Scope: Instek GDS-1102A-U, Rigol DS1102E, Owon SDS7102, Hantek DSO5102B, Other? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2012, 03:04:34 pm
content: ************************************************************************Update May 10, 2013I fell prey to the very same "dangerous progression" I was trying to avoid by sticking to the sub $500 range. Several months have gone by since I first posted this thread and I've ended up with the idea that a scope is a long-term tool, and it wouldn't be wise to buy one the same way I'd buy an TV or other electronic gizmo (heavy preference towards the bare minimum and compromising on features for the sake of price).My desired specs crept all the way up to the 4-channel, 200MHz range and my budget crept with them - up to the $1k to $2k range. My leading option today is a used Agilent MSOX2024A for about $2k.As a result it doesn't make sense to keep posting here when this thread's title and contents no longer match. I'll write a summary post ("Reply #40") and start a new thread.Thank you to everyone for your input. I'm absolutely positive I'll be happier with the purchase I make as a result of your contributions, and I hope they've helped other people too.************************************************************************Hi everyone. I have been “lurking” around this site silently for a few months now, having come across it when looking for reviews of the Owon SDS7102. Since then I have found this to be a very helpful site with lots of bright and friendly people (some of which have their quirks). I am hoping some of you will share your current thoughts, even though there have been dozens of threads on this topic over the past few years.Background info:I have wanted to get an oscilloscope for a couple years now but couldn’t spend the money. I still can’t spend much money, unfortunately, since it would be for personal use - and therefore must be justifiable to my wonderful but non-technical wife ("Maybe you can just rent one?" haha).I am trying to stay in the sub-500 USD range if possible, because there are several attractive options in the $800-$1000 range. If I was convinced to consider spending $700 I'd risk being lured to spend "only a couple hundred more" to get some of the very nice features (higher waveforms/sec, greater memory depth (and higher sampling rate at those depths), better zooming, larger screen, etc). From there, again I could spend only a couple hundred more to get a much more useful scope with 4 channels or even more nice features. It's a dangerous progression common to most electronics purchases these days. I'm hoping to avoid it in this case by nipping it in the bud and I couldn’t really afford it anyways.On the other hand, I also can’t afford to waste my money by spending *too little*, getting a scope that won’t meet my intended purpose, and either being stuck with it or having to spend even more money to replace it. Still, it seems like the very low end scopes may have enough functionality to be worth buying one.Capabilities I think I can get by with:I've decided 2 channels, 100 MHz bandwidth, and 1 GS/s sampling rate are my minimum requirements as I plan to be working with digital and analog signals up to 20 MHz.Applications/reasoning for minimum requirements:One specific project is the MSP430 $4.30 kit and associated DIP uC’s. I’ve made a system to monitor and control my saltwater aquarium’s water levels but it has a few intermittent bugs and I feel so blind without a scope. These uC’s have a 16MHz clock. I’m sure I will want to work with other uC’s too hence the rounding to 20MHz. I’m also interested in learning how to design simple PCBs so that will undoubtedly open up all kinds of new possibilities (I’ve heard breadboards are only good up to certain frequencies). If you’re curious I’m looking at seeedstudio’s PCB service. It starts at 9.90 USD total for 10 small boards which I can actually afford.Finally, possible product options:GW Instek GDS-1102A-U (~$500 delivered with case)http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGDS-1102A-U.htmlRigol DS1102E (~$400 delivered with case)http://www.saelig.com/product/PSPC017.htm(deliberately chosen as I don’t want to hack it)Owon SDS7102 (~$430 delivered with case)http://www.saelig.com/PSBE100/PSBE100008.htm(discontinued at tequipment.net interestingly)Hantek DSO5102B (~$420 delivered)http://www.circuitspecialists.com/dso5102b.htmlAnd, any other scope a forum member feels like should be on this list.(Note: I’m posting this here, including links, because the forum description says “talk about or ask questions for a specific product”. I’m not necessarily looking for the best deal or where to buy as that might fit better in the Buy/Sell/Wanted forum once I know which scope I want.)What I am looking for from EEVblog members (and visitors) reading this:I have scoured the site and read many (though I’m sure not all) of the threads relevant to these scopes. Like others, though, I’m still having a very hard time deciding. Further, it seems like as years go by the hardware and firmware have changed – making some older threads less useful.I think what might be most helpful is if anyone familiar with a *recent* release of any of these scopes (say, purchased July 2012 or later) could share their comments. Specific things I’m thinking about are screen size/resolution, memory depth, ease of “zooming”, split screen etc. Firmware usefulness but also more importantly stability. I want something that will not be prone to locking up (hence I’m hesitant on the Hantek which might otherwise be one of my top choices).What do you love about the scope? What makes you wish you could return it and buy a different one? Which features do you wish it had? Which features did you think you needed but have actually not been a big deal to have or not have?Thank you so much for your input! I hope an updated/recent discussion is useful not only for me but also for the 100’s or 1000’s of people that browse but never write.Jacob

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2012, 04:05:14 pm
content: Personally I like the Hantek DSO5102B as I think it is overall the most balanced of the mentioned scope. In my opinion is the most feature rich of the these in terms of the firmware with a decent size screen. With just the screen size factor alone that puts the rigol and the gw-instek out of the question. What lacks the most in this scope is the poor deep memory feature but its fast waveform/s refresh rate kinda makes up for it, although not the fastest but it is very good for this price range.I've like the Owon as well, but it lacks some of the features that would make my work easier so I opted for the Hantek.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2012, 04:10:43 pm
content: Quote from: tlu on October 17, 2012, 04:05:14 pmThanks tlu! Absolutely right about the screen but I've heard the persistant menu on the right can get a little annoying. Has it bothered you at all? I've also heard the firmware is "buggy" though very functional. Has it locked up much on you? Would you please let me know how long ago you got the scope?Thanks again!!!

