Rigol vs. Instek for Audio Component Analysis plus beginner level learning - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 04:12:16 pm
content: I've narrowed my scope possibilities down to two:Rigol DS1202Z-E and Instek GDS-1054BMy primary uses would be audio frequency, power, and distortion analysis and noob level learning of the Make: Electronics/Arduino variety. So there is no need for bandwidth above 50 to 100 MHz, but there is a need for good FFT functionality.Good FFT function is especially important to my proposed uses.One prominent equipment supplier, when asked about FFT performance between these two scopes responded: "Either scope would perform more or less the same, if you only were concerned with FFT function. The Instek is a little less expensive [~$10 less]. The Rigol has more functions, beyond FFT, making it a better overall value." What are your thoughts on this opinion?I understand that the following factors are most important to good FFT performance, in order of significance:Waveform update rateMemory depthThe factors I am not sure about their significance for FFT quality are:Waveform update, record/playbackFFT memory depth retrievalRise timeThe table below compares the specs I am aware of that are significant for my evaluation.I'm not concerned whether 2 vs. 4 channels, or whether 50MHz or 200MHz bandwidth. I do like the smaller form factor of the Rigol. I don't think I would benefit much by the dedicated channel controls of the Instek although a future owner might. I would likely be on one channel the majority of the time.I cannot find the Intek spec forwaveform update speed for record/playback. Not sure that that spec makes any difference for my needs.I cannot find the Rigol spec forFFT memory depth retrieval. That spec may be very important for my use.The last two factors are:Dedicated tool for learning:Instek has a Demo Module, GDB-03 focused specifically for learning all the various functions of Instek scopes. It seems to be a worthwhile tool well suited to my level of (in)experience for later consideration.Resale value in 5 years:Being up in years, my use of this equipment will likely not exceed 5 to 10 years. I will be happy to get 50% to 75% of the initial cost when sold as used, but wonder if the better known name of Rigol will give that scope any resale advantage over the Instek. Does the used market look more at features or name brand relative to price?Importance to me 0-10 Rigol DS1202Z-E Instek GDS-1054BChannels, 4 vs 2 0 2 4Bandwidth, over 50 3 200 50Maximum sampling rate 8 1 Gsa/s 1 Gsa/sMemory depth 8 24 Mpts 10Mpts per chan.Waveform update rate 10 30,000wfm/s 50,000wfm/sWaveform update, rec./playb. ? 60,000wfm/s ?FFT memory depth retrieval 10 ? 1M pointsRise time 5 1.75 ns 5 nsSeparate channel controls 2 No YesSmaller size 3 Yes NoDedicated tool for learning avail. 3 No YesResale value in 5 years 3 ? ?

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 04:21:50 pm
content: Have you thought about a good PC sound card plus audio analysis software?

author: DaJMasta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 04:31:46 pm
content: It's good to have a scope, neither of these (and none of most scopes) are good choices for audio or distortion analysis.The reason? The 8 bit converter. An 8 bit converter means that with the base resolution of the sampling system is so coarse that when measuring distortion you scale your primary tone to be at 100% full scale of the input range, your minimum step resolution is about 0.4%, so your noise floor is probably ~1% or so.... which is generally pretty clearly audible, so you'd want 10-100x more detail to get in the ballpark of a normal hifi system and another 10-100x to measure high end low distortion parts. Now you can do better than this with enhanced resolution modes on scopes (eres, hires, etc.), but it's still going to be limited to a few extra bits over the converter because of inherent noise of the frontend.For audio work the go-to tool recommendation on a budget is your basic sound card and software for it. There are many discussions around here on it, but you can't beat commercial audio hardware on the cheap end for converter resolution and audio analysis suitability, so it's just a matter of finding software that will do what you're looking for.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 04:34:00 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 09, 2020, 04:21:50 pmYes, I have, and no, I don't want to forfeit my other uses for a scope. And no, I don't want a separate computer on my bench for an Analog Discovery 2. And my budget cap is $300.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 04:47:49 pm
content: Quote from: DaJMasta on June 09, 2020, 04:31:46 pmI would like to focus on the capabilities of these two scopes. I know that there are specialized tools that are best suited for specialized testing. I am not doing amplifier repairs or interested in harmonic distortion measurements below 0.5%. I have seen demonstrations using lesser scopes than these identifying harmonic distortion just about 0.1%. I know that the scope as a multi-purpose tool is not ideal for every application. I want to get just one tool, an oscilloscope, for a variety of learning tasks. Use of the FFT for the audio thing is just one. But I am seeking a scope for less than $300 that has the best possible FFT functionality.If there isNOSIGNIFICANT difference between FFT functionality between these two scopes, I would likely lean toward the Rigol. Why? Smaller form factor, a few more features, and higher bandwidth should I come across that need. But I would likely have my 20MHz limiter on most of the time.If the Instek specs that support FFT areCLEARLYsuperior to the Rigol, I would lean toward the Instek.

author: pascal_sweden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 04:56:16 pm
content: The GW-Instek oscilloscope looks like a baby toy!

