Newbie help:  Rigol DS1102E or Owon SDS7102V (new version, 2.5.1) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: echomancer
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 01:02:43 am
content: Howdy folks. This is my first post, but I've been lurking for a few weeks. After a long stint of not fooling around with electronics, I'm back, but this time, I'm learning more!I am an amateur radio operator, and I've recently been playing with an arduino to build a solar tracker for my portable solar array. I have used this as an opportunity to invest in some new tools including a new DMM and new soldering station.I used to mess around with audio amplifiers, building several power applies and gain clone chip amps/SET mono block tube amps. When I was a young college student, I used to sit and covet Tek 4xx series scopes on eBay but didn't have the money for one back then. I decided that I was going to invest in a "starter" scope, and I've narrowed it down to the two models mentioned above. I have intentionally ruled out the GW-Instek A-U models, the Hantek DSO5000, and pretty much every other Chinese model. I will start by saying that I have never owned a DSO or scope before.I have the ability to purchase either of these scopes for roughly the same $ ($30 difference). The Owon seems like a better buy for many reasons, however there are two things that put me off. The Owon seems to have non standard computer connection (I like to log data and analyze). The larger issue that is keeping me from just pulling the trigger on the Owon is the issue that marmad discovered in his review where the screen refresh rate is what limits the actual waveform sample rate (am I understanding this correctly?). If this is correct, it seems to me like you are missing a lot of data and a lot of benefit from the true 100mhz ADCs, etc. I also can't find out if this was addressed in the "new" version of the SDS72102V or its firmware.I have read every thread on this site about both of these scopes, and still cannot make a decision. I would love to hear input or direct experience about this decision. Your help is greatly appreciated in advance.Thanks!

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 02:16:06 am
content: I own the DS1102E and I like it. That gives you one anecdotal data point.I've seen the Owon in pictures and it looks a bit flashy and brightly colored. I don't know if that says anything about how well it performs, but it gives me pause for thought. If the designers can make the visual appearance so spaced out, maybe they haven't done a good job with the programming either? I can't say, but I can say the Rigol has a reasonably well designed and bug-free user interface. It's not flashy, but it works.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 04:00:36 pm
content: Not so bad looking imho. (yes I like better old Hewlett-Packard company test equipments colors but there is not anymore this company. It have totally destroyed. Agilent try somehow copycat HP but they have loosed nearly all - and this old state of art spirit.Also I have owned Rigol DS1102E and DS1052E "good bye" - forever.(but honestly, in this time I have them, I was still surpriced price/quality. They was first chinese these level of products in my work room. After these I really rethinked what I think about chinese crap. They was lot of better I expect but not enough (for me) in specs, mainly memory and signal fidelity and freq resoponse - and in this time terrible customer care or better say total lack of customer care). With my bad old eyes, also this display was tiny becouse many times I want also look so that my nose do not hit screen)Rebranded some Owon have terrible outlook, example Aktakom (in my feel). maybe next they want lime and pink.There is no competition at all with example Rigol. Picture also is original resolution 1:1 This is real time "single frame" captured. 1.6ns risetime. No need explain... this is just hard data.It is well over 200MHz real time oscilloscope.There is no competition with Rigol or Hantek if look these samplerates.All samplerates are single shot realtime samplerates. Also it is good to note what this mean for aliasing.Average, btw, also works for full memory, same for persistence. And Owon 1M is 1M, not 800M. Owon 1GSa/s is 1GSa/s not 800Msa/s. And from 1k up to 10M full samplerate.There can be thousends of "hongkong" lights in FW features and lot of other features but these can not make signal fidelity.(of course there are some fetures what lack in Owon. As all, there are compromises, with different needs, features, product developing time/costs, product price etc. Owon also have not make any kind of copycat as most of chinese manufactures. Owon have designed they product from scratch and also product is new, if compare Rigol Or Tekway(Hantek).But also, Owon is pure serial processing conventional DSO as Hantek (and also Rigol) they are littlebit DPO.Owon UI can (and I hope) develop more intelligent - ergonomy.But worst case in in Rigol. One knob for both channel. This can not forgive, not even with extremely low price. (not so low if think it have 5" 320x240 poor display and 50MHz (100MHz) BW but BW shape is not very good. Also sampling jitter is nearly terrible just as in nearly all these multi ADC overclocked interleaved sampling systems.Owon and Hantek have comparable displays. Same good quality Innolux well known Led backlighted TFT panel and in practice around same signal area.If Money and SCPI feature is extremely important. Rigol is not bad. Building quality is acceptable also.Owon (if buy from ok seller who sell units what have made by Owon for overseas markets) have amazing good warranty time service. They have developed (and continue developing) they RMA prosedure just as reputable company do.Perhaps this issue has also affected some of the changes in personnel matters - who knows?

