| Electronics > Beginners |
| Is the Rigol DS1054Z still the best buy for a cheap entry level oscilloscope? |
| << < (8/14) > >> |
| bd139:
When I had a DSO, which I don't now as I have minor tinnitus and the Rigol fan felt like someone shaking a can full of nuts in my ear, I shamelessly whacked auto most of the time and then tweaked the result. IMHO I'd hit a digital one if you're a new user. Even as a relatively old timer who has just spent the entire evening dissecting bits of analogue oscilloscopes all over the living room, I've got to say that as a beginner you need something that you know (a) works and is (b) likely to remain working and (c) accurate. Learning with crap or uncertain tools is doing yourself a big injustice. The only problems with budget DSOs is really a combination of soggy controls, incredibly overloaded functionality (each control does way more than N things you were expecting) and bugs. Personally I like the mid-ground. In 1994, HP kicked out a line of oscilloscopes, the 546xx line, which felt like and performed like an analogue scope but was a digital unit. Very nice pieces of engineering and even 24 years later, I think from an interface perspective they are better than any DSO I've used from Rigol, Tek and Agilent. |
| The_Boots:
I know I'm new at this, but not having used an oscilloscope since college, I got a Tek 475 off Craigslist as my very first scope. In the three hours where it worked (before it died in a POP), I think I learned more about oscilloscopes, how they work and what they're good for than in either of my electronics classes back over a decade ago. I don't think I could have gotten that insight from a digital device because there's a disconnect there. You aren't seeing the actual signal itself-- just a series of samples of it. There's a physical connection between the electricity being measured and the trace. Being closer to the raw waveforms really helped me learn. Honestly, when it died I was SUPER bummed, because I was just starting to understand just how amazing a piece of tech it still is. Tons of fun! Plus, now I have an aspirational repair project for when I feel ready. This is not to say that I don't have an order for an SDS1104X-E (backordered! 😢), but I don't regret getting that old Tek. If you have an offer for a FREE analog scope, I honestly think you'd be nuts not to jump on it. If not as a usable scope, then as a fun thing to play with and learn from! |
| JohnnyMalaria:
--- Quote from: tautech on May 25, 2018, 11:08:40 pm --- --- Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on May 25, 2018, 10:50:24 pm ---I think this comes down to the DSO itself. I have the 100MHz version of the one the OP is asking about. I bought it for portability. Having 4 channels is great and I use the FFT feature, crude as it is. But, I suspect because it is a budget DSO, some very simple things take unnecessary button pushes and knob twiddles. e.g., moving a trace up or down. It is slow to respond and not at all smooth. Not having things like the timebase or vertical gain actually on the knob is annoying, too. I have to think about the buttons I have to press rather than just turn the knob and this gets in the way of thinking about what I'm trying to do work-wise. --- End quote --- How so ? :-// Most DSO's have a 'Fine' function on the vertical attenuator. Not something I use a lot but occasionally it comes in handy. Variable timebase on the other hand is a feature I don't miss in a DSO as it's too easy for the novice to leave it in the UnCal (unlocked) position. Then any frequency measurement you're trying to read from the graticules is sure to be way off. The modern DSO and even the old Tek ones I've had can be driven just as you would a CRO or manual car as the controls do the same actions, it's just there are more of them......something to grow into. I've mentioned AutoSet, it's something that helps the novice, not something that replaces normal scope usage. --- End quote --- For me, the frustrations of my budget DSO are: poor fluidity of the interface, overloaded buttons/knobs that mean simple changes require multiple actions, cluttered display without being unable to get rid of stuff I don't need, half-assed implementations of potentially useful functions (e.g., FFT). Nevertheless I'm glad I've got it and my CRO, too. |
| BravoV:
--- Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on May 26, 2018, 02:01:04 pm ---For me, the frustrations of my budget DSO are: poor fluidity of the interface, overloaded buttons/knobs that mean simple changes require multiple actions, cluttered display without being unable to get rid of stuff I don't need, half-assed implementations of potentially useful functions (e.g., FFT). Nevertheless I'm glad I've got it and my CRO, too. --- End quote --- The word "budget" as in the "budget DSO" exist for a reason. ;) |
| IDEngineer:
--- Quote --- I'm glad I've got it and my CRO, too. --- End quote --- This is what all of us are saying. Not that an analog scope substitutes for a digital scope, but that they complement each other - particularly when an analog scope is used to gain a gut-level understanding of how an oscilloscope works. And given that an analog scope can be had today for next to nothing (or, in the original author's case in this thread, actually nothing!), there's really no reason not to give yourself the advantage of that education. Again, the analog scope doesn't have to be calibrated... doesn't need all of its features working... note in the recent post above how that author felt from just three hours of education on an analog scope. Why deny yourself that advantage when it costs (next to) nothing? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |