Recommend budget oscilloscope Please

[tggzzz]

Analog scopes work!  We went to the Moon back in '69 with analog scopes but I doubt that we would do it again.
...
Yes, knobs are easier to use than menus but there would need to be a metric buttload of knobs to provide the same features.  And who cares about the menu UI when it is used a VERY SMALL percentage of the total on-scope time?  What?  1 minute on the menus and 59 minutes on the screen?  The menu UI just doesn't matter.  Nor does the idea of channel selection versus discrete channel knobs.  Once set, the scope runs for a long time and the settings can be saved to a named file.  Try that with plastic knobs!

I don't think the time to twiddle a control is the best metric.

One disadvantage of digitising scopes is their sheer complexity, which manifests itself in several obvious ways:

• beginners often don't realise that what they are seeing is determined by something buried three levels deep in a menuing system
• the endless discussions on this forum and elsewhere about the subtleties of sampling theory, and its effect on sampling practice, and on how the implementation in a particular scope affects what measurable and what is visible

Hence the time to learn how to understand and use a digitising scope effectively should not be neglected.

[rstofer]

I find XY mode on my DS1054Z to be useful for displaying the output of my analog computers.

How many of the measurements shown on page 6-43 (pdf page 155) can the analog scope do?  How about none or damn few.  It may do the cursor measurements but I haven't seen one yet that will calculate dY/dX.  Not really something I use every day (if ever) but I have it when I want it.

How about integrating a waveform as shown on page 6-15 (pdf page 127)  How's that analog scope measuring up now?

Just skimming through the User Manual, you get a sense that analog scopes are just left behind. They can't do any of the advanced measurements (or damn few).

https://assets.testequity.com/te1/Documents/pdf/rigol/Rigol-DS1054Z-Manual.pdf

[rstofer]

Analog scopes work!  We went to the Moon back in '69 with analog scopes but I doubt that we would do it again.
...
Yes, knobs are easier to use than menus but there would need to be a metric buttload of knobs to provide the same features.  And who cares about the menu UI when it is used a VERY SMALL percentage of the total on-scope time?  What?  1 minute on the menus and 59 minutes on the screen?  The menu UI just doesn't matter.  Nor does the idea of channel selection versus discrete channel knobs.  Once set, the scope runs for a long time and the settings can be saved to a named file.  Try that with plastic knobs!

I don't think the time to twiddle a control is the best metric.

One disadvantage of digitising scopes is their sheer complexity, which manifests itself in several obvious ways:

• beginners often don't realise that what they are seeing is determined by something buried three levels deep in a menuing system
• the endless discussions on this forum and elsewhere about the subtleties of sampling theory, and its effect on sampling practice, and on how the implementation in a particular scope affects what measurable and what is visible

Hence the time to learn how to understand and use a digitising scope effectively should not be neglected.

Sounds a lot like the smoke and mirrors used in Equivalent Time Sampling where they get bandwidth only if the signal is repetitive.

There's a learning curve no matter what.  The good thing is that we have teaching resources like YouTube.  Googel is the repository for all human knowledge  If a person needs to learn something just ask Google.  If a wrong answer is OK, ask ChatGPT - it'll make up something.

There is always the Auto button.  It will get something on the screen and it's usually pretty close to ideal.  Perhaps a small change to time/division.

Here's the first video I came across, there are many others including some reviews of the DS1054Z by Dave

https://youtu.be/uU3FhH7_MWo

[tggzzz]

Analog scopes work!  We went to the Moon back in '69 with analog scopes but I doubt that we would do it again.
...
Yes, knobs are easier to use than menus but there would need to be a metric buttload of knobs to provide the same features.  And who cares about the menu UI when it is used a VERY SMALL percentage of the total on-scope time?  What?  1 minute on the menus and 59 minutes on the screen?  The menu UI just doesn't matter.  Nor does the idea of channel selection versus discrete channel knobs.  Once set, the scope runs for a long time and the settings can be saved to a named file.  Try that with plastic knobs!

