Final Questions Before I Get My First Oscilloscope - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: teamSMITHusa
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 03:47:15 am
content: Hi Everyone!After being distracted by my job for 4 years, I finally have the time to re-establish my electronics lab in the garage!After lots of research, I am ready to get my first digital oscilloscope. wOot! But first, a final few questions...I my budget is no more than $1200....with that said...I am looking to get the Rigol DS2072A ($839 at Tequipment.net)...But I see the Rigol DS2072A-S ($1189)...Question 1) What's "built in 2 channel 25MHz Source" mean? It seems its the only added feature of the DS2072A-S compared to the DS2072A. Other than that feature, they seem identical. Is it worth the extra $350???Question 2) Tequipment.net seems to be offering a limited time Free Bonus upgrade to the DS2072A... Advanced Triggering, CAN Triggering decoding, memory upgrade from 14M to 56M, and Serial Data decoder (RS-232, I2C and SPI). The question is, does this include USB decoding? and they claim this is an additional $1108 value, free!. Is that true? I know these are great features to have and having these features implode after the 'free trial' ends just sucks, so its a good time to act on this freebie?... i suppose!?Question 3) I want this to be the only oscilloscope I purchase for at least the next 5 years, probably more. Can the DS2072A be upgraded to 100MHz or higher, at a later date? My first target was at least a 100MHz scope, but the Rigol 100MHz units are outside my budget. My original budget was $600, but i up'ed it because i want something i wont 'grow' out of too soon and a 50MHz unit simply won't do. The DS2072A seems perfect, because its well under my $1200 budget, allowing me to get a nice separate 5MHz digital function generator and maybe a frequency counter too. Spending the full $1200 on a different scope didn't seem to get me any critical additional features or up to a 100MHz version.Final Question) When was the DS2072A released? Not the DS2072, but the 'A' version. Whats the difference? Am I getting something (DS2072'A') that is more than halfway through its life cycle?? I hate when i drop almost $1000 on something and a 'new' version comes out 6 months later.Final, Final Question) I purchased my last benchtop DMM from Tequipment and plan to purchase my new scope from them too (and probably everything else), they are great!!! What's this talk about a discount code for EEVblog members? Hmmm? Still valid?Thanks a ton!!!!PS: Dave is awesome, and re-kindled the inner-EE inside me that faded away about 5 years ago, after seeing his videos for the first time last week.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:24:23 am
content: Quote from: teamSMITHusa on February 03, 2016, 03:47:15 amThe '-S' has an internal function generator. It's not worth the $350, you're better off investing into a standalone generator (i.e. Siglent SDG800/SDG1000 Series) which can be had for roughly the same and which offer more bang for the buck.QuoteNo, it doesn't. No Rigol scope can do USB decoding, for which you're looking at a high end scope with at least 1.5GHz bandwidth (which is the minimum bandwidth recommened by the USB-IF for hi-speed USB 2.0).QuoteAs far as I know the DS2000 can be hacked to 300MHz and the few software options that exist can be enabled, but others will certainly jump in and provide more details.In general, if you can't hack it, bandwidth upgrades are rarely worth their money because when years down the road you decide you need more bandwidth just buying a better scope and selling your old one is usually the much more economical choice.QuoteWell, there's also the $400 or so Rigol DS1054z which can be hacked to 100MHz so that might be an alternative. And as I said the built-in generator isn't worth the money if you have to pay for it.QuoteI think the DS2000 came out in 2012 but I might be wrong, and I don't know when the 'A' version came out. However, you should be aware that you're buying a scope from a cheap Chinese B-brand which like all B-brands often throw products on the market with various glitches and firmware problems. The DS2000(A) is probably the most mature Rigol scope, thanks to the fact that it has been on the market for a while and that it has sold in larger numbers. If a new successor scope came out tomorrow, chances are good that it, too, would be plagued by various firmware bugs that will take time for Rigol to sort out (and some may never be fixed, like some of the issues in other Rigol scopes). There are reasons these scopes are so cheap.

author: CustomEngineerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:28:16 am
content: 1) The only (and I mean only) difference between the A model and the A-S is that the A-S has a built in 2 channel arbitrary function generator. Other than that they are identical. My advice is don't waste the extra $350 on the builtin generator, I made that mistake when I bought my DS2072A-S. The controls are clunky and awkward to use, you would be better off putting that extra $350 towards a standalone generator unless you don't have the bench space for both.2) Pretty sure the bundle includes everything except the bandwidth upgrade. Its not important, the scope can easily be hacked to unlock all options and bandwidth upgrades. So it really doesn't matter if you get the bundle or not, unless you have some moral objection to liberating the options.3) Yes, the DS2000A can be bandwidth upgraded to any of the higher bandwidths at any time, by either purchasing the option, or using the hack mentioned above. My DS2072A-S has been hacked to 300MHz.Final) Not sure exactly when the A series was released. My understanding is the only difference between the non A and A versions is that on the A versions they added the option to switch the inputs to be 50 Ohm terminated, and I believe the other thing was the ability to change the vertical sensitivity down to 500uV (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here). I have no idea when the next version of the DS2000A will be released. I havent heard that the are working on a new one but never know.There is a thread on this board that is almost always around the first page or two that talks about the tequipment discount, all you have to do is ask in that thread and someone will PM you the code.

author: CustomEngineerer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:42:22 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 03, 2016, 06:24:23 amThis is pretty much guaranteed. Knowing what I know now I don't think I would be willing to buy a newly released scope from them.To the OP, not trying to discourage you. I do really enjoy my DS2072A-S, but I don't use it for any serious work. Its purely hobby for me. Still advise against getting the builtin generator, I've already bought a separate generator and never use the builtin anymore. Its just too much of a pain in the ass to switch back and forth from controlling the generator to controlling the scope.

author: nowlan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:59:51 am
content: I thought the A model had a new pcb to allow for MSO option at factory.Pretty sure the decoders and speed can be unlocked with hacks.Stick to dedicated function generator as others have suggested.

author: billfernandez
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 07:33:41 am
content: Post a request on the "EEVBlog Members Discount at Tequipment?" topic in this forum and the moderator will send you via private message the discount code you can use in the Tequipment shopping cart.Regarding frequency counting:o A scope will display frequency with a precision of 3-4 digits.o Many handheld DMMs will count frequency (e.g. Extech 540, up to 100MHz, .1%+1digit accuracy rating)o Many bench DMMs will count frequency (e.g. Keysight 34461A, up to 300KHx, .01% rated accuracy)o Some function generators will count frequency (e.g. Siglent SDG2042X, up to 200MHz, lots of digits displayed but accuracy not spec'd)Regarding a scope-resident function generator:o Sounds like a royal pain to me.o The Siglent SDG2042X has a lot of bang for the buck (but is $500 list).o On the Siglent SDG2042X thread (see page 7) Alan Lowne (CEO of Saelig) says he'll give a 6% discount to EEVBlog readers. Maybe he's got something you'll like (but call before ordering to see if they're in stock).

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 04:56:14 pm
content: Quote from: teamSMITHusa on February 03, 2016, 03:47:15 amDS2072A has been a good scope to me. For one it's an incredible bargain, when you factor in the 300Mhz unlock. Overall it's a pretty capable package for your time domain measurements. It also has quite a bit of very useful features. The measurement menu for instance is probably the best I've seen on a scope. The left button row is dedicated to it, and it's really quick and easy to pull it up.However it is not without its limitations. The UI is not the best. I don't know how to explain it but when you're zeroing in on a signal you can find yourself having to spin encoders quite a lot, like the trigger and signal will go off the screen and there is really no encoder acceleration to help you cover the ground fast so you will find yourself spinning the encoders a lot. It's not a major issue but it is really noticeable once you use some nicer scopes.Some features are poorly implemented. Decoding which you can unlock for SPI, i2c only work for data that's on the screen. FFT is also pretty poorly implemented.Rigol also has a tendency to fix firmware bugs and introduce new ones. For instance the current version has a bug that has prevented a lot of people from upgrading to the latest. So the firmware isn't the best either.If I were you I would seriously consider the R&S HMO1200 series. Dave did a teardown and a quick overview of it recently:I think the overall UI and controls are much better. It costs a bit more but it also provides a well implemented FFT and other features where Rigol fails, HMO implements well.I believe it's a new scope so it's hard to find in the US. However many have used TME in europe to order gear and I found they have it listed just under your budget:http://www.tme.eu/en/details/hmo1212/digital-oscilloscopes/rohde-schwarz/Whichever one of these scopes you get you won't make a mistake, but having owned a DS2072A I think if I had to do it over I would go for the HMO1200.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 05:40:14 pm
content: A DS2072A + separate signal generator seems a good choice for a $1200 budget.Quote from: Muxr on February 03, 2016, 04:56:14 pmThe R&S is definitely a better 'scope but unlocking a decent set of options gets very expensive.With Rigol you can unlock everything for free.Quote from: teamSMITHusaYes, but you don't need special Tequipment offers to do it, just go here:http://gotroot.ca/rigol/riglol/Quote from: teamSMITHusaYou can upgrade to 300MHz on day one.(Actually, I'd wait a couple of weeks. Give the hardware a thorough test before you start messing with it...)

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 05:46:40 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 03, 2016, 05:40:14 pmTrue, but who pays list price anyways?Quite often you can negotiate a much better deal with the manufacturer which gives you all the options for much lower price or even free.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 05:57:14 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 03, 2016, 05:40:14 pmYes it's really a tough call. You definitely get more horsepower from Rigol for less. But HMO1200 is a much nicer scope. If I had to use a scope daily and be stuck with it for the next 5 years I personally would sacrifice the bandwidth (because let's face it other options aren't that great, it really comes down to bandwidth) for well thought out controls and quality of firmware.In either case they are both good choices. I would consider them both.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:26:15 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 03, 2016, 05:57:14 pmTo be honest: For afirstscope I'd get a DS1054Z. The other $800 can buy a lot of stuff for a home lab (new multimeter, power supply, soldering iron... a nice workbench)Then with experience and time you can decide what your next 'scope will be.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:36:48 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 03, 2016, 04:56:14 pmNo, definitely look at Gw Instek! The HMO1200 is another scope which is very limited so it doesn't eat into it's manufacturer's high end offering.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 03, 2016, 05:46:40 pmWell last time I checked with R&S and Lecroy I had to pay full price for the options which almost doubled the price of the scope! Maybe if you are a long time customer or buy a lot you can get a freeby but mere mortals just pay list price (a 5% discount is still list price IMHO).

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 03, 2016, 06:36:48 pmThey don't have to cripple HMOs to differentiate. RTM and RTO scopes are quite a bit more advanced compared to your usual entry level scope (they aren't going to stick two ADCs interpolated to 5Gs/s in an entry level scope, that's just silly).I believe HMO1200 is a very nice scope for the money. This is especially true if you concentrate on the ergonomics and day to day usability instead of specs alone. The compact form factor (while still managing to provide a big and clear screen and controls), responsive UI, well implemented features, great controls, and great firmware is at the end of the day very important stuff you end up living with and difficult to convey in a spec sheet.But do also checkout Gw Instek, some of their new models are interesting, although not my cup of tea.