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2012, 05:31:22 pm
content: I'd go with the Rigol >>> Instek. You'll get local warranty service with CSI for Hantek or Saelig for Owon but as you read on eevblog, they've had their share of production defects ontop of firmware issues. It could already be fixed as of this writing, but such events haven't happened even once to the Rigol 1000 series. There is a risk of more unknown failures/glitches still down the road.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/hantek-dso5102b-self-bricking-oscilloscope/msg95437/#msg95437https://www.eevblog.com/forum/product-reviews-photos-and-discussion/review-of-owon-sds7102/msg108638/#msg108638With a Rigol USA presence, you have higher likelihood in the long term of honoring a warranty, or at least access to factory level repair in the USA.With Agilent having another set of Rigol's rebadged with Agilent's name, its suggests to me Rigol's quality is rated high enough for Agilent to again put their name on this product line.What you read on the Rigol spec sheet will most likely happen and build quality is proven [ discussed since 2009, scopes are now 4+years old, with hardly, if not any, complaints.] It isn't the most ergonomic among the competitors listed, but its proven reliable as a measuring instrument. The only other scope with such a reputation is Instek, but at higher cost.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2012, 07:12:14 pm
content: The only one I have any experience with is the Instek. We have two of them that we use in production, but like I've said elsewhere, I steal them all the time to use for engineering when I need another channel or something. Since I can't really compare it against the others, I guess this isn't very useful to you, but I've been really happy with the Instek performance. The deep memory is nice and allows me to window zoom into the 25ns level when I'm triggering on an edge 12ms away. The screen is about the same size at the 10 year old Tek on the other bench, so it's not bad at all to work with. There are a lot of preset slots for settings, which I find really useful when you need to have a complex setup for some test to just be able to recall that from a list. I also spent some time writing a python script that interfaces with the scope through USB. It takes a couple seconds to dump the full memory, but other than that it's a pretty good remote measurement tool. Pretty much anything you can do on the front panel you can do through the USB including dumping all the measurements.I haven't had to send the scopes back for warranty repair, but I did have an Instek function gen die on me and the warranty process wasn't too painful. They have good presence in the USA at least. While you are paying a bit more, you are buying the support. If you know Chinese, you are probably all set, else you might be out of luck. That probably isn't an issue with the Rigol anymore, but who knows about the others.That's all I got.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2012, 08:32:16 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on October 17, 2012, 05:31:22 pmQuote from: Smokey on October 17, 2012, 07:12:14 pmThanks saturation and Smokey! I appreciate the extra input from warranty, reliability, and hands-on perspectives.I did see saturation's post here (also helpful) and read all the threads:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/product-reviews-photos-and-discussion/new-instek-scope-gds-1072a-u/msg88610/#msg88610I also read cybergibbons' post here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/instek-gds-1102a-oscilloscope/msg55068/#msg55068cyber may be mistaken about the go/no-go (http://www.tequipment.net/InstekGDS-1102A-U.html) and with Smokey's good experience with a python script I'm not too concerned about cyber's points 1 and 2. Of course, on the whole cyber says they're "very happy" with the Instek - as does nearly everyone else who posts about it.It does seem the Instek may have higher quality than the Rigol, with it's better ADCs and 2M memory vs 1M, but the zoom isn't as easy or doesn't really exist and the already small screen (compared to Hantek and Owon) is further reduced by the persistant menu on the right.Smokey, you said the screen size doesn't really bother you? The menu on the right doesn't get too annoying? Also, you mentioned "window zoom". I haven't seen (or can't remember seeing) any pictures of its zoom function. Do you mean just changing the horizontal scale after a single-shot or is there actually a split-screen type of thing? Maybe there isn't but it doesn't bother you. Thanks again!I think based on saturation's comments I'm leaning towards Rigol if it's Instek vs Rigol, if only because the $100 savings may be worth it for me.It's really a shame about the Hantek firmware possibly being unreliable. I'm not sure where he got his information, but tinhead wrote the wfms/s of the Hantek DSO5062B is just more than 3 times the wfms/s of the Rigol DS1052E (2500 to 800).https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/another-ds1052e-thread/msg35459/#msg35459Elsewhere the Hantek wfms/s is mentioned to be 2000:http://blog.circuitspecialists.com/product-review-hantek-dso5102b-100mhz-digital-storage-oscilloscopeI've read the hardware in both those scopes is pretty much (or IS) the same hardware in the scopes I'm looking at. Between that, the larger screen, the fuller firmware feature set, etc I still *want* to lean towards the Hantek. I do not want to have to hack the thing to unbrick it though.If anyone who's bought the Hantek recently (since July or hopefully sooner) can give their impression of the current firmware that would be very helpful!Otherwise it's starting to look like the best choice for me is becoming clear (Rigol).Thanks again everyone.

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2012, 12:12:42 am
content: Hi jneumann,I've had my Hantek for about 2 weeks now and I'm loving this scope. The firmware that came with it isn't the lastest that is on the Hantek website so I have not took the lastest firmware for a spin yet. However, even with the older version of the firmware, this is an excellent scope for its price, features, and large screen.I have not had any major hiccups with the scope yet. Initially, I thought the scope crashed or froze on me but it was my mistake. I had the stop acquisition button on so it just sat there idle. However, this was not a crash of the firmware by operator error. The fan is a tad on the noisy side in a very silent room but not too loud where I get annoyed by it. Tinhead has a mod to this which is simply changing out the 7812 to a 7805 LDO regulator.The big screen helps alot as it gives nice visual and adequate colors. You can always hide the right hand menu if need be. I only have it up when I want it to display the measurement data for me. Again, it can be hidden away. Only in FFT mode is when the right hand menu can not be hidden. I did find the knobs to be a little less responsive but than again I'm not at the lastest version of the firmware. I will update soon when I have the time and report back.tlu

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2012, 03:39:52 am
content: Quote from: tlu on October 18, 2012, 12:12:42 amThanks for the extra info, tlu! It is encouraging my risk-taking side haha. I will leave the Hantek DSO5102B in the running a little longer then, along side the Rigol DS1102E. The Owon SDS7102 and Instek GDS-1102A-U both seem like good scopes but for now they have moved to the lower half of my list. Though I like its hardware I don't think I'll like the Owon's menu style or its slow wfms/s (up to 20 or 30 wfms/s vs 800, 2000, or 2500/s). For this particular purchase I think I'm willing to give up the Instek's quality advantage over the Rigol and Hantek to save an extra $100, especially given that its "effective" screen size is the smallest of all 4 options due to its persistant side menu.I don't think it would be a deal-breaker for me, but tlu if you have a chance would you please say a bit more about the knobs? What are you comparing their responsiveness to and is it a small issue only in particular situations or all the time? I'm curious and maybe others would like to know too.It could help to know your current firmware version also, as it sounds like maybe by now some of the bugs have been addressed and the Hantek can be seen as a little more robust (or possibly that's just wishful thinking). If you have a chance to try the latest firmware (and want to) I wonder how that will compare to what it was shipped with.I really appreciate you taking the time to share what you have, as a recent owner. It seems like things are changing every few months or even weeks, both hardware and software, so it's nice to get impressions of a "current" unit.For instance, some seem to think the Rigol has improved quite a bit over the past few years despite carrying the same model number. Not just firmware but hardware too:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/modern-budget-scopes-just-how-good-are-they/msg141588/#msg141588As of September 2011 Mark Madel (marmad) didn't seem to think much of the Hantek build quality/appearance. He also thought it to be the "buggiest" of it, the Rigol, and the Owon. Oddly, for all it's speed at lower memory depths he thought at 1M memory it was slower than the Owon at 10M. He did spend 2/3 of the video talking about how nice the software was, superior to the other two scopes in a few ways, but still ranked the Hantek last in the end with it's fast waveform capture rate being perhaps its most redeeming feature. Hopefully it has also improved much in software and/or hardware in the last year:http://youtu.be/u7UgKJ8M7LYHas anyone else been very put off by the scope's cheap "toy" appearance? I don't think I'd mind a "cheap" appearance nor do I expect the scope to last 10+ years (after all I realize I am looking at very cheap scopes). If it feels so fragile it won't last a year or that you wouldn't trust it with another person then that might play to the Rigol's favor. There's the warranty I know but I'd rather not deal with that if I can avoid it.As of a couple weeks ago tinkerwithstuff did notice some recent firmware fixed an issue he was having last year:http://youtu.be/-Jl9MNrwFPMA couple weeks ago one of tinker's commenters said version V2.06.3_0808 fixed an issue they were having. Maybe that's the version tinker was talking about, too.Certainly a shame about the Hantek's historic bugginess issue, especially for people that bought the scope soon after it was released, but it's encouraging to me that at least they are still releasing new firmware updates that seem to contain actual fixes.Jacob