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:11:28 pm
content: I notice on this forum that some folks it is common practice to view any device below $1,000 as looking like or performing like a "toy."And if you noticed from my criteria, "looks" are not a criteria. Humorous to some, but not helpful.

author: Antonio90
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:15:23 pm
content: Bear in mind that I'm just a beginner and, albeit I have bought an Instek I don't have it yet. All this comes from research in this forum and youtube.For what I've read the consensus is that low end rigols have an awful FFT function, and the GW Instek one is pretty good, so based in your requirement I would go with the Instek. For form factor the Micsigs look awesome, but they are close to twice your budget or more.Also, note that there's consensus about the Siglent's being the best for bode plots in low end scopes, but you would ned an AWG external or included, which would add to the price (and it's base price is already out of your budget unless you find a good deal).If you want to do FFT and bode plots the AD2 is usually recommended in the low price range, but as a scope is much more limited. The computer thing is not that big of an issue, any 6 year old laptop will do the trick, and they can be found for cheap. I also find a small computer very useful in the lab to look for spec sheets, schematics or simulating circuits. (have a look at micro cap 12, it's quite powerful and it's been free for some time).Anyway, I think the GW Instek is the clear choice for FFT between those two. Also there's a video by Dave which may be useful for you. The Rigol scope he uses is the 1054Z, but it should be pretty similar.

author: Sighound36
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:16:04 pm
content: May I suggest the Picoscope 4262 for audio its more suitable than either of the scopes above for pure ability in the audio arena.https://www.picotech.com/oscilloscope/4262/picoscope-4262-overview?gclid=CjwKCAjw5vz2BRAtEiwAbcVIL2y06bUmo7FGZRN4pvbuMUb7S9Yea8mWxG-fP_dCvV5eoRmQsL49SxoCiJsQAvD_BwFFT is rather good as wellI have one of these as well as R&S UPV and a Analogue Discovery 2.These would be (Picoscope 4262 and AD2) would server you better for purely audio work imho

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:21:04 pm
content: Quote from: Sighound36 on June 09, 2020, 05:16:04 pmI want to stick with traditional scopes. I am not interested in a computer, however cheap, on my bench at this time. The primary purpose is to apply functionality of the scope to a variety of tasks knowing full well there are other specialized tools that may do a better job on some things, and knowing a scope's abilities are a compromise in some areas.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:23:01 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 04:34:00 pmWe just tried to tell you that the FFT function of a DSO is nothing to write home about.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:41:16 pm
content: Quote from: Antonio90 on June 09, 2020, 05:15:23 pmMe, too.QuoteI've read the same about the superiority of Instek's FFT as compared to other then current (at the time of reviews) models. On the other hand, the Rigol 1202 is a newer model than any other Rigols I've seen reviewed or compared on Youtube. I think there are some 1202 specs that are superior to the 1054 specs.That's why I posted comparative specs between this newer Rigol and the Instek. I'm interested in understandingwhat particular scope specs make one scopes FFT performance superior to another's.

author: Sighound36
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:41:34 pm
content: OkSimply put the FFT function of basic DSO/MSO upto $4K is pretty average for what you are looking to achieve I have a Rigol MSO8000 and its a pretty decent scope and it's FFT isn't half bad but the Picoscope/AD2 is far better between 0-200Khz which is what you will need.We also have a very well appointed research scope with wonderful performance but for Audio the Picoscope/AD2 are where its at sort of a dedicated audio analyserOr purchase a cheap DSO and obtain a AD2 that way you ca cover all aspects of what you are looking to achieve

author: Antonio90
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:42:48 pm
content: It might be nothing to write home about, but maybe is good enough for learning?I mean, he can always get a soundcard, a picoscope or an AD2 later on if he needs, but if you want to learn basic electronics in and dig just a little deeper in some field in particular a scope looks like a really good tool. And I don't know if the tradeoff of buying a tool a little bit more specialized is worth it, taking into account that you forfeit the flexibility and general purpose usefulness of the bench scope. IF you want to "learn electronics".I think that's kind of his point, and that's also my thoughts on the matter. Maybe when we stop being beginners we see the error in which we incur.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:44:05 pm
content: Quote from: madires on June 09, 2020, 05:23:01 pmI have no intention of "writing home" about any of this. Antonio90 gets it. I had a fairly simple, straightforward question about the relative FFT performance between two scopes based on stated specifications. That's it. No need to go off into tangents.If my question was "what is the best, or most economical, way to get the most accurate measurements of audio characteristics" then more of these responses would have been on target. But it wasn't.

