EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: Bicurico on November 09, 2016, 10:54:57 am
-
Diclaimer:
Ok. Here it comes... Please do not flame me and yes, I know this has been discussed so many times...
I HAVE READ ALL THREADS AND ALL POSTS regarding both oscilloscopes and still I have the urge to ask this question! So please forgive me.
I am in the business of purchasing my first DSO. I have an old Metrix 20MHz dual channel analogue oscilloscope, which I bought cheap at eBay for the only reason to educate myself on oscillators. We used them in class at Uni, but only on one day and I felt I needed more information/knowledge.
Now I want to upgrade my knowledge and get familiar with a modern DSO. This is really the MAIN reason to purchase one. You may think I am crazy, but I did the same with the Siglent SSA3021X: I got it to have a real SSA and learn how to use it. For me, this is cheaper than attending some off-hour courses.
Of course, I then get to use them for amateur/professional work, too. Mainly because as a part-time I write manuals, product reviews, translations of user guides, etc.
The main application for the DSO would be:
- learning how to use it
- measuring Arduino related stuff
- measuring PIC/Atmel related stuff
- measuring analogue video relates stuff
- measuring DiSEqC signals
- doing some hacks on existing hardware like satellite receivers
- doing some simple repairs
- doind some audio stuff
Right now, I have these two options:
Rigol DS1054Z at 339 Euro
Pros:
- hackable to 100MHz
- hackable for all possible options
- recommended by many users
- 4 channels
Cons:
- hated by as many users
- no external trigger input
- small screen
Siglent SDS1102X at 403.75 Euro including Decoding Kit
Pros:
- official 100MHz
- official decoding kit
- bigger screen
- same brand as my SSA
- external trigger input
Cons:
- just two channels
I am kind of stuck, which one to purchase. Reading all the relevant posts has not set my mind.
Any help, considerations? No brand bashing, please.
Thanks,
Vitor
-
I'd go for 4 channels. 2 channels isn't enough for digital electronics.
-
- no external trigger input
Can that be really counted as a con when the alternative is a 2-channel scope? So you need to use one channel for the external trigger. That stll leaves it with one channel more than the other one.
-
I'd go for 4 channels. 2 channels isn't enough for digital electronics.
Agree 100%.
Rigol DS1054Z at 339 Euro
Cons:
- hated by as many users
Not so. Count the real number of haters, they fill up all the threads but really it's just three people repeating the same crap over and over. The number of lovers is much higher.
On the positive side: There's so many DS1054Z owners on there that every single feature has been tested and discussed to death, you know exactly what you're getting with the Rigol. The Siglent hasn't had the same amount of analysis.
Rigol DS1054Z at 339 Euro
Cons:
- no external trigger input
But you have 4 channels and all of them can trigger, so... :-//
Siglent SDS1102X at 403.75 Euro including Decoding Kit
Pros:
- bigger screen
But the same number of pixels, so ... :-//
(unless you have bad eyes)
Siglent SDS1102X at 403.75 Euro including Decoding Kit
Pros:
- official 100MHz
- official decoding kit
- same brand as my SSA
- external trigger input
I'm not sure any of those is really a 'pro'.
If you remove all the irrelevent and 'meh' items from your lists you're left with:
Rigol 'Pro': 4 channels
Siglent 'Con': 2 channels
The Siglent costs 60 Euros more so the choice seems clear to me.
-
So far I agree with the commenters. DS1054Z. Definitely.
-
Siglent performance as oscilloscope is FAR over this Rigol. This is based to fact that I have used both and also tested some performance things.
This do not mean that Rigol is really bad. No it is not. It is dirty cheap 4 channel DSO what is not good in anything but still can use for many things ok.
If need dirty cheap 4 channel DSO and have limited 400 euro budget and want new equipment, in this case Rigol 1054Z is not bad choice if also take into consideration hackability what may or may not give some optional features.
Also for many kind of use and learning it is - lot of in one box.
