Best oscilloscope for beginer - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: khatus
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 08:28:29 am
content: Hello i am an electronics enthusiast.My subject of interests is micro controller,FPGA and Power electronics.Since i am a beginner,I don't want to spend too much for oscilloscope i.e looking for a cheap one.While searching in the internet many suggests Siglent SDS1102CML and RIGOL DS1074Z are best for beginner.But i get confused which should i buy siglent or rigol??If there are any good cheap oscilloscope then also suggest those names

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 08:35:56 am
content: You will get a ton of different answers, but my first thought bearing in mind your applications is that two channels will be a frustration. While I don’t always use more than two channels, it’s far from an uncommon scenario to use three or four.The DS1054Z is four channel and can be coerced into 100MHz bandwidth, and all the options enabled. I don’t have experience of the Siglent so I can’t comment on it in comparison.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 01:19:53 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on December 26, 2018, 08:35:56 amhuman dont always use more than two hands, just because they are the only two given to human. if human are given with 4 hands, they will happily use all of them, and they will say... I don’t always use more than four hands.

author: jazper
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 01:51:34 pm
content: I say get a siglent 1104-xe if you can afford it. Better hardware than the rigol, more features, 4 channels and an easier interface than the rigol.If you can't afford it, consider getting a few extra multimeters

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 04:39:29 pm
content: Firstly, decide what bandwidth you need. For "digital" signals, completely ignore your signal's frequency (i.e. it doesn't matter if it is 10MHz or 10Hz), concentrate on your signal's risetime and falltime, and use BW=0.35/t.Secondly, decide how many channels you need to observe simultaneously.Thirdly, if those channels are "digital", consider using a cheap logic analyser to observe them. I use the term loosely, unless you are considering photon counting or femtoamp circuits. In other cases the signals are actually analogue signals, which areinterpretedby the receiver as digital signals. Use a scope to ensure those analogue signals will be correctly interpreted as digital signals - i.e. signal integrity. Then flip to using digital tools, especially logic analysers and printf statements.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 05:49:39 pm
content: The two most commonly recommended are the Rigol DS1054Z (unlocked to 100 MHz) and 4 channels versus Siglent SDS1104X-E 100 MHz 4 channels.For decades, two channels was common. It's only lately we have been able to get 4 channel scopes at hobby prices. If you think about it, that's the story of the cell phone. There was a time before cell phones and there was a time before 4 channels. I guess everybody has a cell phone and 4 channel scopes are just about the default.If you plan to do anything with SPI, 4 channels is a blessing because you can watch all 4 signals. Yes, you can do it with a logic analyzer but a scope with SPI decoding is faster in the sense that it is sitting right there.Apparently, the Siglent can be unlocked to 200 MHz - search the Test Equipment forum here on EEVblog.Neither of the two scopes you picked are among the most commonly recommended.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 06:53:02 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on December 26, 2018, 01:19:53 pmIn my experience, that analogy just doesn't hold water.For digital, it's very common to need several channels, especially for SPI decodes.For power electronics, you are regularly measuring several points concurrently, especially in SMPS or motor drivers.Sure, you can do most things on two channels, until about 18 years ago that's exactly what I lived with, but the point is you often need to time correlate several signals at the same time. Having to use reference channels and continually switch probes with different stimuli is time consuming.As I said, for many trivial probing situations, two channels is sufficient. Not all probing situations are trivial though.

author: jazper
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 08:51:56 pm
content: Yesterday I was debugging a basic atmel328p timer circuit. While typically I need one or two channels, I had scope and meter probes everywhere. I'm a beginner with scopes, this time with my gear I wasn't going to give up.With probes in the right places, I could see the output, timer alarms, wake up interrupt, input voltage and clock signals. This helped me figure out that SPI wasn't working properly and that my output voltage was being modulated into a 10hz square wave, which lead me to a solution. Without 4 probes I would have had much more trouble with the diagnosis.If possible, definitely go 4.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 09:02:21 pm
content: Quote from: jazper on December 26, 2018, 08:51:56 pm4 yes, but in that case it ismuchcheaper to use digital channels in a logic analyser than analogue channels in a scope.An engineer is someone that can do for $1 what any fool can do for $10

author: jazper
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 09:13:12 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on December 26, 2018, 09:02:21 pmAn engineer is someone who uses what he has on hand to fix problemsI do not yet have a logic analyser...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 10:00:21 pm
content: Quote from: jazper on December 26, 2018, 09:13:12 pmThe OP doesn't have a scope.It is worth him considering whether a big expensive hammer is the best tool for inserting screws, or whether a cheap and nasty screwdriver would be sufficient.Fleabay has USB logic analysers for £5 upwards; some might be suitable for the job - and would certainly be a useful (and cheap) learning tool.