author: Tom45
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 06:54:17 pm
content: As others have said, the -S option isn't worth it unless you are really cramped for space.The DS2000 series has 2G samples/second, or 1G per channel when viewing 2 channels. That is good for 100 MHz.The DS1000 series has 1G samples/second, or 0.5G per channel when viewing 2 channels. That is good for 50 MHz. But you have the option to look at up to 4 channels at 25 MHz, something you can't do at all with the DS2000.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 07:49:35 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 03, 2016, 06:36:48 pm*All*low end scopes are limited compared to their mid-range and high-end brethren, which is the main reason why the entry level scopes are so cheap and the more advanced ones cost more, quite often a lot (lower mid-range starts at around $3k, high-end starts at around $13k and goes all the way to >$1M).The HMO1200 isn't any different. It's a very nice entry level scope at a moderate price, and actually not bad value for money.Yes, GW Instek is certainly worth a look. I read your review and it's good to hear that they seem to react a lot quicker to firmware issues than Rigol and Siglent. I have no experience with their current scopes but in the past their support wasn't exactly stellar so hopefully they improved on that. It's also worth noting that the GDS2000E seems to be a lot more balanced functionality-wise than the Rigol/Siglent crop. What would turn me off however is the incredibly ugly UI which could come straight from a '90s Tek scope. There's really no excuse that in this day and age an UI has to look that way. The same is true for their exterior design btw, it almost looks as cheapish and toy-like as an OWON. A scope in that price class does not need to look like a $300 scope.Personally I'd take the HMO1200 over a GW Instek any day.QuoteI might be wrong of course but if I remember right when you asked for LeCroy pricing you went through a reseller (which generally can't offer anywhere close to what you can get directly from the manufacturers, plus they want to make a cut, too), and I guess the R&S quote was for an older used scope (RTM1054) we discussed more recently in another thread? I certainly agree that R&S should have been a bit more sensible re. their pricing for software options of older, discontinued scopes, the simple thing is that your leverage when shopping for options for a scope you already have (or they believe you have) is much lower than when shopping for a new scope in a segment that is full of competition.The big T&M vendors (except Tek) pretty much fall over themselves to offer deals on new gear. Just today I got an email from LeCroy with offers of in some cases >50% on list price of the basic scope, plus a number of options are included for free. And that is without me even asking for quote, and it's whithout any special customer bonus or anything like that, pretty much everyone can get these prices. Keysight isn't much different btw, and even R&S has such deals (although most of the time they are reserved for those that ask).Of course there are regional variances (people in the US and UK are probably in the best position, even for R&S which is a German manufacturer but like a lot of stuff is very expensive in Germany), but with some patience (sometimes you have to call again and talk to a different sales droid) pretty much anyone should be able to get more than 5% on a big brand scope or pay base price and get many/all the options you want.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 08:31:41 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 03, 2016, 07:49:35 pmI have never been a fan of Gw Instek either and a lot of their equipment looks like older designs indeed but IMHO its not very wise to judge a book by it's cover. Having an 8" inch 800x480 screen versus a 6.5" 640x480 screen is reason enough for me to run towards the Gw Instek and don't look back. My 90's Tek TDS500/700 series scopes already had 6.5" 640x480 screens (TFT replacements)! Besides that when comparing side by side (including options) the Gw Instek costs about half of a similar outfitted HMO1002 (I think this is the R&S/Hameg model we are talking about). The modern Gw Instek scopes appearantly also pack a lot of generic processing power so they can deal with much larger memories (FFT and decoding for example) without slowing down to a grinding halt.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 08:49:01 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 03, 2016, 07:49:35 pmHome users can't get those prices, can they?

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 08:49:41 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 03, 2016, 08:31:41 pmI was talking about the recently released HMO 1202 not the HMO1002. Yes the screen on the HMO 1202 is smaller, but I do not think that's a handicap, because of the very clever UI R&S employs, compact collapsing menus and more vertical resolution due to virtual waveform space for waveforms with a higher resolution than 8bit. You actually get a bigger waveform area than on a Rigol DS1054z. And in return you are rewarded with more bench space. GW Instek is 384mm (15.1") wide while HMO 1202 is 285mm (11.2"). That's almost one third of the space just sitting there for no real benefit on the GW Instek in my opinion.You really should watch Dave's video on it. I feel like he covers the UI advantages over your typical entry level scopes quite well, here is a link to the portion where he covers it:https://youtu.be/q_FBwu2K7j0?t=1931

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 09:17:20 pm
content: I don't really see the HMO1202 UI advantages; you still have to push buttons and rotate knobs. On the Gw Instek I have there is a bottom row with functions you can select and a horizontol side menu where you can do adjustments. Very much like my beloved Tektronix TDS500/700 series scopes and it works well because since you can do more from one menu you have less different menus to memorize / go through. Also I'm not impressed with the vertical virtual screen because you can do exactly the same with the channel offset controls.The reduced width of the HMO1202 is largely due to not having seperate controls for each channel and only space for 2 channels (so no 4 channel version).The OP should really try a few different scopes thouroughly before making a decission.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 09:30:24 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 03, 2016, 09:17:20 pmI wrote that it's not a handicap, not that it was a particular advantage, but the advantage translates to an easy to use scope with clear UI which uses much less bench space. I could go through a laundry list of clever UI features, but instead I will just say quick measurement button combined with the 3 second boot on the R&S scopes is awesome.Again I have not used GW-Instek scopes, so they also might be a good shout, but from what I've seen from Dave's videos I was not impressed with menus. Dave actually commented on FFT being difficult to navigate while he loved HMO1200 implementation of it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 09:39:13 pm
content: The FFT navigation on the Agilent DSO7104 (a $25k scope!) works just like the one on the Gw Instek. It takes some getting used to but once you understand how it works it is not difficult to use. Sometimes a way of controlling something isn't bad but it is just not what you are used. You have to keep that in mind when watching the kind of quick reviews Dave does.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2016, 09:43:11 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 03, 2016, 09:39:13 pmPoint taken. I'll give GW Instek a spin if I get a chance.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 06:20:06 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 03, 2016, 08:49:01 pmYes, they can. Sometimes a sales droid might be too lazy to bother with home users but there's usually always a colleague who isn't. After all, there are incentives for them to sell.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 06:28:01 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 03, 2016, 08:31:41 pmThat's true, but at least for me one thing is that I have to look at the scope and even more so the UI a lot when using a scope, so while the toy-ish looks could be forgiven I just couldn't live with such an awful UI on a device I would use that often. But of course that's just me and YMMV.QuoteAs Muxr said it's the HMO1200 which pretty much just came out. The HMO1000 is an older series with inferior specs.QuoteYes, I've seen that. And hats off for GW Instek for putting out a scope where FFT and serial decode aren't just checkbox features for marketing purposes.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:43:57 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 03, 2016, 08:49:41 pmIt's not all good though.eg. As Dave points out many times in the video: The trigger connector and the trigger control knobs are in the wrong place (should be over on the right).

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 12:45:10 pm
content: The R&S HMO1000 & HMO1200 series have a much better construction quality than most tipical cheap scopes, just take a look to Dave's tear down video of Siglent and new cheap GW Insteak lines and you can see what i mean.Rigol is one or more step ahead the latters and a step behind bottom line R&S.I do not even mention Hantek because is the king of the cr*ap, to say the least.The R&S strong points are UI architecture, panel commands responsivity, FFT resolution & usability, fast math and HW decoder for serial protocols.The bad point are screen size,8 channel LAand ... theprice!Here the story abruptly ends for most money sensitive hobbiest.If you are a "simple" end user you can save yourself to call them, they did not give you any substantial discount, if not any attention as soon as you declare to be an hobbiest interested to their bottom line products, no sh*t !If you are an end user with some engagement with professional market vendors you can try to play that card, but highly doubt that you will get all SW options for freeLet's take the HMO1212, here in EU goes for :- base unit 1100 E plus taxes- I2C/UART/SPI decoding options 300 E plus taxes- 200Mhz BW upgrade 300 E plus taxes- 8 ch LA options 300 E plus taxesso we have :1700 * 1.21 (average EU vat) =2057Euro for 200Mhz DSO2000 * 1.21 (average EU vat) =2400Euro for 200Mhz8ch LAMSOIf we compare it to Rigol DS2072A / MSO2072A models fully expanded for free we have a 2X factor and Rigol MSO comes with 16ch LA against 8ch R&S solution.If you need serial protocol HW decoding and/or a serious FFT function and/or fast math then R&S becomes a winner, otherwise go for Rigol, at least until the full options free upgrade works.Your first scope ... i guess you do not need any of above features, if positive and if you are not a reach men go for DS1054Z (caution, good sight required) or DS2072A plus SDG2042X signal generator.If you are a reach men, call R&S, TEK or Keysight and declare in advance that you have some KiloBucks / KiloEuro that are willing to leave your pocket for their bottom line products, they maybe will give some attentions.Just my 2 cents.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 01:19:45 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 12:45:10 pmWell, FFT is better than with Rigol and Siglent but at least on paper it's still inferior to the GDS2000E. There are not many scopes in that class that can do 1Mpts FFT, even in the lower mid-range you're mostly stuck with 128k or less (unless you buy LeCroy).QuoteSure, save the call. At the end of the day it's only your loss not theirs. If you can't be arsed to do the effort then you deserve paying list price. It's as simple as that.QuoteTME has the 100MHz HMO1222 for $1049, plus it's pretty common that it takes a while for a new scope to drop in price. Don't forget that the HMO1200 is brand new while the Rigol DS2000 in pretty old.As to pricing for hobbyists, some time ago the Hameg product manager joined the forum under the name 'CookMeSomeKai':https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-hmo-1002-economy-dso-from-rohde-schwarz-hameg/msg453318/#msg453318It could be a good chance to lobby him for some more realistic pricing for the various options (i.e. maybe they can do some bundles as Keysight and LeCroy regularly do). The HMO1200 is in the same market segment as the Rigol DS2000 and the GDS2000E, and I'd think R&S might actually welcome ideas how they can get a bigger share of the pie.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 01:49:53 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 04, 2016, 01:19:45 pmIf remember right the R&S FFT supports averaging while GDS2000E not, anyway the main point is that GW construction quality is way lower and UI navigation is a PITA.Those R&S scopes are sure a beauty, screen size and limited LA channels numbers apart, but the price for base unit plus options is not the best for end users.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 04, 2016, 01:19:45 pmIf you are referring to hmo1212, 1049 is the Euro price, the right USD price is 1149$, plus shipping and import taxes :http://www.tme.eu/it/details/hmo1212/oscilloscopi-digitali/rohde-schwarz/Aniway right now it's out of stock.But i wonder what level of service R&S USA will provide to an US buyer with a broken equipmentimported from Poland.I know very well TME because i often buy electronic components from them, the customer service is not as good as their prices.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 02:07:58 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 12:45:10 pmRigol's protocol decode is next to useless. It decodes only what's on the screen and if you try to zoom out more to get more information on there it will decode it wrongly. It's a feature you cannot rely on. I would not compare it to a real serial decode. R&S decode and Rigol decode are apples and oranges.DSOs don't have an LA not sure why even include that. HMO has it upgradable combined with an actual in memory decoding feature.Only thing you get with Rigol's hack that's of any real usable and noticeable value is the free bandwidth upgrade if you hack it, that's really it. These other features sound good on paper but when you consider bugs and limitations they are next to useless.I mean don't get me wrong, DS2072A is a compelling package, but let's not pretend it's on the equal footing feature for feature with R&S. You pay more for R&S yes but you do get what you pay for.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 02:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 02:07:58 pmNext to useless or not depends heavily on user skill level and it's needing, i will say better than nothing for experienced ones and lot of value for beginners.HW decoding is another world but if you, for example, are an hoobbiest that mainly play with Arduino and some shields then RIGOL's SW decoding is more than enough.IMHO the most useless function present in ALL Rigol's scopes is FFT, regardless the cost.I can understand to find the FFT toy inside the DS1000Z series but sure not in the DS2000A or higher ones.Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 02:07:58 pmNot sure about what you mean with "DSOs don't have an LA not sure why even include that", anyway i consider everything less 16 channels next to useless and good only for serial protocol decoding, here R&S made a huge mistake going for only 8 channels, but maybe it's a marketing choice.Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 02:07:58 pmAgain, next to useless or not must defined case by case, it could vary from utterly useless to great value.We all know that Rigol hackability level is playing a key role on selling numbers and last but not the least the build quality is pretty decent.But the point is that here we have tons of newbies that place everyday the very same questions for cheap scopes, signal generators and DMM, usually they have limited pocket capabilities, suggesting them expensive professional equipment is next to useless.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 03:24:12 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 01:49:53 pmYou're right of course, I wanted to write € but then pressed the $ signQuoteNo surprise, because the scope has just been released. I'd guess stock levels to be increasing over the next month.QuoteThe same they would provide for a scope bought in the U.S., or R&S Europe would provide for a U.S. bought device. All more expensive R&S gear comes with international warranty, and I can't see why for the ex-Hameg now 'Value Instruments' Series it should be any different. After all, the HMO scopes are produced in CZ, and unlike Siglent (who seems to have a problem with illegit "midnight production runs") all R&S scopes are genuine.QuoteYou don't have to deal with TME for any support issue. It's just the Chinese B-brands who push you to go through the reseller.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 04:15:48 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 02:58:59 pm$400 for 100MHz, 4-channel Rigol with tons of memory vs. $1200 for 100MHz, 2-Channel R&S? That's a no-brainer for a lot of people.I could understand spending more if Rigol build quality was rubbish but they're pretty solid. And user interface isn'tawful. Paying three times more for less channels just to get a bit nicer interface? That's a luxury 'scope you're looking at.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 04:47:53 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 01:49:53 pmSorry but this is just BS. Off the bat the HMO1202 has no carrying handle, the run/stop button is in the wrong place and where is the 'single' button? If you compare the HMO1202 Dave took apart with the GDS2204E you will see their construction is very similar. 2 plastic shells and a couple of PCB boards. Actually you could argue the way the board is mounted in the HMO1202 makes it susceptible to flexing when the oscilloscope is shaken. There is absolutely no support in the middleAnd then there are the solder mounted BNCs in the HMO so all the force used when connecting a probe or cable gets transferred into the PCB versus the BNCs bolted onto the chassis with washers and nuts in the GW Instek. Must I continue? All in all I think you are just parrotting Dave here. If it has a name brand on it he immeditialy calls it a quality bit of kitYeah right...Also the UI navigation on the GW Instek scopes is just fine. Until now I have used about 15 different scopes extensively and every scope has strong and weak points. Actually the GW Instek is among the ones with the fewest weak points in the UI and it has several clever things in the UI as well. Just like my Agilent DSO7104 the FFT setup takes some getting used to but at least the GW instek doesn't have the rotate and select push button combined in one knob like my DSO7104 has and regulary selects the wrong item.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 04:58:12 pm
content: If the manufacturers had any brains they'd come on here and ask things like:"What's the one thing you'd change about the UI?"Yeah, there's a few idiots here but they'd get a lot of useful feedback IMHO.From real users.And it's free to do, so...