But then... If look situation where 2 channel is ok for user needs and then think Rigol and Siglent (just if use Rigol as 2 channel scope)
8" display
max contunuous 60kwfm/s, peak 70kwfm/s inside one TFT refresh cycle.
Sequence mode up to 80000wfm, up to (specs) 400kwfm/s (measured maximum quaranteed speed) 485kwfm/s
Separate vertical controls for channels
Full speed Waveform History Buffer up to 54Mpts memory (always working background) up to 80000 waveforms (for both channels)
Waveform history buffer have always time stamp for every single waveform.
Full current wfm/s speed mask test
500uV/div full BW true sensitivity. (In Rigol 5mV/div Also can find in this forum.
Better intensity gradation.
Color gradation. Helps also in some cases visibility.
Always whole captured wfm length visible. (less real visual blind time)
I have used both and it is very clear that Siglent have more processing power. (look example zoomed window)
Lot of better Sinc interpolation what really works. Siglent keep always true ADC based sample (draw through sample points and can always switch on or off including also stop state and history buffer and seqments. In Rigol this is really just bad joke (but perhaps it need this for show "nice image". Explanation and examples can find in this forum.
Siglent have much more low signal noise. Also can find in this forum.
Siglent trigger engine performance is better (less inaccuracies, less trigger instabilities and jitter)
But if look prices and example 2 - 4 channel. It is clear that Siglent is more expensive class scope. So it also need be better.
Normal price ( Batronix ) for 4 channel SDS1102X is over 565Eur and Rigol DS1104Z (Sold as DS1054Z front sticker and FW settings) is 403 Eur.
-
I would try to stick to one manufacturer, I would presume there would be a better product integration if you need few instruments working together. If for the work you do, two channels are enough, go with a better option. If you need more than two channels, ether swallow the bitter pill of a cheaper 4-ch scope or the bigger price of 4-ch Siglent.
-
Thanks to all!
Durinig the day I refrained to reply, but now I think I should.
I really appreciate your feedback and I am inclined to go for the Rigol DS1054Z, for the following reasons:
1) It is 64Euro cheaper, which represents 19% and in my case does make a difference (remember, I am not planing to make any money with it)
2) It does have 4 channels, which is something I never used before
3) It is hackable to enable all possible functionality, which is nice
4) I don't expect to outgrow the DS1054Z anywhere soon, as I said, the main goal is to learn about DSO's
5) It may actually be more interesting to have different brands sitting on my desk - I will benefit when taking pictures for blog, articles, etc. as it looks less brand-specific
But I must be honest: the SDS1102X is very tempting and the reasons are well explained by rf-loop. It seems to me a better device (one class higher), it just happens to be a two channel DSO and I have no idea if I would regret such a decision later on, especially because I know I won't be pushing either oscilloscope to its limits, but might want to use 4 channels.
Puh! Still not so sure...
Regards,
Vitor
-
I would try to stick to one manufacturer, I would presume there would be a better product integration if you need few instruments working together.
nope. there is no "better product integration" as you pose it, at least not for chinese brands. i have no idea about better brands but this is still test equipment, not some consumer bullshit in the like of "iphone need itunes syncing to move an mp3 from a computer" everything that can work together work together regardless of the brand
-
Think twice before buying the Rigol one.
How would you feel when you will get a firmware upgrade for your "beloved" scope and things like this will happen to you ?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/just-upgrade-my-rigol-ds1054z-to-the-4-04-firmware/msg1067296/#msg1067296 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/just-upgrade-my-rigol-ds1054z-to-the-4-04-firmware/msg1067296/#msg1067296)
Every single time when they tried to fix bugs on them they are inducing other ones which will be exposed sooner or later.
Why that? Because they don't know what they are doing!
Come on Fungus...can't wait your "supporter" reply to this. :)
Thankfully I sold mine as soon as I noticed how "good" it was.
PS...beware that the latest firmware upgrade was removed from their official site because...guess what? :)...it's not working as it supposed to be and apparently bricked older units.
Show must go on! They will never be able to make a decent scope out of it!