author: DaJMasta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 05:49:08 pm
content: It's generally not well specified. FFT depth is frequently given, but not much beyond that. Current gen scopes will be fairly similar and basically usable, but while there are some differences (for example some scopes can have hardware acceleration built into the acquisition system, I believe keysight's megazoom IV does this, but then it's much more limited as to maximum memory depth), as long as it's a fairly current scope it should be serviceable, I'd just look for a video review that pictures it in use to get a gauge of the polish/features in the UI.Older scope architectures will have issues with their FFT implementation in some ranges - for example my Rigol DS4024 (something like 10 years old now) has pretty shoddy controls/features in terms of displaying the FFT even though the functionality is there at a base level and that the scope is confidently midrange in terms of market segment, though a LeCroy WavePro 7X00 series (or even 9X0 series) that's more than 15 years old has a very easy to use, fully featured FFT mode with all the relevant scaling and cursor controls.I have used neither of the scopes you're considering, but I would emphasize number of channels over bandwidth, and bandwidth over other features, in most cases. Then compare videos of them in use to get an idea for the UI layout and general responsiveness of the scope.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 06:33:56 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 05:44:05 pmBut there is. The tangent is that comparing the relative performance of the FFT function in low end scoped based on stated specifications doesn't yield meaningful results. Both of the scopes are likely to be total rubbish for the specific application you mentioned. I don't mean 'not pro quality' or 'nothing to write home about', I mean totally unusable except in rigged up demonstrations of the crudest possible sort. You would be able to spot the distortion created by a completely blown output driver, or the difference in frequency response to noise cause by turning the treble control all the way up or down, but that's about it. More memory or FFT length in the specs won't help you. Either scope is a valuable learning tool and good for many things, just not what you specifically asked about.As an example, I have an older Tektronix DSO with 2.5K (yes, K) memory and for looking at mains power harmonics it is vastly better than the Rigol DS1054Z and probably at least as good as and a lot easier to use than the Siglent 1104X-E. Here is a crude example of 1kHz square and sine examples that took all of a minute to set up. Someone who has the scope models you are looking at can try and replicate this and tell us how easy it was to do and show us how well it worked. Comparing the specs, especially the ones you have highlighted as important to you, is useless.

author: Antonio90
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 06:36:41 pm
content: https://youtu.be/jubeCoCw7io?t=83I don't know if it makes much of a difference based on what's been stated above, but the Rigol has 16Kpts FFT against the 1Mpts of the Instek.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 07:07:13 pm
content: With all the great responsesfrom above (no, not THAT far above) I've filtered out answers to my specific questions:The electronics retailer who said the Rigol and Instek FFT capabilities are similar was full of crap. I found the Rigol spec for FFT memory in the 1202. It appears to be a maximum of 16,384 points as gleaned from its user manual (pp. 113-114) compared to 1Mpts on the Instek. However, as Dave pointed out, the user has to "dick around" with the Instek to get readings your looking for, but once you get them, they are the best of the bunch of the units he evaluated for FFT. Being retired, I have plenty of time to "dick around." In fact, being retired, "dick around" is pretty much what I do so a scope I need to "dick around" with just might be a perfect fit.So, to point out the elusive "best spec" to look for to get decent FFT readings, it is likely "data points"devoted to FFT. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Yes, I realize the usefulness (accuracy/ease of use) of a high end spectrum analyzer is primo. And there are dedicated economy devices <$300 that may get better distortion harmonics readings than most scopes, especially low and mid-range <$500. Soooo, below is a table that indicates where I am on the scale of "toy" versus "ultimate"relative to FFT and audio harmonics analysis capabilities:1. Meaningless readings = scopes less than $200 = "toy"2. Marginally accruate readings/difficult to interpret = most scopes in the $200 - $400 range, with exceptions3. More accurate, but "fiddly", and not for serious lab work = very few scopes in the $200 - $500 range, depending on need.4. Somewhat accurate = some scopes >$500 and some dedicated devices <$300.5. Very accurate = dedicated spectrum analyzers in the several thousand dollar range.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 07:20:41 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on June 09, 2020, 06:33:56 pmSo, are you saying there are NO SPECS that can give us a clue as to the FFT performance of a scope?Or are you saying simply that there are no scopes (with the possible exception of your old Tektronics) capable of anything meaningful (meaningful to YOU, for YOUR needs) FFT acquired harmonics?Frankly, this sounds vastly counterintuitive.And, oh yeah, a used Tektronics 2024 is over a grand. Sweet! (not)https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-TPS2024-isolated-oscilloscope-/193454818640But I guess it fun bragging about your expensive old equipment.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 07:23:25 pm
content: Quote from: Antonio90 on June 09, 2020, 06:36:41 pmYes, we both noticed that about the same time. Which to me means that the video you provided with that older model Rigol is likely still valid for the newer model Rigol that I was interested in. In other words, the Instek does a lot better job, but you need to know your scope well.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 07:36:36 pm
content: Quote from: Sighound36 on June 09, 2020, 05:16:04 pmThe good news is that there is free shipping. The bad news is the Pico scope costs over $1,200, plus requires a computer.https://www.amazon.com/Pico-PicoScope-16-bit-Oscilloscope-probes/dp/B0153KEQEW

