Help with buying a first oscilloscope

[avogadro]

Hello,

I'm a going to be in my second year ee uni in a few months and I was thinking of doing couple of projects over the summer and/or just tinker with components so that I know more than just some theory. Anyway I have a budget of around 600 euros for an oscilloscope and a power supply and I want to spend around 500 for the scope. I was looking at these scopes: Siglent SDS1104X-E, Siglent SDS1202X-E, Rigol DS1054Z. I was planning on doing few things with mcu's and I see that Sigilent SDS1104 has an option of logic analyzer so would that be the best option? What would you recommend me to buy? I dont have much of a lab at home. I have a crappy multimeter, soldering iron and some components.

[Fred27]

I'd say go for a DS1054Z and a cheap eBay USB logic analyser.

[Nitrousoxide]

Definitely get a 4 channel scope, you will find the extra channels very useful.

All these scopes have some form of protocol decoding, except they are done in software. This means that they don't provide the fastest response (compared to some keysight scopes that do the decoding in hardware).
If you're talking about the logic analyser upgrade, there is more value in buying a standalone analyser (possibly Chinese clone). Sure you won't have the time domain synchronisation between logic and conventional channels, but truthfully I have rarely needed all four channels plus extra digital channels to be synchronised (personal opinion, I do audio DSP and embedded systems).

Personally, I'd still go with the Rigol (considering the software upgrades).

An oscilloscope, power supply, multimeter and soldering iron are a few of the essentials. You can then look into buying a function/AW generator if need be.

Get a good multimeter. Get one that is safe. Even though you may not work on high potential systems, it is a good thing to have.

[ljwinkler]

As the other guys said -> 4 channel is a handy scope. You will use 1 channel most of the time, sometimes 2 (debugging I2C for example) but occasionally a 3rd or 4th channel will save your ar*e

Once you get one, have a look at Dave's video about how not to blow up your oscilloscope ()

I found that logic analysers built in cheap oscilloscopes are not that good, fiddly with settings, clunky, etc.
Even a Saleae clone for €10 on eBay will beat the scope. And it has 'unlimited' storage memory (it streams the data to your PC, you can have hours of recordings if needed).

The above should give you a good starting point with microcontrollers (AVR/Arduino? STM? ARM?), you will see why your hello-world blinky doesn't work (I really hope it won't work for the first time you upload the code -> that's the best way to learn (unless you get angry quickly and you toss the project out the window)

[rsjsouza]

Given your requirements and budget, I suspect the SDS1104X-E is a much better choice - a newer device with potentially more years of support and firmware revisions. Also, one factor that it has quite interesting frequency domain functions (FFT) that will be handy when you see this in your EE course.

Check the excellent review from Performa01 about this oscilloscope:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/

BTW: congratulations on being in the semi-finals of the world cup!

[alsetalokin4017]

avogadro.... The oscilloscope is the King of Test Instruments, so get the best most capable one you can afford, and kick your budget up a couple hundred bucks. 2 channels good, 4 channels better. 

A stand-alone logic analyzer will outperform any lowcost scope, for that function.

Ditto for the DMM: a good one is not only safe (very important and often lacking in cheap models) but is also capable. Get the best DMM you can afford. There are reasons why Flukes are often first choice in DMMs, but there are other brands that are also safe, good, and capable.

Remember: Cheap tools are no bargain.

[Old Printer]

alsetalokin4017, I am in the market for a DSO as well and am curious what scope(s) you have in mind in the $700 range. 4 channel is a given for me, and with the new Siglent at $500 and has been said to be hackable to 200 mhz I am not sure what the extra $200 would buy? Seems like the next jump would be to $1000 or so. Thanks

[innkeeper]

recently had the same choice...and 500 was also my price point.

I do have a decent lab but am trying to reduce the form factor and be a bit more efficient.  A modern digital scope defiantly does that as it also performs measurements you might use other equipment for if you were using a CRT based scope, or might take you extra time and effort to do. So, if you're not going to buy tons of equipment, a digital scope is a really good starting point in today's world. .. least that's my view. some many will disagree.  a CRT based scope is a good and cheap way to learn the ropes, but, frankly if you have the budget, why not get what is basically an all in one tool.   

i went with the SDS1104X-E, the added bonus is its hackable to 200mhz.  really was a no-brainer for me after digging into them both a bit.  I really didn't need 200mhz, so,  id been quite happy with 100mhz. with the rigol, it never sat well that id need to hack it to get to my minimum expectations. it's just nice that I can get 200mhz out of the siglent.

the downside is the logic analyzer isn't all that great from all reports. so id not make that a heavily weighted factor. I'll likely go for an eBay usb logic analyzer if I need one in the short term until they refine the add-on spectrum analyzer for the scope. give them time, i am sure it will be good. just not today.