-
I have an SDS1102X and it's a great scope. I do find myself in situations where being able to monitor more than two points is really useful (even doing analog work) and my next scope will definitely be a 4 channel. Especially if you don't have a repeating signal (a function gen helps with this), being able to monitor more than two things on the same trigger is really useful.
I also wouldn't take unlocking a scope for granted. Sure, it may be likely and a great bonus, but don't buy with that weighted heavily into your value equation because there is no guarantee. If you actually have an application in mind that runs above 50MHz, I'd consider the higher base flavor. If you're just looking for extra, then hoping for the unlock is probably just fine.
-
The SPI bus is so much easier to work with since I got the 4 channel DS1054Z. The primary reason I bought the scope was the number of channels. I already had (and still have) a Tek 485 to deal with signals up to 350 MHz. For SPI, you trigger on CS' which means you should be able to display an entire transaction. Decoding is a real help and particularly for what's coming back from the peripheral. In any event, CS', Clk, MISO and MOSI signals fit on a 4 channel scope quite well.
I'm happy with my DS1054Z and I did successfully install the latest update (Sept 2016?). When you read reviews, think about the possibility that the writer is not entirely up to speed on DSOs. Many of the complaints devolve into user error.
The DS1054Z is the first and only DSO I have ever used. I can't compare it with anything except my 485. There is no comparison! The DSO has so many more features that about the only thing good about the 485 is bandwidth and its ability to function as a space heater under my bench.
-
The DS1054Z is the first and only DSO I have ever used. I can't compare it with anything except my 485. There is no comparison! The DSO has so many more features that about the only thing good about the 485 is bandwidth and its ability to function as a space heater under my bench.
High bandwidth *is* a feature which is indispensable in some applications.
As others have said, 4 channels usually means that a separate external trigger is not required like on a 2 channel oscilloscope. The Rigol 1000Z can use its MSO inputs as triggers for the analog inputs although I suspect this works poorly because of jitter.
-
..............
But I must be honest: the SDS1102X is very tempting and the reasons are well explained by rf-loop. It seems to me a better device (one class higher), it just happens to be a two channel DSO and I have no idea if I would regret such a decision later on, especially because I know I won't be pushing either oscilloscope to its limits, but might want to use 4 channels.
Puh! Still not so sure...
Regards,
Vitor
The Plus (SDS1102X+) version should be considered, sure it's a bit dearer but then you'll have MSO and AWG capability should you need it along with an External trigger input for a total of 19 channels.
ATM the Decode option is free.
http://siglenteu.com/qyxwxx.aspx?id=2523&sid=210 (http://siglenteu.com/qyxwxx.aspx?id=2523&sid=210)
-
Think twice before buying the Rigol one.
How would you feel when you will get a firmware upgrade for your "beloved" scope and things like this will happen to you ?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/just-upgrade-my-rigol-ds1054z-to-the-4-04-firmware/msg1067296/#msg1067296 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/just-upgrade-my-rigol-ds1054z-to-the-4-04-firmware/msg1067296/#msg1067296)
Think twice before buying the siglent one.
How would you feel if you want to sell it later on Ebay and things like this happen to you?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-'wrongful-trademark-claim'/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-'wrongful-trademark-claim'/)
-
In all honesty: both scopes are good beginner scopes.
Sure some have a couple of bugs - every scope has them. Even Tek, Keysight,.. Part of these bugs surfacing, is due to the large userbase. And don't forget, that you'll hear more negatives, than users who are actually happy with it. It's logic. I'd rather have something with known "issues" than some blackbox..
SDS1102X has perhaps a better screen, and gets official decoding for free at the moment. That's nice to have!. On the other hand:
The DS1000Z series give you four channels, and 24Mpts of memory.
Pick your poison. They're both good.
-
Think twice before buying the Rigol one.
How would you feel when you will get a firmware upgrade for your "beloved" scope and things like this will happen to you ?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/just-upgrade-my-rigol-ds1054z-to-the-4-04-firmware/msg1067296/#msg1067296 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/just-upgrade-my-rigol-ds1054z-to-the-4-04-firmware/msg1067296/#msg1067296)
Think twice before buying the siglent one.
