Which of these would make the better beginner? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 11:32:25 am
content: So I received an email for a sale on scopes and I want to ask you guys which of these will make a better beginner scope for me. In terms of longevity, which one will last the longest before I will need to begion looking for more capabilities? The 200mhz scope or the 4 channel scope? Thank you in advance, Jim.Rigol DS1054z vs Hantek DSO5202Phttps://www.circuitspecialists.com/hantek-200mhz-digital-storage-oscilloscope-dso5202p.html?utm_source=dso5202p&utm_medium=email_campaign&utm_campaign=emc_00030&utm_source=Circuit+Specialists+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2ee8951a21-EMC_00030_4_February_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dd242259e3-2ee8951a21-53202845

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 02:34:10 pm
content: They both have the same sample rate. I would go for the Rigol.

author: SKPang
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 03:00:04 pm
content: Rigol.

author: CustomEngineerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 05:45:29 pm
content: Avoid the Hantek. You will see quite a few threads on these boards complaining about Rigol's firmware, but the Hantek's firmware makes the Rigol's look like the most beautiful, bugfree piece of firmware ever written. I had a Hantek MSO5102 (I think that was the model number) for about a month, and it would lock up solid at least a couple of times an hour. Every time it happened it would require a complete power cycle to get running again. I returned it and got a Rigol instead and have been very happy with the Rigol.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 06:30:19 pm
content: HiThe direct comparison would be to a 2 channel Rigol rather than a 4 channel scope.http://www.tequipment.net/RigolDS1052E.html?v=7401The Rigol's are all "hackable" so don't pay attention to the rated bandwidth.The 1054Z at 4 channels is a *much* better bang for the buck. I have one here and it does very well for a $399 scope.Bob

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:16:47 pm
content: Awsome! Thank you for the input. The only thing that had me arguing with myself was the $100 difference in price. I don't necessarily need 4 channels right now so the bandwidth also made a difference. The Rigol is hackable, but only to 100 Mhz, correct? In normal everyday basic electronics repair, what would be the highest bandwidth I might require? I think I have read that 200 is not fast enough for doing stuff like USB. Is this true? I thought too about maybe going with one of the ones that is hackable up to 500 with 4 channels until I saw the price and almost choked, heh. I wish I had the money for that. I'm sure I would never need another scope. Thank you again, Jim.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:28:16 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 09:16:47 pmBandwidth has to be matched with high enough sampling rate in order for it to be useful. In reality Rigol DS1054 has about 150Mhz of Bandwidth. To capture the signal and satisfy the Nyquist properly you ideally need 10x the sampling rate. Because these two scopes have identical sampling rates, Hantek's bandwidth advantage is in the region of diminishing returns. So I wouldn't put much weight into it.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:32:20 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 09:16:47 pmHiI would put more value in 4 channels than in 300 MHz bandwidth for normal use. The first time you need to look at an SPI signal, you will want more than two channels. Unless you have a scope with *good* USB decoding, forget about doing much with USB on a scope. A scope with good hardware based USB will make the 500 MHz stuff you looked at seem very inexpensive.Bob

author: Addicted2AnalogTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:40:51 pm
content: I was looking at the Rigol DS2072A (double the price of the DS1054z @ $800USD ), which after hacking would be a DS2302A (a $2500USD scope) - and a killer deal, but only 2 channels. Just something to consider. I went with the DS1054Z, though. 4 channels, $400 towards other stuff, and plenty of scope for my current needs.I've heard Hantek is almost literally total junk. If their cables are any indication of their equipment quality.... run... haaha

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:41:23 pm
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on February 14, 2016, 09:32:20 pmI don't know that I agree with that. 300Mhz 2-2+ Gs/s scopes have their place as they can increase your measurement envelope. You only need 2 channels to capture SPI as chip select can be fed into Ex trigger and/or you often don't really need to watch it. It's also important to note that your sampling rate drops to 250 Ms/s when you use the 3rd channel and a lot of faster clocked SPI buses can be difficult to capture at that point.If DS2072A and DS1054z were the same price I would take the DS2072A every time. With that said, this Hantek is a 1Gss/s scope so the bandwidth advantage is bottlenecked by the sampling rate, so in my opinion it doesn't really offer a tangible advantage over the DS1054z.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:54:06 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 09:16:47 pmYou are right, 200 MHz does not get you any further than 100 MHz for USB work. The old USB 1.0 was limited to 12 Mbit/s "full speed" data transfer; accessible with either of the entry level scopes you are looking at, but not very relevant today. USB 2.0 added the "high speed" data rate of 480 Mbit/s, significantly faster and out of reach for all entry-level scopes.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:55:00 pm
content: I'd look at GwInstek first nowadays...