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 05:08:36 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 02:58:59 pmFFT in*ALL*Rigol scopes is beyond embarassing as even the DS6000 (Rigol's most expensive scope for which they want something in the region of $9k) only does 4000 points or so with FFTI'm no fan of Siglent but even their scopes manage to do better.QuoteYou're kidding, right? The HMO1200 is a bit more expensive than the Chinese B-brands and GW Instek (which is somewhere in the middle I guess) but if you believe that what what once was Hameg and now is R&S 'Value Instruments' (hint: the name gives it away!) is "expensive professional equipment" then you don't know much about test equipment. HMOs are aimed at exactly the same audience as all the other entry-level scopes.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 05:27:35 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 04, 2016, 04:15:48 pmSo you believe that aside from the price both scopes are pretty much the same? Seriously?How about the fact that the Rigol only has 1GSa/s in single channel mode (and 500MSa/s in dual channel mode, and a measly 250MSa/s in four channel mode) while the HMO1200 runs at up to 2GSa/s on one and 1GSa/s on two channels? How about the utterly useless FFT on the Rigol (4kpts) vs 128kpts on the HMO1200? Or the lack of Pattern Generator or Component Tester on the Rigol? And so on.And this doesn't even include Rigol's lacklustre support or the fact that like pretty much any Rigol product the DS1000z came to market with major firmware flaws.Don't get me wrong, the Rigol DG1054z is without a doubt a great bargain at $400 and makes a great beginner's scope, but thinking it's even in the same league as the HMO1200 is pretty silly. The HMO1200 does not compete against Rigol's bottom-of-the-barrel, it competes against scopes like the Rigol DS2000A and the Keysight DSOX2000A, the Siglent SDS2000(X) and the GW Instek GDS2000 Series.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 06:48:38 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 04, 2016, 05:08:36 pmI know a looot more than you think, but that's not the point nor the place to discuss about that.Let's say that the first thing that comes in my mind when a person ask for an hint regarding "my first scope" is not an image of Rohde & Schwarz DSO that comes at 1300 Euro base unit, and becomes 2K euro adding a couple of options.This does not means that i do not like it, but i see it more aimed to educational and small professional lab than hobbiest market.Including in the price the serial decoding option and putting on catalog a convenient bundle with LA probe option could change things a lot, but it not appears to be the case.Maybe there is a way to simplify the life to those asking hints for my first "everything" : declare a budget limit, just to cut the "bandwidth" of incoming prompters.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 07:11:57 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 06:48:38 pmFor an experienced engineer, the first thing when being asked for a recommendation of an entry level scope is always to find out what the beginner wants to do with it and what budget he has.Blindly recommending a $400 Rigol is as silly as recommending a $3k LeCroy. Individual requirements vary too much, and just because in general $400 is cheap for what you get with a DS1054z doesn't necessarily mean it's money well spent for the beginner. Also, a lot of the 'features' in Rigol scopes like FFT, the onscreen-only decode and the large memory without any sane search facility are merely checkbox exercises and have a good chance to lead to a lot of frustration when the newbie starts to actually use them. Plus the various bugs often do their part to increase frustration, too, especially when you have to wonder if the an obvious issue is caused by the UUT or by the scope. And worst case the $400 bargain will mean a waste of money for the beginner and a person that may well be turned away from EE for good when a bit higher investment in a more reliable/mature/capable instrument could have eaasily avoided that and provided the beginner with a dependable scope he can enjoy for a long time.QuoteThere isn't one, really. You can probably come up with a few standard situations (i.e. the most common ones) and put together example recommendations for them, but at the end of the day the best scope depends on what the user wants to do and what he can afford, plus it depends on his location and the willingness to consider 2nd hand gear as well.There are simply too many factors involved for a "one size fits all" recommendation.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 07:21:31 pm
content: Going back to the OP's first post he states he has a budget of $1200. Now there are two dimensions to this:1) Does he need to spend all of it?2) What is the best scope for $1200 ?One could do a graph with value for money versus price. No doubt the Rigol DS1000Z scores good when it comes to value for money but there may be better units out there and more money buys more useful features.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 07:45:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 04, 2016, 07:21:31 pmUnfortunately he hasn't told us much about what he wants to do, and if it's just for a bit of fiddling as a hobby or a more serious entry into EE, so we can only guess...QuoteI Agree.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 07:46:43 pm
content: As far as i understood 1200USD is the whole budget to acquire scope (maybe with decoding functions)andand signal generator, so the amount for the DSO should be lower.All my previous statements were based on that.@ teamSMITHusa :- could you more specific about what are you doing with your setup ?- are the signal generator and the decoding functions a "must to have" staying within 1200USD ?

author: tsaG
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:02:10 pm
content: One quick question since the HMO 1002 or 1202 was mentioned here. Are the options or the bandwidth upgrades hackable?Thanks!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:22:14 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 04, 2016, 07:11:57 pmUnfortunately the OP has disappeared.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 04, 2016, 07:11:57 pmWe get it. You don't personally like the Rigol. On the other hand: Plenty of people do, including Dave Jones.And ... you're exaggerating the supposed defects. Rigol has fixed almost all the problems via. firmware updates over the last year. They've even added new features for us, including a dramatically improved FFT. Yes, it's not quite as good as the R&S but it has four channels and it's 1/3 the price.PS: Only two channels is a deal breaker for plenty of people (eg. me).Doesn't matter how much I like the R&S, I wouldn't buy one even if I had the money.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:24:51 pm
content: Quote from: tsaG on February 04, 2016, 08:02:10 pmThere are no known hacks available for HMO1202. It's a brand new scope, so doubt anyone has even had a chance to take a snif at it.

author: tsaG
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:27:37 pm
content: What about the 1002?

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:37:04 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 04, 2016, 05:27:35 pmwhere did you get that? 6 months ago? with the latest FW, my calculation indicated that ds1000z is using 16Ksample signal points translated into usable half side of FFT data ie 8K FFT points... my question though... do "other-than-rigol" scope provide SDK (PC connectivity and programmability) documentation? namely..1) gwInstek?2) Siglent?3) the R&S 1200 etcthat talked much about in here?if yes can someone provide the link so i can have a peek?if no answer, i guess the answer is no...

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:42:37 pm
content: The OP wants a modern scope in the $1200 range, which he will be happy with for the next 5 years and have some soft unlock room to grow. I think HMO1202 fills that requirement perfectly.Having used both Rigol scopes and R&S scopes, I believe anyone is going to prefer using an R&S scope over a Rigol scope on a day to day basis for the next 5 years. The UI and the firmware is significantly more polished. The controls feel better and the scope is more responsive.Rigol offers significant bang per buck advantage in terms of raw specs mainly due to the available hack/unlock in terms of bandwidth. If you value bandwidth over a well rounded scope than by all means get a Rigol.Both scopes should be considered, and so should GW Instek. At the end of the day it's about a personal preference. I know if it was my money I would go for the R&S, because I place high importance on the ergonomics and quality of the tool I am using.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:45:32 pm
content: Quote from: tsaG on February 04, 2016, 08:02:10 pmIf positive, the whole discussion would have been a lot different, but i does not appear to be the case.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:46:34 pm
content: @Mechatrommer:There is a programming manual for the GDS2204E I have; it can talk SCPI over LAN or USB. There is also a Labview driver:http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/products/Oscilloscopes/Digital_Storage_Oscilloscopes/GDS-2000EI don't agree with buying software options later. After 5 years technology will have moved on so much that it makes more sense to buy a new oscilloscope. It also doesn't make sense to invest more money into a scope than that it is worth. Remember that test equipment devaluates faster than a car!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:47:16 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 04, 2016, 08:37:04 pmI'm guessing "last week". When Dave Jones made his FFT video.Dave probably hasn't updated his DS1054Z firmware in a while... not since they fixed the 'jitter' bug for him.Is any other company providing such regular firmware updates and new features for their 'scopes?Yeah, we know. Everybody else gets it perfect on the first attempt.(not)

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:48:08 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 04, 2016, 08:37:04 pmEvery time I tried using FFT on my DS2072A I was disappointed, no matter what I did I was not able to make any sense of the readings other than just the signal itself. The harmonics were often buried in the noise. Rigol does have a lot of community support for 3rd party utils for that stuff, that's true. However when it comes to the FFT feature in the scope itself it's really an afterthought. Same is true for serial decoding.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:53:26 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 08:42:37 pmSure... so long as he's happy with only two channels and some very expensive upgrades.Oh, wait, he wanted a SigGen as well. The R&S signal generator isn't very good so that might put it out of his budget range.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:54:42 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 08:48:08 pmLet's find out if he wants FFT before basing the entire discussion on it, eh?

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:57:05 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 04, 2016, 08:53:26 pmHe did not specifically say he wanted a sig gen, he asked if the option was worth it, I think you're reading too much into it. In either case I am not making a decision for him, I am giving him options. A good quality scope is within his budget, which seemed to be his main concern. So I offered the best quality scope in that range. Nothing more or less.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:58:24 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 04, 2016, 08:46:34 pmyup i'm browsing now. i'm looking at how to dump all 10MSamples data of GDS2000E into a pc. i browsed all i seem not to find any, maybe its under another term... having said this... with Rigol DS1000Z series albeit its slow built in FFT. there is possibility to do off-processing of a 24MSamples FFT for really serious work, with other DSO this is impossible unless one manually patch several disparate datasets from different trigger events... ymmv..

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 08:59:43 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 04, 2016, 08:54:42 pmI am merely presenting options. I never said don't get the Rigol, if you read my first post I wrote that I own a DS2072A myself and I praised it for the bargain that it is. I am giving him information so that he can decide. Like for instance Rigol's FFT is useless.

author: teamSMITHusa
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:00:11 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 07:46:43 pmFirst off...Each and every reply has been awesome. You are all great and the replies are hugely appreciated. I value each and every one. The debate back and forth helps more than you know.What I want to do with my new setup? (I am actually upgrading most of my old equipment, this will be my first Digital Scope, but not my first scope (i had an old analog years ago)).I do the basics, troubleshoot and engineer switching and basic power supplies, troubleshoot and engineer logic circuits and timing circuit, OPamps, custom ICs, design simple circuits (some micro-controller, legacy CPU, and ROM based) and PCBs, troubleshoot basic computer peripherals and computers (mostly legacy computers), etc. BUT, I also want to LEARN more! and advance my skills over the next 5 years, hence the 'not gonna buy another DSO in the next 5 years' in the OP (so that i'm better than Dave by thenlol!).The $1200 USD budget is primarily for the scope (see original post). But after lots of research, I found that perhaps getting the Rigol DS2072A at $839 USD would allow me to get a few other items that I need to upgrade. I didn't see a HUGE advantage of spending it all on a scope and by doing so gaining a huge amount of features or quality. Sure some of the scopes debated here have some better quality if i spend the full $1200, but I can live with some quirks. I just refuse to buy junk, at any price. I'm good with an entry level scope, but I would say an 'enhanced' entry level scope (thus the DS2072A over the DS1000 series). Whoever said the MHz upgrade hack was a big selling point for intermediate users is right. My heart was set on a 100MHz flavor scope minimum, but a native 100MHz eeked above $1200 (and I refuse to go a penny over $1200 since my first budget for a new scope was $600). LOL! funny how I do that to myself.At this point im thinking of getting the Rigol DS2072A ($839) and the Rigol DM3058E Bench DMM ($469). That's about $1300 for both. My current Bench DMM is a $150 MasTech MS8040 (ProTek B4004), which was good to learn on and use in my early days and a beginner, but is basically poo poo for my now intermediate level of skill (and its aging).So i will have to set another budget () for a new function generator and frequency counter in a few months (my current old heaps of poo will get me by until then).So yeah! upgrading my old stuff to new stuff for the next 5 year period.Hope that helps answer that. More comments would be awesome!!! and thoughts on that Rigol DM3058E DMM? Hmmm???Thanks again! You are all fantastic!