author: echomancer
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 04:56:56 pm
content: Thanks for the input. One question rf-loop. How can I get data out of the Owon to analyze further in a computer using something like Excel?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 09:03:51 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 04:00:36 pmYou keep saying this, yet Owon keeps calling it a 100 MHz scope. Why? Is there something about it that we don't know, like resonances in the pass band? Do they have problems producing scopes with a constant 200 MHz bandwidth?Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 04:00:36 pmDon't confuse personal preferences with measurable differences, like screen resolution and firmware bugs. I regularly use scope with both styles of controls, and I don't really care, it just takes me a few moments to get used to it after switching.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pm
content: Quote from: alm on February 21, 2012, 09:03:51 pmYou really want Owon change it back?Do you know why my one HP 300MHz oscilloscope is 500MHz if measuring BW with -3db "rule".Oh my god... my one analog Tektronix read 300MHz and it is >400MHz... why. Some hidden info.Do you know where from this -3dB rule come?200MHz do NOT read on front panel. It is measured raw data and not netfun. I can also give all references how it have measured (if really need) data is data, oscilloscope name is name. It is classified as 100MHz scope and specs are as Owon have write them. If they some day change it back to real 7102 front end and it is not anymore 200MHz BW no one can not tell Owon that they lie. Specs are guaranteed minimum. It is raw data and measured in my lab as my work so I get my salary. Why one tektronix front panel reads 150MHz but all well know it is really 200MHz model.THis have changed becouse they design 7102 front end agen. This make it better 7102. Sorry that it now better than Owon specs. Do you know why example risetime is under or equal 3.5ns. If it is 1.6 or 1.8ns measured with 50ohm line ended with 50ohm feed thru terminator there is not any lie. It is exactly what Owon have promized. It is <3.5ns.Btw, there is NOT specs for 100MHz! There is not specified what it means. Or do you find? I can not.Who tell that limit need specify just -3dB point compared to 1MHz reference signal with 6 div p-p level and 50mV/div setting. No one.Can you understand that IF we think exampe that -1dB point we accept for limit. Then this is just so. Compared to 1MHz reference level -1dB point is over or equal 100MHz. Then if think where from this -3dB and "gaussian" BW shape come. It come from history. In old times it was quite natural with old constructions and components.So, on the Owon SDS7102 front panel label 100MHz 1GSa/s is not any lie.I can not find any problem here.Its front end BW is >200MHz if look -3dB compared to 1MHz reference level and if samplerate is enough.Measurements have made using unit what is just exactly in this condition what is factory made. No any kind of modify, adjust or hack. Original from factory product line. And not only one single individual unit.What I believe, my eyes, my data or this owon front panel model and name sticker.If I work inside Owon company and I can there make decisions I write exactly same as they now do. 100MHz to front panel! Do you know why. Probably not.Oh, yes, it can do so that reject BW with FW and arrange so that peoples can find how it can "hack" "modify" to 200MHz. Then all are happy? This is trick how Rigol do. Thousends of peoples buy it just becouse it can "hack". If Rigol have originally done it just 100MHz and start selling these... how "famous" it is now? It was just designed (and clever) selling trick.If Rigol or Hantek or Siglent or whoever do not same it is not my problem.I have data and lot of data. I just believe it. Including error marginals also. This in other hand is just why I do not tell that it is 240MHz scope if look sinewave BW measuring. Then I need tell that one unit is 260MHz and one unit is 220MHz (in data) becouse there is variations in amny things. Even input capacitance vary and its produced mismatch in transfer line need also taken into account. Also there are variations how they have adjusted front end manually.Then, as I have some place tell. 2 channel use 500MSa/s is not enough for