Hantek 4000c series?

[Rogue]

Hi folks.  First time poster here.  I am in the market for my first scope.  I've been researching and learning and end up on this forum a lot reading information, so I figured I'd join as it seems a great place to help out....and I'll probably be doing even more reading once I get stuff ordered.

It will primary be used for guitar amplifier repair/building/modding.  So it's a pretty simple, straight forward need.  I was originally just going to find a used analogue scope but someone pointed out these DSOs and just seemed kind of cool.  I like the smaller footprint and fft ability. 

I was sent a link to Saelig and the Owon SDS5032EV.  I've done some research and have reached that point of saturation.  Being a scope newb, there is a LOT of information out there that I feel I'm just swimming in it trying to keep my head afloat.  Bandwidth, sample rates, memory, volts/div, the list goes on....and on and on.   

I also need a signal generator, and the Hantek 4000 series has one built in, and near as my newbie self can tell, a comparable THD compared to other budget generators that were said to be pretty decent.  So this became an option, but there is so little information out there on it.  No reviews.  I'm not sure anyone has ever bought one and posted about it.  lol

http://www.hantek.com/en/ProductDetail_3_4163.html

One thing I'm not too fond of is I can't seem to find these at a US supplier.  I'd like to buy from a company that I can interface with, and have a little better peace of mind in terms of support. 

I'm okay with going another direction and keeping them separate.  I had considered this as well with a scope...

http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/instek/signalgenerators/sfg-1013.htm

My needs are simple.  If it turns into something beyond a hobby, I will upgrade when the time comes.  For now, just keeping it pretty budget minded now, but still decent stuff.   

As I said, it's primarily to work on guitar amps.  The cheaper Owon has a sample rate of 250MS/s.  That in itself is fine in the audio spectrum, but I do worry if that might miss some potential oscillations, though (I really don't know).   Also, I want to use the FFT feature (we actually want some harmonic distortion for tone).  I know there is some correlation between sample rates and memory for better FFT representation (not that I understand it), and it would make sense that the better sampling of a wave you have, the more precise your FFT would be.....so would the 250Ms/s Owon be adequate for that?  Or would a better sample rate lead to better results? 

So that's the low down.  Just a newb with simple needs looking for a decent setup for now.  I'm just looking for any advice, reviews, thoughts, personal feelings to help keep from drowning in the ocean of information to consider. 

Thanks! 

[dadler]

Please seriously consider the Rigol DS1054Z. There is a version with an integrated signal generator as well.

If you are short on funds and really only need audio-level performance, consider the low-end PicoScopes. They have integrated signal generators with 600ohm output impedance (mainly intended for audio), and match most of your requirements.

[Rogue]

Please seriously consider the Rigol DS1054Z. There is a version with an integrated signal generator as well.

If you are short on funds and really only need audio-level performance, consider the low-end PicoScopes. They have integrated signal generators with 600ohm output impedance (mainly intended for audio), and match most of your requirements.

Thanks dadler.  The PicoScopes are USB scopes, right?  I'd prefer a bench top scope. 

It looks like the Rigol with generator function gets expensive quickly.  But I will certainly consider Rigol.   What's your feelings for the 1054z over other makes?   

Thanks

[dadler]

I have the DS1054z and it is an extremely well made and capable scope for the price.

The build quality really is up there, close to the likes of Agilent etc. They feel like much more expensive products than they are in price.

If I were you, I would get the DS1054Z with the EEVblog discount for $375, and get a separate function generator that meets your needs.

[rsjsouza]

Thanks dadler.  The PicoScopes are USB scopes, right?  I'd prefer a bench top scope. 

It looks like the Rigol with generator function gets expensive quickly.  But I will certainly consider Rigol.   What's your feelings for the 1054z over other makes?   

+1 for Rigol's entry level oscilloscopes (I have a previous generation DS1102E, and just bought a more upscale DS4014). Their build quality is good and they have a large community of people exploring and documenting its bugs (they will exist for any DSO).

Another brand to look for is Siglent, with a good community of people also exploring and documenting bugs (they even have a technical support thread here in the EEV).

I also prefer bench instruments, but if you want a different opinion about USB-based oscilloscopes, take a look at this article from Colin O'Flynn. He is not using only audio.

[Rogue]

I have the DS1054z and it is an extremely well made and capable scope for the price.

The build quality really is up there, close to the likes of Agilent etc. They feel like much more expensive products than they are in price.

If I were you, I would get the DS1054Z with the EEVblog discount for $375, and get a separate function generator that meets your needs.

EEBblog discount? O0  Tell me more...

So it looks like the DS1074Z-S is the lowest cost model with the generator.  It's like $800 or so. 