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:01:22 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 08:59:43 pmPS: Have you got the latest firmware? There's plenty of pics of Rigols doing reasonable FFTs in the discussion of the FFT video.(Not as good as the R&S, but way better than in Dave's video...)

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:05:40 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 04, 2016, 09:01:22 pmNo because it introduced a new debilitating bug:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-firmware-(00-03-04-02-01)-bug-of-rigol-ds2000a-oscilloscope/msg830091/#msg830091Skipping this version.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:17:16 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 09:05:40 pmif built in FFT is so much important to you, how about installing the latest fw, and dont ever come close to steps that produce the bug? bug fixed

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 09:19:44 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 04, 2016, 09:17:16 pmIt's not that important, besides I moved on to a scope with a decent FFT and good time domain.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 10:05:47 pm
content: Quote from: teamSMITHusa on February 04, 2016, 09:00:11 pmI would have bet on that, on the other hand $839 for a 2 channels-2 GSa/s-300Mhz 8" screen scope it's a damn good price.I your place i will start to study the hacking procedure right now

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2016, 11:47:50 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 04, 2016, 09:01:22 pmDunno if you tried to use this version in a serious way, i did and sadly i have to say that is buggy as hell.If you play with time base, center freq. and Hz/div after a while the scope get mad, parameters range become utterly wrong and you have to recall the default from storage menu.I tried to analyze an FM modulated 10 Mhz sine signal within +/- 200Khz, after lots of function crash i lost the patience.If you want to work with low freq. span, in absence of knob speed management, you have to go back and forth between center freq and Hz/div controls to center your signal and then expand the scale, and then the sh*t happens.Really, i had some expectations with the last FW version but after a while i dropped the ball, the code is unstable and the UI navigation is a nightmare.If you watch the R&S HMO showed in Dave's video, it operates exactly like a real spectrum analyzer, with all the controls that behave as they should.Regardless the number of FFT points, the Rigol's development team should take a look to that video and start to implement a working FFT function controlled in the very same way.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:14:59 am
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 11:47:50 pmJust watched the FFT video again but if you want to change the timebase on the HMO you have to go out of FFT mode first, change it and then go back. How obfustigated is that? Since the timebase is likely to affect the samplerate (and thus FFT resolutions) that can become very cumbersome. Better have seperate controls for span and timebase so you can adjust everything independantly without needing to switch between modes!

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:17:15 am
content: It is intuitive, to change the time domain settings you go to time domain mode. Once you are in frequency domain you get freq. domain controls, I don't see anything convoluted about that. It's one button away. And all the settings are remembered.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:21:38 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 05, 2016, 12:17:15 amTry to use FFT for a measurement. Since FFT, memory depth and samplerate (the latter controlled by the timebase setting) are closely intertwined you'll find you'll need to change the timebase as well to get a good FFT resolution/measurement.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:26:22 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 05, 2016, 12:21:38 amI have used it, it's really simple. You set the timebase and you go to FFT. If you didn't select enough of a sample, you just hit FFT again which takes you back to time domain and you fix your sample. It's one button. But most importantly your navigation controls are the same no matter which mode you are in, which is the important advantage.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:46:47 am
content: Listen up everybody:The R&S has abetterFFT than the Rigol!All clear on that???OK, can we move along now...?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:50:47 am
content: I disagree. Everything but Rigol and Siglent scopes seem to have usefull FFT. Or do we need to add Owon and Hantek to the useless FFT list?

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 01:30:10 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 05, 2016, 12:46:47 amYou don't have to be so defensive about it, we're discussing differences between different scopes. And specifically not about Rigol in the last few posts.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 02:33:18 am
content: Here i am,after some power recycle i finally owned the f*****g beast managing to take some low (relatively to the context) span FFT shots on my beloved DS1074Z.Here below in attachment the spectrum analysis of the very same signal used by Dave in its video about FFT on DSO's, 1Mhz carrier FM modulated (FM freq 5Khz, FM dev 500 Hz) apart from amplitude level that here is much lower, 10mVrms on 50ohm load, due to the fact that i use to verify waht i see on Rigol FFT screen with my cold war Atten 5005.Not so bad, the problem is how to achieve the right settings operating the awful FFT scope UI without crashing the function.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 02:45:19 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on February 05, 2016, 02:36:10 amI will do.There is the potential to put a decent FFT function in this hardware, maybe better in higher models, but it requires to changea lotthe UI control approach and to fix the stability bugs, i think with a reasonable effort and a likely return in term of customer satisfaction.

author: nowlan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 04:21:11 am
content: I think the hmo-max is better value than the new model (both 100mhz), which has more memory and faster sampling i believe.It has the software decoders, but not the logic pod.There used to be an educational bundle which includes the pod+decoders. Worth a shot if your a student.http://www.tequipment.net/Hameg/HMO-ED01/Options/Once upon a time the hameg compacts came with the decoders include (but no pod).Support is generally responsive too.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 04:49:59 am
content: This is the updated link (the current one) it works with any HMO scope:http://www.tequipment.net/Rohde-&-Schwarz/HMO-ED01/Options/

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 05:01:44 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 03, 2016, 09:17:20 pmOne ergonomic advantage is that the Rigols, or at least the DS1054Z's, are noisy, as in fan. I returned mine and ordered an R&S. According to Dave you can barely hear them. Still waiting for mine so can't confirm it yet.OP, Tequipment has a chat button on their website and they are very responsive, in case you have questions.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 05:34:08 am
content: Quote from: markone on February 05, 2016, 02:33:18 ami dont know what you were doing but i havent experience any crash dicking around FFT in my DS1054Z hacked to DS1104Z, attached is my updated FW version, iirc the scope was calibrated from factory somewhere june 2015... and FFT UI in this rigol is quite intuitive imho.... ie can changed timescale during FFT ON, channel scale knob will become FFT vertical scale adjustment, channel offset will become FFT offset adjustment, the only dicking around with intensity knob is "interchangable by menu button" center freq and hz/div.. if other high end cannot change these during FFT then rigol is a much much better GUI...

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 06:23:51 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 04, 2016, 08:37:04 pmWow, great, so you're saying it went from 'utterly useless' to 'pathetic'Seriously, it's still a bad joke. And because the scope platform is so slow Rigol can't just firmware update it to something useful. That's one of the reasons that scope only costs $400.QuoteFor #1:http://www.gwinstek.com/en-global/Download/DownloadFile/DownloadFile/download%23_%2301_Oscilloscope%23_%23GDS-2000E%23_%23Manual%23_%23GDS-2000E_programming_manual_20150618_V103.pdfFor #3:https://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_manuals/gb_1/h/hmo1002_1202/HMO1002_1202_SCPI_ProgrammersManual_en_01.pdfAs to #2: I don't know and don't care because the last thing I would buy is a Siglent scope. Although I'm pretty sure they do have some kind of programming manual.You could have found that yourself in less than 3mins (so roughly the same time to type the questions) if you know how to operate a web browserIn general, pretty much every big brand instrument that has some form of connectivity comes with extensive documentation, that's nothing special. And unlike what you get from the Chinese B-brand it will have been tested before coming to the market and working.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 06:37:15 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on February 04, 2016, 11:56:28 pmThat's pretty much the game, isn't it? You pay full price for a scope now and hope that at some point in the future it will even work as described. That's how the B-brands operate. $400 is a bargain but it's very clear how they managed to get the price that low.And creating 8k FFT out of 16k of data is still pathetic. To become useable FFT needs at least 32kpts, but the more the better.QuoteWell, even the DSOX/MSOX3kA does 64kpts FFT and the new DSOX/MSOX3kT does 128kpts which isn't that great in the price class these scopes are in but both FFT implementations are still pretty useable.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 06:47:11 am
content: Quote from: markone on February 04, 2016, 02:58:59 pmI think displaying wrong decode values due to video aliasing is bad for beginners, because they will get wrong decode values. That's exactly the opposite of being helpful to a beginner, they may not have enough experience and are likely to chase their own tail due to wrong readings. I really don't see much benefit to it at all. I never even bothered with it on my DS2072A after realizing how flawed it was.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 10:58:17 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 05, 2016, 01:30:10 amNot being defensive. It's just that certain users have decided to make the thread into a "You can't possibly buy a scope unless the FFT is amazing!" thread.If FFT is your thing then buy a dedicated spectrum analyser FFS. Don't pay three times more for an oscilloscope with a mediocre FFT ability (compared to the dedicated unit).

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 11:05:03 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 06:37:15 amNo, it ISN'T.Nobodybought their Rigol oscilloscope because they believed the FFT function would be better in the future. They bought it because it was amazing value for money out-of-the-box ($400 for a four channel, 1Gs/s DSO with graduated display, etc, $900 for a 2GS/s version!),andbecause you can unlock a whole load of extra bandwidth and extra functions for free.Yes, some features could be better, but that doesn't change a damn thing about how much value-for-money they are for general-purpose use.PS: New thread with full dick-and-balls display on a $400 Rigol:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/ds1000z-fft-memory-mode/

author: nazcalines
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 11:12:45 am
content: I'm currently researching a new oscilloscope purchase and like the OP, have around $1200US to play with. R&S HMO1212 is currently my top pick, but I'm holding out for (hopefully) a full review from Dave, or until I can demo one.I'm amazed how people are willing to purchase a tool like a scope that is known to be bug riddled like the Rigols and Siglent. I guess for a hobbiest it's okay; for me I can't waste time on that.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 11:33:42 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 06:37:15 ammy point was... FFT only can make out half the number of sampled points, the other half is aliased high frequency signals... now this 1Mpoints FFT gwInstek buzzword. is it 1MptsFFT points? or 1MptsSampled Data points? i guess its marketing hype of 500KFFT pointsonly, granted alot more than Rigol's but... your statement of the rigol being useless is quite an exaggeration as we have tested it to be not the case. and how are you going to show 500Kpts FFT hype on a 800px screen? thats another gotcha's untold mystery. anyway FFT is just a bundled "gift" out of many others (decoder, save, recording and replay capability etc) in most cheap range DSO's so i wont mourn much about free bundle in a cheap scope... one should buy dedicated device if its too important. such as FFT, get the right SA. a decoder, buy an LA. can you find those on the cheap? standalone vs usb crap? or a bugless standalone? good luck!and err lest not forget... what is the deepest memory 1GS/s signal capture device you can get cheap on the market? thats right easy answer... giving a highlight too much on the marketing side effect gift rather than the core business of signal capture is too political imho... if i want to be politically correct crap i can exageratte, anything less than 24Mpts deep memory is an utter pathetic useless, but then mourning like that will just show my inability to make use of the lesser capable storage capture devices.last point... GDS2104 1Mpts FFT hype and better decoding capability is not without cost. the cost is actually, double the price, probably $400 for the scope alone (minus all the plethoras), and another $400 for the 1Mpts FFT hype and decoder (plus all the plethoras) but sadly reduced memory depth. is that fabolous? no not for person like me... i can delegate the processing power to my PC, with larger screen, fast processor and large hex editor sw built in-house... full qwerty keyboard and a mouse... there is no way i can process all of6Mptsmemory per 4 channels SPI in small screen? with annoying small encoder knobs comfortably no matter how genius the GUI designer make it, regardless of what brand is it... i will make it out of $400 scope i'm a not so rich hobbiest... if i have extra money i can buy another devices. professionals get $40K devices, dont mourn, and pray its bugless. ymmv.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 11:42:10 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 05, 2016, 11:33:42 amNow you are starting to sound like a Rigol fanboy. 500kpts FFT a marketing hype?Scopes with a lot of FFT points allow to move the center frequency and span so you can zoom in on details of the FFT data.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 11:47:17 am
content: Quote from: nazcalines on February 05, 2016, 11:12:45 amIf your thing is "reassuringly expensive" then go ahead. That's your business.But:a) Rigols are only "bug riddled" if you listen to idiots in online forums who'll go on and on about two obscure functions that do weird things out of thehundredsof functions on the scope. For general purpose 'scope use you'll be fine. Plenty of people are using them all day long without any problems at all.b) If you think the R&S will be 100% bug-free on launch day, you're dreaming.It's nothing to do with quality control or testing; some problems only appear after months of real users banging on their 'scopes all day. eg. the Rigols had a "jitter" problem that only appeared at a very specific input frequency and display offset. It's very unlikely that in-house testing would have foundthatproblem prior to launch.Rigol jitter problem here:Testing Rigol's fix for the jitter problem here:Another example: Some DS1000Z 'scopes have a "freezing" problem that not many people can reproduce (I can't). Rigol actually contacted an EEVBLOG user to get one of the problem 'scopes to investigate (they gave him a brand new replacement in exchange).Better to have a company with active support that releases regular patches/updates, IMHO (nb. I'm not saying R&S doesn't...).Bottom line: Telling people not to buy Rigols because they're somehow "useless", or "bug ridden", is wrong (because they're not!)Quote from: nazcalines on February 05, 2016, 11:12:45 amHow much time will you waste because you only have two channels instead of 4?