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 18, 2012, 07:27:31 am
content: I went through a similar evaluation a while ago and settled with the OWON SDS7102Had to haves - SCREEN SIZE !! Battery powered , 10MB memoryMin specs not unique - 1Gs/S , ~200+MHz (measured)Can live without - lousy wfs/s (not good on glitches - but I have a few LeCroys for that)Faults - nothing annoying so far, especially compared to other similar style DSOs I've used

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2012, 03:51:04 pm
content: Quote from: digsys on October 18, 2012, 07:27:31 amThanks for the opinions, digsys! I was 95% set on the Owon when I had my first spurt of research this past April (I've had to sit on this buy for awhile). I too am very attracted to your "had to haves".It was very hard for me to consider the Rigol or especially the Instek given how pathetic their displays are in comparison. Maybe that's harsh but I don't think it's unfair. Many modern "low end" cell phones or even mp3 players have higher resolution displays these days. Just a few years ago, however, I was using bulky (but very good) Agilent scopes at my college with small screens and floppy disk slot for screen captures so I've tried to cut the scopes with smaller screens some slack and give them a chance. The Owon's battery option and memory are great too and far above the other scopes in this class.Though I don't think I'll like the Owon's interface as much as the Hantek I might be able to live with it to get the battery and deeper memory. I'm not sure if the wfs/s should be a deal breaker for me or not. I don't have another scope to catch glitches on and I suspect it could be important to me.I'm glad to hear you've had a good experience and haven't found any faults that annoy you so far! Thanks a lot for adding some weight back to the Owon and making my choice harder lol. But really thanks again I do appreciate it.So I guess the only decision I can feel reasonably firm about so far is that I'd pick the Rigol over the Instek if those were my only two options, mostly because I think saving the money would be worth it to me. That leaves Rigol, Hantek, and Owon as my "final three" - in no particular order at the moment. Blast these trade-offs!Jacob

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 12:06:45 am
content: Quote from: jneumannThat's a tough one and very hard to qualify. There really is no simple way toprovethat a much faster wfs/s unitwon'tmiss glitches you're looking for.There maybe another spec that's not as good, which reduces the effectiveness. You could spend months going over every detail, and to reallyproveit,you'd HAVE to loan one of each and compare them in real life. Not going to happen easily. What makes it even worse is that, some of the much moreexpensive brands have far worse issues. Search for LeCroy :-) ... mine are ALL the old school ones, with CRTs ... from the days where specs meant something.QuoteI originally decided on the Instek at a MUCH higher price, but after wasting a few days emailing them and trying to call them over some concerns(?), I gave up.At the time I figured I could open it up and make my own battery back-up, to solve one of mymust-haves.In the end I decided, for the price, at worst I'd have another awesome looking door stop. GOOD LUCK.

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 12:11:31 am
content: Getting back to the knobs on the Hantek, I feel that it could be bit better in responsiveness especially going to the longer time base setting but it is not too bad. This is given the fact that I have not upgraded to the latest firmware yet. Currently it is:SW 2.06.3(111122.0)HW 1007x555583e8Again, it is not a big of a problem as I may have made it to seem. So far no hiccups yet with the firmware. Has not froze on me for the last 3 weeks of usage now.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 01:15:39 am
content: Sorry it took a while to get back. The Instek does have windows zoom, it just doesn't have a split screen.The screen size doesn't bother me really. I don't feel like it gets in the way or anything. Having the menu on the side is fine. Maybe not the UI decision I would have made, but not terrible. I wouldn't complain if it had a bigger screen, but the size is fine for what it is. You can read it fine in the lab.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 04:01:58 am
content: digsys, thanks for your thoughts on the wfs/s differences and for the good luck! I'll need it haha. I'm sure you're right about the complexity of figuring out the real effectiveness. At 30 minutes into his review (http://youtu.be/eqcEi6ru4ZM) marmad does a glitch-finding experiment with the Owon. That was just a single data point though and perhaps not very helpful. It would have to be repeated a few times on each scope and averaged for a good comparison to be made. It sure would be nice to get my hands on all three! Wish that was possible. Anyhow it sounds like finding a clear winner may be very difficult especially given that I can't predict what opposing features will be most important to me or most annoying not to have. It seems like the thing I might regret most about the Owon is its slow wfs/s - but other than that I could see myself being quite happy with it.tlu, thanks for writing back about the knobs. It sounds like maybe that's just a symptom of the scope's difficulty handling its highest memory depths - like the waveform capture rate slowdown marmad noticed in his review (http://youtu.be/u7UgKJ8M7LY). It sounds like one of his biggest complaints and my "deal breaker" concern - the bugginess - may be mostly a problem of the past! Up to 3 weeks now on your new scope without a freeze up! Thanks for that update and your SW/HW versions. The 2/4/8 horizontal adjustments might bug me a little but it seems like the thing I might regret most at this point in the Hantek's development is its 1M memory cap (500k/channel in dual-channel!) and slowdown at "higher" memory depths. In the end, maybe I won't find myself needing to use the full 1M memory all that often - if for instance I'm only zooming in by factors of 10 or so. Still the memory is nearly as much worse than the Owon as the Owon is worse with wfs/s! Other than that I could see myself being quite happy with it.***In case I'm being an idiot, I'd like to show a bit of calculation on what the Hantek's smaller memory might mean for my example application. For measuring a 16MHz digital clock, sampling at 500MS/s (dual-channel), I would have 31 samples per clock period (probably just fine for a square wave). At a memory depth of 500k/channel I'd be able to store 1ms of samples which would cover 16,000 clock cycles. Should the slower performance at max memory be an issue, I could reduce to 40k/channel. In that case I'd be able to store 80us of samples which would cover 1,280 clock cycles. From this I would conclude that maybe the shorter memory depth won't be much of an issue for me - or at least for this particular situation. Feel free to yell at me if this conclusion seems fishy to anyone or I'm missing something.***Smokey, no problem on the small delay. I definitely appreciate any input whenever it comes. It's interesting that the screen doesn't bother you really. I'll bet in the end I could live with it, too, as I did with the small screens at school for 4 years. It's a very tough call for me but I think I may need to set the Instek aside for the sake of not wavering back and forth for another month (and saving ~$70-100). I'm sure I'd be happy with it and that it would be a good buy, but I'm getting the impression there will be no "best" decision here and I really suck at getting to a final choice in these situations.I think the Rigol's still on the table as having the best feeling of quality, robust firmware, and warranty support - best "confidence" - at the ~$400 level. Under consideration are saturation's comments here, comments/reviews found elsewhere, and the fact that Agilent puts their name on some of Rigol's products. I have a good feeling about the capabilities, look, and feel of Agilent scopes so if there is a hint of that in terms of how I use it and interact with it that would be a significant factor for the Rigol. With 80% fewer pixels than the Hantek and 85% fewer pixels than the Owon, though, I'm not sure the Rigol has enough other redeeming characteristics to push it above 3rd place.1st: Hantek/Owon3rd: Rigol4th/"out" unless I get significant new info: InstekThanks again to all. In one way it makes it much harder when people can say they like each of the scopes I'm considering. At the same time though it's a great feeling to know that - whatever my decision - others were willing to speak up for the scope I picked and any of the scopes would probably serve me well (at least, as well as any sub-$500 scope could).Jacob