A 4 channel scope seems a little over kill for me, but it seems to be worth the cost over the 1052.  Why do they not have a 2 channel version with all these features? 

Something they seem to highlight in the specs on their website is the " 30,000wfms/s Waveform Capture Rate".  Is that like a refresh rate?  I'm not sure what the other scopes have, but I assume this is pretty good. 

Thanks for the heads up.  Now I have to seriously consider this.   

[dadler]

I have the DS1054z and it is an extremely well made and capable scope for the price.

The build quality really is up there, close to the likes of Agilent etc. They feel like much more expensive products than they are in price.

If I were you, I would get the DS1054Z with the EEVblog discount for $375, and get a separate function generator that meets your needs.

EEBblog discount? O0  Tell me more...

So it looks like the DS1074Z-S is the lowest cost model with the generator.  It's like $800 or so. 

A 4 channel scope seems a little over kill for me, but it seems to be worth the cost over the 1052.  Why do they not have a 2 channel version with all these features? 

Something they seem to highlight in the specs on their website is the " 30,000wfms/s Waveform Capture Rate".  Is that like a refresh rate?  I'm not sure what the other scopes have, but I assume this is pretty good. 

Thanks for the heads up.  Now I have to seriously consider this.   

PM sent.

The 1052 is old now, cannot recommend it.

Having 4 channels is actually *very* useful. You'd be surprised how often you use them when you have them available. Say you want to evaluate a simple op-amp circuit -- you can easily eat up all 4 channels.

[Rogue]

This is all pretty new to me.  I'm just looking for a simple scope and figured 2 channels would be all I would need.  However, as one looking to have an understanding of how a waveform is distorted as it progresses through the amp, it might be kind of instructive to see multiple waveforms after each stage (justifying purchase ).

Another question, the 1054z has a single scale control and single position control for all 4 channels.  How inconvenient is this in practice? 

I'm pretty sure I'll keep it all pretty simple at first and just get familiar with the basics.  What advice does anyone have to a total newb on learning scopes?  Not only DSOs, but scopes in general?   I have little doubt this will eventually be a tool similar in familiarity of my other tools, but as of now near zero experience with scopes.  You just gotta start at the bottom and work up.  Are some good tutorials anywhere on learning?

Thanks again to all! 

[tautech]

This one is linked often:
https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys193/Labs/XYZs_of_Oscilloscopes.pdf

Check out the "sticky" threads in the Beginners board.

As far as a single vertical attenuator on scopes, some consider it a PITA while others live happily whith them. Personally I dislike them and have always had scopes with one/channel.
Just another reason why I chose to market Siglent.

[dadler]

One vertical control per channel is certainly preferred, but usually increases the footprint of the scope.

You very quickly get used to just pressing the channel button you wish to control first.

If you go back and forth between a scope that has separate vertical controls and one with only a single control, it can be sort of annoying. Kind of like swapping back and forth between cars that have dramatically different clutches, your muscle memory doesn't transfer well.

But if it is your only scope, I really can't see it being a problem. I was able to adapt to it quite easily.

The Siglent scopes are nice too BTW.

[Rogue]

Thanks tautech, there's no doubt I'll have to be diving into the fundamentals and that link looks to give a good foundation. 

I can see where not having the separate controls could get frustrating.  At the same time, I've been accustomed to getting used to the tools you have.  I'll compare features of the Siglent stuff.  Like I said, it's almost as if swimming and trying to keep afloat.  I'm sure with more scope experience the selection would be simpler.  As of now, it's quite the endeavor.   

No one has responded to the sampling rate/memory depth thing for FFT thing yet.  I'm not quite understanding this relationship.  I think the primary function of a scope in terms of audio is probably as simple as it gets.  But in terms of FFT, where the accuracy may or may not be an issue, I'd like to have a better understanding.  I think there are really two points (of what I'm looking to do) of interest...seeing a representation of a simple sine wav...and analyzing its fft at any given point in the circuit.  The waveform I would imagine be handled by the simplest of scopes.  The FFT might be a bit more complex.  I don't know.  I understand a more precise measurement of the sine wave would lead to a more accurate FFT analyses....but how much is within acceptable limits?  I have no idea. 

Primarily, I just want to see a simple waveform representation form one stage to the next, and make sure I am adequately seeing any oscillation effects (which would most likely be higher frequency).  Secondly, I'd like to analyze the harmonic distortion with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  Everything else is secondary to those concerns, although I will say I do consider form factor in such endeavors.  Nothing wrong with having the tools to do the job, and looking nice too. 

Thanks again for the replies. 

[rsjsouza]

No one has responded to the sampling rate/memory depth thing for FFT thing yet.  I'm not quite understanding this relationship.

