "Rigol DS1054Z is the best oscilloscope for hobbyists" mean?"It means that it is the purchase with the best price/feature ratio for hobbyists, with the main reason being that hobbyists can unlock ALL cost-options for free, without any legal consequence. This might not be the case for companies or schools.A hobbyist uses the oscilloscope (or any other equipment) for personal projects, which are not profit driven. Mostly the hobbyist does not gain any profit at all with his activities, hence why it is not reasonable/affordable to use expensive equipment designed for high end professional use.That does not mean that there aren't hobbyists with high end equipment.BUT: The fact that this is the best buy for hobbyists, doesn't disqualify the oscilloscope for professional profit driven applications!The question is: what are you using it for?Example: an engineer implementing CMM machines, CNC machines or robot cells, may use the DS1054Z at his advantage for example on motor/encoder calibration. Actually, any oscilloscope might do the job, because you are basically tuning motors/encoders, so that the waveform is shaped as close as possible against specification. Having the DS1054Z is probably a luxury compared to an old CRT analog scope.Also, if said engineer needs to figure out the RS232 parameters on an undocumented CNC controller, in order to do DNC: sure, one can systematically try all combinations (300, 600, 900, 1200, 2400, 4800, 9600, 19200, 38400, 56600, ... baud, 7 or 8 stop bit, even or par, 1 or 2 data bit - yes, I have done it like this in the past, it takes hours), but with the DS1054Z, you can actually SEE the RS232 communication and deduce the parameters in a few minutes (I know you can use a logic analyser, a RS232 sniffer or a PC with two serial ports and sniffer software, too).In these examples, you could do the same with a 10x more expensive scope. Higher specs, better precision, better GUI, etc. But in the end of the day, the DS1054Z would give you more profit.If, however, you are into some kind of electronics repair or development, the DS1054Z might be less productive, offer too little bandwidth, to small sample memory, to little precision... All this has been explained on the several threads.The only thing I really want to add on this discussion, is the value on academic articles (I lecture at university, also).If a paper is discussing results based on MEASUREMENTS then yes, the equipment used to obtain said measurements needs to withstand any questioning: it has to be done within manufacturer's specs, with traceable calibration. Using equipment from a reputable brand helps.If the paper is discussing a proceedure or technique, which requires a given instrument, then I find it absolutely acceptable to use the most competitvely priced equipment, as long as the choice is correctly justified. If the OP is using the oscilloscope to show how to calibrate the robot's encoders to increase overall positioning precision of the robot and if the oscilloscope is used to tune the accelaration curves of the motors, which are magnitudes under the specified capabilities of the oscilloscope, then there is nothing wrong in using a Rigol for the job. Especially if the OP explains the benefit of said device in the paper by discussing price/benefit ratio.The use of expensive equipement per se does not justify anything and does not make a paper more credible. The opposite is the case: if too expensive equipment is used for no apparent reason and without any justification, then it gives a bad note to the paper.My opinion is: if it takes the OP so long and so many questions/threads to make up his mind, then it seems he doesn't really need the oscilloscope at all!If he knows what he needs the oscilloscope for, then he just needs to compare his requirements against the oscilloscope' specs.All the rest has been said and discussed at length.Regards,Vitor

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:45:35 pm
content: Quote from: Bicurico on September 15, 2016, 09:40:46 pmThe problem is that on paper many cheap devices look just as good as more expensive devices. The difficulty is to figure out whether buying a more expensive device is wise or a waste of money before spending the money.

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:56:17 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 15, 2016, 09:45:35 pmYou are correct, however, I don't recall the OP mentioning his specific requirements, so the whole discussion is a little futile.Saying it is for robot research and then asking what it means that the Rigol is the best for hobbyists just doesn't make much sense. It's the same with cars: you have the Renault Clio and the Mercedes S300. Both are cars, one costs less than the other. Yet, both can be used for private and/or professional use. What does that mean? Nothing at all!I don't want to sound harsh by any means and no offense to the OP, either.

author: joseph nicholas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 09:57:39 pm
content: Hi all, could someone post a link to where you can buy this scope for $400.00 US shipped?