I don't think the time to twiddle a control is the best metric.

One disadvantage of digitising scopes is their sheer complexity, which manifests itself in several obvious ways:

• beginners often don't realise that what they are seeing is determined by something buried three levels deep in a menuing system
• the endless discussions on this forum and elsewhere about the subtleties of sampling theory, and its effect on sampling practice, and on how the implementation in a particular scope affects what measurable and what is visible

Hence the time to learn how to understand and use a digitising scope effectively should not be neglected.

Sounds a lot like the smoke and mirrors used in Equivalent Time Sampling where they get bandwidth only if the signal is repetitive.

It isn't "smoke and mirrors", except perhaps to those that are uncomfortable with sampling theory[1]

Most signals are (or can be made) repetitive, bandwidth is a rather(!) important aspect of analogue signals.
Waveforms of digital signals are always pushing at the boundaries of their analogue representations.
ETS (and similar) is - and always will be - a very useful and important technique.

[1]too many people can't describe how a compiler implements a subroutine call in generic pseudocode assembler instructions. There's a good argument they shouldn't be allowed to have an IDE and keyboard. Similarly, those that don't understand sampling theory shouldn't be let loose with a digitising scope and soldering iron.

[tatel]

I don't own any analog scope so I'm not going to enter in any argument. I'll just address the statemets you made, from my point of view.

It could be that I'll buy an analog scope if opportunity arises, then I could have something more to say. It would set me back like €150+ shipping. So I'll probably wait to see how it goes with aldo22 and radiolistener in the DSO2512 thread before pulling the trigger. I still think DSO2512 should be good up to 20 MHz. If so, bye bye analogs. If not, we will see.

For now, I don't see the reasons mentioned holding so much water. I see that you like analog scopes. You think they are beautiful and more elegant.

My GDS1054B has a fast display. I only notice lag when I'm moving vertical-horizontal position: While turning the encoder it freezes, but it updates as soon as you leave it alone. Perhaps sometimes a fraction of second while doing other things. Not a problem for me, but it's true that I choosed it before Rigol DS1054Z precisely because it was told GDS1054B UI is quite agile.

Beautiful traces: plese do a painting of them if you like; to me, it's enough they convey the needed info. I do like to have measurements, cursors and the ability to store.

I have read a thread where a software bug in my scope is described, but it so far hasn't bited me. IIRC it's a thing an analog scope couldn't do. I can't speak about XY mode because I simply have still to use it. But I would expect it will work as fast as VT mode.

About simplicity, did you look at the thread "Oscilloscope training class (long)". It's about analog scopes. If they are so simple why do training classes need to be long? IIRC the texts available speak about frustration, etc.

Analog Digital scopes can do much more than analog ones, so of course analogs are simpler. But you are comparing a Cessna with an Eurofighter here.

About being in a lucky place of the world, well. I'm going to say all english-speaking, five-eyes nation are part of that lucky place. Not really, but numbers are so clear that it doesn't matter. It turns out those 5 countries have a total population about 470 million. World population is 8 billion. Do you realize 85% of humanity doesn't live in that lucky place of the world?

That includes OP.

In short: you are just doing the very same you blamed on to others: speaking about your better way to do things. You do it based on "how green my valley was". Little more.

I think this is also just noise wrt OP

[rstofer]

For those who want an introduction to Equivalent Time Sampling (ETS), here's a couple of articles.  Note that ETS applies ONLY to repetitive signals and is essentially useless for random digital signals, the very stuff I play with.  Apparently, the DS1054Z lacks this feature but some DSOs do  have it.

https://www.picotech.com/library/oscilloscopes/equivalent-time-sampling
https://www.tek.com/en/documents/application-note/real-time-versus-equivalent-time-sampling

It would be pretty lonely around here if only experts in sampling theory could apply.   There would be a lot fewer 'help me buy an entry level scope' threads.

