RIGOL DS 1054Z or TEKTRONIX 2440 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: GasGas
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2017, 11:39:01 pm
content: I would like to read some opinions on which oscilloscope to buy between these two options. I currently own a Tektronix 2465B and a 2467B. There was a sales opportunity for the 2465B and I wanted to buy my first digital oscilloscope. I work with maintenance of audio and video equipment and until today I did not feel the need to use a DSO. I really take into consideration the quality of the Tektronix brand, but I am afraid the 2440 is already far behind in relation to Chinese Rigol. A year ago, I paid for the 2467B almost twice the price of the Rigol DS1054 and I do not regret it, because it was in excellent condition with less than 1000 hours of use, and analyzing a video signal on it is incredible. The 2440 that I am considering buying is a little more expensive than the new Rigol DS1054.Anxious for your opinions.Sorry for the bad English, I'm using Google Translate.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 05:35:17 am
content: A couple of points in favor of a modern DSO (Rigol or any other) over the 2240:The color screen and automated measurement of curve parameters are convenient. (Even if we know that the DS1054Z only uses its screen data buffer to derive the measurements, that's more convenient and more precise than eyeballing yourself...)Much more compact than the old cathode-ray tube scopes. Depending on your bench setup, this may not matter at all, or may be a killer argument.Faster signal processing. The 2240 seems to have a particular weakness in its waveform update rate -- only 26 waveforms per second. That's pretty useless for finding sporadic glitches, for example.I do not have hands-on experience with the 2240; maybe someone else can add more model-specific comments. I would suggest hanging on to the 2467B, and complementing it with a modern DSO. The Rigol DS1054Z is still a good choice, if that's where your price range is.EDIT: I might add that the physical build quality of the DS1054Z is actually quite good -- better than the slightly toy-style front panel design might suggest... The enclosure and internal shielding are surprisingly sturdy, the screen is protected by a solid glass pane with anti-reflection surface, and the encoder knobs feel solid enough to me. From a human factors perspective, the non-detented encoder for menu selections and the fan noise are mentioned most often as nuisances. Personally, I did exchange the encoder with a detented type eventually, but I don't mind the fan noise at all. I use the scope in a quiet room, and the fan is definitely very audible, but the sound is not annoying for my ears.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 06:57:24 am
content: [edited out to try at prevent just another flame war]recap: i don't like to use cheap DSOs. I use other tools in conjunction with a PC.I always felt i wasted my money on the 1054z.I too have a tek + 1054z combination at home and the only thing i trusted it to do was single shot capture. I used better tools to do protocol decoding when needed.I don't find much advandage in a DSO for audio work as it can be terrible for accurate vertical axis measurements, fft and such due to it's limited resolutionDo get a DSO though, it complements what you have

author: ebclr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 07:12:01 am
content: Based on what you wrote you never touched a DS1054Z, they do far more than you think for less money, It cost effective not a Rolls RoiceLXI itself justify forget analog scopesPrego

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 07:21:16 am
content: JPortici -- I am not ready for yet another debate whether the DS1054Z is great or crap... Yes, there is noticeable lag in some user interface operations (e.g. adjusting vertical offset); whether or not that irritates you is very subjective. If at all possible, the OP should try to get his hands on a real DS1054Z to try before he buys.But please, let's not forget that another fundamental debate along the lines of "cheap DSO or old, upmarket analog scope" is not what the OP asked for at all. He definitely intends to keep his Tek 2467B, and I think that complementing that with an entry level DSO is a perfectly viable option: The analog scope will do a great job in many applications where it is already proven, and the DSO will complement it in applciations where the analog can't go (single shot, rare event etc.).

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 07:55:06 am
content: Quote from: GasGas on January 10, 2017, 11:39:01 pmWell, correct me if I'm wrong, reading above points, I guess you never really realized the true power of DSO which the single shot capture.This alone sometimes will make even the really good analog scope simply loose it's value against a cheap DSO, especially in a situation where you have to catch a non repetitive glitches.I'm not an expert, but I sort of understand as I own similar setup with yours on analog side, and currently with these below combination, these both duo are very-very effective and have a really great value when it comes to probing using scopes, imho. (PS : Just ignore the DS1104Z, as its very similar to a "hacked" DS1054Z, or any other "relatively" cheap DSO)My point is, a good analog + a "relatively" cheap butnewDSO offer much more value for the money.My 1/4 watt resistors worth.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 08:22:38 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on January 11, 2017, 07:55:06 amIt is surprising how infrequently people understand that. Too often people assume it has to be a zero-sum game when considering analogue vs digital scopes. Horses for courses.