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 10:04:00 pm
content: Quote from: joseph nicholas on September 15, 2016, 09:57:39 pmhttp://www.tequipment.net/Rigol/DS1054Z/Digital-Oscilloscopes/?v=7401Sales tax may drive the $399 price over the top.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 11:16:35 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 15, 2016, 10:04:00 pmUsing the EEVBlog discount will help with that.

author: eeguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 12:06:51 am
content: Quote from: JPortici on September 15, 2016, 09:18:21 pmThanks for the video but I am very sorry that I see a big lag between knob turning and the signal moving vertically accordingly. The lag is similar to the Fluke 123 handheld oscilloscope I used many years ago. As far as I recall, the Yokogawa DL 1540 oscilloscope I used (sweep time: 5nd/div to 50s/div, 56kword (4-channel), 150MHz, display rate of max 60 displays/sec when 4 channels are used) did not have this problem. From EEVblog #701, the Keysight 3000T also has no lag. What is the reason for the lag? Which specification should I look for if I want a digital scope without the kind of lag shown in this video?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 12:27:38 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 15, 2016, 02:12:10 pmAre you serious?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 12:50:06 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 16, 2016, 12:27:38 amI think yes. I have been involved in using test equipment for measurements which needed to stand up in court. I let the customer buy a Tektronix scope + traceable calibration for that job. Not that Tektronix is so great or the value for money is good but it prevents a boat load of silly questions you are likely to get when you arrive with a cheap B-brand scope.

author: Stwspoon
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 01:18:10 am
content: I went through this about 6 months ago. My requirements were 100 MHz,at least 2 channels, low input noise (>5mv RMS), and Mac OS support through USB or Ethernet. Desired was serial decoding and MSO options if only 2 channels and reasonable support.I chose the Rhode & Schwarz HMO1212. I was impressed by Dave's tear down video and other videos on YouTube. I have been very happy with it. I got mine from Tequipment for around $1300 with the EEVblog discount. (Just ask when ordering).I have been burned by cheap tools (literally in one case :-), so I was willing to spend more to get something I could feel confident about. If you can get a student discount, the HMO Max bundle could be a good deal.good luck,Stan

author: eeguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 02:40:01 am
content: In general, how is the GDS-2204E compared with the DS1054Z? Does it have the lag I mentioned in Post 30? From, it looks like there is no lag.

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 02:58:15 am
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 16, 2016, 02:40:01 amOnly YOU can determine if the lag would be troublesome to YOU!

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 05:01:18 am
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 16, 2016, 02:40:01 amIf you look at the screen during the discussion of memory depth in that video (around 2:15), you will see that it was set to 10 kpoints only. I can't read the memory depth in JPortici's video of the DS1054Z lag, but would assume that it was set much higher. I don't have the Rigol scope in front of me, but seem to recall that the UI lag is significantly reduced at lower memory depths. Hence, not an entirely fair comparison.Nevertheless, the GDS2000E series has the advantage of its Zynq chipset, which allows tight integration of the real-time sample processing in FPGA and the microprocessor-based UI. I have never used one of these scopes, but if GW Instek has made good use of the chipset, would expect them to have an edge over the Rigol in the responsiveness of the UI.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 05:50:41 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 15, 2016, 01:27:32 pmSome times it is difficult to detect if you are joking or serious.Can we get some special emoction for this purpose so that also kids and bottom entry level inexperienced hobbyist can clearly detect when you are joking and when you are serious.Perhaps NASA the happy end use it but as we know, they happy use what ever. After all, it is (some times) like an expensive adult playground science club. (emoction: seriously joking)But this is not joking, it is just one reason why I set this multifunctional <censored> for recycle out from my workshop.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 06:26:33 am
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 16, 2016, 12:06:51 amthe reason? my bet is "trying to do too many things and excelling at nothing"in a word, software. scopes with very simillar hardware from other manufacturers (if i remember the teardowns correctly) don't seem to struggle this much in handling the UI-- the GDS-2000E is a BEAST.-alot faster-better FFT-more memory per channel (yeah if you want to boast 24 Meg on a single channel.. go get a 2 chan siglent. will give you up to 130Meg per channel)-CAN decodingit also costs 3 times the 1054Z, all justified.(but of course if you PAID the options the price difference would be much smaller for the 100MHz version)

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 06:36:21 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on September 16, 2016, 05:01:18 amcorrect! it was at 3 MPts. just changed to 30 kpts and 3 kpts (and to auto, which also reduced the sample rate), no difference.trust me on this one, i'll upload the video when i'm at work if you're skeptical

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 07:45:22 am
content: Quote from: JPortici on September 16, 2016, 06:36:21 amNo need from my end; I trust your observation, of course!It must have been in some other context then that the reduced memory depth led to faster operation.Looking forward to updating the firmware on my own DS1054Z on the weekend and taking it for a spin! ;-)

author: StuUK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 08:03:08 am
content: Received my 1054Z earlier this week, no regrets at all, so it has a couple of bugs and a bit of lag, so what!!! it's excellent value for the money!!!