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 06:00:00 pm
content: On a side note, you can get the Hantek DSO5062B which is the 60Mhz analog BW and hack it up to 200Mhz. CSI has the 60Mhz for $329 which is the cheapest I could fine. So if budget is a concern you can take that route. The internal guts are practically identical from the 60Mhz to the 200Mhz model according the residential hacker tinhead on this forum. Just food for thought and maybe it will help in your deciding factor.

author: StubbornGreek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 06:16:42 pm
content: Hello jneumann, as an owner of the Owon scope I'd say that I 'mostly' enjoy working with it (aside from the obvious that has been stated in thread after thread - not to mention that I wouldn't use it to catch any intermittent issues) but if I was to purchase something in that price range again, I would be looking at something that's not been recommended on this forum yet (to my knowledge). On paper and IMHO, the Uni-T UTD2102CM wipes the floor with all the other ~$500 scopes available (although I do like the Rigol). It offers all the features you've mentioned are important to you and add 150k waveforms per second to that list. I suppose it could be rated higher (CAT II 300v) although the Owon isn't that much more impressive at 400v.Maybe one of these will find its way to Dave's bench...

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 06:47:48 pm
content: Quote from: tlu on October 19, 2012, 06:00:00 pmHey, thanks for the idea tlu! I know I've mentioned I want to avoid hacking (hence why I'm considering the Rigol DS1102E instead of the DS1052E). Still, with it being a tie at the moment and with how on the fence I am I think I will have to research the hack tonight and get fully read up on it. How hard it is, what's required, how risky it is, if it still works with the latest scopes being produced, etc. I haven't done that research yet so I'll hold off on asking any questions until I think I'm up to date.Quote from: StubbornGreek on October 19, 2012, 06:16:42 pmHi StubbornGreek - thanks for adding to the discussion! I appreciate your comment on your Owon and especially the recommendation of a new scope to consider. I don't think I've read a single word on that scope yet so I'm not sure what I'll find out. I'm excited to look into it, though!I will say I'm going to be mad though if it just bumps things up to a 3-way tie. jkJacob

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 11:04:46 pm
content: As for as I know when asking Tinhead the hack still works with the most recent models. It is pretty straight forward but it entails you to open the dso up to connect the usb to uart converter.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 02:54:30 pm
content: In the end, the issue comes down to getting more features from lesser named scopes, for about the same money.However, one consideration I rarely see when folks decide is worldwide recognized safety testing and certification.Certification requirements also test the entire production process with factory site visits. By insuring the factory is made to manufacture properly, safety is reassured, sampling won't catch faults between test intervals so the production process must be capable of providing a consistent product. This was UL's standard approach and is followed by all equivalent organizations recognized in the USA as NRTL.http://www.tuvasi.com/en/tests-and-analysis/information-about-nrtl-tests.htmlAFAIK, Rigol has most of its products TUV Rhineland certified, including the lowly 1052e.http://www.tuvdotcom.com/search/matching_product_certificates?locale=en&q=rigolThis reflects in greater consistency between what's written in the users manual and what it actually does, year after year.I don't think Hantek or Owon have similar third party testing, or you can inquire. I think they are CE at most and while better than none, CE is just short of useless.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2012, 08:06:43 pm
content: In case anyone was wondering, here's a small update.I looked into the Uni-T UTD2102CM (thanks again StubbornGreek). Unfortunately I could hardly find any information on it - certainly not enough to be comfortable buying it. If anyone knows where I could find a good review of it (or preferably a couple) that would be great, though. It's a shame as its specs on paper are really good - even too good to be believable.I still have not had a chance to read up on the Hantek hack (60MHz to 200MHz) at all. I thought of one potential problem - the probes. I wonder if the probes supplied with the 60MHz version would have a limited bandwidth that would reduce the usefulness of the hack. I'll be trying to make time to read all about this soon.I think saturation made a great point. It seems to reaffirm the Rigol as not necessarily the best to work with or the best performer in terms of "stats", but perhaps the scope I could be most confident buying. If I buy any of these scopes I'm going to be very apprehensive until they're actually in front of me - whereas of course with something like an Agilent X2000 I'd be merely excited. With people willing to speak up for each scope and say they are pleased with them, it seems like the winner (for my situation) hasn't gotten any clearer. I do appreciate everyone speaking up though to say they are overall happy with the scopes they've commented on.It may be prudent to revisit a couple scope-independent things that no one has commented on yet:Quote from: jneumann on October 17, 2012, 03:04:34 pmQuote from: jneumann on October 19, 2012, 04:01:58 amWould 2 channels, 100 MHz bandwidth, and 1 GS/s sampling rate fit my example application? And does my rough calculation on what the Hantek's memory would mean for me look right and make sense? Do I seem to be on the right track in terms of not only what's popular but what would fit my needs? Asking for input on these things probably should have been my focus in the beginning.Thanks for any feedback from that perspective.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2012, 10:48:01 pm
content: Any scope you mentioned will do the work, that's probably why those issues are not mentioned. There are pros and cons to each model. Rigol's name began with DSO, while Hantek and Owon its just another part of their portfolio; scopes is what Rigol does foremost enough to compete with the big boys and some of that savvy rubs off in their lesser models. If you read the threads on the Hantek and Owon, things looked rosey at first, then took a tailspin; Owon did not recover as much after 1 year of chitchat, but Hantek has after 2 years, but what else lies before them, bad or good? It seems its constantly in beta test. Lastly, tinhead maybe be solely responsible for fixing the issue, or lay heavy attention to it, not Hantek management. Where would any buyer be without him offering detailed tech support? If something were to come up again, there is no guarantee he'll be there to fix it, or the issue is unique to whatever version you purchased and doesn't apply to him, and so he'll have to fix it "in theory". If you're willing to dedicate sometime to working the Hantek instead of your projects should something come up, rather than expect the scope to work as defined and transparently, Hantek is your bang for buck.The Uni-T is discussed in the archives, just look for tinhead's comments to get the meat of it.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2012, 09:26:42 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on October 23, 2012, 10:48:01 pmThanks saturation for the feedback on whether the scopes I'm looking at are in an appropriate sample rate/bandwidth/memory depth for my example application! Would've been nice to hear 100 GHz is overkill but oh well haha. Thanks also for again the input on the brands and the lead on the Uni-T. I think I'll pass on considering the Uni-T.I just came across some possibly unfortunate news on the Rigol scope:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/product-reviews-photos-and-discussion/rigol-ds2072-review/msg139050/#msg139050PA4TIM seems to think some Rigol scopes, the 1102 specifically included, use display memory for measurements.In other words, rather than looking at the actual sample points in memory to calculate duty cycle, rise time, peaks - whatever - it looks at the pixels on the screen. With its low-res screen this practice would be especially bad, compared to IF the Hantek or Owon did this (I have no indication that they do - not trying to spread rumors). Reminds me of Dave's "caught with their pants down" vlog haha. (Btw, IRT that vlog if the Rigol's ADCs are more overclocked than the Hantek's that doesn't bother me too much provided measurements are still okay - basically I agree with what Dave said.)I'd think it should be really easy to find out if this allegation is true. One could take a single-shot recording then vary the horizontal and vertical scales and see if the measurements change. PA4TIM seems to think the measurements do indeed change. I'll need to look into it more as I feel I might've even come across this before in my searches. In the meantime I'm not convinced Rigol actually does this.Even if some Rigol scopes do use display memory for calculations, in practice it may not be much of a problem anyways. Perhaps the error introduced would be significantly less than all the other error/tolerance built into the measurements - depending on timebase setting. Clearly measuring the duty cycle of a pulse only 10 pixels wide would be severely impaired. If the horizontal range was set so the same PWM period took up 100 pixels (about 1/3 of the screen) then the error would be ~1% and more tolerable.As a side note, I'm aware that vertical measurements are handled a lot differently due to the ADC input voltage range etc so it makes sense that a 1vpp signal sampled with 10v/div will have different (and less accurate) measurement results than when sampled with 0.25v/div. This is just as I'd expect a duty cycle measurement to change (and be much more accurate) if sampled at 100 MS/s vs 10 MS/s. If a measurement changes on the same data when the vertical scale is changed with the scope *stopped* however, that would seem bad.Whether or not it would be an issue in practice this still bothers me quite a bit. I'd rather just have to think of what sample rate and volts/div I need to get good measurements - not also be tied to presenting the waveform a specific way horizontally on the display.Can any owners of a Rigol 1052 or 1102 with recent firmware confirm or deny this behavior? Do measurements on a single-shot recording change as you zoom in and out on it?Since part of the purpose of this thread is to try to get up to date info on these changing scopes I think this will be helpful in general as well as helpful for me.Thanks!Jacob