author: GasGas
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 09:46:13 am
content: Thanks for the opinions so far. It seems clear that the new Rigol is a better choice than the old TEK 2440. I will not sell in any way from my 2467B and I am selling 2465B to buy my first DSO as I do not need 3 scopes. My bench is big, the physical size of the scope is not something that worrie

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 10:03:38 am
content: Quote from: GasGas on January 11, 2017, 09:46:13 amThat's heresy. Wash your mouth out with soap

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 10:04:49 am
content: Quote from: GasGas on January 11, 2017, 09:46:13 amGood decision.Another simple question to confirm your choice, what IF ... the newly bought "old" 2440 fails to power up at 2nd day ?And you running out of luck that the unobtainium chip inside is toasted, even that 2440 is 1/2 the price of new DS1054Z but with warranty.Will this unfortunate moment makes you unable to sleep easily and not keeping bang your head like this ?..... just kidding

author: GasGas
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 10:18:05 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on January 11, 2017, 10:04:49 amThe value of TEK 2440 is higher than a new Rigol DS 1054Z. This should seem crazy to anyone who does not live in Brazil (fortunately), since the import of used products is prohibited, tempting offers on Ebay can not be brought to Brazil, as they are seized by federal revenue inspection, unless anyone can Bring some equipment in the luggage on some trip abroad. I paid for Tek 2467B the equivalent of U$ 2500,00! In Brazil we earn very little and we pay dearly!

author: MrWolf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 10:23:35 am
content: Quote from: GasGas on January 11, 2017, 09:46:13 amPerhaps. Looking at the specs Tek is 500MSa/s, 1k samples 50s/per division. Also screen seems to be speced as 10bit horizontal electrically. However what Rigol fans would not want you to really understand - DS1054Z it's the only modern scope identified so far that effectively uses only 300 samples for horizontal automated calculations (big selling point of DSO). Take a look at brand new entry level Tek here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/msg1109853/#msg1109853In this screenshot it uses 187,200 samples. This is different world entirely.With Rigol most your useful work is fully manual with zoom and cursors and automated measurements only "in the ballbark" in just right timebase. With others all measurements right in at least 3 orders of magnitude "wrong" timebase. So you can track multiple stuff on multiple channels almost like with independent timebases.So if you actually need to capture large amount of data and analyze it manually (note decoding works only with data on screen - so edges corrupted) then Rigol much better than old Tek. For many other tasks even small memory (50k, 100k etc) modern scope might be better. And probably any other large memory scope will be better. For example entry level Siglent has 70k buffer for calculations and large 14M capture memory in addition. Not Tek but still miles better than Rigol. So you do get what you pay for with Rigol. Nobody sells you $1000 DSO for $400. It really is $400 DSO and even then a bit limited often. If you budget it "frozen" at $400 then what you gonna do... otherwiseEdit: very simple way to think this: DS1054Z ~8x8bit scope. Siglent ~16x8bit scope for automated stuff etc. Dunno whats the limit, but know many scope do various "optimizations" because after ~20x8bit (1M) it getting bit to steep for realtime calculus.

author: ebclr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 11:03:17 am
content: Inventor of the wheelDiscovered that a ferrari is better than a FiatBut missed that costs 10 times moreRigol is cost benefit, It's clear Tektronics and keisigth are better, but 10 times mor expensive

author: MrWolf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 11:21:28 am
content: Quote from: ebclr on January 11, 2017, 11:03:17 amSiglents do not cost 10x more, also Tek TBS2000 pretty affordable.Also if you like 1Mpts FFT and well working math look Gw Instek (NB! no decode on entry level!).Pico dropped prices, currently I see:PicoScope 2407B 4ch, 64MS memory, $829PicoScope 2207B MSO 2ch+16ch, 64MS memory, $769Isuspectthese use 1M for calculus because FFT is limited to 1M.(as someone posted these are effectively at least 100MHz analog).So to get full-blown DSO starting at about 1.5x more (look Siglent deals), not 10x.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 11:45:02 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 11, 2017, 07:21:16 amYes that was not what i was aiming at. i did edit the post