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 09:59:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 14, 2016, 09:55:00 pmIsn't the comparable Gw-Instek GDS-2074E $1150? Also I am not really impressed. No fine vertical adjustment is a deal breaker, as well as the issue you ran into with the whiney power supply. Meh.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 10:00:43 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 14, 2016, 09:41:23 pmHiFeeding chip select into a trigger is ok, but not at all ideal. Often chip select is where the problem lies.Would I rather have a 300 MHz BW 4 channel scope or a 150 MHz BW 4 channel scope for $400 .. sure, I'd pick the 300 MHz.Would I drop two channels *and* > double the price to get 300 MHz ... not so much. (I could quibble about having to buy a third probe for the 2xxx scope but they are cheap).As mentioned a lot of times, the higher bandwidth is only useful if the sample rate goes up. All these simple scopes share the sampler between channels. Two channels is half the rate. Four channels is 1/4 the rate. To *really* make a (say) 500 MHz 4 channel scope, you need 4 samples per period so 4x4x500 = yup 8Gs/s. That is not a cheap scope. As you go shopping, you will find that in that price range they may call it a 2 Gs /s scope and go on to say you get that rate on all channels at once. Still not a cheap scope. Even with 4 samples per period, you don't get a really good view of a distorted waveform. A lot of people keep an analog scope around for the high speed stuff.Bob

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 10:06:36 pm
content: WOW, you guys are great. I am truly excited about joining this forum. @Bob, I saw an old analog a bit ago for relatively cheap that I might look at picking up then. Or maybe one later when the need arises then. Soooooooo, would the software on the hantek handhelds be as bad as the benchtops? They have a 60 Mhz that is hackable up to 200. All I really need right now is one that will handle a 300 to 400 volt input. I am trying to look at the outputs from competition car audio amplifiers. I have a Velleman HPS50 that I bought very cheap at $165. I don't think it will handle the voltages I need though. At least not if I am reading the specs I can find for it correctly. Neither will the DSO Nano I bought. It's a neat little toy though once I found out how to and installed the BenF firmware. Anyway, for me the portables would be alot more desirable for now. I found another very inexpensive one made by all-sun but I cannot get anyone to confirm for me if it will accept the kind of input voltages I want. The specs that I find for it seem to suggest that it will but they are confusing, to me at least. I'm not, by any definition, an electronics tech by education though. It's a hobby for me at this point, heh. This is the reason I began to look at the benchtop scopes. There are plenty of them that will handle the voltages I need and, since I plan to start heading in the educated technician direction, I figure it's not a bad investment for me. Because of financial constraints at this point in time, I would still prefer a handheld for now. If I can find a reasonably priced ($200 to $500 range) one that will do what I need. If I am understanding correctly, I can use different leads, x10, x100, etc...) to be able to read higher voltages but, the scope needs to be able to use those leads based on the available settings in the software? Am I understanding this correctly?

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 10:13:12 pm
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on February 14, 2016, 10:00:43 pmFor the most of my time using oscilloscopes from old 2ch CROs to DSOs, I've mostly used 2ch. I have a 4ch scope now 500Mhz 5Gs/s R&S scope. But I still mostly use 2ch, partly because I am lazy.4ch is nice especially if you have samples per second to spare. But I never felt like I couldn't investigate SPI issues when all I had was 2ch.You speak as if you can't move the probes around to match your measurement scenario. You can trigger of Clk or CS depending on what you're investigating.If you think of a real scenario with DS1054 and measuring SPI, if I wanted to measure it with all 3Ch on Data, Clk and CS, my sampling rate would be limited to 250Ms/s (compared to 1Gss with 2 channels on a 2Gs/s scope). That's roughly about 25Mhz. SPI can often run at 80Mhz or higher.. so yeah having used both 4ch and 2ch scopes, I would take sampling rate over channels any time.For a beginner 4ch is really nice, especially because it also comes in a cheap package. DS1054z is a great little scope for the money. It's a no brainer. But let's not pretend it's better than 2072A. It isn't.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 10:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 10:06:36 pmHiI think you will find that the hand held scopes are pretty highly constrained by their package size.Put a bit more directly, and with less political correctness:You get *way* more performance in a bench top than a hand held. It's not even close.Except for the issue of power, the 1054Z is small enough to carry around. It's low power enough that a light weight 12V inverter will power it off a car forever and ever. Max power is rated at 50W, it mostly pulls well below that. 4A out of a car plug is not much at all.Bob

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 10:20:24 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 10:06:36 pmIf $200 to $500 is your price range, and you do notneedthe portability of a handheld, I would definitely go for the Rigol DS1054Z. Much better functionality and usability than a handheld in that price range, I'd say.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 10:22:06 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 10:06:36 pmBottom line is you will not find a better scope for the money than DS1054z. This has been discussed on here for the past few years to death, and whichever way you look at it. If you buy anything cheaper than DS1054z you will be paying more buck per bang than you would with the DS1054z. As far as entry level scopes are concerned It really makes little sense to buy anything cheaper when Rigol offers so much in this scope for just slightly more.You can introduce yourself in the general chat section and request a discount from the Tequipment thread and get a DS1054z for about $379 I believe.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 11:20:16 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 14, 2016, 09:59:34 pmIt seems the GDS2074E Markone received does not have the whining PSU problem so I guess it can vary but the fix is simple anyway. I don't see the fuss about vertical adjustment; I never needed that and besides the GDS2000E works as advertised which is more than can be said about the Rigol or the Hantek. So for missing one minor feature you get a whole lot of major features which are actually usefull back. The DS1000Z is no longer good value for money even if you can hack it the decoding isn't useful, the samplerate is low, the UI is slow, etc, etc. The GDS2074E is sold for $880 at Tequipment. So yes it is more expensive compared to a hacked Rigol 1000Z but that money buys you a much better tool which will keep it's value much longer in terms of not needing to upgrade anytime soon.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 01:02:43 am
content: HiI think the original poster has already made i very clear that he has a "hard stop" at $500. Price is every bit as much a spec as any other line on the sheet. For about 90% of us, there is indeed a max price we are willing to pay. It's nice to live in a world where cost is no object and you can always spend 2x (and then 2x again and 2X past that and then another 2X) chasing after the next level up. I'm hardly starving, but even I have limits. We really should respect that.Bob

