is Rigol Ds1052e still the best option in its class? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: CHexclaim
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 02:11:54 pm
content: In the price category of the Rigol Ds1052e (today's prices), is it still the best option or are there other options that will outperfom in someway it(features, quality, etc.) ?

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 02:25:12 pm
content: The DS1052 is old now, there are better options with bigger screens.I dont know of any models specifically though

author: valentinc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 02:40:02 pm
content: The Siglent SDS1xxx series are clearly a better option for the same money... The hardware is 90% the same as the Rigol DS1052 anyway, but the bigger screen makes a huge difference in my opinion ... The ADCs are still overclocked... And the good thing is that the low-end unit starts at 70 Mhz analog bandwidth (compared to 50 Mhz on Rigol...) ...It depends on what you are looking for: in some respects an old analog Tektronix 2000 series is way better than this 400$ digital scopes...

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 03:11:17 pm
content: I don't like the Rigol Ds1052e front panel. It has multiplexed knobs and even noSinglebutton. Siglent is better at this, but (!) some Siglents have quite short memory!

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 07:23:37 pm
content: Quote from: CHexclaim on June 12, 2013, 02:11:54 pmhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-pick-a-scope-right-for-me/https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-me-pick-the-right-scope-2/

author: Emil
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 07:49:01 pm
content: Quote from: valentinc on June 12, 2013, 02:40:02 pmI looked up the specs on the SDS1* series and all except the SDS1*CML have <=40K of memory. The CML scopes have 2M samples but are about $100 more than the Rigol DS1052.Do these scopes have other advantages over the Rigol other than the larger screen that would make it worth buying despite the much smaller memory? (Or higher price in case of the CML)

author: valentinc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 08:42:35 pm
content: From what I can see on the Rigol website, the Rigol DS1052E has 16Kpts or 1 Mpts in Long Memory mode... And the Siglent SDS1072CML has 32Kpts or 2 Mpts in Long memory mode... And of course the 70 Mhz analog bandwidth compared to 50 Mhz (which of course isn't much, but it is a difference)http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Rigol-DS1052E-50MHz-Band-widths-2-Channel-Digital-Oscilloscope/497625693.htmlhttp://www.aliexpress.com/item/All-New-Siglent-70MHz-Digital-Storage-Oscilloscope-SDS1072CML-2-Channels-1-EXT-trigger-channel/612432450.htmlOn AliExpress the prices are very similar... I don't see the $100 difference you speak of...Another difference, form what I can see is the equivalent sample rate of 50 GSa/s at the Siglent compared to the 10 GSa/s at the Rigol, but I think this doesn't make any differnce in practice...

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 08:48:10 pm
content: Quote from: valentinc on June 12, 2013, 08:42:35 pmPeople here leave their 1052 at 50MHz? I think you mean 100MHz

author: valentinc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 08:50:53 pm
content: Is the new version of the Rigol hackable ? (a unit bought in 2013 I mean) I remeber (I could be wrong) that somewhere on this forum someone said that Rigol has made a change din the 1052E after they discovered that it was hackable... And it's not anymore...Please correct me if I'm wrong...

author: Emil
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2013, 09:28:13 pm
content: Quote from: valentinc on June 12, 2013, 08:42:35 pmI was thinking about the 100MHz SDS1072CML because I was assuming the Rigol would be hacked to 100MHz so it seemed more natural to compare to that model. But you are right, I got the price wrong even for that model, when comparing the lowest price I'v seen for each scope the difference is $69 and if comparing with the 70Mhz version there is almost no difference.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2013, 08:11:11 am
content: Quote from: Emil on June 12, 2013, 07:49:01 pmSiglent have real dual timease in ALTernate mode.Better user ergonomy. Example separate adjusting knobs for both channels.Menu system least as good as in Rigol DS1000E.Building quality least as good as in Rigol DS1000E (yes I know Rigol becouse before I have also sell and tested these)Good user adjustable DSP filters separately for both channels.Real glass front of TFT surface.Very silent FAN.It is also good to know that last HW version start with numbers 11 (afaik and this time)Rigol window zoom works still some amount better but this is FW related and I will suppose this is going better in future FW upgrades. Just as also before they have repaired Equal Time mode. Also new FW's and service manuals available from Siglent.)Also here some testsThen, Siglent have also 6M recorder memory for scan mode and with very slow speeds it can also use USB memory directly! It make possible very long time continuous records. (also of course also usual "frame recorder" what is different)In middle speeds 10ms/div to (Rig)200/(Sig)250ns/div Siglent have faster samplerate. next step is 100ns/div and there they have equal samplerate up to fastest horizontal speed.Example with 500ns/div Siglent have 250MSa/s as Rigol have 100MSa/s as far as I know (data is old).(it means that Rigol have Nyquist limit there 50MHz as Siglent have 125MHz)