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 11:51:12 am
content: Quote from: MrWolf on January 11, 2017, 10:23:35 amDo we really need to go there yet again? The precision of automated measurements may be a big thing for you; but for many others it may be quite irrelevant. Personally, I see a scope mainly as a tool forvisualizingwaveforms. For me, the "big selling point" of a DSO, i.e. its key advantage over analog scopes, is the ability to look at single or rare events. Automated measurements are just nice to have, and as long as they are as good or better than me eyeballing it on the screen and graticule, I'm happy.The Tek 2440 is very limited in what I see as the main advantage of DSOs, namely rare event analysis: It gets a whopping 26 waveforms per second, according to what I find on the web. Hence, for me there is no "perhaps" in the decision between a Tek 2440 andanymodern DSO, certainly including the DS1054Z.EDIT: reference added:Quote

author: MrWolf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 12:02:35 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on January 11, 2017, 11:51:12 amNo needBut please understand every time I hear "just buy" DS1054Z... but OP clearly does not have full picture - he needs to be given full picture to makeinformed decision. I came to this forum looking for 4x1GSa/s midrange. Bought you know what because endless "just buy". Even people with budgetfarover 400$ will buy 400$ scope if they think it is as good as 1000$ or even $650. My whole point is this is not the case and is not ethical to give impression that it is,especiallyif it is made in malicious manner like substituting meanings! "Screen gating" does not equal "screen pixels" etc.Anyway, think OP has now full info - hopefully can skip battle this time and balanced view is given.

author: ebclr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 12:12:53 pm
content: "Siglents do not cost 10x more, also Tek TBS2000 pretty affordable."Rigol DS1054Z 50MHz 4-Ch Digital Oscilloscope Price: $399.00 ( hackable to 100Mhz )TBS2072 LIST PRICE US $1,200 70MHz up to 1 GS/s 20 Mpoints 2TBS2102 LIST PRICE US $1,460 100MHz up to 1 GS/s 20 Mpoints 2TBS2074 LIST PRICE US $1,870 70MHz up to 1 GS/s 20 Mpoints 4TBS2104 LIST PRICE US $2,190 100MHz up to 1 GS/s 20 Mpoints 4Do you belive that 1870 is affordable comparing to 399 ?

author: MrWolf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 12:25:24 pm
content: Quote from: ebclr on January 11, 2017, 12:12:53 pm4.7x price diff, not 10x. Geely vs BMW quite normal price diff. Many ppl buy BMW, often used a bit. But can buy Subaru/Mazda etc also, some even turbocharged will smoke unhappy BMW ownerGeely probably make to another town also only about hour laterEdit: Deep-mem USB DSO - superbike?Not many cows worth of leather and polished alu but goes like bat from hell.

author: djnz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 12:29:37 pm
content: Which particular oscilloscope is a matter of debate / flamewar, but since you already own an excellent Tek 2467, if I were you, I'd get a modern / modern-ish DSO to complement it.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 01:37:46 pm
content: Quote from: MrWolf on January 11, 2017, 12:02:35 pmIf you've got $400 to spend then "just buy DS1054Z" is perfectly valid. You need to spend $1000+ to get something significantly better. That's the part you seem to be missing.And most of the newbie threadsare"I've got a maximum of $400" for some reason (I don't know why, they just are).The only real alternative at that price is the GW-Instek DS1054B. Half the bandwidth, smaller memory, no serial decoders, poor intensity grading on the display...etc.As a specialist 'scope for doing audio work or a lot of FFTs then the instek is worth a look. As a general purpose 'scope it falls short of the DS1054Z. In real life the things you need most are high bandwidth and lots of memory for single-shot captures. Your 'horizontal resolution!!' quest is a red herring, sorry.

author: MrWolf
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 01:54:30 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 11, 2017, 01:37:46 pmWell in my real life do not have to time or will to knob thru megabytes of data manually. So lifes differ. But thats no reason to make incorrect statements as you just did. Counted at least 3.But let you keep them today.

author: enry68
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 10:36:42 am
content: Hi, I've both Tek2440 and Rigol DS1054Z updated to DS1104Z.They are two different scopes. I was born with Tek and I love it. But during these years I've seen for the first time a scope that remember to me the Tek: The Rigol. In my lab we have also LeCroy scopes but I prefer the Tek because it is more immediate for the usability. Less menu and more knobs.Rigol is similar to Tek. imhoSo Rigol is cheaper then a used Tek2440 and is younger with new technology. (SW upgradable with a lot of functions) Also other user has wrote about each capability so I can ask to you only one thing: how much money do you want to spend ? 400euros (in Italy) for this scope is a honest price and the quality is good. Remember also that in the 1990 the Tek2440 costs about 30.000.000 Lire --> about 15.000 euros today.Remember also USB, LAN ..... Tek has the HPIB interface that requires a specific interface in the PC to download or control the scope. (other money if You need to connect the scope to the PC)So ... to you the choice.Enrico.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 10:41:39 am
content: Quote from: enry68 on January 12, 2017, 10:36:42 amYeah right. Pull the other one.