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 11:57:40 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 05, 2016, 11:42:10 ami know that. but fanboys keep saying FFT that is a buzz, in fact it costed $400 more and less deep event/decoding capture memory... the hidden not so to be outspoken truth...edit: and what i find so funny is that gwInstek's staff himself took the trouble to make a video to compare this buzz side by side with Rigol's, a desperate move imho...

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:11:54 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 05, 2016, 05:34:08 amThat "only dicking" is a huge PITA, in addition not having knob's encoder speed/acceleration management if you work with low span and you want to move the center freq. for some Mhz you have to put gazzilions of turns on that knob, the only solution is, everytime, first increase the Hz/div setting -> change the center freq -> decrease Hz/div setting, all operations made with a slow UI, quite boring stuff.Separate rotary knobs for Center and Span freq. plus encoder speed management will change the game a lot.I have same Software / Firmware version but different boot, mine is 0.0.1.1 .I had to recall default setting and cycle the scope several times, then i changed my control sequence approach and now the thing is working without quirks.Considering that the OP is not a reach man and he does not give a s**t for FFT and protocol decoding functions and went for the obvious choice, we maybe can continue this discussion on a dedicated 3ad like :https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/ds1000z-fft-memory-mode/

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:14:11 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 05, 2016, 11:33:42 amIt seems you have zero understanding how FFT actually works, otherwise you'd know about the important relation of frequency resolution, sample rate, number of points, otherwise you wouldn't come up with nonsense about "buzzwords".Keysight has a nice whitepaper which explains how FFT works:http://literature.cdn.keysight.com/litweb/pdf/5988-4368EN.pdf?id=1000002181:epsg:apnIn simple terms, the frequency resolution (equivalent to the RBW on a spectrum analyzer) is a function of number of data points and the spacing of the sample points (which is dependent on the sample rate), and it should be very obvious why having only a few thousand points of memory available.QuoteYes, you tested something, obviously without any understanding what you're seeing, and like your other comments before this one only confirms that impression.QuoteYes, a gift, I mean it's not that FFT is part of the specification Rigol put out for that scope, is it?QuoteWhat nonsense. FFT is part of the functionality you paid for, like it or not. If you see this as a "gift" then all that means you're really easy to pull a fast one on. More fool to you.QuoteOr a better scope that has implementations of the required functionality that isn't crap.QuoteNo-one said it isn't, so I don't know what your point is. The thing is even a scope that at $400 is a great bargain is still worth nothing if you need the functionality that in that scope is implemented so poorly as to be useless.I have to agree with nctnico, you sound like a rabid Rigol fanboi.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:17:17 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 05, 2016, 10:58:17 amYou are being defensive, because no one said that in this thread. Please read my post again:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/final-questions-before-i-get-my-first-oscilloscope/msg858669/#msg858669.That's pretty far from what you're reading into it.Let me highlight my praise for Rigol DS2072AQuoteQuoteRigol DS2072 is a fine scope. But it's not without issues, and anyone buying scopes with a $1200 budget should be aware of other options. I did not invent any of the shortcomings of the Rigol DS2072A. And I have praised it where it was merited.I own one for crying out loud am I not allowed to air my opinion on it? Having used it and lived with it for the past year and a half I think I am entitled to it.I am not just some "idiot" on the forum as you put it. Reported by the way.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:21:03 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 05, 2016, 06:47:11 amPreviously you said that in the displayed waveforms the decoding is right but moving outside it starts to make errors, now it seems that it's always wrong, well i'm confused.Honestly i never used those functions with my little toy, but i think that i will do just to put my 2 cents on the table with this shitfest game.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:25:34 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 05, 2016, 12:21:03 pmRigol's decode basically works on the screen grab of what's displayed on the screen. Not the actual values captured by the ADC (like every other scope). This means as you scale the signal on the screen the rising edges get misaligned (where the clock signal is supposed to intersect with the serial data channel). This in turn produces wrong decodes. So depending on your timebase settings you get different erroneous readings. Yes that's right, it's a joke of a feature.

author: Gandalf_Sr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:37:08 pm
content: I own an MSO2072A that is now a MSO2302A, it's OK but there are a few major shortfalls:Pros- The basic display of waveforms is very good and the controls are intuitive- The bump to unlock higher frequency and other features is fairly simple - Rigol are giving most of this away right now- The Logic Analyzer is good - you can get the MSO2072A for $1,164.66 after the EEVblog discount and they give you all the leads and a free options upgrade- It actually comes with 350 MHz probesCons- Although it's an 8" display they have crammed so much onto the screen that I need my glasses to read the smallest print - if you have 20/20 vision this may not be an issue- The fan is a bit noisy - I got fed up listening to it all day and replaced the fan for a quieter one- The serial decode is almost unusable, I tried to debug an I2C bus and found myself fighting with the scope to capture small blocks of data. Having said this, a borrowed Tektronix MSO3204 with licensed decode option was better but not much and certainly not enough to justify the huge cost premiumSomeone suggested you get the Agilent DSOX2012A from the Keysight eBay store - I think that's worth serious consideration but there is the risk of the 30 day warranty - link your credit card to PayPal and get the increased warranty. The Agilent 2000 series has also been hacked for extra features on this site. I just bought an Agilent MSO7104B from the Keysight eBay store for well under 5 figures, it's a major investment for me but I have not had any buyers remorse - not for 1 second; once you buy Agilent you will be hooked, it's like riding in a Cadillac after you've been used to a Yugo. If you want to go that route, I've found that Keysight on eBay will typically accept an offer that's 10% lower than their asking price so you should be able to buy it for $885, I'd start at $850

author: nazcalines
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:41:56 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 05, 2016, 11:47:17 amI don't expect them to be bug free, but from what I can tell the HMO series has been around for years and the HMO1202 series appears to be mostly a spec update. As for the price difference, we all have different priorities and for me it's not an issue.QuoteI'm glad you know what my requirements are as well as the rest of my equipmentedit: I'm glad the Rigol exists, it's certainly a very nice value for the money and I look forward to seeing how they improve it in the next version.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 12:58:21 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 05, 2016, 12:25:34 pmIf you not maintain the right oversampling ratio you get same results with any DSO's that uses software decoding on serial protocols.Anyway i find it puzzling all this fervor on discrediting the chinese brand that currently makesqualityequipment at reasonable prices.Come on, with tradional brand like Tek and HP (sorry Agilent, sorry Keysight) for 400USD you get one probe or one software option at best, in the past a GPIP cable or rack mounting brackets kit, with Rigol you get a 4 channels 1 GSa/s 7" color screen scope with a lot of features, a dream till few years ago.As a professional i daily use very expensive kits, as hobbiest at home i play with scaled down equipment and i'm very happy that brands like Rigol and Siglent exist because they opened a closed & protected market where beginners previously had to go for clumsy surplus sh*t or pay rebranded OEM products (from Rigol and Siglent LOL !) five times more.I can undertand this amount of criticism for gimmick FFT for higher priced lines like DS4000 and DS6000, but sure not for DS1000 and barely for DS2000.Anyway there is room for improvement, let's see if Rigol has hears for that.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 01:14:20 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 05, 2016, 12:58:21 pmThat is certainly true, and I said many times that the DS1054z is great value, but that doesn't mean you have to convince yourself its shortcomings don't exist. They do, and have to be taken into account when making a purchase decision, or the end result will very likely be disappointment, no matter how low the price.QuoteYou can forgive a $400 that FFT is only 4k or 8k wide because it's so incredibly cheap (it still doesn't change that FFT on that scope is borderline useless, though, just that it doesn't matter that much at that price). The same however isn't true for the DS2000, and when you spend that amount on a scope then you can reasonably expect better in this day and age.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 01:19:28 pm
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 05, 2016, 11:57:40 amDid you read my GwInstek GDS2204E review?I addressed deep memory issues in general as well. The problem is that deep memory needs a lot of processing power for stuff like FFT, decoding, searching, etc. Memory is cheap but without the (expensive) processing power it's use is 'limited' to recording long waveforms at a high samplerate. If in addition to that the 'fancy' features like FFT and decoding are implemented poorly than the usefullness of having so much memory diminishes quickly. The GWIstek GDS2204E has a dual core ARM-Cortex A9 under the hood and it allows it to do operations on a lot of memory but even with that much processing power the practical limit is around 1MPts for FFT and 10Mpts for decoding. Beyond that you'll need even more processing power or a lot of FPGA development effort. My DSO7104 also suffers from the same problem; it uses an ASIC to do most of the oscilloscope functions so it is very fast. However when it comes to FFT it is dog slow due to the lack of generic processing power.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 01:28:14 pm
content: Bottom line is. If all you have is $400 for an entry level scope Rigol DS1054z is the best bargain on the market. Nothing really comes close (gw instek and siglent maybe, just recently). At below $800 price range I would seriously consider new GW Instek offerings personally.Rigol has a following on this forum because most people have bought Rigol due to their unparalleled bargain dominance at the entry level for a while now (I am one of them). DS1054z (ds1052 before it) and DS2072A to some extent. But because we have so many Rigol users it's easy to get tunnel vision and forget that as you go up in budget more options open up, other scopes become available. The "A" players in test equipment may have compelling products, companies like R&S, Agilent, LeCroy... These companies make instruments professionals use, and for a reason.And where once at $400 range a poor FFT or serial decode, ergonomics and numerous firmware bugs weren't that big a deal. Because that was the only game in town @$400. Now that you're working with a bigger budget more choices open up. And Rigol's deficiencies become more and more apparent when stacked up against other more professional oscilloscopes from these top tier companies.There is really all there is to it. Will you make a mistake if you buy Rigol? no. They are an incredible bargain. I don't even know how they do it. Offer a scope like DS1054z at that price point.But is Rigol flawless? Pretty far from flawless in my opinion after having used one for a year and a half, and having used an R&S scope they are quite different beasts. If you value quality tools, you will be able to tell a difference once you use both.my 2c, I don't care either way, like I said buy a Rigol you won't make a mistake..