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 13, 2013, 08:29:15 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on June 13, 2013, 08:11:11 amInteresting...the SDS 1000CML Series are direct contender of the Instek GDS-1xxxA-U, or 2000Ahttp://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=3&mid=7&id=1349http://www.siglent.com/en/product/detail.aspx?id=100000005058775&nodecode=119008001SDS1152CML is in the $5OOusd. range.SDS1102CML in the $4OOusd. range.SDS1072CML in the $35Ousd. range.sadly Siglent´s Top of the Line CFL is 300MHz 2GSa/s 24khttp://www.siglent.com/en/product/list.aspx?nodecode=119008001

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2013, 08:38:39 am
content: Quote from: JuanPC on June 13, 2013, 08:29:15 amThis situation is changing soon (perhaps September-November)(there is coming SDS2000 and perhaps later SDS3000)Preliminary:110k wfrms/s 14/28M memory, 2GSa/s etc.. (SDS2000)

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2013, 09:45:03 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on June 13, 2013, 08:11:11 amGood that you speak about recording. I just checked user manual and trying to understand it.It seems that there are two kind of waveform recording:on Utility Page 3 "Record"on Utility Page 4 "Recorder""Record" can save up to 2500 waveframes (non continues frames, variable interval)- question 1: what is the minimum interval, i don't se anything (except "set interval") in user manual (but i guess 1ms?)- question 2: how long is the shortest interval in real? So when you set e.g. 1ms and 1000 frames, how long it takes in realto save these 1000 frames?- question 3: is it working with long memory enabled or only with short memory?- question 4: when you playback waveframe, how long is the captured data? is is the same length as when in RUN mode?(backgrond of the question: when the DSO can save internaly 6M, and in this mode 2500 frames then each of themwould be 2400pts short, and not 40000pts)"Recorder" can save up to 6M of data internally (continues stream, no gap)- question 1: is there any indicator showing how much data i can save? In the manual i see only "playback" indicator,with remaining time, but no record indicator (what of course can be user manual problem)And maybe a general question, in these models with no long memory, (if you have such and know it for sure) which ofthese two recorders are available?

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2013, 10:13:46 am
content: Quote from: tinhead on June 13, 2013, 09:45:03 amSome questions I will answer later. (I do not want write only from my bad memory)QuoteAfaik this 6M recorder is not same memory as frame recorder memory.(If I remember right also model what do not have 6M slow recorder still have normal frame record function.)6M memory is also only used for slow speeds. (scan mode)If sampling speed is 1kSa/s record lenght is 6000 seconds.With 50s/dif there is 50sample/s. Record lenght is over 34 hour.If use USB memory and redirect recorder to USB it can record more.(this can use only with very slow speeds, 1kSa/s (barely) and works better with 500Sa/s or slover)With most short memory models there is 6M slow speed recorder available (not exactly remember what model do not have this) and all have normal frame recorder.later after I have time I will check more this frame record.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2013, 04:14:52 pm
content: Well, this is only a painted image.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/is-rigol-ds1052e-still-the-best-option-in-its-class/?action=dlattach;attach=51202;imageNote the speling mistakes:TRIGER, RUN CONTRALThe scope is clearly inspired by Agilent DSOX2000, but it looks overall weird. The softkeys do not match the screen pictures...

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2013, 07:07:12 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on June 13, 2013, 04:14:52 pmjust for fun= do not take seriousTwenty years ago one western well known big brand make this "rolls-royce" (and there is lot of same kind of examples and not only one highly admired big brands) and also price was good car price. With this price, still soft key displacement. Can you accept this crap becouse it is not made in China.Also in these years I have not seen any your comment about weird look or totally bullshit crap UI but still real engineers in labs have no troubles to use these equipments. Perhaps they just have been well educated and they know how to use and make tests instead of watching cosmetics and making false kids playing class measurements.I have never seen any prfessional people comment about example this machine cosmetics.(this is drawing but in nature it is same or even worse)But, displacement amount is some less but what really weird look, every button bottom on display have different displacement. Very odd?

author: sorin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2013, 10:08:53 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on June 13, 2013, 08:38:39 amWhat will be the price for this unit?Same as Rigol 2000 series?

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2013, 10:12:10 am
content: Quote from: tinhead on June 13, 2013, 09:45:03 amPartial answer. Have not enough time to do more deep tests with this scope at this time.It store frames. 1 frame is one display! (or if it is more, it can not look, can not horizontally shift in playback. Stored frames can not zoom vertical or horizontalStored frames can play back using settable interval and also by frame numbers or single frames.They are more like sequantially stored TFT images. (I did not look if possible save single frames as waveform data to USB but I believe can not. Only image.)setting for record, minimum 1ms (but it can not this speed in real life)Test:long or short memory. No affect. it store only TFT area"frames" and only one selected channel.50us/div. (tested only with this due to lack of time for tests)2500 frames continuously. Around 110 second. (long mem selected and around same resull with short memory selected) It give 44ms period for frames.No measurements available for playback frames. Normal cursors available but no tracking cursors in frame playback.Blind time between frames is big as usual in low price scopes.

author: CodyShaw
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2013, 02:42:28 pm
content: I believe Rigol lowered the 100 MHz models price to be on par (50$ more?) than the 50 MHz model, so its a bit of a moot point nowadays.Quote from: valentinc on June 12, 2013, 08:50:53 pm

author: valentinc
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2013, 05:42:13 pm
content: On the Rigol webiste the price diffrence between 50 and 100 Mhz verions is $399-$329=$70... From what I remember the Siglent price difference is more than that... But I can't find any reference prices... Because on ebay or aliexpress the price + shipping varies much... and of course depends on what country you are buying from...

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2013, 07:58:03 pm
content: One thing important to consider in buying low end scopes is the country you get it from that provides local support.All these scopes have pros and cons; local purchase and support can be the tie breaker as it will save you a lot of grief if you need to return it or ask for repair or you find bugs you cannot live with, as marmad found out when he was testing low end scopes.If you get fixated on one brand and buy mail order, should things go wrong, its very difficult to ship for service back to China or wherever.There are also some local expert in different parts of the world closer to you were someone may help you if you buy a brand they support or know more off, such as many who post on this forum.If several brands are available, then you can test and evaluate them yourself before committing to ownership and return what you do not like.

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2013, 10:06:20 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on June 14, 2013, 10:12:10 amthanks for the answer, I performed the same test on Tekway/Hantek "Recorder" so let's compare to Siglent Record/RecorderMax of framesTekway/Hantek - 1000Siglent - 2500Minimum intervalTekway/Hantek - 1ms (but it takes 11ms for 1ms frame)Siglent - 1ms (but it takes 44ms for one 1ms frame)i can't speak for Siglent, but on Tekway/Hantek when i set 90ms then the real interval is 100ms,so in principle always +10ms independant on interval setting.What memory length can be enabled for Record featureTekway/Hantek - 4000pts (with max 1000 frames), 40000pts (with max 500 frames)Siglent - automatic only screen size (~500pts)Zoom on playback framesTekway/Hantek - yes (vertical and horizontal)Siglent - noMeasurment on playback framesTekway/Hantek - noSiglent - noCursor measurment on playback framesTekway/Hantek - direct no, indirect via REF or SAVE/RELOAD waveform - yesSiglent - yesExtrasTekway/Hantek- frames can be saved/reloaded an single/selected/all frames,- each frame can be set as REF,- each frame can be exported as CSV (such CSV can be later imported as regular waveform, so allDSO operations like on normally exported/imported waveform available)- screenshot of each waveframe- not only zoom but as well vert/horz. position of playback frames can be changed- FFT (when 4k memory selected) possible on each playback waveframe (manual scroll with F3/V0knob only through frames, no autoplayback).- playback data cannotbe streamed to PC- no separate "no-gap" recorder (except direkt access via SDK to Screen buffer or FPGA FIFOs)Siglent (some maybe missing, see below)- only screen snapshot- for long timebase "Recorder" can be used for no-gap recording/streaming to PCQuote from: rf-loop on June 15, 2013, 09:58:25 am

