| Electronics > Beginners |
| Best oscilloscope for beginer |
| << < (3/5) > >> |
| tggzzz:
--- Quote from: jazper on December 26, 2018, 09:13:12 pm --- --- Quote from: tggzzz on December 26, 2018, 09:02:21 pm --- --- Quote from: jazper on December 26, 2018, 08:51:56 pm ---Yesterday I was debugging a basic atmel328p timer circuit. While typically I need one or two channels, I had scope and meter probes everywhere. With probes in the right places, I could see the output, timer alarms, wake up interrupt, input voltage and clock signals. This helped me figure out that SPI wasn't working properly and that my output voltage was being modulated into a 10hz square wave, which lead me to a solution. Without 4 probes I would have had much more trouble with the diagnosis. If possible, definitely go 4. --- End quote --- 4 yes, but in that case it is much cheaper to use digital channels in a logic analyser than analogue channels in a scope. An engineer is someone that can do for $1 what any fool can do for $10 :) --- End quote --- An engineer is someone who uses what he has on hand to fix problems I do not yet have a logic analyser... --- End quote --- The OP doesn't have a scope. It is worth him considering whether a big expensive hammer is the best tool for inserting screws, or whether a cheap and nasty screwdriver would be sufficient. Fleabay has USB logic analysers for £5 upwards; some might be suitable for the job - and would certainly be a useful (and cheap) learning tool. |
| Adrian_Arg.:
--- Quote from: jazper on December 26, 2018, 01:51:34 pm ---I say get a siglent 1104-xe if you can afford it. Better hardware than the rigol, more features, 4 channels and an easier interface than the rigol. If you can't afford it, consider getting a few extra multimeters --- End quote --- As I do not realize that you are contrary to rigol, I own a rigol DS1054Z, and for me it is excellent, but I do not throw shit at others. |
| Psi:
I would stay away from the Rigol 1000Z series. It has too many firmware bugs and the UI is very laggy. The old Rigol 1052E is much easier to use in my opinion. I prefer it over the much newer 1000Z |
| rstofer:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on December 26, 2018, 10:00:21 pm ---The OP doesn't have a scope. It is worth him considering whether a big expensive hammer is the best tool for inserting screws, or whether a cheap and nasty screwdriver would be sufficient. Fleabay has USB logic analysers for £5 upwards; some might be suitable for the job - and would certainly be a useful (and cheap) learning tool. --- End quote --- Logic analyzers can do exactly one job - monitor digital signals. In fact, depending on the sampling rate, they may not do a good job of that either. I want to know the setup time between the falling edge of CS' and the first clock - for SPI. Given a fast SPI and a relatively slow LA, both signals will show up simultaneously and this just isn't a fact. Scopes do the setup time measurement with ease. In fact, they also do a lot of things outside the digital domain, like monitor an ADC input for noise and value. It's a lot easier to see a PWM pulse change width on a scope than it is on a LA. It's pretty much real-time. Both have their uses but the scope is a lot more useful. I do use a LA from time to time on FPGA projects where things are going pretty fast and there's a lot of signals to view but I use it about 1/1000 as often as my scope(s). As to things like SPI, I only need to decode a packet or even just a partial packet. I want to see the CS' setup time, I want to see how the data transitions with respect to a clock transition and I want to see the idle state for the clock. Really important is to verify the last byte has cleared the shifter before CS' goes high. I do not need to decode "War and Peace". The idea that there are still bugs in the DS1054Z is probably incorrect. AFAIK, Rigol has corrected all known deficiencies except the slow response of the UI and that is probably wired in. Design issues aren't really bugs. The device is doing what it was intended to do, like it or leave it. Bugs are issues where the device isn't acting as it was designed. There hasn't been an active complaint thread for the last year. The issues are solved. Yes the UI is slow. Now stop and think about the relative amount of time spent dealing with the UI and the amount of time spent viewing the image. At most, dealing with the UI is less than 10% of usage, probably closer to 1%. Speeding up the UI would be great but it's working at the margins. In other words, I just don't care! The Siglent seems like a nice scope. I haven't been following along with bugs but there were some, early on. Siglent improved considerably on their response to these issues and I know that some of the bugs have been corrected. I don't know how many are known to remain. Check the Test Equipment forum. I may very well reassign my DS1054Z to my analog computers and buy the Siglent SDS1204X-E 200 MHz 4 channels. Or, I might buy the SDS1104X-E and unlock the higher bandwidth. Either way, it seems like a nice scope. |
| jazper:
I apologise if I offended anyone, I did not mean to throw stones. I don't profess to be an expert in this field, just a somewhat seasoned amateur. Both the Rigol 1054z and the Siglent 1104x-e are more than capable scopes for a beginner - you can't go wrong with either. For my money, I went the Siglent and I'm happy with it. At the risk of starting a religious war, I also went a 121GW meter vs some of the Brymen meters, cause I like supporting the community and I like the features it has, I especially like the small size. The Siglent is higher rated in its default configuration than the Rigol (100mhz vs 50mhz, higher sample rate too). Both can be unlocked to allow higher bandwidth (100mhz on the Rigol, 200mhz on the Siglent) The Rigol is slightly less expensive. Subjectively - people have said the UI on the Siglent is better than the Rigol - I don't know, I haven't compared them side by side. I don't find the 1104x-e particularly difficult to use, and the lcd is easy to read. From personal experience, the Siglent WiFi is very finicky but the built in web interface is simple and works pretty well. People have complained about the lack of web interface on the Rigol - but mentioned that 3rd party software can make up for this. The 1104x-e can have a Waveform generator and/or a logic analyzer added to it, the Rigol cannot - however these are somewhat expensive addons. ~$200USD for the Logic Analyser vs $60 for a half decent one on ebay, the benefit however is that these can be aligned on the scope with your analog waveforms, and you get siglent connector probes.. I haven't decided if this is worth it yet. There is 1:1 comparison of features here, in this first post: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-released-for-domestic-markets-in-china/ There are many many threads on this topic: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-vs-rigol-ds1054z-advice https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1204x-e-vs-rigol-ds1054z/ etc... Ultimately, to me, the question is one of price. IF you can afford the Siglent, it has more for you to grow into. IF you can't afford the Siglent, but can afford the Rigol, it will also help you learn a heck of a lot and do it well. Whatever you ultimately decide, you can't really go wrong with either. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |