Best budget oscilloscope for beginners (Rigol DS1052E Vs Rigol ds1202z-e)

[gabri.peic]

Hi everyone.
I want to buy myself my first digital oscilloscope but can't decide which one to get.  It is all really confusing for a noob like me...
Anyways. I am looking for a cheap oscilloscope for audio amplifier repairs (mainly to see clipping, oscillation, etc)  and all sorts of stuff like vintage TV/radio/organ, switching power supply repairs and in general learning oscilloscopes.
I saw that a guy on YouTube called "John audio tech" uses old rigol ds1052E for amplifiers and gets decent results. But should I maybe buy something newer like Rigol ds1202z-e
Also I know that on a digital oscilloscope fft mode is not that good but I liked what I saw in John audio tech videos and would be happy with that for rough distortion tests.  So how does fft mode compare on these two scopes
Also if anyone has any other suggestions please let me know. But it must be available in Europe without crazy import and shipping costs.
Thanks in advance.

[Power-Electronics]

I have the DS1202Z-E, which I use for switched power. I wish I had four channels instead of two. But I also haven't tried a slower scope, so I don't know if I'd regret giving up some bandwidth to get more channels.

[rsjsouza]

For audio you should be fine with a two channel oscilloscope for a price break. Given you are impressed with the DS1052E FFT, I would suggest getting something that can give you a better spectral analysis such as the Siglent SDS1202X-E, which has a much better FFT (1Mpts) and a newer architecture.

Another alternative for audio is a good sound card and a computer, but that might not have the same portability of a fully fledged oscilloscope. On the other hand, you will have additional resolution (up to 24-bit) and, if you already have a PC in your bench/work area, it might not be a stretch.

Be prepared for some flame wars between the regulars w.r.t. brands and suggestions... 

[gabri.peic]

Hmm Siglent SDS1202X-E seems like a good option for me...

[Doctorandus_P]

I do have a DS1052E myself, and it's a usable scope but it it's getting quite old now. It also has a smallish and quite low resolution LCD.
There is an FFT function on this scope, but it's not much more then a bad joke.
I would not buy such a scope now, as modern scopes have improved a lot.
The probes that came with this scope are quite bad. The 1x/10x switch does not always work properly and it won't stay in it/s 10x position, and this scope has an annoying bug in the rotary encoders that do not work properly. Replacing the encoders ( a few hours of work) apparently fixes it, but I suspect it's mostly a result of lousy debouncing. I have not used the scope to measure what happens on these rotary encoders, as that is an annoying measurement to do (It changes functions / timebase while you rotate the knob to get a test signal).

I'm guessing that this old scope would be worth considering for around EUR150 on the second hand market.

Some of the Siglent scopes have a real good FFT function.
My next scope will probably be a Siglent because of the bad probes that came with the Rigol and the bad encoders. An annoying thing about the Siglent is that they do not have a power switch, but only some soft power button.

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

I have digital and analog scopes. The old analog scopes are much easier to use at audio frequencies. In order to even get a readable pattern on my digital scope, I have to use low pass filters and the filters provided are not "Low Pass" enough.
I mostly use scopes for RF Freq though.
A cheap 10 MHz analog scope is just great for audio stuff.

Wally

[rsjsouza]

Hmm Siglent SDS1202X-E seems like a good option for me...

If I were after an oscilloscope, that would be the family I would buy nowadays. If you can go further in your budget, the SDS1104X-E is the same platform but adds two more channels (four channels in total) in exchange for a lower bandwidth (100MHz). BTW, I am not affiliated in any way with Siglent.

There is one additional advantage of this series, which is a range of 500µV/div which can be useful for those super low-level signals (phono cartridges or cassete heads if you deal with vintage).

The old analog scopes are much easier to use at audio frequencies.

Wally, indeed analog oscilloscopes are quite enough for audio and I personally love working with them, but unfortunately these days you can't buy one new with warranty anymore and therefore increases the risk of getting a bad unit for a beginner like the OP.

[gabri.peic]

Thanks.  I think I will go with the siglent.
As for the analog scopes yes I did consider them but in my country they are not that easy to get for a fair price.  I do plan on getting one analog scope because I like vintage stuff and because of stuff like "oscilloscope music" but for now I really need something more modern because I work with all sorts of stuff not just audio and vintage.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

[tautech]

SDS1202X-E should be close if not equal to matching the 4ch X-E's XY performance as seen here:



Note that by winding the memory depth back some in a DSO XY performance can be somewhat improved.

[Toolworker]

I have a similar question. My old Hitachi CRT scope has gone wonky, and although I don't use a scope very often, it's handy to have one around. I don't need digital decoding or fancy signal processing but would like frequency measurement. Probably one of the scopes under $300 will fill my needs.

But looking at all the models on Amazon, I feel like a deer in the headlights. Is there a comparison chart anywhere that explains the differences?

Siglent is mentioned here, but their low-priced scopes are 2013 and 2016 models, per Amazon. The Rigol DS1102Z-E and DS1202Z-E are 2021 models, and Hantek has four recent models ranging from $219 to $299. Are these all reputable brands? Is there a reason to prefer the more recent models?