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2012, 10:42:12 pm
content: Quote from: jneumann on October 25, 2012, 09:26:42 pm1) I believe this is a non-issue - with most - if not all - lower-end DSOs doing it. P4ATIM's assertion that Agilent doesn't do it is belied by this quote from the Agilent 2000X/3000X User Manuals:"Measurements and mathfunctions will be recalculated as you pan and zoom and turn channels on and off. As you zoom in and out on a signal using the horizontal scale knob and vertical volts/division knob,you affect the resolution of the display. Because measurements and math functions are performed on displayed data, you affect the resolution of functions and measurements."2) With his image, he's comparing the noise level of a $4300 DSO to that of a $840 one.Quote from: PA4TIM on August 18, 2012, 01:14:41 pm3) This sounds to me like a sample length problem (i.e. if the memory depth is set correctly, this wouldn't happen).

author: Herman
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2012, 08:41:06 am
content: https://www.mortoncontrols.com/blog/files/category-oscilloscopes.htmlSiglent SDS1102DL/CNL/CML and atten's oscilloscope which maybe ODM by siglent.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2012, 09:27:05 am
content: Quote from: StubbornGreek on October 19, 2012, 06:16:42 pmQuote from: jneumann on October 23, 2012, 08:06:43 pmThis supposed 150000 wfrm/s of the UTD2102CM is clearly nonsense - or the 'honest mistake' of a typo. Here athttp://www.pinsonne-elektronik.de/pi1/pd125.html, they list it's capture rate at 15000 wfrm/s. Hmm... only one zero less - hardly any difference at allThere is NO way I would believe what it's rate was unless verified by someone who wasn't selling it!Add to the fact that the Uni-T looks like a piece of junk (with a terrible looking display), then why on Earth would you buy it when you can get a Rigol DS2072 (excellent build quality, beautiful display, 2GSa/s, 500uV, 50k wfrm/s, SCPI commands, etc) for $250 more??

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2012, 10:40:01 am
content: @jneumann:BTW, I've used and compared a Rigol DS1052E, Owon SDS7102, and a Hantek DSO5062B - and in terms of UI, reliability, and 'doing what they claim' - the Rigol is the clear favorite.Unfortunately, the tiny screen on the Rigol 1000E series was a deal breaker for me - and the Owon is definitely NOT the scope to get for design and debugging (it's a good deal if you do mostly repair work) - and the Hantek was a little too buggy and had the feel of low build quality.I understand your concern about 'price creep' - slowly justifying spending more and more on an electronic device. But as I've written elsewhere, I returned all of the scopes above because I felt each one was frustrating in some respect - and that if I kept any of them, I would need another DSO within a couple of years. So the question became - is it more of a savings to buy a $300-$500 DSO now (and then another a couple of years down the line) - or spend an extra $300-$500 now for something I will be happy with for several years? I believe the difference in quality and features that the jump from $300-$500 DSO to $800-$1000 DSO gets you is substantial.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2012, 04:38:33 pm
content: You certainly give this issue a great deal of thought, kudos to your diligence.I agree fully with marmads viewpoint.Most low end scopes take measurements from the screen, I can confirm 100% the Rigol 1052e does this. It does hold to its published accuracy of ~0.4%, see spec sheet for details. Like typical analog scopes, measurement is most accurate when waveforms fill the screen without overshoot, and you have at least 3-4 cycles on screen. If you play with amplitude and/or number of cycles, keep auto measurement on, you can watch the measures change dynamically, starting with the LSD of the values.On the smaller screen of Rigol, you can always turn off menus to get the biggest screen real estate possible, toggling in and out as needed. You can also pan and scan captured waveforms before and after the trigger point.The only issues I would find with long term usability in the smaller Rigol screen size is if it were 4 analog channels and/or with digital signals, but I can work with it. Here's a sample of the screen at its most crowded in the D version of the Rigol. I think they put the real estate to maximum good use.As it is, the Rigol 1052e can display 4 waveforms simultaneously, 2 analog, math and a reference waveform.However, working it is not an issue. When I need to time a waveform, I view only one channel. If a need a relationship, I use both analog channels, flip the other one off to measure one channel better. If I need FFT or math, I view 1 or 2 source channels and FFT to insure all is well, then use FFT alone to get maximum resolution.The only hardware issues with the scope reported in the past 2+ years are the encoders get dirty with time, act erratically, some knobs crack spontaneously, and rarely folks seem to damage the On/OFF switch knob [ very commonly if you open the case.] Hellene and others reported much higher base noise than most models.Firmware 2.05+ have mixed bug reports, depending on which firmware version you have. Google Rigol problems. My guess is in an attempt to twart hacking, they've introduced bugs that didn't exist in older firmware versions, so whomever you buy it from insure its easy to return it too.http://hardcoreforensics.com/blog/2011/01/15/rigol-ds1052e-gash-product/See eevblog archive posts for photos too. The only issue I've had is the erratic encoder switch but its not bad enough I'd want to disassemble the unit and clean or replace it as others have, my firmware is 2.04.Quote from: jneumann on October 25, 2012, 09:26:42 pm