How would you feel if you want to sell it later on Ebay and things like this happen to you?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-'wrongful-trademark-claim'/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-they-filed-a-'wrongful-trademark-claim'/)
::) :horse:
So you want to play those games again do you Karel ?
Or for the full story you could watch this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/)
Just be sure you can handle the heat. :-BROKE
-
Question 1:
How good does the Siglent's decoding work? Does it show ASCII characters with recent firmware, or do you just get the HEX values?
Am I correct that the Rigol can either show ASCII or HEX?
This is something important for me, as I definitly want to do some serial sniffing (yes, I do have a cheap Logic Analyzer, but I want to do it with an MSO to be able to see the waveform, too).
Question 2:
If I would have specified on the first post that I only be needing 2 channels, would the technical answer be in favour of the Siglent (which is what I am assuming at this point)? I don't care about marketing strategies, etc. I care about serious bugs, limitations, etc.
Question 3:
This has been asked so many times, I read all I could about it and still I am not sure: how many of you *really* need 4 channels? What *exactly* are you measuring when using 4 simultaneous channels? I cannot come up with a single requirement of mine for that. And yes, as mentioned, I have a small cheap LA if I wanted to analyse many lines. If I would be doubtfull of the waveform, wouldn't it make sense to monitor each one individually?
This question goes on: if people say "go for the 4 channel, you never know if you need them", I then ask: "wouldn't it be better to get a 8 channel DSO? - one never knows...". Am I being silly and 4 channel is really what everyone needs?
And finally: how usefull is the 4 channel DS1054Z, when the sample rate gets divided by the 4 simultaneous channels? It's not like ou will be measuring a 50MHz signal on 4 separate channels at once?
Sorry if these seem lame questions, but it seems everytime one asks these qustions, the thread ends up in a Rigol vs Siglent flame war, which does not help anyone. Right now, I am so in middle of both, I have each DSO sitting on the respective online cart, waiting to make up my mind.
Cheers,
Vitor
-
Am I correct that the Rigol can either show ASCII or HEX?
Yes.
(also decimal)
Question 2:
If I would have specified on the first post that I only be needing 2 channels, would the technical answer be in favour of the Siglent (which is what I am assuming at this point)? I don't care about marketing strategies, etc. I care about serious bugs, limitations, etc.
No.
Question 3:
This has been asked so many times, I read all I could about it and still I am not sure: how many of you *really* need 4 channels?
I really need 3. Two isn't enough, I'm not sure I've ever needed all 4, but I have used 4 sometimes simply because it made a job easier.
And that's the point: When you have more channels, you'll use them. It's not always from necessity but sometimes it just makes things easier.
eg. I use mine a lot for debugging software, not just looking at signal integrity. You can toggle pins to show program logic happening, etc. Yes you could use your cheap logic analyzer for that but it's not real time and you need to be constantly swapping between windows. A device with its own screen is a lot better.
"wouldn't it be better to get a 8 channel DSO? - one never knows...". Am I being silly and 4 channel is really what everyone needs?
Do they make them??
(I guess they make MSOs as the next step up...)
And finally: how usefull is the 4 channel DS1054Z, when the sample rate gets divided by the 4 simultaneous channels? It's not like ou will be measuring a 50MHz signal on 4 separate channels at once?
Go with "it has just enough sample rate for 4 channels at 100MHz".
-
Sorry if these seem lame questions, but it seems everytime one asks these qustions, the thread ends up in a Rigol vs Siglent flame war, which does not help anyone. Right now, I am so in middle of both, I have each DSO sitting on the respective online cart, waiting to make up my mind.
If you are unsure then save more money and buy a better scope. Both SDS1102X and DS10254Z have severe drawbacks because they are build to be cheap but IMHO the DS1054Z would currently be the best choice for $400 due to 4 channels and more mature firmware.
-
Thanks for all the input.
I just placed the order of a DS1054Z.