I am not sure if you already have done so, but take a look at pages 8~9 of this Agilent document. LeCroy also has an interesting article. A summary on this EDN article. Perhaps they will explain this better than I.

Most oscilloscopes have a more limited number of FFT points - for example, Rigol DS1000Z series goes up to 1024 points, while DS2000 and DS4000 series use 2048 points. This impacts the dynamic range of the FFT (or perhaps the frequency resolution, I am not 100% sure). In the case of audio, where the frequency of interest is closer to zero, this is not a very limiting factor. 

Primarily, I just want to see a simple waveform representation form one stage to the next, and make sure I am adequately seeing any oscillation effects (which would most likely be higher frequency). 

I think the oscilloscope is a great tool for that. It gives you a quick feel for the shape of the waveform from stage to stage.

Secondly, I'd like to analyze the harmonic distortion with a reasonable degree of accuracy.  Everything else is secondary to those concerns, although I will say I do consider form factor in such endeavors.  Nothing wrong with having the tools to do the job, and looking nice too. 

Maybe I am wrong, as I do not work with audio as much, but I have the impression the dynamic range of a typical oscilloscope front end may not be up to par with the THD measurements of high performance audio (check pages 10~12 of Agilent's document above). Again, it all boils down to how much is a "reasonable degree of accuracy" for you.

A device such as Keithley 2015 will spit out a very accurate THD number as well as other parameters. It also incorporates an internal precision sinewave generator. However it costs an arm and a leg.

[Rogue]

I am not sure if you already have done so, but take a look at pages 8~9 of this Agilent document. LeCroy also has an interesting article. A summary on this EDN article. Perhaps they will explain this better than I.

Most oscilloscopes have a more limited number of FFT points - for example, Rigol DS1000Z series goes up to 1024 points, while DS2000 and DS4000 series use 2048 points. This impacts the dynamic range of the FFT (or perhaps the frequency resolution, I am not 100% sure). In the case of audio, where the frequency of interest is closer to zero, this is not a very limiting factor.   

Woah.  That's an explosion of information.  Thanks.  That helps a lot.  For my purposes, it looks like the sampling rate isn't as important as other factors.  Even lower sampling rates offered on budget units should be more than adequate for audio purposes and the limiting factor for FFT would be the memory which doesn't even come close to the max sample rate.

Good information, thank you much.  I'll be referring back to those links for sure.     

Maybe I am wrong, as I do not work with audio as much, but I have the impression the dynamic range of a typical oscilloscope front end may not be up to par with the THD measurements of high performance audio (check pages 10~12 of Agilent's document above). Again, it all boils down to how much is a "reasonable degree of accuracy" for you.

A device such as Keithley 2015 will spit out a very accurate THD number as well as other parameters. It also incorporates an internal precision sinewave generator. However it costs an arm and a leg.

I hadn't even considered the oscilloscope front end being a factor.  I did read an article from pico scopes that showed the difference in resolution on 8, 12, and 16 bit scopes.  It was significant.  Of course, I can't afford a 12 bit scope.  I don't think the FFT thing will be a used tool much for diagnosis, but just getting an idea on different component values in the amp affects harmonics.  Really more for learning and/or fun.  So I should probably stop obsessing.  

Thanks, this goes a long way helping me to look for the specs that will suit me needs most.   

[JackP]

Bit of shameless self-promotion here - I've written an article on the various specifications for a scope (bandwidth, sampling rate, update rate etc). Nothing about FFT but it might make for interesting reading? Anyway, you can find it here.

[rsjsouza]

I hadn't even considered the oscilloscope front end being a factor.  I did read an article from pico scopes that showed the difference in resolution on 8, 12, and 16 bit scopes.  It was significant. 

That depends on the marketing spin of the day...
Tektronix
Agilent

Really more for learning and/or fun.  So I should probably stop obsessing.  

Then the oscilloscopes mentioned above will be absolutely perfect for this task.

For your sleepless nights, I found a very interesting article that talks about FFT basics and covers most of the aspects you are interested.

[Rogue]

Bit of shameless self-promotion here - I've written an article on the various specifications for a scope (bandwidth, sampling rate, update rate etc). Nothing about FFT but it might make for interesting reading? Anyway, you can find it here.

Thanks.  I'm noticing that many of the budget scopes I'm looking doesn't have a waveform capture rate listed.  I assume because they aren't very good. lol 

[Rogue]

Then the oscilloscopes mentioned above will be absolutely perfect for this task.

For your sleepless nights, I found a very interesting article that talks about FFT basics and covers most of the aspects you are interested.

I keep waffling back and forth between a cheaper scope that will probably function just fine and the best bang for the buck, which seems to be 1054z.  Decisions decisions. 