Rigol says "analog channels"; the others just say "channels". Is Rigol different?

And what's the difference between Siglent CML+ and DL+?

[tautech]

Welcome to the forum.

DL/CML differences are essentially sampling and memory depth.
Either are entry level into the DSO world you are about to embark into.

DL we have never stocked due to their bargain basement specs and even the better CML we no longer stock as for a little more $ a much more advanced and capable scope can be purchased.
Have a look at the SDS1104X-U.

[Toolworker]

Thanks for your reply. Since I'm looking for a scope for occasional light use, I'll stay in the $200 - $300 range. Granted, the extra $100 for the SDS1104X-U would be good value, but I don't need it. Probably at some point Siglent will come out with a 2-channel version, but I'm limited to what's available now, so narrowed it down to the RIGOL DS1102Z-E and Siglent SDS1102CML+.

I can't really evaluate the specs and differences among the scopes, and any of them would be more than adequate for my purposes. But looking on Amazon, the user reviews for the Rigol mostly said "Great scope," while the ones for Siglent were more detailed and informative. And there was a comment about the Rigol scope sharing one pair of positioning knobs between the two channels. I figure if they'd design that inconvenience, there would be others too. So I'm not claiming this is a great decision process, but I'll stretch a bit and get the SDS1102CML+.

[tautech]

Yes multiplexed (shared) controls are not for everyone and for a 2ch scope quite unnecessary whereas for compact 4ch DSO's front panel real estate is at a premium therefore more commonly used for them.

My only other comment is if you are to get into poking at data bus sometime later a scope with Decode might be worth considering. We now select SDS1202X-E as our base scope to cover the widest use cases in the entry level market segment.
Do a bit more research and good luck with your decision. 

[Toolworker]

@tautech, what's the difference between the X_U scope and the X_E, other than that additional features can be licensed on the X_E?

And other than the number of channels and serial decoding aside, are there other reasons to choose the  SDS1104X_U over the SDS1102CML+?

[tautech]

@tautech, what's the difference between the X_U scope and the X_E, other than that additional features can be licensed on the X_E?

You really need specify with X-E, 2ch or 4ch models as the feature set is very different.
4ch X-U vs X-E, see the attachment below.

And other than the number of channels and serial decoding aside, are there other reasons to choose the  SDS1104X_U over the SDS1102CML+?

Newer more capable design and far better UI and particularly the GUI that conveys a lot more info than the CML+.
Much better for screenshots for bringing here or for documentation. Little stuff like input attenuation indication in the channel tab instead of guessing if a 1x or 10x probe has been used.
If you can spring for a X-U or X-E over a CML I would advise it.

[Toolworker]

From this it looks like there's a whole lot less hardware in the SDS1104X-U than in the SDS1104X-E (which I guess is really a fully loaded SDS1204X-E with a bunch of additional cost features and the extra speed locked out?). I feel like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, thinking I was dealing with the wizard only to discover the marketing department behind the curtain.

All that said, I'm inclined to agree that the SDS1104X-U is worth the $100 over the SDS1102CML+, if only for the two additional channels and the better information display and UI.

I wonder if the CML+ will be replaced with an SDS1102X-U as soon as they've exhausted their stockpile of CML parts. It'd probably be cheaper to make than the CML+.

[tautech]

From this (Dave's Vid)
 it looks like there's a whole lot less hardware in the SDS1104X-U than in the SDS1104X-E (which I guess is really a fully loaded SDS1204X-E with a bunch of additional cost features and the extra speed locked out?). I feel like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, thinking I was dealing with the wizard only to discover the marketing department behind the curtain.

All that said, I'm inclined to agree that the SDS1104X-U is worth the $100 over the SDS1102CML+, if only for the two additional channels and the better information display and UI.

The far greater X-U memory depth is a significant advantage if we are to use a DSO for things it's good at....captures. 
I believe X-U was developed to steal the thunder of the 1054Z and without the needs for hacks it provides double the BW, better FFT and the much faster Xilinx processer for it to be a snappier scope.
Sure for $100 less than the X-E it's nowhere near as well featured but still a nice little scope to use which like the 2ch X-E better fills the needs for a modern scope than the older CML design.

I wonder if the CML+ will be replaced with an SDS1102X-U as soon as they've exhausted their stockpile of CML parts. It'd probably be cheaper to make than the CML+.

At one time we had 40 kpt memory SDS1102CNL (discontinued) and the current 2 Mpts CML+ models both of which IMO are far less scope than any of the X-U and X-E models and it was common to upgrade the CNL's to CML with just the addition of memory chips as back then they were the same PCB.
But we already have the 2ch SDS1202X-E that was to be in a range of BW models until Dave's teardown video where he dumped code at boot to identify how easy it would be to hack. Siglent then only released the 200 MHz version to the west and thereby trumped any need for hacks. The result was Dave probably has the only SDS1102X-E in the west. 