good 200MHz sinewave capture. Also captured risetime can not be 1.6ns. Just becouse then minimum sample perior is 2ns. So everyone understand what this is meanuíng.And always also it need notice that there is pros and cons. Just as hacking Rigol. More widely open front end and more possible aliases. (if single channel use Owon see over 500Mhz frequancy componets in its input, it leads to aliasing.)But Owon have 10M fast speed memory and with it... it can keep this Nyquist "mirror" 500MHz down to 500us/s horizontal speeds. How about Rigol or how about Hantek. What is Rigol samplerrate with 500us/div or Hantek? What is Nyquits requency then. I can tell. Situation is just more bad.Also probe is good attenuator for 500MHz freqs.Then, becouse 7102 is "100MHz" model, with it there come 100MHz probes.But, I know, Owon is such as the red rag to the bull pen.Personally I do not like at all this -3dB thinking as some kind of fact what is oscilloscope BW.Look example old 300MHz Hewlett Packard.It is HP classified as 300MHz. can you imagine how much signal attenuates in this point if compare example 100lHz or 1M reference. (I can help.... it is NOT -3dB) So do you ask from HP why they write 300MHz to front panel?Yes you can, but maybe they do not write this story and novel. Maybe they only smile.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2012, 11:30:41 pm
content: Quote from: alm on February 21, 2012, 09:03:51 pmWhere?1-100MHz lowest point at 100MHz and around -0.8dB(also this unflatness is partially outside Owon due to method.I have not this kind of special system where signal level control is DUT end of cable. So test method itself give also some erors.Please show same measured with Rigol. Oh, no one want do...yes I understand why (smile)There is also from 1->200MHz but there is some small "ringing" but mostly it is not in Owon but these pictures can look elsewhere so I do not copy all to here.. It (unflatness "waves") is in signal matching outside Owon becouse Owon do not have "toy" 50ohm inputs or "real" 50ohm inputs and termnator in scope input is not perfect 50ohm impedance, system see it reactive.You have not seen these sweeped captures? Where you see markable resonances? What kind of data you want.Maybe you thing that signal generators is just opposite and it compensate Owon errors. he...he.HP8644B, HP8642A, HP8657B, IFR2041 (this IFR/Marconi is now not anymore in my working lab). maybe they all are wrong?Cables, Suhner etc. Terminators, HP and TEK and also some suhner, HP power meter with heads for check levels if do not believe RF generators level, Rohde&Schwarz and HP spectrums, couple of Tek scopes. Couple of different pulse generators (HP mainly) 2 scope calibrator (tektronix, fast rising pulse generator, Tektronix... and you think my data is crap and and I can not measure 100 or 200MHz scope BW shape. Then you make question "Do they have problems producing scopes with a constant 200 MHz bandwidth?" ....least in this point I did not know cry or laugh.Just - smile.Maybe you have looked Rigol BW shapes. This is not maybe: I can tell. They really can not, maybe (I hope) they have developed these 1000E's after I have tested these. But I have not seen any reports about Rigol HW real developing, just nothing.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2012, 09:46:22 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pmIn many cases analog scopes had a higher than specified bandwidth at room temperature be they were specified over a wide temperature range, which requires some extra margin in the specs. There were also cases were scopes shared circuitry with higher models, like the Tek 7904 vs. 7104. Have any of the > 100 MHz Owon scopes materialized yet, or are they still vapor ware? On an analog scope, the only negative effect of more bandwidth is higher noise. Extra bandwidth doesn't introduce potential aliasing artifacts, as with digital scopes. There's also a big difference between some extra bandwidth and twice the bandwidth the manufacturer claims.Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pmAnything else than that it represents half the power?Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pm-3dB is the industry standard, deviating from this would require extra explanation. If they don't specify what this 100 MHz bandwidth figure means, their documentation is lacking. Are you suggesting that their rise time spec is also something else than 10% to 90%, but something like 2% to 98%?Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pmI don't recall calling it a lie, and I don't have a problem with them selling 100 MHz scopes with 200 MHz of bandwidth (as long as the users are aware that it's typically >> 100 MHz and therefore may cause aliasing). I don't like the claim that it's a 200 MHz scope if Owon is unwilling to specify this, however.Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pmYou would put 100 MHz on the front panel but would state that it's really a 200 MHz scope at every occasion? If you (as Owon) would want to claim it, be a big boy and put it in the datasheet as guaranteed spec.Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pmI don't question your measurements.Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pmAt least we agree on something.Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 10:51:27 pmIt would be nice if manufacturers specified some more details about the frequency response than just that the -3dB point is somewhere beyond 100 MHz, both about the behavior of the pass band and the roll-off of the stop band, which is rarely -6 dB/octave beyond 2*Bw or so.Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 11:30:41 pmI don't particularly care for Rigol, and I certainly don't believe they're the gold standard as far as the front-end design is concerned. The only thing they seem to have going is low price, popularity and decent firmware.Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 11:30:41 pmIf a manufacturer is unwilling to specify a guaranteed minimum, I assume they expect some parts to be worse than their typical part. If an op-amp is specified to have a typical input current of 100 fA, but no guaranteed minimum, and you measured a number of op-amps to have a leakage of < 50 fA, would you assume that all of their op-amps, now and in the future, meet this spec? Would you design this op-amp in a design that requires < fA of input current? Would you expect them all to be <= 100 fA?Quote from: rf-loop on February 21, 2012, 11:30:41 pmDid Rigol take your first born? What's your problem with Rigol?

author: echomancer
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 05:56:53 pm
content: I know the thread has degraded somewhat, but I made the decision to go with the Rigol. I appreciate the advantages the Owon has to offer, but the firmware features were really important to me. I feel like I artificially got caught up in racing to the top for specifications, but I'm looking for stability and features. My thoughts are below.Obviously, the Owon screen is MUCH better but I really don't like the menus. I have a background in interaction design professionally, and the Rigol menu system was more intuitive, even with the lack of separate vertical controls. The bandwidth of the Rigol may not be the best 100mhz there is, and the sampling rate may be a hack, but I feel like (based on reviews of the unit) that it's just more solid and stable and Rigol has a history of releasing firmware upgrades. The ability to export CSVs directly from the machine was also important to me.Now I will miss the fact that I can't view zoomed FFTs on the Rigol, but I will get over that.Thanks for the input. If I find out I hate the Rigol, my distributor will let me return and exchange for the Owon. I'll report back soon as the scope arrives tomorrow.

author: lavo-1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2012, 06:19:15 pm
content: Good choice, you should always go with what you knowI however went with the Owon as it was important to me to have as much BW for price ( without hacks) and the screen size and resolution was also a major plus point, to me personally.There will always be compromises when purchasing equipment at the lower end of the scale, but you have to go with what YOU know and what you are going to be using the equipment for.For the Hobbyist/Hacker any of these scopes will give great results, if however you are using these tools at their max specification in a critical lab working environment or they are your main tools for earning your living then you should have invested more.Just enjoy them for what they are...Entry level Scopes with great functionality and don't use them in so sort of dick measuring contest.