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2012, 08:27:01 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on October 26, 2012, 10:40:01 amI would have to agree with Marmad on this. I would rather have a scope that would last me several years for a few hundred bucks more than to have to get a new one. The specs of the Rigol DS2072 looks very good. I'm considering one right now. I had to return the Hantek DSO5062B due to some major lock up that happened recently.tlu

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2012, 03:07:49 am
content: Quote from: marmad on October 25, 2012, 10:42:12 pmQuote from: marmad on October 26, 2012, 09:27:05 amQuote from: marmad on October 26, 2012, 10:40:01 amThank you for all your input, Marmad. If many of the low-end scopes do it, apparently including the Agilent based on the "measurements and math functions are performed on displayed data" quote, then it sounds like it's nothing to be alarmed about. Learning more every day.I appreciate your respect of my attempt to avoid price creep. So far no one had really tried to convince me to move from the $400-$500 range to the $800-$1000 range. I guess I wasn't completely sure of myself as now I'm second-guessing whether my situation is different from yours. I am expecting to use this device for maybe 5-10 years and it would defeat my attempt to save money if I ended up deciding to upgrade before that time. On the other hand, though $400-$500 isn't peanuts it's also not so expensive I can't step up from it as better scopes are released and performance/price increases. Spending twice that today would lock me in for a good long time, though, and be a lot more of a commitment for me. I do believe you're quite right about the jump in quality and features being substantial, unfortunately haha. Oh well - more to think about.Quote from: Herman on October 26, 2012, 08:41:06 amThanks for the link and scope ideas, Herman. The article was interesting.Quote from: saturation on October 26, 2012, 04:38:33 pmThanks for writing again, Saturation. I appreciate the kudos and helpfulness too vs shouting "ROLL THE DICE ALREADY!" haha.I think I'm finally bending to the Rigol preference here, as it seems a reasonable and shared opinion (not to say smart people couldn't make a different choice). Thanks for your perspective on whether the screen size is really an issue in daily use or not. Though I've no doubt more than 4x the pixels would be nice, it doesn't seem like that would be a deciding factor for me anymore. If I don't blow my budget out of the water here and go with a DS2000 or other scope in the $800-$1000 range I may finally be settling down on the DS1102E thanks to you and others here.Quote from: tlu on October 26, 2012, 08:27:01 pmWell shucks. With you, Marmad, and saturation all agreeing it would be better to have a better scope for several years than a scope that will "just scrape you by until an upgrade" maybe I'll have to revisit my budget. I am sorry to hear of your problem with the Hantek, but I'm glad it came up now as I'd been pretty close to buying one myself. Maybe another week and it would've been on order - after I decided what bandwidth to buy. It may have just been a fluke problem but it might also mean not all the problems are gone - just emphasizing again the advantage Rigol holds in the "reliability" department. Thanks for the update, anyhow!

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2012, 03:32:25 am
content: Hi Jneumann,I'm curious as to where you are located as I'm in the states and in the process of considering the Rigol DS2072 as I've returned my Hantek DSO5062B due to some major lock up issues I've experienced. I'm trying to see which members on here who is also in the states are interested in the Rigol DS2072 so that we can come together somehow to do a group or volume purchase to get a discounted price.I really have no clue on how to go about this and have asked a Rigol reseller by the name of John South to give any advice but have not heard back from him yet. As you may have already looked into the specs of the Rigol DS2072, it is very impressive for the price tag. And with all the built in hardware, it is a matter of hacking the firmware to get some of the higher end options enabled. Hopefully, some of the resident hackers on this forum like Tinhead is looking at this scope as I feel this is a great bargain. I'm also waiting on Marmad to do his review of this scope and give us his opinion as he is very knowledgeable and well verse in the ins and outs of dso.tlu

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2012, 04:02:01 am
content: Quote from: tlu on October 29, 2012, 03:32:25 amFyi I posted on your other thread about this. I'm in Indiana (USA). Good luck getting a discount!Quote from: jneumann on October 23, 2012, 08:06:43 pmSo I have heard pretty good things about the DS2000 series. Unfortunately to stay at 100 MHz bandwidth would cost me ~$1150 USD (DS2102), which is $300 more than the 70 MHz version (DS2072 at ~$840). $300 isn't much short of the cost of the *whole scope* for a DS1102E, so to me that seems like a pretty big difference in cost. Also, some of the more interesting and time-saving features of the 2000 series (like the serial decode) are priced at $222 USD. Adding one such feature would either cost less than the 30 MHz upgrade in bandwidth and put me around $1050 total OR it would increase my total cost to ~$1400 if I added it to the 100 MHz scope! $1000 more than I had in mind 3 days ago!!! Yikes!!!!!So I guess my point is, would anyone like to please comment on what bandwidth they think would be appropriate for what I'm thinking I'll mainly be using the scope for - ie, projects like the one quoted above? 20, 50, 100, 500 MHz?Thanks again saturation for already commenting on this - I'm just asking because before I was looking at entirely 100 MHz scopes and now I'm trying to find out if it would really be worth the extra $300 to stay at 100 MHz versus move down to 70. That's the "clean" trade off. A slightly more complicated comparison is between the 70 MHz AND serial decode for $100 less than the 100 MHz and no serial decode.This is just for the DS2000 series. I'm opening a whole new can of worms even looking at scopes in this price range so there may be other series and brands I should look at too before I get too far ahead of myself. For $850-$1150 I wouldn't be surprised if I could even get 4 channels or if it's a whole different playing field.Thanks for anyone's comments on what bandwidth I should realistically be looking at as a minimum. I'm flirting with the idea of going way above my budget and in that category I wouldn't be able to afford any overkill on bandwidth. (I know, I know - as if "overkill" was possible on bandwidth right?)