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 02:37:12 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 14, 2016, 11:20:16 pmOk poor QA, or we can just note it down as early models, it happens.Quote from: nctnico on February 14, 2016, 11:20:16 pmEvery scope I ever used had fine vertical adjustments (even analog scopes). In fact GW-Instek is the first one I even heard of without it. I think not being able to maximise your vertical resolution is quite a big deal. As far as time domain mode is concerned, which let's face it is the number one reason you get a scope, Rigol does quite well. And somehow I refuse to believe GW-Instek is without bugs.Quote from: nctnico on February 14, 2016, 11:20:16 pmGDS2074E is 1Gs/s same as DS1054z. What am I missing?There is no way GDS2074E is a better value for your money than the DS1054z. $880 vs. $379. It's not even close. Yes GW-Instek has nailed certain features, and it's a good effort, but not without some big flaws.Is GDS2074E better in some aspects? certainly but not enough to justify the cost difference over DS1054z as far as budget entry level is concerned.Like I said in the previous posts (on a different topic), in that budget range you're approaching the R&S HMO1200 territory, which is a product in a different league as far as quality is concerned IMO.

author: Addicted2AnalogTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 03:55:16 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 15, 2016, 02:37:12 amThere is one correction to your assesment of the GDS-2074E that I saw when I looked it over - It's 1Gs/s per channel on the GDS 2072E, but only 1Gs/s overall for the 4 channel model.... which kinda throws me off a bit.........But yeah, you're right IMHO, I don't see what there really is to fuss about for that +$400. They really don't give you anything worth paying double for.

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 04:31:20 am
content: First, thank you everyone for your time and input. It is truly appreciated. O.K. so obviously the consensus is the Rigol would be my best bet. Now that I'm looking in that direction, I don't think it would be all too difficult to actually fit a lipo pack to the scope to make it truly portable either. The only issue now is I have a very nice case that I bought. It will fit all of my other audio test equipment and tools. I was hoping for a handheld with a high enough input voltage so I could fit it in the case with all the other tools. That would allow me to grab one case for working on car audio stuff. I know I definitely want the Rigol for my bench. In fact as soon as this is typed I will most likely go ahead and order one. Heck, I might just consider continuing to search for the right handheld anyway. I know they exist (Fluke is one I have seen that comes to mind) but I will NOT spend what they are asking for their tool when nowadays there are much more sensible and affordable options. Sensible in that just because they are a better value does not mean that they are not capable of all of the same functions.@ Muxr, Is there a coupon in that thread? I made an introduction as my very first post here. I thought it was common courtesy to do that upon joining any new community? Hey, $20 is $20. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with more information on that.Again, thank you everyone that has offered their opinions.Edit:Where can I find information on this DS2074A? It sounds interesting but I can't find it. If what I read is correct, it's about $400 more but what are the additional features for that extra cash?

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 05:08:40 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 15, 2016, 04:31:20 amThis is the thread, basically you post that you need a discount code and someone will PM you with it:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/eevblog-members-discount-at-tequipment/Yes handheld scopes can get quite expensive. They are also naturally a compromise in terms of what you get for your money due to the limited space and power. Owon had some interesting models last I checked in terms of low cost handhelds.DS2072A is a bigger brother to the DS1054z, it's a 2ch oscilloscope from Rigol but with twice the sampling rate. You can unlock it to 300Mhz with a relatively easy hack. It's a pretty good deal considering you get a 300Mhz 2gs/s scope for that.By the way DS1054z can also just as easily be unlocked to 100Mhz.The only caveat with DS1054z is that the fonts can be pretty small for folks with less than perfect vision. Most people don't have an issue with it, but if your vision isn't the best, that might be something to consider. Other than that you really can't go wrong with it. It's an unbelievable value for the money. DS2072A has a slightly bigger screen.If your budget is higher, do consider the GW-Instek nctnico mentioned. It was released recently, and while it does have certain things going for it I am personally not too impressed by certain aspects of it. I think if you're willing to spend closer to $1000 on a scope it wouldn't be a huge stretch to get into some "A" brand oscilloscopes at that point.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 06:33:02 am
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on February 14, 2016, 10:00:43 pmI'm sorry to say this but this is nonsense. You certainly don't need 8GSa/s for a measly 500MHz scope, and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem (sample rate must be higher than 2x the highest frequency component to get a valid waveform) remains still valid.For a 500MHz scope any sample rate >1GSa/s is absolutely sufficient to create a valid single-shot capture of any signal within a 500MHz bandwidth, and most scopes in the 500MHz class come with sample rates between 2GSa/s to 5GSa/s which is already more than enough, even including the excess bandwidth pretty much any scope has.QuoteI doubt that, mainly because for a lot of 'high speed stuff' just looking at a waveform is not really sufficient (no math, no analysis, no decode, best case very primitive and in most cases no storage), plus analog scopes are pretty much all low bandwidth scopes ([u[< 1GHz, most are well below 500MHz).

