Choosing between a Tektronix 2215A or Rigol DS1054Z

[ealex]

Hello

I've been reaching the limits of the Rigol DS1052 oscilloscope that I own and I've been thinking for a while to upgrade it.

Recently I've found a Tektronix 2215A on the local market for the same amount I would have to pay for an ebay one ( looking at the average price ), once taxes and shipping are added.
That scope was in storage for a while -> I'll have to replace caps, etc., but it's powering up, etc.

I can get the DS1054Z for around 400 euro ( including taxes and shipping ) from batronix, and maybe sell the 1052.
The Tek would be around half the price of DS1054.

What would be a better choice ? I'm also playing with RF, etc - not just digital / audio signals. 

Are there any custom chips in the Tek2215A that will make servicing impossible ? ( i need to pay attentions to Dave's Tek 2225 tear-down and calibration video )

[tautech]

After using a DSO you WILL regret going back to a CRO.

My 2c

[alsetalokin4017]

200 Euro is too much to pay for the Tek. Plus it only has 2 channels, is in "unknown" condition, and you don't mention whether it includes probes or not. The only way this would be a better choice is if you really cannot afford the DS1054z and absolutely need an oscilloscope right away. While I am a great fan of analog scopes, my feeling here is "if you have to ask, you should get the Rigol". As far as servicing goes, yes, you can encounter some real headaches should the Tek fail. If the Rigol fails, you have the vendor's and the manufacturer's warranties to rely on.

What do you mean when you say you've reached the limits of the DS1052? What do you expect the DS1054z to do, and why do you think the 2215a might serve your purposes better, or as well?

[ealex]

The limit - as in the tiny display is a pain to measure stuff - now i'm trying to reverse engineer a display protocol, and it's difficult to keep all useful data on screen and have enough resolution to measure: V_SYNC frames for example are very long.
Also, 4 channel are needed - 2 for sync and 1 for data bursts, etc.
Now i'm playing with the triggers, etc and calculating everything else by hand.

I'm also towards the rigol - but i wanted to ask about the tek. as well - in case there was something i was missing

[alsetalokin4017]

Well, the 1054z trace display isn't really that much larger than the 1052 display, and it is about the same size as the Tek 2215a screen. (10 cm H x 8.5 cm V, roughly, for the Tek and 11.5 cm H x 7 cm V for the trace area on the DS1054z.) Some of the larger screen area of the DS1054z is taken up by the left and right menus, which are always displayed.
But if you need 4 channels, advanced triggering and decoding options, and measurement cursors ... why even consider the Tek in the first place?

ETA: One function where the analog Tek is much superior to the low-end digital scopes is the X-Y display mode. 

[danadak]

As an aside a pretty cheap low speed logic analyzer, very handy. Uses
Saleae Software.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USB-Logic-Analyzer-Device-Set-USB-Cable-24MHz-8CH-24MHz-for-ARM-FPGA-M100-/201541710029?hash=item2eecd270cd:g:8mUAAOSwl9BWIMdL

Link is just random pick, several sellers on ebay.


Regards, Dana.

[argg]

by coincidence these are exactly the two scopes I own     have the Tek 2215A for some 15 years now and bought the Rigol DS1054Z last year. Despite how much I love my trusty Tek, if I had to choose just one of them I' d go with the Rigol, it can do so much more!
Fortunately I am not into such dilemma 

[ealex]

you're pretty much confirming my thoughts.

as for the logic analyzer - i already have a cheap one and is useless.
making a new one, with some real sample memory is another side-project, but long-term. i plan to get the BitHound project and adapt it to another FPGA board  - too much for my skills .
http://www.bastli.ethz.ch/index.php?page=bithound

[tggzzz]

So, you think your choice is between a 2 channel 50MHz storage scope and a 2 channel 60MHz non-storage scope, to be used for capturing bits in messages going to a display.

For that case, I don't see that the 60MHz is of any significant benefit, and non-storage is a definite disadvantage. A significantly higher bandwidth (>=150MHz) might be advantageous if there are signal integrity issues in the "digital" signals (i.e. analogue signals that are being interpreted by a receiver as digital).

Personally I would firstly use a scope to ensure signal integrity, secondly select a threshold and capture lots of digital bits, then dump the bits to a computer, and finally analyse them on the PC.

Your PC has a big screen, all sorts of text editors, and you can also write your own program to do whatever analysis you need for the specific display messages.

[ealex]

@tggzzz - the 12/24Mpoints of sample memory will be useful for that.
i've used this approach before, with the current scope - capture raw data in csv, then decode it on the PC, to make a crude protocol decoder.

[R005T3r]

I'd choose the DS1054Z instead of the tek analog one.

Not to mention that with 200-250 Eur more, you can get the DS1074Z which is 70Mhz instead of the 50Mhz one if bandwidth is an issue. All in all is not that much considered to the DS1104Z (100Mhz, same series) is double the price (damn, Rigol has got very expansive... I still remember when the DS4000 series was well under the 1000 Eur)

Another thing to consider, may well be the bandwidth upgrades:  instead of buying a new instrument again in the future, you may want to software upgrade it to a higher bandwidth, it will cost less than buying a brand new oscilloscope!

[tggzzz]

@tggzzz - the 12/24Mpoints of sample memory will be useful for that.

Yes. Of course only you can say whether that is sufficiently long.

i've used this approach before, with the current scope - capture raw data in csv, then decode it on the PC, to make a crude protocol decoder.

If it has already been (correctly) sliced, then the decoding bits is easier than decoding volts and you can fit more points in any given memory.

I've frequently found that I need to observe and decode >4 signals to understand what's going on, but clearly that is problem-dependent.

With a non-trivial protocol analyser, even more is possible.  In particular with state-based capture/decode (i.e. not time based) then a lot of irrelevant stuff can be ignored... Only start capturing when something "interesting" happens, and don't save the irrelevant stuff in between the significant events. That can also be done by post-processing on the PC, of course.

[David Hess]

Unless you have a specific application which the Tektronix 2215A can accomplish that your Rigol DS1052 cannot, there is no reason to buy the Tektronix 2215A and doubly so at that price.

Custom parts tend not to be a problem in the 2215A; the custom parts that it does have tend not to fail.