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2012, 04:35:23 am
content: Hi Jneumann,Sorry I missed that from my other post about you being in the states as well. The more bandwidth the better according to Dave. Myself being a new player I think 70Mhz is plenty for me at the moment and I'm not messing with uC yet so serial decoding isn't necessary for now either but I do plan on uC in the future.Being a student, budget is very tight for me. I'm just starting out in EE but I plan to pursue a life long career in it so a scope that would last me many years is a plus even if I have to shell out a little more than I wanted to.A Tequipment.net there is a 5% discount for purchasing 5 or more Rigol brand. This is why I'm so adamant at gathering a group together. I do not know if there is an educational discount for students but I've emailed them about it and waiting on their feedback.I would love to have 100Mhz or more dso if I can afford it but seeing how the BW can be upgraded with the Rigol DS2000 series, I'm just sticking to the base model and upgrade when needed. This a nice options and who knows, maybe in the future the upgrades will be cheaper?tlu

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2012, 09:39:00 pm
content: Quote from: tlu on October 29, 2012, 04:35:23 amNp on missing my post tlu - the timing was pretty close.IRT bandwidth being upgradable on the Rigol DS2000 series, where did you read/hear that? I haven't been able to find anything and Dave seems to think it's not possible (around 2:45):http://youtu.be/TRy755StMak?t=2m38It's a shame the BW can't be upgraded as the 200 MHz version is another $500 over the 100 MHz and there's simply no way I can spend $1600 this year. That would be doubling my budget twice haha. I could see in another 3-5 years pulling together another $500 though for that kind of upgrade if it was available.Back to the question about what bandwidth, sampling rate, and memory depth are most appropriate for what I'm thinking I'll use the scope for, though:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/product-reviews-photos-and-discussion/scope-instek-gds-1102a-u-rigol-ds1102e-owon-sds7102-hantek-dso5102b-other/msg158283/#msg158283Scope independent, *only considering my application* (not even necessarily what standard specs are available), what specs do people think I could get by with - without risking being "penny smart pound foolish"?I do want to make sure whatever I get is useful and up to the task, and I may be convinced to scrape together the extra money to get a scope that will be the better long-term choice versus trying to go as cheap as possible and ending up with a useless scope (of course wasting money and in the end defeating my purpose for buying a scope). When I'm already looking at doubling my budget though I can't be spending yet more 100's of dollarson top of doubling itunless that's where the facts lead. Even then I may not have the actual spare dollars to spend that kind of money. My wife has been quite supportive so far - even in considering a scope twice my initial budget - but I don't want to push her right up to the limit.Thanks again to everyone, and I continue to hope I'm not the only person your input is helping.Jacob

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2012, 10:12:48 pm
content: Quote from: jneumann on October 29, 2012, 09:39:00 pmIt's not official, but at least one knowledgeable 'insider' has hinted that it will come:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog-specific/eevblog-360-rigol-ds2000-oscilloscope-teardown/msg154787/#msg154787

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2012, 11:25:22 am
content: Quote from: marmad on October 29, 2012, 10:12:48 pmThanks for pointing that out, marmad!It feels like a bit of a risk, given that the feature isn't available yet. Even if the ability to upgrade BW is released (next year? two years?) it may be limited to scopes produced after a certain date, or with a certain hardware revision. Besides that the pricing is an unknown. Though the DS2102 is ~$300 more than the DS2072 I'd guess the BW upgrade will cost more than that (or they'll never sell another DS2102 again). It may be reasonable but it could also be $600. Anyhow, if I knew BW was upgradable and at reasonable cost I'd be much more comfortable picking up a DS2072 sooner than later.The question still remains as to what BW, sampling rate, and memory would be "reasonable" or the "minimum without missing the point of having a scope" for my application.Depending on the answer to the above, or possibly in addition to it, another question will probably be "which scope is the best buy for $800-$1100 USD". This may be best for another thread, since my title and first post are all geared towards the <$500 range, so I'd rather feel like I have a consensus on the first question first.Thanks again everyone,Jacob

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2012, 12:33:26 pm
content: Quote from: jneumann on October 30, 2012, 11:25:22 amJacob - I just posted a review of the Rigol DS2072 here:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/product-reviews-photos-and-discussion/first-impressions-and-review-of-the-rigol-ds2072-ds2000-series-dso/I'm quite impressed with the scope.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2012, 01:10:33 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on October 30, 2012, 12:33:26 pmGreat! Thanks for hooking me up the minute you posted it! I (and probably hundreds of others) appreciate the time you take to make and post these.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2012, 06:03:32 pm
content: One can always buy more capability and hold more bandwidth in reserve. A problem however, is the bandwidth vs cost of scopes jump, so given the future has brought better devices, and or lower prices, you're best off if you need most of the devices functionality today to justify higher costs. If you do the math, and compare other brands or lower bandwidth, you'll find 100 MHz for $400 probably the highest bang for buck.

author: tlu
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2012, 07:11:48 pm
content: True, but IMHO as technology evolves, the pricing should come down for older/legacy equipments. So, in the future, when the option opens up for BW upgrade for the DS2000 series line, this should ideally be cheaper. I could be wrong on this point but it would be bad business for the manufacture if they diverge from this route.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2012, 01:08:49 pm
content: An update:I've been busy with other things and thinking realistically about just when I'll have the time to actually use whichever scope I purchase. There are a few projects my wife would like done so we can put cars back in the garage (it's starting to frost overnight and we leave for work before sunrise so we'll both like that). Holidays are coming up, etc, so it's been a good opportunity for a "cooling off period".This is still on my mind though and everyone's input will go to use as I definitely still plan to purchase a scope within the next 1-2 months. At minimum I'll update again once I've decided and to say how I like it once it arrives. In the meantime more input is of course welcome and I hope other people with similar requirements for a scope will find the thread useful in their own research.Quote from: saturation on November 05, 2012, 06:03:32 pmThanks saturation. I'm convinced you're right - 100 MHz for $400 is about the best price point for BW/$ out there right now for a "reasonable" scope. If I really ought to get 100 MHz minimum and would be making a mistake by going down to 70 MHz, I'd probably get the lower-end Rigol DS1102E (if I were buying today). If I wouldn't be shooting myself in the foot to only get 70 MHz, though, marmad's review has convinced me to give the DS2072 strong consideration and if buying today I'd probably spend the extra $400 over the 1102E to buy it.Quote from: tlu on November 05, 2012, 07:11:48 pmThat's a great point tlu. They can't charge outrageously for the BW upgrade or people won't see it as a real feature. They also can't charge less for it though than the price difference in scopes. I could see them charging $450+ for the 70 MHz > 100 MHz upgrade (vs $300 cost up front) and $1000+ for the 70 MHz > 200 MHz upgrade (vs $800 up front).On the other hand, once a customer is out $850 they are "at the mercy of Rigol" for upgrade cost (especially with upgrade pricing not announced). Even if the upgrade to 100 MHz is ridiculous at $600+, will the customer really go out and spend $1000+ on a new 100 MHz DS2102-equivalent scope to avoid paying it? No that would not make sense. And no matter what upgrade costs are, they are all assuming the scope can even be upgraded. Trusted sources or not, I haven't seen an announcement from Rigol itself and that makes it a gamble (lol, even straight from Rigol itself may not be 100% guaranteed). Hardware sold before a certain revision might not even be eligible for or compatible with a potential upgrade, since we can't be positive the different models are truly 100% the same hardware (though they look to be extremely similar). Anyhow, my point is that I appreciate the intel on how BW may become upgradeable (or even hacked) but at this point I can only see it as a "possible perk" and must decide based on the idea that my 70 MHz scope would always be a 70 MHz scope.I can't come up with a better analogy at the moment but I think most people understand I don't want to get a car with great sound system, heated seats, bluetooth, 20 cup holders etc but has a 50 HP engine (too low BW). I also don't want a car with 400 HP and wood seats, no cruise control, no radio etc if I'll only ever drive on residential streets and never have need to "floor it" (settling for inferior other features to get more BW than I'll use). Of course 70 MHz / 100 MHz and 1 GS / 2 GS aren't *that* far apart but I hope everyone understands me anyways.That's why I'm so interested to hear what people think my true BW, sampling rate, and memory depth needs are:Quote from: jneumann on October 29, 2012, 09:39:00 pm(and thanks again for your comment on this IRT the 100 MHz scopes being sufficient, saturation)Thanks again everyone! Jacob