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 07:25:06 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 09:16:47 pmThe DS1052E is $100 cheaper but it's also an older model with less features, smaller screen, etc.For "electronics repair" it will do the job.For design/engineering...? It's getting a bit old fashioned now.Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 09:16:47 pm100Mhz should be enough.Quote from: luney on February 14, 2016, 09:16:47 pmDepends on what "doing USB" means.If you just want to see if there's a signal then you'll be OK. If you want to decode the USB data then forget it. It simply isn't going to happen at this price range.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:01:44 am
content: Quote from: Addicted2AnalogTek on February 15, 2016, 03:55:16 amRigol 1000Z is only 250Ms/s with 4 channels enabled. GDS2000E does 500Ms/s with 4 channels enabled. But you can go ahead and keep comparing prices based on 'specs on paper'. All I know is that I was looking for a cheap scope recently and didn't want a Rigol 1000Z because of the large number of problems and restrictions it has and slow fixes. I also didn't want the Rigol 2000 series for the same reason. I tried a GW Instek GDS 2000E and found it works as advertised and is a much better investment if you are serious about electronics. The only reason the Rigols are relatively cheap is because they can be hacked (for as long as it lasts); if you look at the price for the Rigol options the amount of money adds up quickly into the $800 range. But due to the limitations and bugs in the Rigol scope you'll likely want to upgrade soon so the $400 is just money wasted. Better get a proper tool from the start.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:25:44 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 14, 2016, 09:28:16 pmFalse.There is very little relationship between the sampling rate and bandwidth - unless you are a salesman hung up on high numbers. I've used scopes (e.g. HP54110) with a 1GHz bandwidth to characterise sub-nanosecond risetimes and overshoot - even though the maximum sampling rate was 40MS/s.Plus, if you are invoking Nyquist, you need to be very clear about what the "signal" is - ask anybody with even minimal RF experience.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:30:19 am
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on February 14, 2016, 09:32:20 pmI would use a 2 channel scope to verify the analogue signal integrity. Once I know the bits are getting to the other end correctly, I would switch to debugging the USB data in the digital domain. unless you are photon counting or measuring femtoamp current,allsignals are analogue even if the receiverinterpretsthem as digital.

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 12:09:15 pm
content: It's obvious I'm in the right place. You guys are passionate about this. Can anyone recommend a handheld that is within or not too far out of the price point I stated that will handle the voltages I want? I have found a couple on eBay that say 300 or 400 Vpp which would be perfect. They range anywhere from $200 to $600. Features are all over the place too. I found one Fluke that is reasonably priced. I think that was a 105b. What about Siglent scopes? Are they of fair quality? You guys brought up a couple points that I never thought to consider such as clunkiness of the software/ui. Having a great piece of hardware means jack if you can't get it to do what you need.Edit:I found this one on Tequipmenthttp://www.tequipment.net/Instek/GDS-207/Digital-Oscilloscopes/Are these hackable for bandwidth?I also found a Siglent Siglent SHS810 with a much more reasonable price. Any thoughts on that one?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 02:38:12 pm
content: When looking for a handheld the biggest differentiator are isolated versus non isolated inputs. A good handheld with isolated inputs can be expensive. I started a thread about looking for a handheld scope a while ago.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 03:32:56 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 15, 2016, 12:09:15 pmHiThere are multiple threads on the forum on each of those scopes. If the intent is to drill into a lot of them(multiple models / multiple manufacturers / multiple feature sets (hackability) , I'd suggest checking those threads for the deep dive data.If indeed $800 is now inside the shopping price range (no you did *not* say it is), that changes things a lot. If so, is $1200 inside as well (what is the upper limit)? Price matters a lot on these gizmos. If you start comparing $300 devices to $1200 (and look at it as "that's an ok price, the money does not matter") the decision is always going to swing to the upper end of the range. Price is a decision that we out here in internet land very much can not make. The only person who can intelligently address that is the one who shells out the money.Why that long rant? It is *very* easy to spend more on this stuff. What happens is that the available cash is gone, and some thing even more important does not get bought. Nobody runs a bench with only one instrument on it. It will always be a compromise on each item you buy. Having a really good scope, but not having the signal generator you need ... not a good thing.Bob

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 04:05:07 pm
content: Thanks Uncle Bob, good points -- I was about to write something similar, but you said it much better. Only point I would like to add:Luney, you were not quite clear regarding your preference for a handheld scope. Initially it seemed that you considered it merely as a compromise, hoping to to get a lower cost scope that way, and did not actually want the portability. If that's your motivation, thendon'tget a handheld unit! A benchtop instrument will give you better functionality and usability for the same price.Conversely, if you think that you like/want/need portability: Be very sure that youreallyneed it, and are prepared to accept compromises in usability and/or performance, or are prepared to pay extra for portability! The small form factor does come at a cost, one way or the other.