author: DaJMasta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 08:00:28 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 07:20:41 pmThat is the crux of the issue. Even detailed datasheets only scratch the surface of what a scope does and since an FFT function is an add-on and not core functionality for most scopes or scope designs (it's becoming more important, but it couldn't be done with an analog scope and for reasons mentioned above, is not an emphasized feature on many scopes because of the nature of the acquisition system), FFT performance or analysis specifications often don't make it into a datasheet. In addition, FFT is usually done entirely in software for most scopes (especially entry level ones), so a specification could be made meaningless with a software update in many cases. Datasheets try to give you relevant performance specs, performance specs that make their product look good in comparison to other vendors, and performance specs that the manufacturer has actually measured and can guarantee unit to unit, so tons of relevant specs will be omitted, especially when dealing with more complex or feature rich equipment. 1M points FFT length is standard in many modern designs, but as mentioned even recent model Keysight units (among others) were limited to 32k points (my Rigol DS4024 is as well), but in the case of some (the Keysights) their actual FFT performance is quite good because they do the processing for it in the ASIC and not in software. And also remember that while usable dynamic range in your FFT plot increases with more points of data, the benefit is logarithmic, not linear. If 16k points can get you 70dB of dynamic range (for example), 1M points may get you 75dB but probably not 80dB.Worth mentioning that ebay prices are highly variable, just because you can find a Tek 2024 for $1000 doesn't mean they're actually worth that. There's also a pretty substantial premium associated with the Tektronix brand name, especially with older gear, so you can likely find comparable performance of a similar vintage a lot cheaper just by looking at another vendor. Even in their current lineup, the functionality of a similarly specified Rigol or Instek unit is likely going to cost half as much (probably less) than a Tek scope. Not to say you get nothing for the extra price, but the name commands a premium, and they aren't positioning themselves to be especially price competitive on the low end scope market and haven't historically.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 08:18:29 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 07:20:41 pmIf I was going to brag about my old scope I'd tell you how little I paid for it. But I'm not like that...You could get a TDS (not isolated version) for a lot less, not that I'm suggesting that. Actually, if you found a deal on one, it might not be a bad idea, except that it might need work and buying a scope that needs work is probably not the path you are looking to take.I'm saying the specs you are looking at will not answer your questions in a meaningful way. What will? Front end noise, quality of the software and it's implementation and so on. Specs you aren't looking at and probably can't get. Thus the result that comparison of the end result would be the simplest and most effective way of figuring this out. If you took the Siglent 1202X-E, which is what I would strongly recommend you stretch into, and set it up to look at that same 1kHz signal, you would probably find it best to use far less of the memory than is available just to have a reasonable update rate.Here's two examples for you, same signal with different FFT record lengths. The 1M version has an update rate of less than 1 per second, the 16K looks at least a little lively. Would either be particularly different in their usefulness to you?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 08:27:24 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 04:47:49 pmThe Instek is MUCH better at FFT than the Rigol.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 08:50:43 pm
content: If I had every scope available sitting is a store room here, and no other instruments, I'd use the sound card on a PC for any spectral analysis of audio I need to do. The ADCs in even the best scopes have such poor resolution, and usually such poor linearity, they really don't have any practical value for audio. The FFT function is just thrown into scopes because its just software, and cheap to do. Across all applications, it rarely provides useful performance for anything more than a quick rough look at a signal. Get a inexpensive scope to look at waveforms. Use a sound card for analysing audio.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 08:54:18 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on June 09, 2020, 08:18:29 pmThe only TDS I'm familiar with is "Trump Derangement Syndrome." But since this is an electronics site and not a political one, I'm guessing it's not that.But I do appreciate your comments on the less tangible, more difficult to measure aspects of scopes that enable decent FFT. That straightened me out a bit - about as much as I can be straightened.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 08:57:28 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 09, 2020, 08:50:43 pmThanks. That's great advice for someone else with a computer with a quality sound card on their bench.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 09:06:48 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 08:57:28 pmA $50 piece of junk ancient PC from a charity store, with the nastiest sound card you've ever heard, will offer you FAR better audio analysis that any scope. The issue is that stark.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 09:09:42 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 09, 2020, 09:06:48 pmIf I was looking for a sound card and not a scope, I would take that advice to heart. Thanks.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 09:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 08:54:18 pmSo look for the discount code for Saelig (elsewhere on this board), call them up and get one of these. Make sure you don't buy an earlier or used model as there was some issue with them.http://www.saelig.com/siglent-sdsx-series/sds1202x-e.htm