author: Adrian_Arg.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 10:11:26 pm
content: Quote from: jazper on December 26, 2018, 01:51:34 pmAs I do not realize that you are contrary to rigol, I own a rigol DS1054Z, and for me it is excellent, but I do not throw shit at others.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 11:19:50 pm
content: I would stay away from the Rigol 1000Z series.It has too many firmware bugs and the UI is very laggy.The old Rigol 1052E is much easier to use in my opinion. I prefer it over the much newer 1000Z

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2018, 11:57:58 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on December 26, 2018, 10:00:21 pmLogic analyzers can do exactly one job - monitor digital signals. In fact, depending on the sampling rate, they may not do a good job of that either. I want to know the setup time between the falling edge of CS' and the first clock - for SPI. Given a fast SPI and a relatively slow LA, both signals will show up simultaneously and this just isn't a fact.Scopes do the setup time measurement with ease. In fact, they also do a lot of things outside the digital domain, like monitor an ADC input for noise and value. It's a lot easier to see a PWM pulse change width on a scope than it is on a LA. It's pretty much real-time.Both have their uses but the scope is a lot more useful. I do use a LA from time to time on FPGA projects where things are going pretty fast and there's a lot of signals to view but I use it about 1/1000 as often as my scope(s).As to things like SPI, I only need to decode a packet or even just a partial packet. I want to see the CS' setup time, I want to see how the data transitions with respect to a clock transition and I want to see the idle state for the clock. Really important is to verify the last byte has cleared the shifter before CS' goes high. I do not need to decode "War and Peace".The idea that there are still bugs in the DS1054Z is probably incorrect. AFAIK, Rigol has corrected all known deficiencies except the slow response of the UI and that is probably wired in. Design issues aren't really bugs. The device is doing what it was intended to do, like it or leave it. Bugs are issues where the device isn't acting as it was designed. There hasn't been an active complaint thread for the last year. The issues are solved.Yes the UI is slow. Now stop and think about the relative amount of time spent dealing with the UI and the amount of time spent viewing the image. At most, dealing with the UI is less than 10% of usage, probably closer to 1%. Speeding up the UI would be great but it's working at the margins. In other words, I just don't care!The Siglent seems like a nice scope. I haven't been following along with bugs but there were some, early on. Siglent improved considerably on their response to these issues and I know that some of the bugs have been corrected. I don't know how many are known to remain. Check the Test Equipment forum.I may very well reassign my DS1054Z to my analog computers and buy the Siglent SDS1204X-E 200 MHz 4 channels. Or, I might buy the SDS1104X-E and unlock the higher bandwidth. Either way, it seems like a nice scope.