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 07:42:59 pm
content: Well, the portability at this point, is important. My main use for the scope at this point in time will be automotive. This includes a heavy focus on audio equipment for now. I have already decided that for my bench, the Rigol scope is it. I have looked around here enough that I recognize, the folks giving the input that repeatedly recommends this scope, are pretty knowledgeable. Not blowing smoke, just making an observation. That will more than likely be the next purchase I make for my bench. Right now, this minute, I would really like to have a handheld. As far as price, heck no, I don't want to spend $1200. I'm going to search for the threads on the two I listed. They are both reasonably priced. I'm familiar with Fluke quality. I use some of their DMM's daily as an AC technician. The Siglent brand, I have no idea about. I see alot of their hardware in searches. Doesn't mean anything but that they are a large scale poducer. Thanks, Jim.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 08:17:32 pm
content: HiOk, if this has switched to a handheld search -- what are the cost constraints on that search?Bob

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 08:47:50 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 15, 2016, 07:42:59 pmBetween the Rigol DS1054z and Hantek DSO5202P?It's a total no brainer: Do what everybody's been telling you since the beginning and get the Rigol.If money is really tight: I'd get a Rigol DS1052E before I'd get the Hantek.(You can hack a DS1052E to 100Mhz after it survives for a few weeks)

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 08:48:55 pm
content: @ uncle_bob, Asinexpensiveaspossiblebutstillallow300Vto400Vinput? Heh-heh. Seriously, I guess it has evolved into that since I pretty much have a perfect candidate for a benchtop now. So, maybe $500 to $600? That should leave me with what I need to add the Rigol to my bench now instead of later. The Tektronix THS720P looks interesting and I found one that is not quite in my price range but not too far out. I'm looking now to make sure it will allow the input voltage I need. If you guys tell me it has most of the "nice" features I can expect from a decent scope, then I might be able to justify the extra money. It could be one that will stay around for a while and not be replaced quickly. I know the brand has a decent reputation. Thanks, Jim.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 09:09:26 pm
content: HiOk, at least for me, a hand held / portable device must have one spec above all else:It needs to survive being dropped. It needs to survive getting wet. It needs to survive getting hot and cold.That seems to add up to more than one item. It's actually only one, It needs to survive how I'm likely to treat a poor gizmo that I carry around with me. An IR thermometer that flys to pieces after a 3 foot drop (last month) is not suitable. It will get beat up.Unfortunately this one spec has a pretty massive impact on price. In the past it also has taken the field down to .... errr ... Fluke mighty fast. I can't say I have tried every item on the market. I have yet to drop and break a Fluke portable anything. I have broken stuff (not scopes) from other outfits by dropping it. I got what I deserved by going cheap ....Bob

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 09:30:10 pm
content: I get that! Same here as well. Durability makes up for a whole lot of other "stuff". Anyone active in this have an opinion on that Tektronix THS720P scope? For sure, after reading what I found on the siglent one, it's out. I found a couple of threads that absolutely put forth great examples that promote the argument for isolated channels. Not that really matters for the immediate use I have for a handheld but I definitely do not want to make the mistake of forgetting that they are not isolated and toasting the scope. Are there any less expensive handhelds that would be equivalent to that Tektronix THS720P? That one is pricey. But, on the other hand, if it's a scope that I will get more use out of it than just testing audio equipment, it may very well be worth the extra dough.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 09:40:54 pm
content: Keysight has nice handheld scopes albeit they are not cheap. As far as I can tell they have the deepest memory and most decoding options besides isolated inputs. IMHO the Keysight handheld scopes come the closest to a modern benchtop oscilloscope.

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 09:56:38 pm
content: I can actually get one of those Tektronix THS720P scopes for under $400 used. That for me is awesome!Edit:Thanks for the info via PM as well guys.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2016, 10:30:36 pm
content: HiNo direct experience with the Tek handheld. I will admit to having cracked one of their digital bench top scopes in half (crack down the middle of the front panel that extended on inside) by a pretty minor bump while transporting it in the car.Bob

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 01:06:55 am
content: I truly appreciate the input thus far. The more I look at these handheld scopes, the more I realize, I don't need the same feature set in the handheld that I'm going to want in the benchtop. Can anyone recommend a budget handheld scope that will handle 300V to 400V input? That input voltage is the main concern for me at this point. Even single channel scopes would be fine for what I am wanting to look at. The more I think about it, the more I want to use that extra money for the benchtop scope. That is the one I'm going to be using the most for repair work. Thanks, Jim.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 01:56:14 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 16, 2016, 01:06:55 amHiAre we confusing the voltage rating of the probes with the rating of the scope? In a normal situation, I probe a voltage. It is attenuated by 1X, 10X or 100X (maybe 1,000X) by the probe. What the scope sees is the attenuated version. If I have a 300V signal and a 10:1 probe the scope sees (and is rated for) 30V. If I'm going for 3KV, I grab a 100:1 probe and the scope still sees 30V. The probe will be *very* different in the 3KV case.Skip to a hand held device. I hook the probe tip to 3KV. I neglect to connect the ground / it breaks / it falls off / that wire isn't ground. I have a problem. If I hit a ground on a BNC it will be hot. All of the "isolated" scopes I have seen are simply insulated cases. If you can get your fat finger on the floating ground ... ouch. That may be a subtle point. It is worth noting that you very much need to practice good grounding when working with high(er) voltages.If it is just a probe tip rating, there are a lot of high voltage probes out there.Bob

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 03:19:24 am
content: O.K. so I understand attenuation correctly. I have a Velleman HPS50 right now. It only offers a x1 and x10 setting in the scope software. Am I still able to use a x100 probe to measure waveforms at higher voltages? If this is the case, then I simply need to purchase my Rigol and keep this one for my portable work. I might be confused here. It kills me not understanding something. I feel like an idiot. Thanks, Jim.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 07:05:20 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 16, 2016, 03:19:24 amYes, you can still use a 100x probe. The scope's software will not do the conversion for you if it can't be set to 100x. But that does not stop you from using a 100x probe, setting the software to 10x, and multiplying another 10x in your head.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 12:16:48 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 14, 2016, 09:54:06 pmUSB 1.x is pretty harmless and can be examined with a <100MHz scope (although none of them will support USB decode).The recommended minimum scope bandwidth for USB 2.0 high-speed is 1.5GHz. For USB 3 Super Speed (4.8Gbps) you'd be looking at a 15GHz scope. And for USB 3.1 Super Speed (10Gbps) the scope bandwidth should be around 30GHz.