[baldurn]

Juan my advice is to get the Siglent SDS1104X-E and upgrade it for free to 200 MHz (hack it). It is within your budget and it will serve you well.

Don't delay to save for the much more expensive scope. You can always sell the SDS1104X-E and upgrade later. The UI is not too different and you will not be confused by the upgrade in the slightest. Scopes hold their value very well, so you can expect to recover a large portion of the cost for the SDS1104X-E should you decide to upgrade. When the time comes for an upgrade, you might want something completely different. Also scopes are still seeing a lot of development and so it is likely there are better options available in the future.

Don't go for the cheaper scopes. That includes the cheaper Siglents or the 2 port variant. It is not worth it. You want a tool that works correctly and does not annoy you needlessly while trying to learn or doing a project. You want 4 ports because the price difference is very small and why get blocked the moment you need it?

Do remember that you also want to buy a lot of other stuff. You can buy as you go along and find the need. This is another reason not to delay for the expensive scope. You are going to need that cash. For example you could get the Siglent SDG1032X signal generator that works together with the SDS1104X-E for Bode plots. Other items include a lab power supply, solder station, multimeter, components for your projects and 50 more you don't even realize yet. Doesn't need to be very expensive, just don't think it can all go into one device.

[rstofer]

And let's not overlook SINGLE triggering mode.  Only very high end storage CROs have this feature but every DSO I have seen has it.

Single shot triggering may be the most useful feature of the DSO.  The scope triggers once when the trigger condition is met and leaves the trace on the screen for review.  This is amazingly useful.

I claim to have bought my Rigol for the decoding of SPI but if decoding didn't exist, I would have bought it for single shot triggering.

[tggzzz]

I will presume you are guessing about my attitudes and background.

I see that you like analog scopes. You think they are beautiful and more elegant.

Completely false, in every respect.

Analogue scopes are a tool, with strengths and weaknesses. So are digitising scopes.

Beautiful traces: plese do a painting of them if you like; to me, it's enough they convey the needed info. I do like to have measurements, cursors and the ability to store.

What I want is a tool that shows the necessary information clearly simply and unambiguously.

Measurements are a nice feature (cf benefit), and digital cameras are good enough for many purposes (cf  Polaroid).

About simplicity, did you look at the thread "Oscilloscope training class (long)". It's about analog scopes. If they are so simple why do training classes need to be long? IIRC the texts available speak about frustration, etc.

Analog Digital scopes can do much more than analog ones, so of course analogs are simpler. But you are comparing a Cessna with an Eurofighter here.

I am comparing the two classes of scopes doing the same tasks that both can do.

To effectively use a digitizing scope you need to understand the same things as you need to use effectively use an analogue scope plus other details related to sampling. Beginners naturally think in terms of continuous waveforms, not sampled waveforms. Demonstrably many people, including nominally experienced people, have difficulty understanding how and why sampling does and doesn't work.

Analogue scopes have all controls visible on the front panel. Digitizing scopes have far more controls, and many important ones are hidden in a menu system.

It is easier and faster to teach a beginner to use an analogue scope than a digitizing scope; they don't need to understand so much maths nor so many configuration parameters.

N.B. Pushing a click and drool autosetup button does not constitute knowing how to effectively use a digitizing scope, any more than knowing how to press autocomplete button in an IDE constitutes someone knowing how to use a programming language!

About being in a lucky place of the world, well. I'm going to say all english-speaking, five-eyes nation are part of that lucky place. Not really, but numbers are so clear that it doesn't matter. It turns out those 5 countries have a total population about 470 million. World population is 8 billion. Do you realize 85% of humanity doesn't live in that lucky place of the world?

That includes OP.

In short: you are just doing the very same you blamed on to others: speaking about your better way to do things. You do it based on "how green my valley was". Little more.

I think this is also just noise wrt OP

What on earth are you blathering about?