I figured that I won't be using the scope for any super demanding job and for my basic mateur requirements either scope would do fine.
With that said:
- I went for the 4 channels
- I went for the cheaper price
- I went for the fact that I want to have different brands sitting on my desk, so that any blog/Youtube entries look less suspicious regarding brands
- I went for the fact that the user base must be huge
I am a bit sad, because part of me wanted the SDS1102X for:
- the bigger screen size (even at the same resolution, bigger is normally better)
- faster responsiveness
- apparently a slightly better hardware base (not so sure about the software)
- no hacks required: 100MHz + decoding option included in price
Funny, but any of my points do not take any specific application or requirement into consideration, which is why I ended up recognizing that anyone of both DSO would have more functionality than needed.
Regards,
Vitor
-
Having different brands would be the least of my worries.
-
If I would have specified on the first post that I only be needing 2 channels, would the technical answer be in favour of the Siglent (which is what I am assuming at this point)? I don't care about marketing strategies, etc. I care about serious bugs, limitations, etc.
2 channels are almost always good enough if the external trigger input is taken advantage of but there are some applications where 4 channels are indispensable. For instance decoding both sides of an SPI interface requires at least 3 channels for the input, output, and clock and even then a 4th channel would be needed for chip select. You might be able to do part of it with 2 channels and perhaps the external trigger input but it is inconvenient. This would be a good task for the digital inputs on a mixed signal DSO but check to make sure that they support decoding.
I would also want 4 channels to allow using 2 channels in differential mode while a 2nd and 3rd signal are also displayed. My inexpensive solution for this was to buy two 2 channel DSOs and stack them. :)
-
Or for the full story you could watch this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/)
Just be sure you can handle the heat. :-BROKE
I have been reading through the original discussion and I just watched the video and I am not satisfied. The president of Siglent just repeated what his representatives did so the video does not add anything.
1. Talk is cheap and Siglent did not made the situation right with the seller.
2. What they did was a misuse of IP laws.
I suspect they had a policy of doing this indiscriminately and just got caught in this case.
-
I am a bit sad, because part of me wanted the SDS1102X for:
No problem. Save up and get a Siglent later. There may be a new model by then. ;D
-
Or for the full story you could watch this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-826-siglent-ceo-eric-qin-visits-the-eevblog-lab/)
Just be sure you can handle the heat. :-BROKE
I have been reading through the original discussion and I just watched the video and I am not satisfied. The president of Siglent just repeated what his representatives did so the video does not add anything.
1. Talk is cheap and Siglent did not made the situation right with the seller.
2. What they did was a misuse of IP laws.
I suspect they had a policy of doing this indiscriminately and just got caught in this case.
That's the problem....unfounded suspicion.
So you don't believe the offered explanation then ? (mistake by a junior)
I do as I had inside channels to what was happening at the time and heard the facts before they were blown out of all proportion here on EEVblog. ::)
OK, you are free to believe as you wish, even is it's misjudged. :P
I think you'll find the OP in that thread was relatively happy with the peace offering he received from Siglent.
-
I have been reading through the original discussion and I just watched the video and I am not satisfied. The president of Siglent just repeated what his representatives did so the video does not add anything.
1. Talk is cheap and Siglent did not made the situation right with the seller.
2. What they did was a misuse of IP laws.
I suspect they had a policy of doing this indiscriminately and just got caught in this case.
That's the problem....unfounded suspicion.
So you don't believe the offered explanation then ? (mistake by a junior)
I do as I had inside channels to what was happening at the time
That is all well and nice but at the end of the day doesn't change the fact that Siglent engaged in illegal activity. A crime is a crime, and it matters little if the perpetrator did this knowingly or by accident. There's no way to polish that turd.
And since you say the excuse they used was actually true, asking a junior Chinese employee with close to no English skills to check US ebay auctions for "illegitimate" offers resulting in a violation of US law makes their management (incl the CEO) rather incompetent.
I agree with David Hess, they very likely did this on a regular basis (and might still do, maybe now just a bit more carefully), and only in this case have been caught out. At the end of the day, attempts to manipulate the market isn't exactly frowned upon in Chinese business culture.