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 15, 2013, 12:49:26 am
content: Quote from: valentinc on June 14, 2013, 05:42:13 pmHere in oz it's $80 to go from 70MHz to 100MHz for Siglent CML:http://www.triosmartcal.com.au/234-siglent

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2013, 09:58:25 am
content: tinheadI have not tested some things what you list asExtras--------If look just 100MHz or 50MHz namelpates and 70MHz and 100MHz, and then max memory and up to samplerates it do not tell whole truth. Both have advantages and disadvantages but in main stream Siglent 70MHz is more like Rigol 100MHz exept it still beats it example in samplerates.Ok, there is 2ns/div in Rigol 100MHz. But this difference is marginal becouse maximum samplerate is 1Gsa or 500Msa/s. (same comment for Siglent 100MHz model where is 2.5ns/div)Siglent 70MHz -3dB point is around 115MHz. (measured using 50ohm external trerminator)And around just over 130MHz measured using Siglent own 70MHz probes what come with scope)With Siglent SDS1072CML own probe from 50 ohm source (source flatness is good HP8644B with options)SDS1072CML With 50 ohm external terminatorFor compare to Siglent 100MHz model (1102CML)SDS1102CML With 50 ohm external terminatorToo many times it is looked only alone max samplerates.Example using 10us/div in Rigol all frequency components over 12.5MHz what reach ADC produce total garbage. In Siglent this (Nyquist) frequency with same settings is 50MHz.With this setting, 10us/div example, it can say oscilloscope is maximum 12.5MHz (Rigol) or 50MHz (Siglent). This need always remember with digilat oscilloscopes. It is good to look also slower horizontal speeds samplerate for estimate real BW.Here compared Rigol and Siglent specially for middle speeds. In scan mode Rigol samplerates are better compared to Siglent. Siglent Long memory is not available in scan mode for rise samplerates.Here only setting steps 1 and 5 becouse intermediate step is different (Rigol 2 / Siglent 2.5)

author: ftransform
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2013, 11:00:54 am
content: You should buy the rigol just to be in the rigol 1000 club. no sense in nit picking here.say siglent, say rigol, does rigol not just sound better?

author: sorin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2013, 09:33:35 pm
content: Quote from: ftransform on June 15, 2013, 11:00:54 amNO

author: Galaxyrise
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 15, 2013, 10:40:06 pm
content: Quote from: ftransform on June 15, 2013, 11:00:54 amIt's not even obvious how to say "Rigol". Marmad's & Dave's videos pronounced it "rye gall". So I went looking for some "official" pronunciation. However, official videos on Youtube by "RigolTech" pronounce it more like Regal.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2013, 03:58:06 am
content: Tektronix sounds nicer.Agilent is a bit weird---sounds like a Hyundai!Rohde & Schwarz is a bit of a mouthful.Hameg?--sounds like breakfast!Owon?---sounds like a British chap reminding you that he loaned you some money.Siglent---sounds like the alternative loans company!

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 16, 2013, 05:01:11 am
content: "Rygol" means "gutter" or "raceway" in Czech language.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2013, 02:24:39 am
content: I got the Rigol because it is a proven model, and from what I see, it is popular around my region. I even found one lying when visiting college labs to pick out an institute. Something tells me if it breaks it's going to be easy to find the fault. We have seen schematics of the front end and even the power supply around this forum. The firmware is well matured and the model is well known. Also we have our resident Rigol expert Drieg and all the other guys I can't remember!