Yeah I know Siglent's models are a bit of an alphabet soup but if you need further info just keep firing the questions. 

[YurkshireLad]

"I believe X-U was developed to steal the thunder of the 1054Z"

Does the X-U steal the 1054Z's thunder? Or is the Rigol still a worthy buy these days?

[T_guttata]

I have the Rigol DS 1054z, unlocked to 100 MhZ. So far I have not used 4 channels. What I‘m wondering is: are there any differential probes around which are reasonable in price with decent quality? I‘m always a bit afraid to use the scope to measure something when one of the potentials is not clearly ground potential.

[tautech]

The 25 MHz DP-25 is reasonable value for money.

[T_guttata]

seems to be discontinued?

[Psi]

Keep in mind that the newer rigol scopes (after the DS1052) are a bit slow/laggy when you move the control knobs.
I'm not sure about the latest generation, but the generations after the DS1052 that I have tried were quite annoying to use.

Maybe check out some video reviews and pay attention to the movement of the horizonal control and the time it takes for that change to appear on screen.

It's not a deal breaker, just really annoying to me.  How annoying you will find it i dunno.

I prefer Siglent scopes now, but I dunno if they fit in your budget or not.

I also agree what others have said, that 4 channels is really nice to have.  I would take 4ch 50mhz over 2ch 100mhz any day. But obviously it depends what you are doing.
For audio you might find it useful to follow a signal through the analog path, and having 4 channels to look at 4 points at once might be useful for that.

[tautech]

seems to be discontinued?

Not by the manufacturer:
http://www.pintek.com.tw/productDetail/land-ctop-2/index/pscsn/17072/psn/19265

[Toolworker]

Newer more capable design and far better UI and particularly the GUI that conveys a lot more info than the CML+.

I had already bought the CML+, but because of liberal holiday season return policies I ordered an SDS1104X_U and will keep that one. I won't use most of the added features, but two more channels and the usability are enough to make it worth the difference.

Most of the folks in this thread are far more technically capable than I, but since the topic is an "oscilloscope for beginners" I'll share some newbie reactions.

You are 100% right about the superior user interface on the X_U (and the X_E, which shares a User's Manual.) One example: on the CML+, moving the vertical position a long distance requires spinning and spinning the knob. The X's vertical knob shifts to a higher speed after a few spins.

I'm used to an old analog scope, which shows exactly what's at the end of the probe in real time. There's a learning curve to get used to a digital scope, which shows a digitzed signal that is sometimes processed and/or stored, can display as more than just a sharp trace, and is sometimes slightly delayed from real time. This disconnect seems a bit more evident on the X (which does more) than the CML+. I wonder if there's an introduction to digital scopes for analog dummies that would smooth this process.

A couple of quibbles. Half the probes could not be fully frequency compensated, and most of the others needed adjustment to the limit. I guess I should just use them on 1X? And the X_U fan is loud to the point of being intrusive in an otherwise quiet room. The airflow is cool; too bad it isn't controlled by a temperature sensor. YMMV, and it's still a keeper.

[tautech]

Newer more capable design and far better UI and particularly the GUI that conveys a lot more info than the CML+.

I had already bought the CML+, but because of liberal holiday season return policies I ordered an SDS1104X_U and will keep that one. I won't use most of the added features, but two more channels and the usability are enough to make it worth the difference.

Most of the folks in this thread are far more technically capable than I, but since the topic is an "oscilloscope for beginners" I'll share some newbie reactions.

You are 100% right about the superior user interface on the X_U (and the X_E, which shares a User's Manual.) One example: on the CML+, moving the vertical position a long distance requires spinning and spinning the knob. The X's vertical knob shifts to a higher speed after a few spins.

I'm used to an old analog scope, which shows exactly what's at the end of the probe in real time. There's a learning curve to get used to a digital scope, which shows a digitzed signal that is sometimes processed and/or stored, can display as more than just a sharp trace, and is sometimes slightly delayed from real time. This disconnect seems a bit more evident on the X (which does more) than the CML+. I wonder if there's an introduction to digital scopes for analog dummies that would smooth this process.

The tiny display latency is just something you'll get used to with DSO's and it's the price we pay for digital processing that brings the many other benefits a DSO provides.
X-U drives like a X-E and there are many things that the multifunction control does and when you see its LED illuminate the click/press it a alphanumeric box appears where you can enter values and their multipliers rather than adjusting the control. Any work with the multifunction control is best done with you hand supported and steadied with your 3 smaller fingers atop of the scope to accurately control its adjustment and press for selection.

For now just become familiar with the menus and know where to find stuff for when you need it.

A couple of quibbles. Half the probes could not be fully frequency compensated, and most of the others needed adjustment to the limit. I guess I should just use them on 1X?

No.
I have seen this but not to the degree a probe could not be compensated.
Mark these probes with some tape and take screenshots of each limit of probe compensation and use them as proof to claim warranty on the probes as not fit for purpose.
Save these screenshots to USB stick using the blue Print button.
Give me a poke if you have any trouble with your supplier and I'll make things happen.