-
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/ds1052e-removed-from-ebay/msg2892/#msg2892 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/ds1052e-removed-from-ebay/msg2892/#msg2892)
-
Hi Bicurico,
Maybe somewhat late, but may I still reply on the discussion?
First of all, I used both a Rigol 4 channel 200MHz scope at at my former job, and after a long discussion with myself and some deep investigations on the web I decided that for my private use of a replacement for an old analogue scope (Philips 200MHz, 2 channel) a Siglent SDS1202X+ 2 channel 200MHz, plus the 16 channel DSO option, plus free decode option would be the best choice. It's a bit above the approx. 400 euro you wanted to spend, say 1200 euro, but I am very happy with my choice, because the Siglent performs much better.
Some benefits of the Siglent:
- much more stable, almost no jitter, generic better performance;
- nice decode function for I2C, SPI, CAN, LIN with ASCII, HEX, DEC; it has some sub-functionality on e.g.
I2C, like 7 bits or 10 bits, EEPROM, start, stop and other conditions;
- decode function works on both CH1 CH2 and DSO (select any of the 16 channels);
- EXT trigger, Pass/Fail or Trigger Out at rear panel;
- AWG max 25 MHz (sine), lower on other wave forms;
- Kensington lock;
- Separate vertical controls for each channel;
- using a HF pulse generator, it shows perfect rise & fall on CH1 and CH2 even above the -3dB point
making it even a bit faster than advertised;
- nice display colouring feature for probabilities;
- the PC remote software is easier to use and performs better once you are used to it;
- many more.
One of the drawbacks of Siglent scopes: as far as I know, you can't label a channel. Pity. I cannot recall if the Rigol I used a year ago was capable of labelling channels.
One major mechanical lack of both scopes: their front feet are bad. Really bad. Just touch either scope on top, and it topples over.
I also compared the Siglent 1202X+ to a Keysight (4 channel) 200 MHz MSO with a touch screen I am using every day at work now. I was surprised that the 1200 euro Siglent has more functionality and at some levels performs even better than the 7800 euro Keysight scope.
-
Hi,
don't want to hijack the thread, but I'd like to ask a slightly different question. First some background - I'm a newbie to electronics, retired pensioner learning from online resources, here, youtube etc, slowly building up my little lab. I'm currently saving for a DSO. I've read many comparisons of budget DSO's, and everybody seems to be comparing hacked Rigols to other brands. How does the comparison go if you leave the Rigol unhacked? I'm very wary (through past experience) of buying something on the basis that it can be hacked for extra functionality. Manufacturers can disable this at any time with a firmware update. Rigol may be allowing the hacks to continue, but who knows when the next firmware update is done if this will change?
So, does the choice change if we have an unhacked 50mhz 1054z vs say a Siglent SDS1202X-E (both within a few dollars in price in Australia). we have 50mhz 4 channels, vs 200mhz 2 channels?
I will mostly be doing Arduino/ microcontroller stuff, perhaps some audio as well. My understanding is that arduino operates at 16mhz, so the Rigol would not be able to use all 4 channels unless hacked.
Which would be the best solution for me given my preference for not hacking?
cheers
Gary
-
So, does the choice change if we have an unhacked 50mhz 1054z vs say a Siglent SDS1202X-E (both within a few dollars in price in Australia). we have 50mhz 4 channels, vs 200mhz 4 channels?
It's 50 MHz, 4 channels, Rigol vs. 200 MHz, 2 channels, Siglent (not 4 channels).
If you'll be working with SPI communications, having four channels is useful to see all four lines of the SPI bus. However, if you'll be evaluating the signal quality on those lines at very high speeds, higher bandwidth is valuable. As usual, there are tradeoffs.
I will mostly be doing Arduino/ microcontroller stuff, perhaps some audio as well. My understanding is that arduino operates at 16mhz, so the Rigol would not be able to use all 4 channels unless hacked.