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 01:36:59 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 01:14:20 pmNever did that and if you search among my other posts you can find that i too made criticisms on mine DS1074Z.Not considering price-performance ratio factor when placing judgments or drawing comparisons seems to be a common mistake here, not sure whether spontaneous, sought, or simulated.I agree there is a lot of cr*p on the market, but sure not from Rigol.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 04:05:10 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 12:14:11 pmthanks to the Agilent link, but i have my FFT library ready. i will look forward to your intelligent comment when my >1Mpts FFT for Rigol-Z is ready...Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 12:14:11 pmoh right! now i know i paid $200 for the DS1054Z and add another $200 for the FFT. whereas for the gwInstek, i have to pay $400 for the scope and another $400 for the FFT. correct? but i prefer to think that i paid $400 for the scope and got the FFT for $0, that way i'll feel much better when reading fanboys commentaries..Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 12:14:11 pmplease pay attention to this thread and how i managed to get the DS1054Z w the latest FW to show like what the other scopes managed to do, which Dave failed because he used 6 months old FW. maybe you can forward your msg to him, because i did what he did (on the other scopes incl the gwInstek one)...https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-845-oscilloscope-fft-comparison/msg856866/#msg856866Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 12:14:11 pmso what make up of you both? rabid-a-no Instek fanbois? at least i didnt delusioning potential buyers from what's obvious an scope should do..and by all means... you Agilent link is talking about... "Spectral Analysis Using a Deep-Memory Oscilloscope" let me emphasize again...Deep-Memory Oscilloscopethings like 24Mpts deep

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 04:43:25 pm
content: Here are a few quick examples of showing the impact the number of FFT sampling points have on the detail level (frequency resolution). The signal shown is a 30MHz square wave from a Keysight 33522B, the selected span is 200MHz (0Hz to 200MHz). The upper trace shows the original waveform, the lower trace the FFT.1kpts:2kpts:8kts (which is already double of what most Rigol scopes can do):16kpts (Rigol DS1000z now after the last fw update):32kpts:64kpts (e.g. Keysight DSOX3000A, R&S R&S RTM1054):128kpts (e.g. Keysight DSOX3000T, R&S HMO1200, R&S RTM2000):256kpts:512kpts:1Mpts (e.g. GW Instek GDS2000E, LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000):2Mpts:8Mpts:16Mpts:If we zoom into the FFT we'll see why a high resolution is beneficial:So no, there's clearly no difference between 4kpts or even the 16kpts the DS1000z can do and the 128kpts of the HMO1200 or the 1Mpts of the GDS2000E. Not the slightest! These large FFT sample sizes are clearly just buzzwords

author: billfernandez
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 05:40:50 pm
content: Thank you Wuerstchenhund for going to the trouble to create this clear and informative demonstration.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 05:47:33 pm
content: Quote from: billfernandez on February 05, 2016, 05:40:50 pmNo worries! If it helps to stop the spread of misinformation then it was worth it

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 06:51:04 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 05, 2016, 05:47:33 pmmisinformation of what? that 24Mpts scope is better than 10Mpts scope? that somebody said 16Kpts is the same as 1Mpts FFT? who said that? what are you trying to create? i was trying to stop the spread of misinformation that the current DS1054Z is using 4Kpts FFT, that was a 6 months old history. also the misinformation that FFT is not the only factor when judging DSO spec.if the idea is to buy all packed FFT, LA, DSO in a one piece, i better get the DS1074Z-S in the first place... same price as GDS1104B, i got extra FG. fanboys may mourn its utter useless, but something is better than nothing, GDS got nothing, for the same price...

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2016, 10:31:50 pm
content: Quote from: billfernandez on February 05, 2016, 05:40:50 pmIndeed. Very nice demonstration.

author: Helix70
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 10:09:01 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 04, 2016, 08:42:37 pmFor me personally, 4 channels wins. The OP wants a 5 year scope, I reckon he will have a need for 4 channels before any silly FFT. Hard to debug an SPI bus conversation with only 2 channels. Impossible to monitor the power supply, or the CS line at the same time without 4 channels. It is horses for courses. This argument about the FFT is laughable. No one is seriously using an entry level scope as a substitute for a real spectrum analyzer. Now a 4 channel R&S, or Agilent, or Tek, or Lecroy......... That's another story, and another price bracket.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 10:37:27 am
content: Quote from: Helix70 on February 06, 2016, 10:09:01 amMe too. 4 channels wins. You can put up with all sorts of limitations for things like bandwidth and user interface but when you need more channels, you need more channels. I really don't think I could point toany2 channel scope (no matter how nice) and say, "I willneverneed more than 2 channels, that 'scope will beallI need for the next five or ten years".YMMV.The fact that certain people have chosen to center the buying advice for a "first oscilloscope" around FFT is idiotic. The OP didn't even mention FFT.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 11:19:52 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 10:37:27 amhttps://wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 12:02:52 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 10:37:27 amIf that is what you think then you have missed the point. The point is that features on some oscilloscopes may be nothing more than checkbox items with very little practical use.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 12:10:09 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 04, 2016, 04:47:53 pmI could share some of your observations, i could admit that UI approach is quite sobjective, but regarding "you will see their construction is very similar" i would say that IT's NOT TRUE at all.For what is worth now, i would elaborate my claimsfirst :i'm not parroting anyone, i'm only able to understand by myself thatthe design effortput to develop a scope like the HMO1212 on a single custom board, aside a very well built custom shielded PSU isseveral times higherthan take and put togheter :- oneoff the shelfnot shielded cardboard PCB, whining noise source, PSU- onevery likely off the shelfZynq processing board fixed with plastic clips and plastic floating turret- one connectors only PCB to adapt thevery likely off the shelfZynq to LCD flat cable- one generic base board with analog front-end and ADC chipRespect the GDS-2000A, the GDS-2000E series is a clear cost & build quality step down, i'm not saying it's crap, but i would say that also Rigol DS1000Z and DS2000A have a significantly higher construction quality.And yes, i too also like the R&S care for design & assembly details (as Dave do, actually), it's simply on a superior level, even with this bottom line scope.Dunno if you are not able to detect it or if you do not want to admit it, not my fault anyway.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 12:31:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 04, 2016, 04:47:53 pmYou are right about the GW Instek build quality being good. Too bad it looks and works like a toy, it doesn't instill a lot of confidence in you. IMHO of courseBut of course it offers a lot of bang-per-buck.I'd rather have the R&S any day of the week. Smaller, silent, near instant boot, great clean screen and UI, excellent auto-measure mode, and just feels like a professional scope. It's "the vibe".

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 12:47:40 pm
content: @markone:Sorry but the way the HMO is constructed WITHOUT any support for the circuit board and no fixations for the BNC connectors to the chassis is a big fail. Regarding the GW Instek Dave took apart: it must be an early model because my GDS2204E has a single board with all the analog and digital electronics integrated. The PSU GwInstek uses isn't a flyback one but resonant and therefore it doesn't need so much shielding (it is mounted on the chassis which offers shielding BTW). Note the screendumps I posted elsewhere with the inputs open and the vertical sensitivity set to 1mV/div.There really is nothing superior about the way the HM1200 is constructed. That is all in your mind because there is an R&S sticker on it! Your notes about 'off-the-shelve' components are outright hilarious! BTW I noticed R&S uses off-the-shelve chips on their boardsBut maybe R&S etched their own boards, you never know. The bottom line is: it makes sense to buy off-the-shelve components because you can concentrate on what you are good at (concentrate on your core business) and use knowledge from others (for example regarding PSUs) to your advantage. R&S wasted a whole lot of money slapping a PSU together, putting it in a shielded box and get it certified where GWInstek just orders the PSUs without the headache of certifying it or (due to the PWM method) needing a lot of shielding. It is all about seeing the big picture while doing clever engineering.BTW I don't think I have ever seen a PSU designed by Tektronix themselves in any of their DSOs or logic analysers. It is not their core business so they leave it to someone else who is good at it!@Dave: your remark 'Too bad it looks and works like a toy' makes me raise my eyebrows and wonder what your reviews are worth if they are based on a vibe. There are differences in how people look at test equipment, use of colors, etc based on where they are located. Put a Yokogawa scope next to one from Keysight and you'll notice a day and night difference in the user interface. However at the end of the day both will get the job done.

author: Gandalf_Sr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 01:12:19 pm
content: Dave hits on a good point, hardware build quality is important but the bad software can make good hardware useless. I own an Instek scope and it's under my bench gathering dust, it was my first digital scope, it's 2 channel and has no features. The next scope I bought was the Rigol MSO2072A which quickly became a MSO2302A - it's a good scope but I find the screen a bit cramped (I have bad (old) eyes) and the serial decode is difficult to work with. Notice that, as others have just said, 2 channels are not enough to decode an SPI bus but 4 analog channels isn't strictly necessary to do this, by going for say theMSO2072A, the OP would get 16 digital + 2 analog channels and the decode can be set up to work from any combination of these.The FFT thing is a gimmick IMHO, if you really need to do FFT buy something designed for that like an FFT SA.Going for pre-owned quality is also an option that the OP should seriously consider - e.g. the Aglient 2000 series I linked to a few posts back.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 01:13:53 pm
content: Wuerstchenhund, thanks for the nice demonstration of various FFT point lengths. However, I'm not quite sure what settings you used for the short window sizes. On my DS1054Z, I get much more satisfying results. The attached is for the 1kHz test signal -- I was too lazy to get the function generator out, but with regard to FFT resolution, the result should be comparable to yours, right?This is taken with the older SP2 firmware, i.e. the smaller FFT dataset (presumable 4k points). Normal acquisition mode; high res mode reduces the noise a little bit further, but not significantly.I would argue that there are two major use cases for FFT, and that the Rigol scopes are not suited for the one, but very useful for the other:Modulated carrier, where the modulation bandwidth is typically small vs. the carrier frequency, and you want to see a narrow spectral window around the carrier. This is where large FFT windows are needed, and the Rigols (and other scopes with just a few kPoints FFT) will simply not resolve enough spectral detail around teh carrier.Unmodulated signal, where you want to observe harmonic content -- e.g. in acoustics, vibration analysis, to check spectral purity of an unmodulated carrier etc.. A few kPoints are perfectly fine for me to assess harmonic content in these applications, so my DS1054Z is certainly useful to me.Hope this makes sense?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 01:33:32 pm
content: Quote from: Gandalf_Sr on February 06, 2016, 01:12:19 pmIt depends on what you want to do. I use FFT for hunting EMC problems and it helps to see the time domain signal and the frequency spectrum in order to determine what is causing the problem. In the past I have also used FFT on a scope to measure the bandwidth of audio paths in telecom systems.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 01:39:18 pm
content: Quote from: Helix70 on February 06, 2016, 10:09:01 amI'm spot on this view of things.The reason why i bought my four channels Rigol is that i play a lot with stepper motor drivers (CNC and telescope mounting), where six channels would be even better.I could effort much expensinve equipment, but for hobby activity woul be an overkill.The 1MEG FFT function on a 8bit system (with ugly UI) does not impress me at all, the DSA815 is the "cheap" way to go if you have to do any serious (or near to) EMC pre-compliance testing activity or RF DIY.Personally i use the Elad FDM-S2 16bit -122MSa/s sampler (actually conceived as HF receiver) as high resolution / high sensitivity real time spectrum analyzer for some rough EMC assessment, clock source phase noise analysis or HF filter stuff; it's actually limited to 60Mhz max freq & 6Mhz SPAN, but within this limits blows out the windows any 8-12bit and some 16bit DSO's FFT, and can store live spectrum portion to HDD in I/Q format for post analysis.For serial protocol analysis one can always buy a dedicated stand alone 8 channel device like the new SALEA LOGIC 8 fpga based logic/protocol analyzer with analog capabilities.Said that, right now if you prioritize the bandwidth over the channels number, the DS1072A expanded to 300Mhz for free, gimmick functions talking apart, @840USD seems a wise choice, but i would consider also the MSO version to cover possible mixed signal systems in a Five-Year plan

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 01:46:43 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 12:02:52 pmI haven't missed the point at all.The point is that you need to assign avalueto each of those features for your own personal use.According to this thread: "FFT" has a value of 10/10 toeverybody. That's idiotic.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 01:53:57 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2016, 12:31:33 pmYeah, but... only 2 channels.I can understand wanting the "best vibe" scope for daily use when you've got shelves full of other scopes behind you and can easily pull out a 4-channel device for the days when you need one.But as myonly'scope...? I'd have a problem picking something with only 2-channels, no matter what the vibe.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 02:32:40 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 12:47:40 pmThis is one of your criticisms with which I can agree, on the other hand if this R&S scope is actually used in educational enviroment it should not be so weak mechanical wise, anyway i'd be curious to know from david its feeling about that.Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 12:47:40 pmOk, this is a good news, i apologize, i was not aware about that, i assumed that your was identical to the model showed in the Dave's tear down, so my comments should be valid only for B series.Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 12:47:40 pmHere you have to be a little more fair, you (as other owners) complain whining noise problem coming from your scope PSU and you have to admit that its construction quality it's a bit so-so and the absence of shielding case can never be considered a positive point, also for safety reason, especially over 1K euro/usd.Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 12:47:40 pmOk, on this i cannot see a compromise, we are on opposite side, i accept it.Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 12:47:40 pmI see the matter in another way, putting togheter off-the-shelf boards is much easier that using properly off-the-shelf chips on a custom board, the latter require much higher expertise.The scope that Dave showed in it's tear down looks more like a young start-up product, sure not a well engineered equipment,nothing hilarious there, if not the way the Zynq board is fixed to the rest.Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 12:47:40 pmConsidering the complexity of what R&S produces from decades, say that they wasted a whole lot of money to design a single 12v PSU in metal shield box sounds hilarious at very best.I'm starting to think that you never even come close to any of their products, i did, i wrote some control application for RF test benches with R&S equipment (mainly RF network analyzer & signal generator) and i have a lot respect for them, sure not DIY toys.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 02:56:03 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 06, 2016, 12:31:33 pmI agree Dave, great screen readability and very responsive UI, would be good for my tired eyes.Taking some pics from your video i roughly measured the screen portion dedicated to waveform graph, is actually bigger than what fixed menus leave on DS1000Z screen and text fonts seems much easyer to read.About the matter of BNC connector not directly fixed to chassis, have you spotted some mechanical weakness ?