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 08:31:11 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 15, 2016, 07:08:21 pmRegarding the scope, to tell the truth, I also found stupid the DMM and waveform generator addons. I like having things separated.If you don't know what you are doing with high end instruments and you blow them up, well, it's your fault not the producer... The thing is: if there's a bug, and Both the instruments have that bug, how much time will pass in order to fix it? Also, there will be other firmware resales because they have "half solved" the problem? This is another aspect to consider, and frankly I want things like instruments working as expected. Compatibility with accessories and accessories also play an important role: who knows what deserves the future...I'm not sure that you will get just a bit of bandwidth more and a name.... There must be other things that may justify the price such as they have made extensive work to test the instruments before the release on market, can't just be a name in my opinion, anyway I still have to make research on that, so I could also be wrong.

author: ProBang2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 08:50:10 am
content: Quote from: StuUK on September 16, 2016, 08:03:08 amThe last software version is implemented?Should be the version "00.04.04 SP1".(Press:  => System => System Info)If not, then I would highly recommend to update.(You get rid of the -IMO- last major bug, the RMS crossover channels error.)Aside of this:Congratulations for your new tool. Have a lot fun with it.(Perhaps, sometimes you will be even a little impressed what this little device makes possible- as it happens sometimes to me...)

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 09:30:13 am
content: Quote from: JoeO on September 16, 2016, 02:58:15 amNo, it's troublesome toeverybody.EVERYBODY wouldliketheir DSOs to respond like an old analog 'scope (which is just a potentiometer connected directly to the vertical amplifier - zero lag).The question is whether or not it's $1000 of annoyance.I don't know about other people but I really don't think I spend much of my time adjusting the vertical position. Normally it's when I turn channels on/off, which isn't often.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 09:49:53 am
content: Quote from: eeguy on September 16, 2016, 12:06:51 amThat won't be written in the specification.If that's theonlything you're seeing after starting various threads and many many pages of discussion then you're stuck. You literally haveno choice. You have to pay $2000+ for a GDS2000 with options (or maybe something even more expensive that has brand-prestige to impress your friends).You need to admit to yourself that you've already made your choice. This really isn't an engineering decision. It's pointless discussing features, bandwidth, etc. in here.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 10:03:19 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on September 16, 2016, 07:45:22 ambetter do it anywayin this one i found the only combination where it is almost on part with a tek tps2000as a bonus, the horizontal knob. used with the zoom mode for the most fun of all (accelleration goes from 1 pixel to quarter the trace to full trace in three undefined steps!)Quote100% agree.i actually move the traces up and down, left and right a bit, when i'm setting up the signal to analyze (and almost invariably i switch off get to the analog scope*)to me, what i have is too much. moving, wait 1-2 seconds to see if i moved too much and then repeat. you saw it on video, that's my scope.somebody elses is not like that? is my scope defective? please provide a video proof. i'll be more than glad to have a good reason to return/demand a new onetonight i might make a third video, moving the traces when the scope is stopped. i actually didn't try that after the update*hey! what if i connect the vertical output of the analog scope to the rigol? so i could set up things in a lag-free environment and then look at the automated measurements