Many Arduino boards run at 16MHz (microcontroller clock speed), but that doesn't mean that all of the signals you'd want to look at are running at that clock speed. For example, the Arduino SoftwareSerial library supports serial communication speeds up to 115200 bps (https://www.arduino.cc/en/Reference/SoftwareSerialBegin). Some boards (e.g., Arduino 101) can only receive serial data at a maximum of 57600 bps.
The DS1054Z's four channels will work whether you hack it or not. The hack doesn't change the sampling rate of the scope, only the bandwidth of its inputs. With four channels active, the sampling rate is 250Msps/sec, with or without the hack.
-
Which would be the best solution for me given my preference for not hacking?
I'd say the GW Instek GDS-2000E series has mature firmware and lots of features, deepest memory with all channels enabled but is is considerably more expensive (US $1270 for the 200MHz 4 channel version) compared to a hacked Rigol DS1054Z. However without hacks a Rigol DS1104Z with decoding and deep memory options will be over US$1000 as well. By the way the Siglent SDS1202X-E only has two channels. For me that would be a no-go just because of the number of channels. IMHO 4 channels is a minimum requirement for an oscilloscope especially if you want to work with microcontrollers. Having additional digital channels can be an advantage. Nowadays there is also an MSO2000E series from GW Instek which has 4 channels analog + 16 digital. The 200MHz version will cost around US $1900 though. If you want a much cheaper oscilloscope then a MicSig TO1104 is also a good option (4 channels 100MHz) although protocol decoding is in beta testing stage.
-
I'm very wary (through past experience) of buying something on the basis that it can be hacked for extra functionality. Manufacturers can disable this at any time with a firmware update. Rigol may be allowing the hacks to continue, but who knows when the next firmware update is done if this will change?
a) It's not an ongoing 'battle' of hackers vs. Rigol. There's no back and forth with us hacking, them trying to prevent us via firmware updates, etc. They've been allowing hacks for a long time now (since the previous generation of 'scopes!), they know perfectly well that everybody does it, they've never tried to stop it, it's good for sales.
b) Nobody can force you to update your firmware. Right now the firmware is quite mature and they're unlikely to introduce any major new features. You could just stay with the current firmware version forever.
c) Apart from the bandwidth you also get a lot of extra goodies which are paid options, eg. serial decoders. If they prevent those hacks from working then they'll kill all the people who legitimately paid for them - never going to happen!
(b) and (c) are moot though. If they had any interest at all in preventing hacking they'd have done something by now - the 'scope is a few years old and there's several board/booter revisions.
So, does the choice change if we have an unhacked 50mhz 1054z
Yes, but you simply wouldn't do that.
I will mostly be doing Arduino/ microcontroller stuff, perhaps some audio as well. My understanding is that arduino operates at 16mhz, so the Rigol would not be able to use all 4 channels unless hacked.
??? An unhacked Rigol can use all 4 channels at 50MHz.
Which would be the best solution for me given my preference for not hacking?
Learn to embrace hacking.
Or look at the cheapo GW-Instek, it's comparable to an unhacked Rigol in specs, similar price, but nicer.
By the way the Siglent SDS1202X-E only has two channels. For me that would be a no-go just because of the number of channels.
Yep. The Siglent is nice but for Arduino work you want more than two channels.
Siglent: You need to make the trigger input act like a third 'digital' channel like the new Keysight does. I could live with two analog&one digital channel.
-
Hi,
and thanks to those who answered my query regarding the best choice in DSO's. I'll continue saving and will accept the recommendations re the 1054Z. The other brands are pretty much out of my league price wise, and since I know so little about these things at the moment, I'll listen to people much better informed than myself :-)
cheers
and thanks again
Gary
-
Hi,
and thanks to those who answered my query regarding the best choice in DSO's. I'll continue saving and will accept the recommendations re the 1054Z.
You're welcome, Gary. Since you're currently saving up, be sure to check out the landscape once you're at the point of purchase. Things may have changed by then.
Meanwhile, have fun with the microcontrollers. You can still do a bunch prior to getting your new scope.