I'm sure whatever I get I'll be referring back to this thread for all the information posted to help get me on my feet. 

It has been an instructive thread.  Thanks everyone. 

[dadler]

If you can afford it, I really again recommend the 1054z. It is a ridiculous amount of scope for the price. The build quality is so much better than anything in this price range. It really is amazing that they can make such a full-featured, quality product for this price.

[tautech]

If you can afford it, I really again recommend the 1054z. It is a ridiculous amount of scope for the price. The build quality is so much better than anything in this price range. It really is amazing that they can make such a full-featured, quality product for this price.

I could challenge you on this statement but I know many look at the 1054z with rose tinted glasses.

Reasoning
Design flaws identified by Bud and MarkL
Only 1 Gsa/s sampling shared across 4 channels
Single vertical attenuator across 4 channels
Only 300V channel inputs

And the latest, there is apparently no power cycle bootsrap counter on Rigol products.
In the secondhand market, how will one know how much work these products have done?
Will this de-value them? 
How can one know if a unit is NOS or been extensively used?


@ Rogue
Study the Siglent SDS1000CML or CNL series.
They are an established, mature and reliable unit, while not with all of the features of 1054, some specs are better, just as it is across the massive TE range.

[dadler]

The Siglent products, like most products, are not without their faults.

Also, the build quality on Rigol products, at least the exterior enclosure/tangibles, is higher than most other products in this price range. The feel similar in quality to Agilent/Keithley construction. Siglent has a cheaper feel to me, thin metal, cheap feeling plastics... but this is all just my opinion and is subjective.

Edit: You will find more critique and dialogue about Rigol products because they are extremely popular. Siglent is significantly less popular. So I don't know if your presentation of the "flaws" in Rigol products is fair, when we don't have similar analysis of Siglent products.

Rigol products are extremely popular, which I think should in some sense speak for itself. Not that the products do not have flaws, but that they are a great value on the price/quality/feature front.

[Rogue]

If you can afford it, I really again recommend the 1054z. It is a ridiculous amount of scope for the price. The build quality is so much better than anything in this price range. It really is amazing that they can make such a full-featured, quality product for this price.

I could challenge you on this statement but I know many look at the 1054z with rose tinted glasses.

Reasoning
Design flaws identified by Bud and MarkL
Only 1 Gsa/s sampling shared across 4 channels
Single vertical attenuator across 4 channels
Only 300V channel inputs

And the latest, there is apparently no power cycle bootsrap counter on Rigol products.
In the secondhand market, how will one know how much work these products have done?
Will this de-value them? 
How can one know if a unit is NOS or been extensively used?


@ Rogue
Study the Siglent SDS1000CML or CNL series.
They are an established, mature and reliable unit, while not with all of the features of 1054, some specs are better, just as it is across the massive TE range.

What's the channel input voltage for the Siglents? 

[Rogue]

So, one some (well one brand) it will say one number for the memory, and then another for the fft memory.  For example...

http://www.tequipment.net/Instek/GDS-1072B/Digital-Oscilloscopes/?v=7401

10M per channel memory depth

1M fft

I don't see other brands make a distinction.  Is there a different memory for the fft than the stated memory depth? 

[tautech]

What's the channel input voltage for the Siglents?

All models 400V max

[Rogue]

What's the channel input voltage for the Siglents?

All models 400V max

I guess this brings up another question.  I don't see much information on the probes that come with the units.  Are they generally the same voltage rating as the scope input? 

I can find DC voltages of 450+ commonly.  It would be nice to check for ripple with a scope.  Sure, a 10x probe should be fine for getting the voltages down for the scope, but what about the probes themselves?  I don't see much information on them when reading the scope specs. 

Dadgum.  Lots to consider. 

[tautech]

I guess this brings up another question.  I don't see much information on the probes that come with the units.  Are they generally the same voltage rating as the scope input? 

I can find DC voltages of 450+ commonly.  It would be nice to check for ripple with a scope.  Sure, a 10x probe should be fine for getting the voltages down for the scope, but what about the probes themselves?  I don't see much information on them when reading the scope specs.   

Specs are there but you must look for them.
http://www.siglentamerica.com/prodcut-fjxx.aspx?fjid=355&id=27&tid=1&T=2

10:1 probes are standard with most scopes, just as they should be, they load/influence the DUT less than 1:1 probes.
For regular HV work and any mains or SMPS work you'd be wise to also have 100:1 probes for added safety and less "de-rating with frequency". I get mine out for anything over 150V.

All probes should have in their packaging graphs for voltage/frequency de-rating and it's important to keep these in a safe place for reference.

Yes there is lots to consider and it's wise to be taking notice as you have and attempt to absorb it all, it'll pay off later.