author: jazper
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2018, 12:49:55 am
content: I apologise if I offended anyone, I did not mean to throw stones. I don't profess to be an expert in this field, just a somewhat seasoned amateur.Both the Rigol 1054z and the Siglent 1104x-e are more than capable scopes for a beginner -you can't go wrong with either. For my money, I went the Siglent and I'm happy with it. At the risk of starting a religious war, I also went a 121GW meter vs some of the Brymen meters, cause I like supporting the community and I like the features it has, I especially like the small size.The Siglent is higher rated in its default configuration than the Rigol (100mhz vs 50mhz, higher sample rate too).Both can be unlocked to allow higher bandwidth (100mhz on the Rigol, 200mhz on the Siglent)The Rigol is slightly less expensive.Subjectively - people have said the UI on the Siglent is better than the Rigol - I don't know, I haven't compared them side by side. I don't find the 1104x-e particularly difficult to use, and the lcd is easy to read.From personal experience, the Siglent WiFi is very finicky but the built in web interface is simple and works pretty well. People have complained about the lack of web interface on the Rigol - but mentioned that 3rd party software can make up for this.The 1104x-e can have a Waveform generator and/or a logic analyzer added to it, the Rigol cannot - however these are somewhat expensive addons. ~$200USD for the Logic Analyser vs $60 for a half decent one on ebay, the benefit however is that these can be aligned on the scope with your analog waveforms, and you get siglent connector probes.. I haven't decided if this is worth it yet.There is 1:1 comparison of features here, in this first post:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/There are many many threads on this topic:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-vs-rigol-ds1054z-advicehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-vs-rigol-ds1054z/etc...Ultimately, to me, the question is one of price. IF you can afford the Siglent, it has more for you to grow into. IF you can't afford the Siglent, but can afford the Rigol, it will also help you learn a heck of a lot and do it well.Whatever you ultimately decide, you can't really go wrong with either.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2018, 12:58:48 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on December 26, 2018, 11:57:58 pmWell yes, but... for the sake of argument I will make these counter-points - with my tongue slightly (but not firmly) in my cheek.Scopes can do exactly one job - monitor a very few analogue signals. In fact, depending on the signal bandwidth and number of signals, they may not do a good job of that either. I want to know the setup time and hold times for signals relative to their clock. Scopes can do that, but given modern logic and a relatively slow scope, both will will show up simultaneously and this just isn't a fact. And with modern logic, a suitable scope will be more expensive than a logic analyser.A logic analyser can observe many dozen signals,notdemanding my attention when nothinginterestingis happening (i.e. most of the time). Then, when an interesting and complex event has happened, it captures and displaysonlythe interestinginformationleading up to and following on from the event.Both have their uses but the LA is a lot more useful. I do use a scope from time to time on digital projects to measure signal integrity. Once that's assured, I use the logic analyser to filter out the boring crap in the dozens of digital signals that are important. Scopes can do a bit of that, but the triggering and filtering are primitive compared to a logic analyser, so overall I use a scope 1/1000 of the time that I use a logic analyser and printf statements.But seriously, it is "horses for courses" - choose the best available tool for the particular job.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2018, 01:01:31 am
content: Quote from: jazper on December 27, 2018, 12:49:55 amYou certainly havenotoffended meYou have done some research and made some thoughtful comments. There may be a difference of opinion or a different bias, but that is life!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2018, 06:08:29 am
content: Siglent and Rigol both have their rabid fans and haters, either one will likely meet your needs though. Look at the features they offer, read reviews, think about what your needs are and then choose one, chances are you'll be happy with whichever one you choose. Spend the time to learn to use it properly.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2018, 07:01:03 am
content: Quote from: james_s on December 27, 2018, 06:08:29 am+1 , when you are confused and also have two camps constantly in fight, just toss a coin and pick side, you will rarely wrong.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 27, 2018, 07:18:47 am
content: This thread made me get the first scope I owned out and put it up for sale. I used scopes at Secondary School and Uni and then 'made do' without one for 20+ years. If I really needed to use one I dropped around to a mates to use his.Enter the Hantek6022BL (scope/logic) into my life better than nothing but limited in a lot of ways and I still found myself heading to my mates from time to time. What it gave me was an easy way to flick it on and confirm what I thought was happening actually was (sanity checker) If you only want to have a go and do some learning along the way these are a cheap way in. Or as you are most likely not in Greenlanda decent secondhand analogue 2 channel would be similar money 20 or preferably 60-100mHz.Then when you sort outifyou really need one and what you need you can buy the right one with a good idea of features.As to Siglent vs Rigol don't! Buy a Micsig

author: Wolfgang
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2018, 02:33:49 am
content: Hi,I would choose a Rigol 1054Z, now available with all options and hackable to 100MHz.Why:- price/performance is simply hard to beat, especially if you can get some additional discount (ham fair, ...)- its NOT new. This means bugs are very rare after few years on the market- there is a large community and you can get your questions answered quickly.- its been reviewed a lot of times (also on EEVBlog)- Automation (SCPI) works well.- There is an upward compatible model with a logic analyzer and two signal generators (MSO1104ZS).

author: analog8484
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2019, 12:32:21 am
content: I was also looking for an entry scope and was very close to getting Siglent 1104-xe over the Rigol 1054z after reading various reviews but then I came across Micsig TO1104 and ultimately decided to go with it. The main reasons are that I want a 4-channel scope primarily for power electronics and embedded systems so convenient portable usage and floating (i.e. battery) capability are higher priority features for me. If my primary needs were for higher speed signal electronics then the Siglent seems to have some features that would likely be more valuable. One concern I had for Micsig was the lack of physical knobs and buttons but it's been a non-issue so far. It's actually pretty intuitive and responsive to use like an iPad. Other features on the Micsig I didn't really research much but now I find quite useful include the iPhone/iPad app for remote monitoring/control, screenshots, video recording, HDMI display and FTP transfer. The main limitation I see for the Micsig is 100Mhz compared to the Siglent which can be hacked to 200Mhz but I don't need it nearly as often as the other features. I have only had the Micsig for couple weeks but I am very happy with it so far.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2019, 08:54:25 am
content: Quote from: analog8484 on January 09, 2019, 12:32:21 amAs with any tool, if you take the time to find its limitations then (1) you will enjoy it (2) you will be able to find work-arounds and/or don't-go-there areas (3) when you can't work around the limitations you will know what youneednext.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2019, 09:18:40 am
content: Just to make sure, Micsig on battery is floating, but chanels have common bnc ground. You still have to use diferential probes if you want to measure differently referenced circuits with few chanels at the same time.

author: analog8484
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2019, 06:02:34 pm
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on January 09, 2019, 09:18:40 amThat's correct. The relatively low cost differential probes available from Micsig are another reason why I decided to go with it.