[baldurn]

Can you please tell me how to get the DSO2512G to display "false frequencies" within the specified bandwidths?
I've already checked the spectrum from 1Hz to 120MHz and haven't found a "false frequency" yet.
How do I do that?

What do I have to do to see "false waveforms" etc.?
I have already said that depending on the mode, I no longer expect an adequate display of the waveform from 10/20MHz on, that's clear.

Assuming it has 100 MS/s with 2 channels active we have f/2 = 50 MHz. A square wave will have a third harmonic with 1/3 amplitude. A square wave with a frequency of at least 50/3 = 17 MHz will have a mirror frequency overlay at 1/3 amplitude. Will probably make the waveform look very funky :-)

Yes I know you just said not to use it above 10 MHz. But you asked "how" and that is how. Will happen too below 10 MHz but it would only be the 7th harmonic at 1/7 amplitude, so probably not very visible.

[tggzzz]

And let's not overlook SINGLE triggering mode.  Only very high end storage CROs have this feature but every DSO I have seen has it.

Single shot triggering may be the most useful feature of the DSO.  The scope triggers once when the trigger condition is met and leaves the trace on the screen for review.  This is amazingly useful.

I claim to have bought my Rigol for the decoding of SPI but if decoding didn't exist, I would have bought it for single shot triggering.

Yes, single shot capture always was the single major advantage that digitizing scopes had over analogue scopes. Analogue storage scopes were tolerated rather than liked.

That was true whether they were CROs or used a different output technology.

My understanding (possibly incorrect) is that some of the cheap digitizing scopes like the Rigol only process (Decode, FFT) the pixels on the screen - not all the data they have captured. That's a major limitation and, in my books, makes them a toy in that respect.

[tggzzz]

Can you please tell me how to get the DSO2512G to display "false frequencies" within the specified bandwidths?
I've already checked the spectrum from 1Hz to 120MHz and haven't found a "false frequency" yet.
How do I do that?

What do I have to do to see "false waveforms" etc.?
I have already said that depending on the mode, I no longer expect an adequate display of the waveform from 10/20MHz on, that's clear.

Assuming it has 100 MS/s with 2 channels active we have f/2 = 50 MHz. A square wave will have a third harmonic with 1/3 amplitude. A square wave with a frequency of at least 50/3 = 17 MHz will have a mirror frequency overlay at 1/3 amplitude. Will probably make the waveform look very funky :-)

Yes I know you just said not to use it above 10 MHz. But you asked "how" and that is how. Will happen too below 10 MHz but it would only be the 7th harmonic at 1/7 amplitude, so probably not very visible.

That's highly misleading.

For a demonstration of why, see https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/digital-signal-integrity-and-bandwidth-signals-risetime-is-important-period-is-irrelevant/

[tatel]

I will presume you are guessing about my attitudes and background.

I see that you like analog scopes. You think they are beautiful and more elegant.

Completely false, in every respect.

Analogue scopes are a tool, with strengths and weaknesses. So are digitising scopes.

Beautiful traces: plese do a painting of them if you like; to me, it's enough they convey the needed info. I do like to have measurements, cursors and the ability to store.

What I want is a tool that shows the necessary information clearly simply and unambiguously.

Measurements are a nice feature (cf benefit), and digital cameras are good enough for many purposes (cf  Polaroid).

About simplicity, did you look at the thread "Oscilloscope training class (long)". It's about analog scopes. If they are so simple why do training classes need to be long? IIRC the texts available speak about frustration, etc.

Analog Digital scopes can do much more than analog ones, so of course analogs are simpler. But you are comparing a Cessna with an Eurofighter here.

I am comparing the two classes of scopes doing the same tasks that both can do.

To effectively use a digitizing scope you need to understand the same things as you need to use effectively use an analogue scope plus other details related to sampling. Beginners naturally think in terms of continuous waveforms, not sampled waveforms. Demonstrably many people, including nominally experienced people, have difficulty understanding how and why sampling does and doesn't work.