The SDS1104X-E simply out classes the rigol DS1053Z. I'll let the specs speak for themselves.. check this thread. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/

and as far as 2 channel vs 4 channel, well with the 200mhz hack, there's no point in getting the siglent 2 channel model.

there is plenty of hand on reports out there to help you make a decision, defiantly read them.

[Old Printer]

If I bought a scope tomorrow it would be the 4 ch Siglent. I have read everything I could find for the last six months on a low end 4ch scope, and while there is nothing wrong with the Rigol, the Siglent design is four years newer. If Rigol released a replacement for the 1054Z tomorrow I would/will be scratching my head again. I have an Analog Discovery to cover my logic analyzer needs and a couple old TEK analog scopes in the garage. I spend most of my time at a small desk in a spare bedroom so a small DSO will be a good fit there, I just don't need it today, so I wait and read.

[rstofer]

If I bought a scope tomorrow it would be the 4 ch Siglent. I have read everything I could find for the last six months on a low end 4ch scope, and while there is nothing wrong with the Rigol, the Siglent design is four years newer.

But the firmware would be 4 years less refined.  We used to have an extensive list of the firmware problems with the DS1054Z and, over a period of a couple of years, Rigol put out enough upgrades to cut it down substantially.  What we have today are design issues that can't be overcome by firmware.

I don't know where the Siglent firmware is standing.  I don't know of a list of bugs, heck, I don't even know if there are bugs but there probably are.  I also don't know how many firmware upgrades have been issued.  This is important because it shows how interested the manufacturer is in supporting the product.

I plan to buy the SDS1204X-E at some point so I will really need to catch up on the bugs list and the firmware status.

I think the reason there isn't a list of bugs is that most of the people who hang out here have already bought the Rigol and aren't planning to buy another scope.  As a result, there are less eyes on the Siglent.  But that's just a guess.

[Doctorandus_P]

If I were to buy a new oscilloscope in the near future it will also be the 4 channel Siglent.
I have an old Rigol DS1052E and it is good enough for almost anything I do, but I do not like the small screen, the rotary encoders which do not work properly (already replaced one), and the probes of the Rigol, which are not reliable.

If you compare reviews of Siglent and Rigol Spectum analysers, then Siglent is years ahead of Rigol. The Siglent 1000X-E series even has a very decent Spectum analyser built in in the scope.
The spectrum analyser funtion in my Rigol DS1053E is nothing but a joke.

4-channel Siglent also has some logic analyser functionality and serial decoding built in. This is great if you are working with stuff that has both digital and analog going on at the same time.

But if you want to grab multiple serial busses at the same time you quickly run out of channels.
For low-speed stuff an EUR 5 Logic Analyser from Ali / Ebay / China is a good addition.
Search for "24m 8ch", and use it with the Open Source Sigrok / Pulseview combination.
Sigrok can decode a lot more protocols, and almost every month more protocols are added.
Just for fun I've grabbed and debugged some low-speed USB signals with such a USD5 Logic analyser. Sigrok can work with much more capable hardware also (Starting around EUR50, depending on your needs).
A PC & mouse is also a better interface for a LA than an oscilloscope screen. A big & high resolution monitor is a real advantage for a LA.
A good introduction of what you can do with Sigrok can be found in the video's from OpenTechLabs:

[Old Printer]

I have only been around here the last couple years, but i have watched the 2 new Siglents pretty well. Particularly on the 4 channel they seem to be pretty responsive to the bugs and firmware updates, certainly better than their history. I know some say there shouldn't be bugs, but these are $400-500 scopes and that seems to be the price to be paid in this market. If there is something serious that cannot be fixed via firmware, then that is a different story. Really curious to see if/when Rigol will answer Siglent's new release.

[innkeeper]

The lead times on development are so so long that, unless they have an "answer" in the pipeline, it's not gonna come for at least 2 years.  unless they rebadge one of their more advanced scopes and sell it as the new base model.

siglent is following the footsteps of rigol with there SDS1104X-E ... letting their base model be hacked basicly and ... getting people hooked on it, and then what do they do in their labs at work, buy the more advanced model as they're already used to the ui on the base model.

i don't wanna call it a loss leader, but it kinda is....but they can claim innocence to it all. ... rigol could have closed the door anytime but never did... i suspect the same will be true for siglent.