author: Jope
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 01:21:22 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 15, 2016, 10:25:44 amThis was a periodic signal, not a transient, right?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 02:13:39 pm
content: Quote from: Jope on February 16, 2016, 01:21:22 pmPeriodic or quasi-periodic. Eye diagrams are a very important example of the latter.As a separate issue, beginners often don't realise that if you have a 1MHz wide signal on a 1GHz carrier, you only have to digitise at >2MS/s, not >2GS/s. You still need a 1GHz analogue front end, though.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 02:20:45 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 16, 2016, 01:06:55 amIt's all about the probes. Most probes have a "10x" switch on them and an internal voltage divider.If you look at a 300V signal with a 10x probe the 'scope will only see 30V at the input. I'd be very surprised if you can find a 'scope that can't handle that.(and if youcanfind one, just get a 100x probe ... problem solved!)PS: If I regularly looked at 300V I'd get a fixed 10x probe - no switch to accidentally move.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 05:17:30 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 16, 2016, 02:13:39 pmAnd these things are pretty much all those slow antique sampling scopes (the 54110 is from the mid '80s) were useful for.QuoteSure, but at the end of the day it only shows you the the waveform change the 1MHz signal enacts on the carrier, and you still miss a ton of stuff that's going on with your signal.It should be remembered that the low sampling rate of old boat anchors like the HP 54110 was because of the technological limitations back then, not because it's a particularly great technique. Sampling scopes have been dead for pretty much anything except a very small niche (very high bandwidth TDR and signal integrity measurements), and even there they are dying out as real-time scopes reach that bandwidth (i.e. LeCroy has now retired its 100GHz WaveExpert sampling scope and now only offers real-time scopes, and Keysight and others will do the same once their real-time scopes reach similar bandwidths).However, all that is pretty irrelevant for the topic at hand, which is to choose some entry-level scope for a beginner. And the last thing a beginner should have to deal with in this day and age are the issues and problems that are inherent to sampling scopes from yesteryear.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 07:01:39 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 16, 2016, 05:17:30 pmAnd usually time-domain sampling is not a good way of seeing those effects.QuoteAgreed. But many modern scopes play at specmanship by emphasising the S/s number and downplaying the analogue bandwidth - and beginnersarelikely to get caught out by that.Besides, these are good interview questions to see if candidates understand fundamental theory in addition to a few practical details.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 07:42:55 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 16, 2016, 07:01:39 pmWhich ones do that?If old scopes had bandwidth higher than their sampling rate it's because fast samplers didn't exist, not because it was better.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 08:13:07 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 16, 2016, 07:01:39 pmSure it is, on a modern capable real-time scope. It just isn't on an old boat anchor from 30 years ago.QuoteHmm, I can't see that in regard to sample rate (I'd say that's much more the case for the waveform update rate, which is pretty much mis-used for marketing purposes by a certain vendor that shall not be named). Sample rate is just one of many properties that are important when choosing a scope, and it's pretty much treated that way by any manufacturer - big brand and B-brand alike. And even a cheap bottom-of-the-barrel scope like the often recommended Rigol DS1054z have a very decent sample rate to bandwidth relationship (fs = [2.5;10]*B) which is completely adequate for such a real-time scope.QuoteTrue, but if time permits I'll rather ask for some practical demonstrations, which often are much more fun

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 08:57:31 pm
content: So in the manual for my HPS50 it says max input voltage is 100V. Taken from my manual "The maximum input voltage for the connections of the unit stands at 100Vp (AC+DC)". So does that mean that the highest voltage I want to allow the scope to see is 100? If I'm using a 1x probe 100V. A 10x probe, in theory then, means I can feed in up to 1000V because it will be attenuated to 100V by the probe. Sweeeeet.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 09:30:32 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 16, 2016, 08:57:31 pmYes, that's right as far as the scope is concerned. But be aware that the probes themselves will also have a maximum voltage rating. And the probes do see thefullvoltage! Check the manual and make sure that you stay within both ratings.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 10:47:43 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 16, 2016, 07:42:55 pmThefirstscope I came across was 2GS/s and 70MHz, the Siglent sds2074x.html. Others are similar, of course.If you don't believebeginnersare caught out, then just read various forums.QuoteNot quite: the samplers were fast but the digitisers were much slower.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 10:51:46 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 16, 2016, 08:57:31 pmLook at the probe's voltage and voltage-vs-frequency spec.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 16, 2016, 10:53:29 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 16, 2016, 09:30:32 pmActually it is very important to also look at the derating. The probe's voltage rating is DC. For higher frequencies the maximum voltage rating of a generic probe falls quickly so it may be sensible to get a 1:100 probe or even a differential probe.