Analogue scopes have all controls visible on the front panel. Digitizing scopes have far more controls, and many important ones are hidden in a menu system.

It is easier and faster to teach a beginner to use an analogue scope than a digitizing scope; they don't need to understand so much maths nor so many configuration parameters.

N.B. Pushing a click and drool autosetup button does not constitute knowing how to effectively use a digitizing scope, any more than knowing how to press autocomplete button in an IDE constitutes someone knowing how to use a programming language!

About being in a lucky place of the world, well. I'm going to say all english-speaking, five-eyes nation are part of that lucky place. Not really, but numbers are so clear that it doesn't matter. It turns out those 5 countries have a total population about 470 million. World population is 8 billion. Do you realize 85% of humanity doesn't live in that lucky place of the world?

That includes OP.

In short: you are just doing the very same you blamed on to others: speaking about your better way to do things. You do it based on "how green my valley was". Little more.

I think this is also just noise wrt OP

What on earth are you blathering about?

That wasn't addressed at you...

[tggzzz]

I will presume you are guessing about my attitudes and background.

I see that you like analog scopes. You think they are beautiful and more elegant.

Completely false, in every respect.

Analogue scopes are a tool, with strengths and weaknesses. So are digitising scopes.

Beautiful traces: plese do a painting of them if you like; to me, it's enough they convey the needed info. I do like to have measurements, cursors and the ability to store.

What I want is a tool that shows the necessary information clearly simply and unambiguously.

Measurements are a nice feature (cf benefit), and digital cameras are good enough for many purposes (cf  Polaroid).

About simplicity, did you look at the thread "Oscilloscope training class (long)". It's about analog scopes. If they are so simple why do training classes need to be long? IIRC the texts available speak about frustration, etc.

Analog Digital scopes can do much more than analog ones, so of course analogs are simpler. But you are comparing a Cessna with an Eurofighter here.

I am comparing the two classes of scopes doing the same tasks that both can do.

To effectively use a digitizing scope you need to understand the same things as you need to use effectively use an analogue scope plus other details related to sampling. Beginners naturally think in terms of continuous waveforms, not sampled waveforms. Demonstrably many people, including nominally experienced people, have difficulty understanding how and why sampling does and doesn't work.

Analogue scopes have all controls visible on the front panel. Digitizing scopes have far more controls, and many important ones are hidden in a menu system.

It is easier and faster to teach a beginner to use an analogue scope than a digitizing scope; they don't need to understand so much maths nor so many configuration parameters.

N.B. Pushing a click and drool autosetup button does not constitute knowing how to effectively use a digitizing scope, any more than knowing how to press autocomplete button in an IDE constitutes someone knowing how to use a programming language!

About being in a lucky place of the world, well. I'm going to say all english-speaking, five-eyes nation are part of that lucky place. Not really, but numbers are so clear that it doesn't matter. It turns out those 5 countries have a total population about 470 million. World population is 8 billion. Do you realize 85% of humanity doesn't live in that lucky place of the world?

That includes OP.

In short: you are just doing the very same you blamed on to others: speaking about your better way to do things. You do it based on "how green my valley was". Little more.

I think this is also just noise wrt OP

What on earth are you blathering about?

That wasn't addressed at you...

Can I suggest you use the "quote" link at the top right of all posts.

Care to let us in on who were you responding to?

[Juan]

Only enterprises that don't want problems and educational institutions don't hack their oscilloscopes.

I'm going to call bullshit on that statement unless you can back it up with data (and not anecdotes). Very few businesses, not just enterprises, will bother hacking a scope to save a few hundred dollars and potentially miss out on warranty and support. And many hobbyists will either not know about it or not bother. The people you see on this forum is only a very tiny fraction of the total customer base.