...and unless siglent does something silly, like Tektronix did,  there posed to keep rising in market share., not that Tektronix was significantly hurt by it, they're just not playing the same game

[yngndrw]

I can't comment on the Siglents as I've never used one, but I'd advise staying well clear of the Rigol DS1054Z.

I was in the market for a new oscilloscope and for my money I had the choice between a new Rigol DS1054Z and a used Keysight DSOX2002A for around the same money. (Both of which can be hacked to unlock extra features) I decided based on a thread on here to go for the Rigol DS1054Z and while the extra channels are useful and the scope generally does the job, the performance is appalling. The lag when adjusting the vertical position makes using the oscilloscope a chore. How they can make something with such dismal performance and decide to sell it is beyond me, but here we are. Either way I regret my decision and wish I'd gone for the Keysight DSOX2002A, but sadly I can't can't roll back the clock now.

Like I say I can't judge the Siglent as I've never used one, but I'm very wary of these budget brands now - The user interface is everything on a device that you're constantly interacting with.

[rstofer]

The Rigol UI is slow, no doubt about it.  I notice it every time I change the vertical position.  No doubt about it!

However, how many times per hour do I actually change the vertical position?  At the moment, I am using just a single channel to watch an analog signal.  Once I have the position fixed, I'm not going to change it in the next minute, hour or even day.  More often than not, I just push the knob to center the trace and move on.

Clearly this is a matter of application.  Are there times when I use the adjustment more often than once per day?  Sure!  But it really isn't a big deal.  I spend more time messing around with the trigger point or the V/div than I do with vertical position.

That's the way I use the scope.  Others will have different requirements.

[Old Printer]

I can't comment on the Siglents as I've never used one, but I'd advise staying well clear of the Rigol DS1054Z.

I was in the market for a new oscilloscope and for my money I had the choice between a new Rigol DS1054Z and a used Keysight DSOX2002A for around the same money. (Both of which can be hacked to unlock extra features) I decided based on a thread on here to go for the Rigol DS1054Z and while the extra channels are useful and the scope generally does the job, the performance is appalling. The lag when adjusting the vertical position makes using the oscilloscope a chore. How they can make something with such dismal performance and decide to sell it is beyond me, but here we are. Either way I regret my decision and wish I'd gone for the Keysight DSOX2002A, but sadly I can't can't roll back the clock now.

Like I say I can't judge the Siglent as I've never used one, but I'm very wary of these budget brands now - The user interface is everything on a device that you're constantly interacting with.

Is your scope use professional or hobby? Is this your "home" scope, and do you use a very good/fast scope at work. I can see your point much better if you use a scope a lot, like all day. For people tinkering nights and weekends this is one of the prices to be paid for having a pretty sophisticated piece of equipment on our desk at home at a price that is affordable or justifiable. I have read most of the threads on the 1054 in the last year and this is the first I can recall being so disappointed in the UI speed. I can live with things at a hobby level I could not tolerate at work.

[yngndrw]

Well my usage is hobby and I am employed in a different industry (Software) so I don't have one at work. It's a fair point about how much you use these particular features and for my usage, it varies considerably. Vertical position for example is only used when you're using multiple channels and you need to switch between displaying multiple signals and comparing related signals. Having said that for a four channel scope where one of the selling points is that it has four channels over two, I think it's a really big let down as it does impact your use of the four channels.

It really doesn't matter how much the scope is used or even the specific features, what Rigol has produced simply isn't of the quality that we should expect for (Any amount of) our hard-earned money. This example isn't an obscure feature such as FFT, it's vertical position which is a core feature of any oscilloscope. The low price is mentioned a lot and for the on paper performance (50MHz over four channels) it is decent, but considering that the used price isn't much lower than the new price due to the lack of availability of used items and what else you can get on the used market from the big brands (Such as the Keysight DSOX2002A which is around the same money if you wait for one to come up, albeit with two less channels - But how often do we need four ? I got greedy with the number of channels) it simply isn't good enough. And it's not just one feature that's slow, there's the trigger level adjustment, scrolling as well as the UI performance in general.