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2013, 09:34:40 pm
content: This is pretty old now and almost not worth posting in again, but I wanted to give a final update in case anyone was still interested or curious.As I've added to the top of the first post, I've fallen victim to spec creep. I'm blaming it on the Rigol DS2072 (2-channel, 70MHz). This scope was so clearly superior to the DS1102E (2-channel, 100MHz) in every aspect except bandwidth that it seemed well worth the ~840 USD cost (vs the 1102E at ~400 USD). I was sorely tempted to buy the DS2072, despite being so close to finally deciding on the DS1102E.It made me think quite a bit more about bandwidth, though. 100MHz versus 50MHz for ~$70 was an easy choice (DS1052E at ~330 USD). $300 for the DS2000 series 70MHz > 100MHz upgrade was much harder to swallow. I wondered if 70MHz would really be enough. In the end, I found even 100MHz was a little "risky" as I researched more on the importance of bandwidth.Looking at rise times, frequency components/Fourier transforms, "rules of thumb" (BW 5x the highest clock frequency), and noting that any signal or component even approaching the 3dB BW would be significantly attenuated it seemed that even a 100MHz BW could really be limiting. That was especially true after increasing my digital area of interest to the 8MHz to 80MHz range from my original 20MHz cap.The Rigol DS2202 (2-channel, 200MHz) was just too darn expensive though at ~1600 USD. I noticed another scope in this price range and my spec creep was complete! The Rigol DS1204B is a 4-channel, 200MHz scope selling for ~1400 USD. Though the DS2000 series is quite amazing, I was going to have a hard time paying more for a 2-channel scope than a 4-channel scope of the same BW.All of the sudden I was seriously considering 4-channel, 200MHz scopes at 3x the cost of the original 2-channel, 100MHz DS1102E front-runner. Sure the DS1204B has a much worse display, waveform update rate, memory, and several other features, but it had the key features that mattered most: channels and BW (with sampling rate to match).I wrote Rigol concerning the crazy $800 cost for the 70MHz > 200MHz, DS2072 > DS2202 upgrade (at least, compared to the $400 cost in the DS1000 and DS4000 series that flank the DS2000 series in the Rigol line up). As expected they didn't have much to say about the pricing. One representative echoed the importance of bandwidth, saying generally you can make due with less channels and features (with some frustration) but not less bandwidth. They thought I'd probably be happiest purchasing the DS1204B, with the confidence of an easy return process within 30 days if the small screen, memory, waveform update rate, etc, etc were really too bothersome. They were really quite helpful.I then discovered used Agilent equipment. Not old analog scopes, their new DSOX2000 and DSOX3000 series scopes! With warranty and calibration, even. I'm currently within maybe a week or so of buying an MSOX2024A (4-channel, 200MHz, 8 digital) for ~$2000.The Agilent X2000 series is inferior to the Rigol DS2000 series in several ways, perhaps most notably in lack of memory depth and segmented memory. However, for a $400 premium over the Rigol DS2202 I'd be getting a 4-channel, mixed-signal scope. On top of the key features of two more channels and the digital inputs, I'd be getting a true made-by-Agilent scope, and the brand does carry some weight with me. I think the $2k could be a good buy and worth it to me.I've written Rigol again to see if they offer certified used scopes with warranty and calibration but haven't heard back yet. If they do, and offer their used equipment at a similar discount, perhaps I can spring for a Rigol DS4024 4-channel, 200MHz scope for less than the Agilent. It wouldn't have the digital inputs, but that isn't so important to me and the other features like memory, update rate, etc would make up for it.So there it is. I still have a little voice in the back of my head saying "Buy the DS1102E. Save your money and buy a 4-channel Rigol DS2000 series if/when it comes out. Or save it to buy whatever comes out 5 years from now. Or save your money and put it towards something responsible like the mortgage. Or save your money and do anything else with it - just don't blow $1600 more than you need to."I don't know. I think the MSOX2024A is worth 5x the DS1102E. Twice the bandwidth, 3x the channels (counting 8 digital as worth 2 analog), 100x the update rate, 5x the pixels, the Agilent name, etc. But does that mean I should buy it?Anyhow, there's my last update for this thread. People are still welcome to post here if they find something relevant to them, especially about the less expensive scopes mentioned in older posts, but please use the new thread I'll make shortly to make any comments about the new scopes I'm looking at.Thank you all again for all your input. It certainly hasn't gone to waste, and as I wrote in the first post I'm positive I'll be much happier with the purchase I make as a result of the discussion and your ideas.Even writing things out and having to come up with words to explain what I'm thinking has been a helpful exercise. Thanks for humoring me as I've worked my way through it.Jacob

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2013, 10:59:50 am
content: It can be confusing if a purchaser hasn't clearly defined the specifications of their need. If you are clear on it for today's use, not the future, its easier to choose. FWIW, a recent buyer from tequipment.net got the 1052e for $300, delivered, see the forum thread.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2013, 06:05:59 am
content: Quote from: saturation on May 11, 2013, 10:59:50 amYes, I'm sure it's nearly as frustrating for others as it is for the buyer his or herself. Unfortunately there is not one specific task I have in mind so it did/does make it harder.I do want some flexibility and to account for some unknowns in the future, which led towards maybe over-specing for what I really need. Waiting this long has allowed me to save some more money, though, so that helps. Or perhaps just makes it worse haha - before I really, really should've stuck in the $500 range, whereas now I have more room to breathe and that allows more possibilities. Thanks again for your several inputs, Saturation.