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 12:08:14 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 16, 2016, 09:30:32 pmOK! I get it now! I'm gald you said that about the probe having a seperate rating. Now there is something about the probes I saw that tells me which probes I can use with which meter as well, right? The impedance of a scope can be different depending on the scope. If I have read things correctly. So I would need a probe that would be rated for the voltages and frequencies that I want to look at but also the impedance my scope needs? I hope I have this right, heh. Thanks, Jim.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 12:47:25 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 12:08:14 amHiScope input impedance in terms of resistance has become pretty standard over the years. You would have a hard time finding a modern scope that would not match a modern high impedance probe. The other half of the equation is the input capacitance that the probe will adjust to match. Indeed you can find combo's that will not work. You will have to try pretty hard to dig them up. (There is the combo of a 50 ohm probe and a scope that does not set to 50 ohms, that isn't a good way to go for what you want to do).Bob

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 04:15:30 am
content: In the manual, at the back, it says "1Mohm//20pf (standard oscilloscope probe)" and it says "100Vpeak (AC+DC), 200Vpeak-peak (AC only)". This is great news for me. Only in extreme cases will I need over 200Vpp and then I can simply switch the probe to x10.I want to thank you guys for being patient with me. I'm sure it's frustrating when a noob like me comes in asking some of the most basic questions. In fact I'm quite positive some of you had trouble typing over the laughter at a point or two. I appreciate you not giving up and helping me to understand. In the process I actually came across some very good reading that probably would have saved some time had I simply read that stuff first. Again, thank you.This means..........Now I can go back to discussing benchtop features. Yayyyyyyyy!I am definitely convinced that Rigol is the brand I want to look at for value or "bang for my buck". I looked at a few of the other brands brought up by some of you as well. They are no doubt, nice scopes as well. The only issue is cost of most of them. They are just too dang expensive for now.What frequency can the DS1074 be unlocked to? The sampling rate on the DS2072 is double. What frequency can it be unlocked to and would the 4 channels on a DS1074 be a greater benefit than the faster sampling of the DS2072? They are both right around $800.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 06:25:44 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 16, 2016, 10:47:43 pmThis is mainly because the particular scope design is used for bandwidths up to 300MHz, the SDS2074x is just the lowest bandwidth offering. You'll find the same with pretty much most scope manufacturers, B-brands as big brands alike. Pretty often the only difference between a low bandwidth model and its higher bandwidth brethren is only in the front end, and in more and more cases it's just in a software code.And there's really no point in artificially limiting the sample rate as well just for the low end models.It's not like they're saying that their 70MHz scope is better than other 70MHz scopes just because of the 2GSa/s sample rate. In fact, Siglent doesn't even use the sample rate as it's main marketing argument.I think interpreting this as specmanship is really stretching it.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 06:44:53 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 04:15:30 amThe DS1000Z series can be unlocked up to 100 MHz, the DS2000 series goes up to 200 MHz. Whether or not the higher bandwidth is worth having depends on your applications. As already discussed earlier in this thread, USB analysis doesnotbenefit from the 200 MHz bandwidth. My preference would be on the four channels, which enable e.g. SPI decoding.The DS2000 series has some usability advantages over the DS1000Z series: Better use of screen real estate (side menus can be hidden), better navigation in data memory, decoding of serial data from the large memory buffer vs. from the screen memory only for the DS1000Z.But when comparing prices, you should really focus on the DS1054Z model, which is abouthalfthe price of a DS2074A! After applying the bandwidth upgrade, there is no difference at all between an upgraded DS1054Z and DS1074Z. Only limitation is that you can't get signal generator or logic analyzer options with the 1054 model; but the consensus on the forum seems to be that buying separate devices (once you need them) is the better route anyway, unless one has to cope with very limited bench space.Personally, I did get a DS1054Z a year ago, and am still very happy with it.

author: 3141592
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 09:04:14 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 15, 2016, 06:33:02 amWhile it's true that it would be enough to sample at twice the frequency of your desired bandwidth, to actually see the time-domain signal that the samples represent you need to reconstruct it. The source of the confusion in my opinion, is that most older digital scopes only did the incorrect, but efficient linear interpolation between points and that's where the need for that 5x-10x sampling frequency came from (correct me if I'm wrong).

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 09:12:33 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 04:15:30 amAlso look at theprobesspecification as a function of frequency. You will probably find that at 10MHz the probe is limited to 30V. Any more than that and the probe will break down and might expose the scope to high voltages.Don't forget that in digital signals the maximum frequency is defined by the risetime not the frequency.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 09:55:35 am
content: Quote from: 3141592 on February 17, 2016, 09:04:14 amYou're absolutely right, with two samples per fmax cycle sin(x)/x interpolation is required to accurately reproduce the waveform. And you're right that very early DSOs were only capable of linear interpolation (and even fs of 10 times fmax the resulting waveform would not have produced a reasonably valid waveform).But that was three decades ago, and things have changed quite a bit since then. Even most real-time DSOs from the '90s do sin(x)/x interpolation (usually automatically enabled dependent on the timebase setting).Unfortunately some people's knowledge about DSOs is pretty much stuck in the '80s, and that is the the cause for a lot of misconception about what a somewhat modern DSO can do (the same outdated 'facts' from back then are also often used as arguments against DSOs by certain proponents of analog scopes).At the end of the day, whatever the state of DSOs was in the '80s is completely irrelevant for this day and age. Pretty much all scopes, even the bottom-of-the-barrel ones from Chinese B-brands, do offer sufficient sample rates and sin(x)/x interpolation to allow a valid representation of any signal within their specified analog bandwidth.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 10:08:36 am
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 04:15:30 amYou don't normally use probes in 1x mode, it causes problems. The "normal" position for that little switchis10x.If I was working with high voltages I'd buy a fixed 10x probe so you I couldn't accidentally switch it to 1x mode (or even a fixed 100x probe, just to be sure...my scope has settings up to 1000x)

author: 3141592
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 11:46:30 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 17, 2016, 09:55:35 amUnfortunately, the web is still littered with misleading marketing bs and devices like this, e.g. just look at the comparison pictures under the sample rate paragraph here:https://www.picotech.com/library/application-note/oscilloscope-tutorialQuote