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 03:35:17 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 01:46:43 pmYou are making things up again. No one said FFT should be the top priority in anyone's buying decision. It's just a feature that anyone buying a scope might or might not care about. FFT has just been one example of a well implemented feature you get with R&S (and Gw-Instek) oscilloscopes.People shopping for modern offerings in oscilloscopes can read the feature lists themselves. And can see that for instance Rigol offers everything every other scope offers for the most part. But it is important to let them know that just because Rigol has that feature, doesn't mean it's implemented as well as it is on the other scopes. Those who have used these scopes can provide this insight. This is kind of the point of coming on here and asking advice on a scope from people who have used them.I have 1st hand experience with both Rigol and R&S scopes and I am in a pretty good position to offer advice on what you get with both products. Should I talk about similarities like the ability to terminate signals to 50 ohms, or should I talk about the differences like FFT (serial decode, UI, responsiveness..)?Which topic do you think is more useful for someone evaluating which one of these scopes to get?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 03:43:31 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 06, 2016, 03:35:17 pmHalf (or more) of the replies in this thread have been about FFTs.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 03:47:21 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 03:43:31 pmThat happens as people delve into it. This is a technical forum people like to know the details. But it has no bearing on the importance of the feature in the overall oscilloscope package.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 04:02:46 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 01:46:43 pmI'm sorry to have to say this but the only thing that is idiotic is your statement.*No-one*in this thread has argued that the DS1000z is a bad scope or not worth buying because its FFT sucks and serial decode is poor, nor has anyone suggested that good FFT is the most important thing in a beginner's scope. Only god knows why the hell you constantly attempt to turn the discussion in a direction as if that was the case. I wonder why this is, I doubt it's a language isse so it looks like there's some kind of agenda here.The simple point was that FFT on the DS1000z is pretty poor, and while the recent upgrade from 4k to 16k (which in Rigol's term is "High Resolution FFT Deep Memory FFT") is nice, it doesn't change the fact that it's still not very useful, something any prospective buyer should be aware of. Does it make the DS1054z a bad scope? Not al all. But it's one (of several) limitations which come from being a very low cost bottom-of-the-barrel scope from a Chinese B-brand. Is that really so hard to understand for you?QuoteRight, and because it does so for you it seems you think this must be the same for everyone else, and you already made it clear that you seem to consider any discussion about any of the shortfalls that don't affect you personally as "silly". Talk about a person with blinkers onYou seem have some kind of agenda here (like Mechatrommer), and that doesn't do you any favors to get across any reasonable argument or contribution you might have.Quote from: Helix70 on February 06, 2016, 10:09:01 amThe idea that a beginner (probably the biggest audience of these scopes) will not ever want to use the scope's FFT and use a real spectrum analyzer instead is honestly utterly moronic (someone who can't afford more than a $400 scope has the funds for a real SA? Seriously?). The simple reality is that actually FFT is a very good aid for a beginner as it helps to understand basics i.e. that all non-sine waveforms are actually made up from a set of sine waves. It also helps to identify interference and other issues in your circuits. But for that FFT needs to implemented in a way that's actually useful. Plus having a tool to watch the frequency domain in your scope is often pretty handy, and not all frequency domain measurements are best done with a SA.As to the four channels, yes its great but it's still a bottom-of-the-barrel scope with a sample rate that drops to 250MSa/s with all four channels enabled, which isn't enough for lots of tasks where four channels would be beneficial.At the end of the day, it should be remembered that this is not about what we use at home, it's about helping someone else to choose a right scope within his budget that satisfies his requirements, and part of helping is that we talk honest and open about the benefits*and shortcomings*. So how about we focus on the OP's question instead?BTW, the OP has $1200 for a scope which means he isn't forced to go for the $400 bottom-of-the-barrel Rigol, so why should he have to live with its shortcomings when he can get something better for his money?

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 04:23:57 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 06, 2016, 01:13:53 pmi slightly disagree. build a 3rd party software for it, it got 24Mpts nothing else in the market at the cheap. the good thing about rigol is they provide a way to download the data to PC, or maybe saved in usb drive as wfm file for later off-processing if noise leakage from pc and smps is really an issue. other brands' SDK may look interesting from the covering, but when read in detail, its not that stellar for quick off-processing job... like the one brand i recently read, it got nothing to download realtime or deep memory data into pc, all i see is remote control command that is similar to pressing buttons on the dso... btw this type of special job (RF) as you mentioned is not that frequent, so a dso tucked into a pc is acceptable on several not so frequent occasions, imho.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 04:24:39 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 06, 2016, 01:13:53 pmNo, not necessarily. You have to see the screenshots in context. They have been made on a 3Ghz 20GSa/s high end scope, and are merely an illustration of the relevance of FFT sampling points (all other parameters are static). If you look at the lower right-hand corner you'll see the frequency resolution (the same as RBW on a SA) which for that sample rate is 19.53MHz at 1kpts and 1.19kHz at 16Mpts. Obviously, because the DS1054z samples much slower it's 16k sample points will capture a longer interval, which affects the frequency resolution.In addition, the signal I used is a 30MHz square wave on a 200MHz span. Had I used a 1kHz signal (which is 1/30000th of the 30Mhz fundamental) then the 1kpts screenshot would show a clearer FFT spectrum (essentially a roughly 19.53MHz wide spike) than it does for the 30MHz signal.QuoteThe low number of sample points works OK with a low frequency signal, and because of that you'll see little change when going to a higher number of sample points. That will change however if you look at signals of higher frequency.QuoteYes, it does, although the issue is not the presence of modulation but the absolute frequency of the various signal components that make out the original waveform. Acoustics and vibration analysis are pretty low frequency and for that the 16k are adequate (and you'd see little improvement from a larger FFT sample size), but you'll have difficulty appropriately resolving a MHz signal or probably even a 100kHz signal.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 05:08:24 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 06, 2016, 04:24:39 pmHmm, I don't think that's how it works. As long as you do not go into a frequency range where the scope's sampling frequency limits its ability to faithfully capture the waveform, everything should look the same regardless of frequency. (All other things being equal, of course -- especially the same number of waveform cycles being sampled.)So I did get out the function generator after all... The first screenshot shows my earlier measurement of the 1 kHz signal, and the second the same experiment with a 1 MHz signal. The main difference is that my signal generator is not that great, so the even harmonics are present in the 1 MHz sample. But the FFT resolution looks fine to me.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 06:03:21 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 06, 2016, 04:02:46 pmYou mean drop all talk of FFTs? That's a good idea.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 06, 2016, 04:02:46 pmI'm not saying he should buy a DS1054Z, just to consider very carefully if 2 channels is enough. Number of channels is something that's difficult to work around.Anyway....Going back to the original post: He was choosing between the Rigol DS2072A and the Rigol DS2072A-S (this was before the "FFT" brigade leaped into the thread).Opinion was that with $1200 to spend it's better to get a separate signal generator. I think that makes sense.Next there was an argument made for getting R&S instead of Rigol. Let's see:The baseline R&S is about $1200 so it's within budget, yes. It's definitely better, nobody disagrees with that. But ... $1200 is still $400 more than the Rigol and it quickly costs anawful lot morewhen you start adding options (it could easily double the price) whereas Rigol has all the options for free.So for $1200 you can have:a) A 300MHz Rigol DS2072A with all options unlocked + a real SigGen, orb) Baseline 100MHz R&S HMO1202.Anybody care to argue the case for option (b)?

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 06:06:44 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 06:03:21 pmYes, read this thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/final-questions-before-i-get-my-first-oscilloscope/But I can recap it for you. Price per Mhz of bandwidth is the only thing going for Rigol. HMO is a superior scope in every other aspect. And it's arguably the best scope in the up to $1200 price segment.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 06:14:28 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 06, 2016, 01:13:53 pmAcoustics and vibration analysis require much higher dynamic range and much higher FFT's speed plus programmable HW anti alias filtering, the suited amplitude resolution is 24bit and for vibration sensors the IEPE interface is quite a must.I do not see at all any 8 bit scope in this field, with sound you can do much better with any medium quality 192KSa/s 24 bit sound card while for any vibration related serious job, with real (maybe calibrated) accelerometers, you have to look to something like the NI USB-4431, but it's going to cost some Kilo Euro, the sensor cost is also quite high.Otherwise for vibrations you can always look for mems accelerometers with integrated ADC and serial inteface, like the AD (http://www.analog.com/en/products/mems/mems-accelerometers.html), they cost a fraction, of course the performance is also scaled down, especially for noise floor.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 06:19:44 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 06, 2016, 06:06:44 pmMmmh, i like a lot that scope, but this statement seems to be a bit pretentious.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 07:06:20 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 06, 2016, 06:14:28 pmYou've got a point there. The spectral resolution of simple scopes' FFT is adequate for these applications (which was my main point), but a decent sound interface or dedicated A/D converter will give a much better balance between dynamic range and sampling rate.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:15:56 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 06:03:21 pmFYI, somebody created recently a thread dedicated to FFT.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:17:52 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 06, 2016, 02:32:40 pmYou think the same team which designs the high end R&S RF gear is working on low end oscilloscopes? I'm 100% sure they are not. If the HMO1202 was build to the R&S high end specs it would have a full aluminium inner chassis, the board mounted firmly onto that chassis and the input BNCs bolted to the chassis as well. But it is not... It is a Hameg (which never was high-end; more like Europe's Rigol) with an R&S sticker on it.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:20:04 pm
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 06, 2016, 06:03:21 pmdo you mean? drop all the BS gwInstek FFT talk? That's a good idea.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:20:16 pm
content: Quote from: markone on February 06, 2016, 06:19:44 pmI said arguably, maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word, but it can mean probably.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:22:43 pm
content: Perhaps we should make a list with scopes which cost $1200 and then compare spec-by-spec and bug-by-bug.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:31:27 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 06, 2016, 05:08:24 pmAside from the analog bandwith (which limits which frequency components actually make it into the scope) of course, you're right that the sample frequency limits the ability to capture all relevant aspects of a waveform. However, the sample rate also determines how many sample points are used per time interval, and thus for a given sample memory size determines the length of the time slice that is captured. For FFT, the time slice that is captures impacts the frequency resolution (i.e. the RBW).To demonstrate the impact the sample rate has on FFT I've set up another quick test. This time I used a 1Mhz sine wave from a Keysight 33522B generator as a source. I used similar settings (i.e. 500kHz/div) as you did on your DS1054z, plus I fixed the number of FFT points to 16k as it is now the new limit in the DS1000z Series. I couldn't replicate everything 100% (i.e. the Rigol's graticule has 12 divisions while my LeCroy has just 10) but it should demonstrate the impact (the upper trace shows the FFT, the lower is zoom).First, let's sample with 25MSa/s (which is close to the 20MSa/s that is shown for FFT on your scope):Looks OK, doesn't it? As you can see in the lower right-hand corner, the resolution (RBW) is 1.53kHz and the available bandwidth is 12.5MHz.Now let's zoom into the FFT spectrum, say 25x (20kHz/div):You can clearly see that the detail level is limited which is caused by the limited frequency resolution (1.53kHz), however you can still somewhat make out the peak, so it's not completely useless.Now let's repeat that with a sample rate of 1GHz (everything else being the same, incl the 16k FFT) and zoom in:We see that, because of the higher sample rate, the FFT bandwidth has increased to 500Mhz. However, the frequency resolution has decreased from 1.53kHz to 61.04kHz. And this shows in the FFT spectrum, and even more so in the zoom trace (25x as before):Because of the low frequency resolution the same zoom trace is now pretty useless, it's just a large bump.QuoteIt does, but simply because you have a very narrow span (6MHz) and a very low sample rate which severely limits the usable bandwidth (which is 10Mhz). That is fine for looking a narrow peak from a sine wave like the one used in our examples but not enough for looking at a reasonable part of the spectrum at a reasonable resolution (which is what you need to do for pretty much any more complex waveform). (FFT) bandwidth requires higher sample rates, and higher resolution at a given sample rate require more FFT points. Simples

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:38:36 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on February 06, 2016, 07:06:20 pmGive a try to Spectrum Lab and your sound card, it's free and powerfull, from the german Ham DL4YHF :http://www.qsl.net/dl4yhf/spectra1.html

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 08:43:17 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 06, 2016, 08:20:16 pmYes, you are right, it's my fault, but i'm learning