author: kerrinal
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2013, 06:40:11 am
content: People maybe think that owon is the best choice.But I think the siglent oscilloscope is also a good choice.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 18, 2013, 08:12:18 am
content: Quote from: kerrinal on June 18, 2013, 06:40:11 amSiglent have much more features and UI is far better.But Owon have some advantages over these others. One of these is samplerate and memory.It is good to look samplerates also with other than just fastest horizontal speeds.If this is not important to user and many other things weights more then Siglent is good and also good to remember that price is different.Of course this is not important for all users but overall: Do not look only MHz or "up to" samplerates. What this oscilloscope do with other settings.. and is it important for you or not.example:500us/divOwon SDS7102 1GSa/s max. (10M full speed memory. Two channel 10M + 10M but 500MSa/s)Rigol DS1000E 50MSa/s (1M half speed memory. Two channel 500k+500k 50MSa/s)Hantek DSO5000B (400us/div) max 100MSa/s (1M half speed memory. Two channel 500k setting 50MSa/s)Siglent SDS1102CML max 50MSa/s (2M half speed memory. Two channel 1+1M 50MSa/s. )With 2ms/div Owon Nyquist limit is still ower 100MHzRigol is 5MHzSiglent (2.5ms/div) is 5MHzHantek is 10MHzDid you buy 100MHz oscilloscope?But then, in many and most other things Siglent win clearly Owon. Specially user interface is far better. Also. today it seems that Siglent building quality is reasonable good.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2013, 06:27:04 am
content: I happen to own an ADS1022 from Atten, so basically the same thing as the Siglent (I have the version with smaller screen). Software is total and utter shit. Quite often crashes when doing math or autoset. FFT is useless. On the positive side is CAN withstand 40A going through the chassis (a small "woops..." when probing around a big transformer, my probes melted...).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2013, 11:43:05 am
content: Quote from: tinhead on June 14, 2013, 10:06:20 pmJust one question about these 'recorders' (actually just crude segmented memory) - since the Rigol DS1000 series also has the feature: do they have time tags for the 'frames'? Because without that, IMO, there usefulness decreases.

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2013, 09:47:18 am
content: Quote from: marmad on June 19, 2013, 11:43:05 amDepends how you define it. 10 years ago it would be sufficient to have that kind of segmented memory implementation,today it's not. Today segmented memory is not only a "recorder" capturing data based on interval you set, but on trigger data.Sure, it is not that one could not measure once time between two events and setup then the interval, but that's is goodfor few things only. The better way is to capture one event (or even none) and start then segmented memory cature - when thereis an event it will get captured. And exactly here it does make sense, as we don't have any pre-selected interval between frames,to have time tag implemented.The time-tag need of course good resolution (accuracy is anyway different story, one have to calcutate the deviationby themselves based on measured time-tag stamp and typical timebase/trigger accuracy).Something like 10-100ps is common usefull value for resolution.EDIT: Agilent can e.g 10ps best case, see 5989-7833ENQuote from: marmad on June 19, 2013, 11:43:05 amfrom a hardware point of view DS1000, (and all these who copied that hw design, like Siglent/ATTEN/UNI-T etc. )does not have RTC on board, so no way to have time tag (and yes i know, there could be a counter running inFPGA/CPLD and the latency between µC and FPGA could be calibrated out, but this is not the case for these DSO here).Rigol changed that in DS2000, so it does have external RTC (ISL1208), but no matter how good the counter/interrupt/rtc/rtoscombination works, you will not get real ps resoultion on processor running at 400MHz. I don't have DS2000, so can't test anything.All i found in user manual and pictures was like 1us timetag resolution. On the other side Rigol does not speak about"segmented memory" but "recorder", so that ok, the timetag (independant on the given resolution) is then an small extra,but not a real feature. I haven't found anything about when DS2000 is saving frames (except the interval setting, but i don't sawanything trigger related). So when it can't be set to save on trigger event, then it is only recorder (or old school segmented memory).Of course i might be wrong, maybe Rigol implemented the timetag counter (and on-trigger input) into the second FPGA (which is afaikfrom the memory speed/size the recordig FPGA), so they could get best case 2ns resolution.Anyway, you have DS2000, you can check that.Regards Tekway, it does have internal RTC and enought counters to get 100-500ns resolution, but there is not RTOSbut Linux running. Sure, with proper device driver and changes to fw they could for sure do 1us or so, but that's wouldbe not a real timetag (or not what timetag have to be). Maybe i should ask them to see what they can implement, but yeah,i didn't expect much from 400MHz ARM with Linux on it. Here, as on the DS1000E (and it's hw clones), the FPGA is toosmall and timing already too hard on limit to have a way to implement timetag into FPGA, so as said above probably1us could be the max (if they would implement it). And yeah, Tekway is based on interval as well, so no way to saveframe on each trigger event, so typical recorder and not segmented memory.Quote from: marmad on June 19, 2013, 11:43:05 amas said above, without resolution (and accuracy of course) timetag is exact that good as manually counting secondson fingers between two nanosecond pulses.