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 10:27:41 am
content: OP. Regardless of which oscilloscope you buy, regardless of how much money you spend, you will need to understand the impact of your instrument on the research you are doing. All instruments will have noise, scale errors, offset errors, timing jitter and any number of other imperfections. You will need to analyze the impact of these errors on your specific conclusions. The results of that analysis will tell you the minimum instrument capability that you need. No one here knows what your research will pivot on, only you can do that analysis.The impact of brand name? Your analysis should convince any serious researcher of the validity of your results. But not all grant committees or other funding sources are composed of serious researchers, so there may be some benefit to using a name brand. This is a double edge sword, because some of those same funding sources will make decisions based on how carefully you are spending their money.One important consideration that is often overlooked is peer support. All oscilloscopes are complex instruments and it can be difficult to determine how to do something that the instrument is capable of performing. What brands/models are used at the facility you will be working at? Following the local crowd has merit. Does the brand or model you are considering have good manufacture support, or good support in on line forums? The Rigol, because of it's low price is widely used and widely supported on-line. Even the broken record folks who repeat the same complaint over and over provide value.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 10:54:42 am
content: Quote from: JPortici on September 16, 2016, 10:03:19 amI think I figured out why different people are seeing different things. New thread here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-ds1054z-vertical-response-discussion-thread/

author: eeguy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 10:57:01 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on September 16, 2016, 10:27:41 amThanks for the suggestions.I think most likely I will go for the GDS2204E (if it is better and more recent than the 2204A) or one of the Keysight 2000, 3000T X-Series. Do these two brands have good support both from the manufacturer and from online forums? I asked GW Instek the differences between 2204E and 2204A via their online chat. No reply. Somebody from Keysight called me. He said that he would send me the educational price list two days ago but there has been no pricing information yet.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 11:09:01 am
content: You can look at GW Instek's website and see the GDS-2204E has more and better features so yes, it is newer.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 11:23:53 am
content: It seems like the vertical response is purely a software issue.Oh how we'll laugh if the next Rigol update makes it move smoothly.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

author: StuUK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 11:42:56 am
content: Quote from: ProBang2 on September 16, 2016, 08:50:10 amit is the latest and will be doing the upgrade/hack later once I'm happy I'll not cock it up

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 12:02:51 pm
content: Quote from: StuUK on September 16, 2016, 11:42:56 amNo hurry. All the options are unlocked on a new 'scope for a free trial so you can play with them. The only thing you don't have is 100MHz yet.Make sure it all works properly before you hack it.PS: The hack is easy, no need to worry. Don't unlock the 500uV/div option though - it's not supported in hardware and will annoy you if you select it accidentally.

author: julian1
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 12:12:01 pm
content: It means it's good bang for the buck and still leaves a budget for the other bits of kit useful for a generalist/hobbiest. Namely - LCR meter, Signal Generator, bench-meter, dual/tripple power-supply, rework station, iron, components, lighting, books etc.

author: StuUK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 12:13:39 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 16, 2016, 12:02:51 pmThanks I saw that in this threadhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/rigol-1054z-73964/msg1023342/#msg1023342DSER not DSFR

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2016, 01:35:40 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on September 16, 2016, 09:30:13 amThis is where I come out. Yes, there is lag and I never had lag on my Tek 485 but I never had measurements either. Toss in decoding and it seems like a good tradeoff. It takes a little longer to get the display the way I want it but I get a whole lot more information.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2016, 08:14:50 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 15, 2016, 01:27:32 pmThe lack of AC precharge because Rigol was too cheap to implement proper ground coupling is a serious bug by design. Or maybe they did not know any better.Quote from: Fungus on September 15, 2016, 01:54:35 pmOh, good. How did they implement AC precharge in firmware?On the other hand, it is only a $400 DSO and it has 4 channels so if one is blown out, it is not a significant problem.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2016, 09:56:16 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on September 17, 2016, 08:14:50 pmThe list of forum members with blown channels is a long one, right? There's threads and threads of people complaining.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 12:06:32 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on September 17, 2016, 08:14:50 pmFirst I've heard of it. But I obviously don't read every thread and message on here.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 06:54:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 18, 2016, 12:06:32 amYour own reverse engineering thread revealed no ground input coupling circuit and what Rigol's ground coupling setting actually does has been discussed in a couple of other threads.Other oscilloscopes allow the use of ground input coupling to precharge the input AC coupling capacitor to prevent damage to the front end circuits; they do *not* just disconnect the input BNC and short the input to the buffer to ground. This is not only a consideration for the JFET or MOSFET input buffer because a failure of the input protection diodes will almost always be just as bad. This is not a consideration at low input voltages but it is much easier to exceeded the peak input voltage if the AC coupling capacitor has already been charged to the opposite polarity.