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 09:01:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 08:17:52 pmHey now, Hameg was a good brand. Old analog Hamegs were great. They weren't as advanced as Tektronix scopes but they were quality scopes nonetheless.Also it's clear R&S worked on this scope. The firmware and the menus are very similar to other R&S scopes.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 09:15:55 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 06, 2016, 08:31:27 pmI see -- so in your earlier examples, you had kept the very high sampling rate, and reducing the sample to a few kpoints meant capturing just a few cycles of the input signal! I had indeed overlooked that, although it is very clear from your screenshots, which do include the time domain signal. In that situation, it is clear that the resolution will be terrible. Spectral resolution of the FFT is proportional to the length of the time domain signal that gets processed, after all.But that's not how one applies the limited kPoints available for FFT on a low-end scope: I can always chose the time base to get the best compromise between spectral resolution and bandwidth.QuoteThe available span is actually 10 MHz in this example (just zoomed in a bit on the display to show the resolution limit more clearly), so we have an FFT with 10 MHz bandwidth and 2.5 kHz resolution. For an analysis of harmonic content that seems plenty, even for complex signals. But as mentioned earlier, I agree that there are very relevant uses of FFT where a few kPoints will be too limiting.

author: markone
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 09:50:36 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 06, 2016, 08:17:52 pmYes, i knew it already, it's a revised Hameg DSO, IMHO in its past story Hameg had pretty decent equipments on its catalog, many schools used them for young students with proved reliability.I already said that i share your doubts about the front BNC connector mounting method, i placed the question to Dave, let's wait for AU daytime to see what he has to say about it.About Rigol i will dare to say that among all known chinese TE producers they currently have the best building quality, take a look to tear down videos for DS2000, DS1054Z, DSA815TG, DSG815 to say some, and look to pcb layout, soldering quality, psu component topology, case and shielding mechanical precision/robustness, electrical harness care and so on.We are talking about a brand that actually design in house what it sells, i have an old DS1022CD that still works on my table, at the time of the purchase all the rest of chinese products in that price segment was pure cr@p or bad Rigol copy.So saying that Hameg was like the "Europe's Rigol" it's like to make a compliment.Sadly i cannot say the same thing for Siglent, at least for what concern metal chassis, soldering quality and care of overall details.I mean, all those soldering oops & balls, hammered tincan chassis, PSU transformer ferrite core loose clip and so on spotted on SDS1202X tear down, a unit (i think) supposed to be under Dave's magnifying glass till it's departing from china, well not a smart move.It's a pity, because this model has an interesting performance / price ratio, if the FW is up to HW potential.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 10:33:38 pm
content: The Hameg I used at my first employer needed some slapping before working. That particular model had problems with some of the internal connections. Back then I already had a Tektronix DSO at home which I very much preferred over to the Hameg.

author: Helix70
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 12:46:46 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 06, 2016, 04:02:46 pm"Utterly Moronic" is the assumption that a beginner would get more benefit from a slightly better FFT than an extra two channels and $700 in his pocket. Seriously. And when used as a 2 channel scope, you get the same sampling rate as the others.4 channels FTW. Everyone should have access to a 4 channel scope. so many jobs can not be handled without one, full stop. After you have your 4 channel scope, add any fancy FFT wielding 2 channel scope you like.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 12:56:03 am
content: Quote from: Helix70 on February 07, 2016, 12:46:46 amNo, the two channel scopes being compared all have twice the sampling rate. 2Gs/s vs DS1054z's 1Gs/s.Also 4 channels @250 Ms/s vs 2 channels at 1 Gs/s is debatable. It entirely depends on your common use case.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 01:01:33 am
content: IMHO 4 channels scopes should be standard nowadays. If you are designing circuits then you'll never go back to a 2 channel scope once you have used a 4 channel scope. I don't think I have owned a 2 channel scope in the past 10 years.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 01:06:02 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on February 07, 2016, 01:01:33 amI have a 4ch scope and a 2ch scope. The number of times I use 4ch is very rare, half the time I am too lazy to connect all 4 probes and I just change the probe points with the 2 probes. I am not going to say 4ch isn't a great feature, it is. But people often overstate it. I would personally rather have a faster sampling 2 channel scope than a 4 channel scope.edit: One probe is my usual case heh, this is from earlier today, checking on a prototype board I put together to evaluate a chip. In the picture I am making sure that the RTC chip being powered by a small super cap is still oscillating after being powered off for a long time.

author: georges80
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 03:50:05 am
content: 4 channels (or more than 2) is very useful when you have other probes.In my case I have a tek current probe going to channel 4 on my dso. Channel 3 has a differential probe.Channel 1/2 are 'typical' probes.A common use scenario in my case would be channel 1 going to the signal I want to observe, channel 2 going to a trigger signal and channel 4 displaying the current probe output.Not often I need 4 channels, but quite often I'm using 3.Never use the FFT functionality, of no use in any of the design areas I work in.And yeah, I've never owned a 2 channel scope.cheers,george.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 04:05:07 am
content: Quote from: georges80 on February 07, 2016, 03:50:05 amMany of the 2ch scopes have an external trigger you can also use in your scenario. You can often adjust the trigger settings like you can on any channel (trigger level, coupling.. etc). So it can replace the normal channel you're using to trigger with.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 04:40:45 am
content: teamSMITHusa@, did you get an answer to your question? Did it help you to make a decision? What is it?

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 04:49:27 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 07, 2016, 12:56:03 ami think the wiser comparison is apple to apple such as....4ch dso 2ch dso1ch @ 1GSps 1ch @ 2GSps2ch @ 500MSps 2ch @ 1GSps4ch @ 250MSps N/Aprice? price?with 4ch scope, you can probe 4 nodes lower speed, with 2ch, you need to buy another to probe 4 nodes.if you need highest speed, inevitably one need to switch to 1ch only. 1GSps scope is that, 2GSps scope is that.it depends on the type of your work, different people different priority, interest and habits...

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 04:59:58 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 07, 2016, 04:49:27 amI think I wrote the same thing. I am confused.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 05:35:23 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 07, 2016, 04:59:58 amyou put different channel number and different sample rate side by side. its like you compared one scope is 250MSps and another is 1GSps.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 06:24:16 am
content: Quote from: Mechatrommer on February 07, 2016, 05:35:23 amRight, I figured anyone can do some simple math.

author: Performa01
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 09:53:15 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 07, 2016, 12:56:03 amNo. The Instek scope debated in this thread doesn't do 2GSa/s. It will do 2 x 1GSa/s though.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2016, 10:33:20 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 07, 2016, 06:24:16 amyeah i've provided the simple math table but sometime this is not simple math, different scope different behaviour, some scope have individual ADC and capture, so sample rate is not degraded when activating more channels. so even my table above might not be correct for the 2GSps high end dso.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2016, 12:13:34 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 07, 2016, 01:06:02 amBut not "never".(...and you have the luxury of being able to pull out a 4ch if you need one. Imagine if you didn't.)

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2016, 02:18:09 am
content: Quote from: Fungus on February 08, 2016, 12:13:34 amI only had a 2ch scope for a year and a half, and not once did I feel it prevented me from doing something I needed to do. There was always a workaround even in those rare occasions. You can save traces if you're triggering on the same event for instance, and just move the probes around, or you can use the external trigger.4ch is definitely nice, there is no doubt. But it is not as indispensable as sometimes stated. I am personally more interested in the higher sampling rate than the 2 extra channels. If I can get 4ch without compromise then yes it's a no brainer, but it's not the first priority when getting a scope.

author: georges80
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 08, 2016, 04:02:09 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 07, 2016, 04:05:07 amYeah, but I want to see that 3rd channel and record it along with the other 2 channels. Just because I trigger on the 3rd channel, doesn't mean it is ONLY a trigger.That trigger is a complex waveform and I want to correlate it to the other 2 channels (not just trigger on it)...cheers,george.

author: teamSMITHusa
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 11:06:09 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on February 07, 2016, 04:40:45 amYES! My questions were answered, and then some. It was a tremendous help. More than I could have hoped for! Thank you all!I went for the Rigol DS2072A. and... with the extra $$$ I saved I also got the Rigol DM3058E and a Hakko FX888D with extra tips. All for about $1300 USD.Should be everything I need to do what I need for the good part of the next five years.My lab is now upto speed once again! I will post a photo once the shipment arrives and everything is setup.Once the new order comes in my lab will be based on the...Rigol DS2072A Oscilloscope.Rigol DM3058E Bench DMM.HQ PS3003U 30VDC Bench Power supply.BK Precision 4052 Function Generator.BK Precision 1856D Frequency Counter.Hakko FX888D & Hakko 926 Soldering stations.Windows 7 fully loaded PC (Bluray, 32Gigs RAM, etc.)+ a ton of older stuff (hand held DMMs, Component testers, Tools, Digital Calipers, Air Compressor, Vacuum systems, Hot air rework station, Fully ESD protected bench, optics, etc.I'm happy and probably won't spend anything of significance for quite some time.I will probably make the $1300 back this year by just doing small repair jobs in my spare time, and most importantly, learn a ton over the next 4 to five years.I know to you younger EEs, think that 5 years seems like a long time, but it will fly by.Thanks everyone. I will be contributing to the blog more too. perhaps even a video or two! wOoT!Thanks again. Everyone is awesome!

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 09, 2016, 11:23:11 pm
content: Quote from: teamSMITHusa on February 09, 2016, 11:06:09 pmNot bad, enjoy!

author: teamSMITHusa
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2016, 11:18:08 pm
content: Equipment arrived. Will post a video soon!

author: pxl
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2016, 11:53:22 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on February 04, 2016, 06:28:01 amJust a bit addition, yet it seems these are almost the same scopes (even they share the manual). All the differences I've found so far:- the max sample rate (these matter if you need 100 MHz, at 50ns it uses 500MSa, if I spot correctly Dave's video)- the max mem depth (without advanced search function, is that matter?)- 50 ohm input- math formula editor- position rangeR&S®HMO1002 series ±5 Div (from center of screen)R&S®HMO1202 series ±15 Div (from center of screen)- there is a fan (pretty quiet, though)And the 1202 can be upgraded in future from 100MHz to 300MHz, that could be an important point. But basically the 1202 is just an overclocked version of the 1002. Probably I missed something, of course.

author: pa3hfu
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2016, 08:11:50 pm
content: Quote from: teamSMITHusa on February 18, 2016, 11:18:08 pmWell, we like to see your video! ;-)

author: ProBang2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 02, 2016, 10:48:09 pm
content: Quote from: pa3hfu on May 02, 2016, 08:11:50 pm+ 1

author: Nozzer
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2016, 07:45:40 pm
content: After much examination of the various options I settled on the R&S 1222, 200MHz scope, which I am getting direct from R&S UK as a (mature) student with pod and all software included. I like the UI, which suits me as a disabled person, and the fact that I can upgrade the BW later if I choose to. I did seriously consider the Rigol 2000 series and the Keysight 2000 series, which is on special offer at the moment with all added options for the basic price, but the latter, which I was very tempted by, was much more expensive (with a maximum BW of 200MHz, also a clinching factor in favour of the R&S) and I have decided I'll buy Keysight's single channel & upgradable 33511B Arb generator next year. 10k wfs is more than adequate for me.My biggest (culture) shock is going to be buying a suitable laptop to run the Windows OS compatible software, having used iMacs for the last 9 years. I have no idea what I need (reliability is important to me) for just running electronics related software.I'll be sticking to my iMac for everything else.

author: siggi
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2016, 08:37:25 pm
content: Quote from: Nozzer on October 16, 2016, 07:45:40 pmMaybe you can try running the software under virtualization on your iMac(s)) at least to start with?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2016, 08:49:00 pm
content: Quote from: siggi on October 16, 2016, 08:37:25 pmThat is the most sensible route. Virtualbox is free and runs all Windows flavours very well in a virtual machine. There really is no need to buy an extra PC to just run Windows nowadays.

author: larry42
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 31, 2016, 04:07:04 pm
content: Quote from: Nozzer on October 16, 2016, 07:45:40 pmI have an R&S HMO1524. Supplied SW is useless and slow (they transfer data via ASCII). Throwing together some Python script is pretty straighforward. Also, you can run Windows via VirtualBox / VMWare, no need to buy a separate PC. TBH there are plenty of old laptops that can be had for next to nothing if you just want to run some control SW.Othern than that the HMO series is great. Interface that's reliable, fan is very quiet, FFT mode that's seriously good for spectrum analysis and with a good UI (for a scope at least - better than any Agilent 54xxx. DSOX3k or 8k series that I've used ). Enjoy!