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2013, 11:03:36 am
content: Hey tinhead, do you think you could set your editor to soft wrap? The hard line breaks prevents the browser from reflowing the text and makes it kind of hard to read.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2013, 11:05:54 am
content: Quote from: tinhead on June 20, 2013, 09:47:18 amFor someone who doesn't have time tags on their DSO, you seem fairly confident about what is useful - but I think you're wrong. The time tag is extremely useful - even if you only have a resolution that is slightly higher than the re-arm time, which is 20 us on Agilent 2000X (according to specs - perhaps it's better when measured), and ~17.5 us (best case I've measured - AUTO MemDepth) on Rigol DS2000.QuoteI think the resolution is 100 nanoseconds on the DS2000 (perhaps less - I haven't checked).QuoteYes, you're wrong - just as you were wrong about the Rigol's capture speed. [BTW, you often seem to be trying to knock down the DS2000's abilities - DSO envy?] It captures PURELY based on trigger events - although, unlike the Agilent X-Series (which doesn't seem to be able to capture segments more than 1 second apart according to the manual), the Rigol can add an interval (hold-off) between trigger events of up to 10 seconds, giving it the ability to capture equidistantly spaced segments up to a period of 7.5 days.As I've told you more than once already, you can see the wfrm/s speed of the Rigol with a given sample length/timebase reflected in the time tags (i.e. it can capture segments at it's rated update rate).QuoteI'll assume this is a joke.

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2013, 09:35:17 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on June 20, 2013, 11:05:54 amyeah, that must be the caseSeriously DS2000 is currently the best you can get (2ch models) for under 2k USD, if there are things that not good enought for xxx or yyy or missing (and there are some) then that didn't matter at all as there is no competitor (as combined bung for buck value).Quote from: marmad on June 20, 2013, 11:05:54 amif you don't mind check that please, it would be nice to know it.Quote from: marmad on June 20, 2013, 11:05:54 amThese 7.5days. i found your org. posting, that looks good.Quote from: marmad on June 20, 2013, 11:05:54 ami think you got it wrong, i wasn't talking about that Tekway DSO vs DS2000, but about the timestamp feature generaly (and about how useless are timestamps in "µs"). That Tekway and all the others, i told only what the hardware can/could/can't and described why timetag it is not available on all these DSOs and why it didn't make sense to implement timetag on Tekway (however i will request it)Sure, in the last 10yrs i was primary entrepreneur, but still there was a lot of things i have made themselves, so yes, i had a chance to work with gears you even don't know that they exists, and for sure used lot of times segmented memory feature. Even my private TDS754D (that one which died ~2009, which was a reason for me to take a look on china gears) was capable of FastFrame (which is segmented memory), and yes, it was capable of picosecond resolution in timestamps.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 12:20:07 am
content: Quote from: tinhead on June 20, 2013, 09:35:17 pmIt's strange - when I was doing a lot of testing with recording before (when writing the software to read out the frames), I thought that it was resolving down to 10ns - but checking tonight, I could only see changes as low as the 100ns digit (even though it displays down to the 1ns digit).QuoteWell, as I mentioned before, I think it's critical (as long as the resolution is at least 10x smaller than the fastest re-arm time). Without the time-tag, it would be impossible to tell exactly when a non-repetitive triggered event happened. Attached are two 3d images of segments - the first is plotted equidistantly (without using the time-tag) - the second is plotted with Z based on the time tag. It's obvious that the location (in time) of the sine-to-square change is much different when referring to the time-tag.

author: ftransform
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 01:10:08 am
content: so this thread got completely derailed. Can we agree that the owon 300$ version is 100% better then the rigol 1052e?this thread was supposed to be about entry level scopes but it turned into some 1000$ pissing contest....I feel like the coolaid man busted through the wall and now batman is trying to stop him....

