Oscilloscope advice? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: werdigo
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 03, 2013, 11:38:43 pm
content: I'm a fairly active amateur radio operator, and though I have an EE degree it was granted 45 years ago and my career was not in engineering. With the limitations implied by that background...Does anyone have advice about my possible purchase of a new Rigol? I'm a bit confused about the difference between certain 1000-line and 2000-line digital oscilloscopes. For example, there's now a 300-MHz 1000-line model that's cheaper than the 200-MHz 2000-line model (both 2-channel).--Werdigo

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2013, 11:44:45 pm
content: Quote from: werdigo on September 03, 2013, 11:38:43 pmWhat kind of hobbyist are you, what are you planning to build or measure?

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2013, 11:45:02 pm
content: The 1000-line has less waveforms updates per second, etc, etc. Check out this video:It may not be the exact two models you're comparing, but all the points raised will still apply.

author: kg4arn
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 03, 2013, 11:53:28 pm
content: My $0.02...I think you will be happier with the 2000. I used one at the local Hamfest.It is very impressive for the cost.73

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 04, 2013, 12:30:46 am
content: One main difference is the 1000 series do not have the intensity graded "analog-like" display. They feel and display more like a digital scope than a traditional analog scope.

author: werdigo
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: September 04, 2013, 12:55:34 am
content: Thanks! Spectacular video, rs20! I wonder if the 1052 he was using is a current one; surely there have been improvements over the years, but the video makes a strong case for a 2000-line machine. ARN, I suspect you're right --- I'll have a closer look at the specs. Dr. Diesel... hard question to answer. This will be my first 'scope (except for an antique Dumont 3001 purchased at a hamfest for $5 --- I turned it on once years ago and got a sine wave but that's it) so it's hard to list what I'd like to do with it. I'm newly retired and looking forward to restoring some boat anchors, but would also like to be able to measure and test components and compare them with theory. Without oscilloscope experience, I'm sure you understand that your question is a little hard to answer with any degree of specificity.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2013, 10:11:57 am
content: Quote from: werdigo on September 03, 2013, 11:38:43 pmI think the 1000-line is end of life, except maybe the most-cheap 1052 for students, artists and electricians.The prices of the whole range are dropping the last months.I'm still very happy with my DS1204B, but if right now, I had to buy a new one...I would propably go for the 2000-line.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2013, 10:21:11 am
content: Quote from: werdigo on September 04, 2013, 12:55:34 amIf I understand you right, you want a scope to explore and build up some experience.With a 2000 series you will be able to reproduce the experiments on Youtube video's, made with the 1052.The inverse isn't true.It's maybe the type of your ambition that must be followed here. Do you plan to use it 2 times a year, or 10 hours a week?

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 04, 2013, 01:30:30 pm
content: I'm still torn between the Rigol DS2000 and the Agilent DSOX2000 series... The price difference isn't so great that the Agilent is out of the running entirely, and the hackability of the Agilent isn't as good.Still, I'm torn.

author: jasonbrent
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2013, 01:06:10 am
content: Quote from: Rigby on September 04, 2013, 01:30:30 pmpersonally, I'd give the rigol ds2k a try.... worst case, you hate it and return it or sell it. I'm pretty positive given the demand you'd be able to get your money back no problem... the hackability and price of the ds2k enticed me a ton and that's what I ended up getting....-jbl

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2013, 04:37:29 am
content: Quote from: werdigo on September 04, 2013, 12:55:34 amThere have been very minor firmware changes to the 1052E, most of which have to do with making it harder to change the bandwidth. AFAIK, there have been no feature changes over the years, and no hardware changes. It's possible I've missed something minor, but certainly the things mentioned in the video have not changed significantly in the 1052E. The screen size, memory depth, acquisition speed, and lack of intensity shading are the same. The primary thing which has changed over the years in that particular model has been the pricetag. It keeps getting cheaper.I'm going to take a mildly contrarian view to Dave here. While I can appreciate that the 2072 is easily superior to the 1052E, I look at it this way. The jump from having no scope at all to having a 1052E costs $330 dollars. If you've decided to make that leap, and you're debating whether to leap a bit further, the 2072 costs an additional $510 (the 2072 costs $840, while the 1052 costs $330, from popular sources rounded to the nearest $10, all prices in USD). The 2072 costs about 2.5 times as much as the 1052E. Sure, it's more useful, but is it 2.5 times as useful?The 1052E is a mind-blowingly huge improvement over having no scope at all. It opens the doors to making all sorts of measurements that simply can't be done without a scope. The 2072 is certainly a significant improvement over the 1052E, and does add new capabilities, but I don't think the capability increase is as significant.It's a value judgement, and I won't argue with those who believe the step up for the 2072 is worth their own dollars. If you really need the intensity shading, greater memory, greater update rate, greater screen resolution, or other feature improvements, go for it with my blessing. But as for me, I'm still having fun with my DS1052E, and I'll keep using it until I run into a situation where its limits hurt bad enough to make me open my wallet again. I think it'll be awhile.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2013, 05:13:09 am
content: I think the 2072's best feature, even if you have to pay extra for it is the serial decoding option. That said if you never use it (or the other features) then spend your money on gear you will use.

author: olepr01@gmail.com
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2013, 07:08:03 am
content: Quote from: Rigby on September 04, 2013, 01:30:30 pmI am assuming this is your first scope, ignore if this is not the case.. I ended up getting a DSOX2014A about a year ago, and I absolutely love it. And yet... I'd actually advise to get the cheapest you can, and plan to "throw it away". In my case I've discovered a few things that annoy me with the Agilent, things you're likely to recognize only with experience and use. Using a scope will get you the needed experience to know what actually matters to you in a scope, so you can get a more suitable one next time around.In my case there wont be a next time around, I blew all my money on the Agilent!

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2013, 11:47:19 am
content: Quote from: olepr01@gmail.com on September 05, 2013, 07:08:03 amI actually just got a Tek 7633 with plugins to give it 4 channels and dual time base. Saving up for my day-to-day digital scope, still, and still I'm torn between the Rigol and the Agilent.

author: olepr01@gmail.com
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2013, 01:43:17 pm
content: Quote from: Rigby on September 05, 2013, 11:47:19 amAh, in that case.. Well, the DSOX2000 has limited memory, which is one of my pet peeves, limited hackability, as you mentioned, no external reference input, which may or may not matter to you. Matters to me.The built-in signal generator is not truly a replacement for a "proper" function generator, so that argument is out the window, the DVM-option is useless. For reasons unknown to me you will only get 50.000 points from the measurement if you intend to write any software to control it from a PC, which is a major drawback in my book. (How sweet would it be to use it as a front end and just to whatever signal-processing you need in .Net or whatever. No go, at least for more than 50k points. )The triggering-options are also limited, another pet peeve.On the good side, I made the built in frequency counter trigger reliably to 2.7Ghz.But, without a reference input, how reliable are the figures...That said, I have a couple of Rigol instruments, and lets say their software is a bit shady.. Weird, plentyful bugs, and getting updates means writing emails and begging someone to send it over. Agilents software is rock solid, but comes at a price, and the options are very, very expensive.. At some point there may be a practical hack, but I haven't found one. (Havent looked that hard, it must be admitted)If I were to buy a new scope today, I think I would seriously consider getting a second hand Agilent-scope with deep(er) memory, such as a 54832.So. Absolutely no help whatsoever from this post. Sorry.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2013, 11:03:53 pm
content: Quote from: olepr01@gmail.com on September 05, 2013, 01:43:17 pmNah, you helped.