author: enry68
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 10:43:58 am
content: more similar can be appreciated

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 12:24:58 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on January 12, 2017, 10:41:39 amslow as a tekcomparing the price of the two is also pointless. just like this one: the crappy pc (even for the time) my parents bought in 2003 costed nearly as much as a new macbook

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 12:47:34 pm
content: Quote from: GasGas on January 10, 2017, 11:39:01 pmIf you work with audio & video only and things like protocol decoding aren't important to you then the GW Instek 1000B series (GDS1054B or GDS1104B for example) is definitely worth a look. The firmware is mature (bug free and it does what it says in the specifications) and features like FFT are useful for real work (looking at harmonic distortion for example). The Tektronix 2440 is probably a nice oscilloscope but I think you'll like the portability and features of a modern DSO quickly.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 01:36:07 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on January 12, 2017, 10:41:39 amYou quoted that a bit out of context, I think. enry68's statement wasQuotewhich I take to mean that Rigol is closer to Tek (than to LeCroy) regarding the user interface concept: It is meant to feel like a scope, with knobs, rather than a data processing engine.I think that is a fair statement. However, the line break before the "Rigol is similar to Tek" claim does make it somewhat misleading, suggesting that it is meant in a more general sense -- which I would not subscribe to...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 10:35:08 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on January 11, 2017, 01:37:46 pmI concur.Most people who ask about which scope to buy on here either have no clue about what their real requirements are or will be because, well, they are asking such a question.Or very rightly they might generally have no idea what their future requirements are.Advice to simply buy one of the cheapest scope that is 4 channels and hackable to get all sorts of goodies and has decent enough specs for general use, and as a bonus has lots of community support, is quite a reasonable response.

author: GasGas
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 01:16:41 pm
content: My question has been clarified, the best option is to go for a modern DSO. Although I have a lot of empathy for "vintage" equipment, it seems to me that in the particular case of old DSOs (2440) their limitations get very stark compared to entry-level DSOs. As I understand it, this is not the case with vintage Hi End analog scope, like the TEK 2465 & 67, perhaps because there are no more products like these these days.Thanks to everyone who posted their opinions.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 03:42:53 pm
content: Quote from: GasGas on January 13, 2017, 01:16:41 pmThe right conclusion, but for slightly incorrect reasons.History: compared to the equivalent analogue scopes, early DSOs were boat anchors, nasty to use, had insufficient bandwidth, but could do post-processing. Analogue storage scopes were fast enough, but even nastier to use than DSOs! Hence people preferred faster analogue scopes, and only used digital scopes where their slow single shot captures and post-processing capabilities were important.Currently: DSOs are at least as good in all respects as analogue scopes but - and it is a big but - there are important use-cases where the purchase price of an analogue scope is significantly lower than that of an equivalent DSO. Those use cases all require recording signals with several hundred MHz bandwidth, especially for digital "signal integrity".Thus if you are price sensitive, you may need to consider "good" old analogue scopes with >200MHz bandwidth. Such good scopes can also be used for many purposes for which low-end DSOs can be used.Thus your choice is sound: to retain the good high bandwidth analogue scope (Tek 2465/485), and add thedifferentbenefits available in low-end DSOs.

author: sandor626
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:19:32 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on January 12, 2017, 10:41:39 amsome oscilloscopesKeysight Technologies are built by Rigol ?

author: theoldwizard1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2017, 01:28:40 am
content: Quote from: MrWolf on January 11, 2017, 11:21:28 amPico seems to have the automotive world locked up. A few tweaks to their software and and an online database of good/bad sensor images.Their prices are still WAY too high.

author: Boson
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 25, 2017, 09:47:37 am
content: Quote from: theoldwizard1 on January 25, 2017, 01:28:40 amWhat wrong with Pico software please describe? I have Analog Discovery 2 - 14bit - very nice. Software ok. But need much more MHz sometime.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2017, 10:25:03 am
content: you have the SDK for making your own application to control the pico so some automotive people make their own.Nothing particulary wrong with the standard app

author: AndyP
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2017, 05:38:49 pm
content: I went for the Micsig TO1104, 100MHz, 4 channel, battery powered tablet scope and I've been pretty pleased with it, similar spec to the Rigol (1GS convertor spilt over 1, 2 or 4 channels), it does have an OK FFT, though it would be handy if it listed the magnitude of the peaks instead of using the cursor to measure. Price was a little under $450, so same ballpark as 50MHz Rigol. I've found it great, though some prefer Rigol other the GW. A few reviews around on the forum.