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 01:30:40 am
content: Quote from: ftransform on June 21, 2013, 01:10:08 amNo pissing contest - just a discussion about waveform recording - a feature which happens to exist in most entry-level DSOs. But, gee whiz, we better get this thing back on track because there is hardly any information to be found anywhere on this forum comparing entry-level scopes.And no, the Owon is definitely not 100% better than the Rigol DS1052E.

author: ftransform
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 01:35:48 am
content: im sorry but the 3d graph from star trek scared meI'm guessing that it has to do with the WFM/S.. I figure my rigol (or any 300$ scope) would probably catch on fire/teleport into hell before making a 3d graph.holy dog shit it does have a record mode. thats way cool, I learned something... thanks. no 3d graph thoughis there some program that can make the diagram that you show on the computer for the 1052e?

author: bob808
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2013, 09:46:22 am
content: Quote from: Pippy on June 26, 2013, 01:41:47 pmSame hereThought I might get to a conclusion... I need a digital scope but have a max of around 300$

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2013, 05:58:14 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on June 18, 2013, 08:12:18 amSampling faster for a given timebase is not always better because you are compromising the ability to zoom out when you only have a modest amount of sample memory. If you need to zoom in by more than 3 orders of magnitude after capturing the waveform you are doing something wrong or buying the wrong class of scope. I find the implementation on the Rigol 1000 is a reasonable compromise of being able to zoom in and out.FWIW, the Rigol 1000 has a fair bit of jitter up past 50mhz. It's not really an issue for me because i rarely use mine >10mhz, but it's worth noting. I don't know how the others compare because people don't seem to pay attention to it in reviews.

author: markce
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2013, 10:37:42 pm
content: In general TS question is not specific. DS1052E is still a very good entry DSO. In some aspects, it's not the best. Most obvious is the screen resolution. However, firmware is very stable. There is a large knowledge/support base. Price is an all-time low. It's proven reliable. There is free software to interface with it.Not really a risk to buy at this price level...

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2013, 12:41:52 pm
content: I'd fully agree with markce's succinct summary. The 1000s series is over 6 years old and well matured. It may not have the best specs but its very stable and predictable, so it will do what the spec sheet says so you can measure your work with confidence, not spend time getting the scope to work. If the spec sheet isn't what you want, then move up to a better scope, but that is a far better situation than the spec sheet being iffy or frankly false [ which is how many choose among devices, IMHO if this is bad the vendors are off to a bad start ] having unexpected glitches or bugs plus unpredictable variation in those bugs from year to year in other models. Note there is one minor recurring quality issue, rotary encoders become erratic with age, and if you DIY replace beware breaking the power switch knob is a common issue in disassembly, but the scope has been reliable otherwise over time.Quote from: markce on October 19, 2013, 10:37:42 pm

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2013, 02:44:01 pm
content: I would prefer some Siglent scopes. They have better front panel withSinglebutton and separate vertical controls.

author: Fay
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2013, 02:23:18 am
content: http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/BEST-PRICE-New-Siglent-70MHz-SDS1072CML-Digital-Storage-Oscilloscope-2-channels-7-display-32Kpts-memory-depth/521168_1352141711.htmlI recommend 1072cml from Siglent

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2013, 12:49:50 pm
content: Quote from: Fay on October 22, 2013, 02:23:18 amwhere are the mods? stop that f* spammer

author: Dave Turner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2013, 08:37:45 pm
content: AllMy interest in this thread is that I have a similar problem. A maximum budget of £300 UK with extremely limited space, so much so that a second hand analogue is out of the question. I'd prefer to find a UK supplier with stock rather than rely on international shipments with the associated tax, support and delivery issues.So for those who have tested other options in this price range; is there any consensus on a reasonable alternative to the Rigol DS1052E?Dave

author: soren
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2013, 09:56:58 pm
content: Quote from: Dave Turner on October 22, 2013, 08:37:45 pmBelow £300, Siglents are better value than the DS1052E. The exact Siglent to choose will depend on dealer pricing.Do consider paying a bit more and getting a Rigol DS1074Z, though, especially since you don't have space for an analogue scope as well.