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 10:09:49 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on June 09, 2020, 09:58:32 pmYes good FFT however for a better suite of component analysis tools as is the topic of this thread, the 4ch SDS1104X-E with its Bode plot capability would be a better choice, especially for filter analysis.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 10:13:07 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on June 09, 2020, 09:58:32 pmFor a "mere" $200 more, double my budget.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 10:14:26 pm
content: As a scope, the siglents are OK, but the FFT is very clunky to use.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 10:16:15 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on June 09, 2020, 09:58:32 pmFunny thing about that. I emailed Saelig two days ago with requests for quotes. I emailed another supplier at the same time. I haven't yet heard from Saelig, but heard from the other company within a few hours, and a quote within an hour of requesting it yesterday. That gives me an inkling of customer service responsiveness.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 10:26:16 pm
content: Quote from: John B on June 09, 2020, 10:14:26 pmYep, more than a spectrum analyser but the core principles are exactly the same, CF, Hz/div, dB/div and Span.Familiarity with a scopes FFT UI makes it a breeze.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2020, 10:51:58 pm
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 10:16:15 pmMaybe you need factor Covid into CS responsiveness ?Rick that generally gives out the Saelig discount code hasn't been active here since May 20th.Hope he's alright.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2020, 01:00:58 am
content: Quote from: gfmucci on June 09, 2020, 09:09:42 pmI will throw in with the others who say, "Just use a computer sound card and be done with it." I do a lot of audio work.I have the exact TDS2024 'scope someone mentioned. It has an FFT feature that I never use. It is of no use, especially when you're looking at 24-bit audio converters where you need to see 140 dB down in the mud. There is no oscilloscope in your budget that can do that.Now I can understand the desire to use an oscilloscope here. You want to put your probe on a particular point in the circuit, and not at the XLR connector on the device output. I get it. But your budget precludes it.For what it's worth, I use a couple of things. One is an old MOTU 828 mk 2. That means I have ten 'scope channels!So just get the oscilloscope that meets your other criteria -- number of points/memory depth, number of channels, decoding of serial buses maybe, triggering, that sort of thing.

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2020, 01:08:34 am
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on June 10, 2020, 01:00:58 amThat's all very good for you and the others.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2020, 06:36:09 pm
content: OK how about older equipment, you said you were interested in mostly audio, I take it this means analog audio.I just bought an Agilent 54810 upgraded to 2 Gs/sec: decent FFT.then get an audio generator old HP 8165 does fine and is also RF gen.Probably get both for about $ 500 and you are in business.The tech scopes are quite good. I do not have a newer one.Actually a really cheap very old analog Tek school scope works very well at audio and will let you do some things that some digital scopes cannot, like A vs B channels. Maybe $50Problem may be if you want to import export data, don't know what you expect.After you use these things, if you want something else, you can sell them and maybe lose a little money or break even. You will then know what you really need.Does this meet your budget?Wally

author: gfmucci
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2020, 06:54:58 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on June 10, 2020, 06:36:09 pmThanks, Wally.No, I'm not well enough along in this hobby to trust used equipment. So I have ruled that out. And my absolute limit is $300. And no computer or other components at this point are wanted - I want to only focus on using a traditional, dedicated oscilloscope at this stage.I might have over-stressed my likely amount of fft usage which would probably be less than 30%. So I am simply looking for a decent new, beginner scope that happens to have the best fft at this price point as a bonus. The Instek appears to be it.

author: Grauwacke
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: June 29, 2020, 01:50:28 pm
content: Quote from: Sighound36 on June 09, 2020, 05:16:04 pmI use it too for measuring in the audio frequency range. IMHO 8 or 10 bit are not sufficient at all for a proper FFT (the 4262 has 16 bits and can be enhanced to more). Downside: The Linux Picoscope version is very, very basic (but it can do spectral analysis).