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 06:07:02 pm
content: That was an awesome video. He could have just stated that it was a lossy transmission line but man it was cool to see it explained in detail. Thank you to the author. I loved it.So here is my question now, should I look for a higher frequency probe that is fixed at 10x? My scope only does 50The manual for my HPS50 tells me to actually calibrate with a 10x probe using a calibration point on the side of the scope. Does that mean that every time I turn it on, if I'm using a 10x probe, I will need to calibrate it before I use it? What should I consider for a fixed 10x probe, any recommendations?

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 06:27:59 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 06:07:02 pmHiBack a ways ... resistance is pretty standard, scope input capacitance varies quite a bit.At the very least, you need to adjust your probes once to match the input capacitance of your scope. If you don't things will look strange. Some probes have multiple adjustments (often buried under rubber caps). Fiddling with them generally is not needed.If the inputs on your scope match up well (they normally do) and you don't swap probes between scopes, calibration every time things turn on is not needed. If you are going to do something precise, sure check the cal. If it's been a week or five since you checked, check it again. I'd start off checking a new brand of probes daily and back off as I saw that nothing odd was going on. If they need adjustment more than once a day .... you bought the wrong probes.BobBob

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 06:29:09 pm
content: Quote from: 3141592 on February 17, 2016, 11:46:30 amI think you're really unfair, that statement from Picotech deserves at least a tripple facepalmSeriously though, it's pretty sad if a semi-reputable manufacturer like Picotech spreads such nonsense. But then this is pretty much in line with the support we got from them.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 07:02:28 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 17, 2016, 06:29:09 pmIt's sort of true if you don't have sin(x)/x interpolation in your reconstruction.Which they obviously don't, looking at their screenshots...(Those data points would be shown as a beautiful 20MHz sine wave on most DSOs)

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 07:08:47 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 06:07:02 pmYes, you need to match the capacitance of the probe with the capacitance of the 'scope (the probe has a variable capacitor inside it).Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 06:07:02 pmNo, once is enough.(You can recalibrate it every six months if you're paranoid...)

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 07:10:27 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 06:07:02 pmEvery time you move a probe to a different scope, you should tweak its HF performance.You should calculate the impedance of a 15pF capacitor (a typical probe tip capacitance) as a function of frequency; it isveryinstructive for probes. (Z =1/2*pi*f*C).In particular, do it at 10kHz, 30kHz, 100kHz, 10MHz, 100MHz and 500MHz. Compare the impedance with 1Mohm/10Mohm of a standard "high impedance" probe, and the 500ohms of a "low impedance Z0" probe. You will be enlightened, and unpleasantly surprised.For more information on probes, including safety and how to use and make them, seehttps://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/library-2/scope-probe-reference-material/While you might not understand it all now, you ought to be aware of some of the issue to do with effective and ineffective probing.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 07:10:54 pm
content: I did a lot of research into signal reconstruction for an oscilloscope about a decade ago. Given you have enough processing power you can reconstruct signals nicely up to 0.45fs (0.5fs is the Nyquist frequency). The mistake many make is that you need 5 sample points (or more) to make a waveform visible for humans but it doesn't mean you need 5 times the samplerate to get all the information of the signal. All in all a lot depends on how well a real-time sampling (!) oscilloscope can display a waveform which is close to the Nyquist frequency.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 07:18:43 pm
content: Quote from: luney on February 17, 2016, 06:07:02 pmThe author of the video is our friendly host, Dave, by the wayIf you found this forum via Google and came directly to the forum pages, you may have missed Dave's main site,www.eevblog.com. (For some reason there is no link back to the home page from the forum pages.) If you have not browsed those pages yet, do have a look! Dave produces a regular video blog on electronics, with tutorials on basics, teardowns of old and not-so-old equipment, surprise items from the mailbag etc.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 07:44:11 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 17, 2016, 07:10:54 pmPrecisely.My preference is that the scope display samples without interpolation. My eye/brain can interpolate perfectly well, thank you, and I've seen some truly misleading interpolation!

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 08:00:20 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 17, 2016, 07:02:28 pmOnly sort of because without sin(x)/x interpolation even 10 samples per period are not enough to capture a valid waveform.QuoteIt's beyond me how they can not have proper sin(x)/x interpolation in their software. I guess the Windows95 look should hint that the software will be behind the curve in more than just optics...I've not used Picoscopes, some colleagues did for some automated special purpose tasks where they seemed to work OK-ish, but I can't say I haven't heard them saying much positive about Picoscopes (and a lot negative about their support). Seeing this, that's not really surprising.

author: luney
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 17, 2016, 08:37:28 pm
content: OMFG that"How to entertain a nerd" video when I subscribed to Dave's Youtube was a RIOT. This Guy is awesome! Thanks for pointing me to the real homepage ebastler. I wish I had found this place a long time ago. Jim.