The performance bothers me so much that I actively avoid using it, to the extend where after moving house I didn't even bother getting it back out of the box. To me, it's such a prominent issue that I'm left wondering why there aren't more complaints about this - Are people just being extra forgiving because it's a bit cheaper or does everyone else just have different expectations of test equipment ?

[Old Printer]

Well my usage is hobby and I am employed in a different industry (Software) so I don't have one at work. It's a fair point about how much you use these particular features and for my usage, it varies considerably. Vertical position for example is only used when you're using multiple channels and you need to switch between displaying multiple signals and comparing related signals. Having said that for a four channel scope where one of the selling points is that it has four channels over two, I think it's a really big let down as it does impact your use of the four channels.

It really doesn't matter how much the scope is used or even the specific features, what Rigol has produced simply isn't of the quality that we should expect for (Any amount of) our hard-earned money. This example isn't an obscure feature such as FFT, it's vertical position which is a core feature of any oscilloscope. The low price is mentioned a lot and for the on paper performance (50MHz over four channels) it is decent, but considering that the used price isn't much lower than the new price due to the lack of availability of used items and what else you can get on the used market from the big brands (Such as the Keysight DSOX2002A which is around the same money if you wait for one to come up, albeit with two less channels - But how often do we need four ? I got greedy with the number of channels) it simply isn't good enough. And it's not just one feature that's slow, there's the trigger level adjustment, scrolling as well as the UI performance in general.

The performance bothers me so much that I actively avoid using it, to the extend where after moving house I didn't even bother getting it back out of the box. To me, it's such a prominent issue that I'm left wondering why there aren't more complaints about this - Are people just being extra forgiving because it's a bit cheaper or does everyone else just have different expectations of test equipment ?

I very much would like four individual channel controls, but the next scope I could find in the new market was a GW Instek at about $1100 USD. That's about $600 more and that is a lot of money on a hobby purchase. If you could come up with a good competitor within $200-300 that met your wants, I would be very interested. Right now I am focusing on the 4 channel Siglent unless something better comes along. Keysight makes great equipment, but they are just too pricey for my needs/wants. Everybody has to draw their own price line.

[rstofer]

That DSOX2002A is a $1300 scope, about 3 times as much as the Rigol so, sure, I would expect a higher level of performance.  None of the options, like decoding, are free so that drives the cost up and decoding was the reason I bought the Rigol.  The DSOX2002A has a very fast sample rate for a 2 channel scope but it doesn't have very much sample memory compared to the Rigol.  It's only 70 MHz vs 100 MHz and it's only 2 channels and that's a show-stopper if the entire reason for buying the scope was to decode both sides of an SPI transaction.  The DSOX2002A would never have been on my short list.

Buying used to get the price down is always a questionable idea.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't.  What you don't have is NEW with a warranty.  Keysight has a factory store on eBay and I believe those scopes do come with a warranty.  I didn't see a DSOX2002A on eBay...

Still, if you find one, you should swap out your Rigol.  They are in stock at Newark for $1340 but that's full price and no options.  I suspect by the time you get all the features of the Rigol, you're probably looking at $2000 or probably higher.  Any time a supplier has a "Get Quote" button, I know I can't afford it!

I see Siglent taking over the entry level market but they're late to the game.  Rigol has flooded the market.  Early bird and all that...  I haven't seen enough review videos to know what to think about the Siglent UI and I'm not necessarily in the market for another scope.  That 4 channel 200 MHz version (SDS1204X-E) is very appealing.

I just don't have your level of concern about the UI.  It's not great but I just don't use it enough for it to worry me a lot.

[yngndrw]

Well the DSOX2002A is just as hackable as the DS1054Z, for the decoding options and bandwidth. Having said that, I'd personally prefer to use a USB logic analyser over a scope for decoding so can't say I've ever used the decoding options myself. (Although I guess a scope would be convenient to decode RS232-level serial due to its wide input range) Using a dedicated logic analyser removes the issue regarding channels, bringing me back to the question of whether or not the vast majority of us need four channels as opposed to want.

Just to be clear on price, there have been some DSOX2002As on Ebay for £600 that didn't sell, so I don't think an offer of £500 would have been rejected at the time. They aren't always on there, but that kind of scope does come up if you wait a little. If you can wait, they are comparable to the DS1054Z.

The SDS1104X-E looks to be priced well, but I'd worry about the UI performance for my self especially seems as nobody reported the issues on the Rigol as much as I'd like - I've already been bitten myself.