Sorry, man. What's the difference between "business" and "enterprise"? In my mind, any legally stablished, registered "company" is an "enterprise" whose aim is to earn money by making "business". It doesn't matter if the company has tousands of employees or is just an "autonomous" guy. If it's just a guy selling ice cream on the street or thousands of people manufacturing missiles in a big factory, it doesn't matter either. Both cases are legal "Companies" or "enterprises" doing a "business". I would say most layman people in my country would think more or less the same. Perhaps some banksters would know better. I'm afraid my knowledge of english language isn't as good as I would like.

About people in this forum being only a fraction of the total customer base, I stand corrected. OP is here, though, and it looks like he will rather prefer not having to  expend 3000 bucks.

While that can happen, it's much more likely to trip a fuse / breaker or destroy your circuit. Unless you are using the scopes for high energy circuits where your average mains powered scope has no business being without some special (high voltage differential) probes that would avoid this problem by virtue of not having a ground clip  .

Again, you are right. I myself just purchased a MicSig DP750-100 last week. But OP is clearly as lost as an octopus in a parking lot right now. He probably doesn't even imagine that thing does exist and that he will want, sooner rather than later, to do something that probe would come handy for. That's probably the first time he heards about it. We all have read a number of clearly wrong assumptions from him. In these circumstances, very big bad mistakes can be expected, I think.

I will not say the name, but there is a forum member, from the US, far from being a newbie, who got his non-entry-level, quite expensive GW Instek scope destroyed. I have seen that used against him in a derogatory way in some post. I don't think that's fair, everybody can have a very bad day sometimes. Particularly a newbie that doesn't know even the most basic things (yet)

Juan, this is for you:

Guys, please correct me if you think I'm wrong, but it looks OP expects to be able to, say, read SDS2350X+ manual while saving the money, then buying it (and probably other equipement), then magically all will work fine.

I myself found quite difficult to make progress just by reading my oscilloscope's manual, even having the oscilloscope on my bench. Just an example: triggering. GDS1054B has quite a few trigger modes. I lost quite a bunch of hours reading the manual, then trying things, then getting confused and frustrated when the expected thing didn't happened. Then turning off the oscilloscope and perhaps letting some weeks or even months pass until next try.

But, after getting the DSO154 toy, things were different. No more manual as thick as a finger. Just two triggers, rise and fall.  That makes easier to understand how triggering works. Then you easyly understand trigger level has to be between signal peaks or, well, it won't trigger, "of course". Then you can understand frequency can't be measured unless you have complete cycle(s) into the screen -horizontal timebase adjusts this. That's easier to realize if you have, say, half a dozen buttons than if you have two dozen buttons. Then you understand peak-to-peak voltage can't be measured unless signal peaks are into the screen -of course-. Vertical scale adjust this. Then you understand oscilloscope has 8 bit ADC, so all you have are 256 levels for all the screen height. If your vertical adjustement makes  the signal be just in 1/4 of screen height, you are wasting 3/4 of your ADC's capabilities and measurement error will be bigger. No matter if you have a $40 or a $3000 oscilloscope. And so on and so on and on and on. To understand the basics, I think a very simple oscilloscope is way better. Then you suddenly realize you are able to use your "good" oscilloscope that was frustrating you before. And you are able to see why some oscilloscope is better than another for some task.

Now we are asking OP what to do for he wants an oscilloscope and he doesn't answer that question because he just doesn't know. He doesn't know the difference between analog and digital, I would say. Nor about the hidden dangers in testing a device that is connected to mains, or more specifically, to protective earth, nor that USB could make his device/oscilloscope also connected to protective earth, nor about isolation transformers providing safety in some way but also making GFCIs unable to protect him, etc, etc, etc. Just to mention a few things.

Following OP's current thinking, he will get a $3000 oscilloscope, $3000 signal/function/arbitrary waveform generator, $1000 soldering station, perhaps $10000 spectrum analyzer... and so on and on and on... just to be sure that equipement will be able to cope with "any" task and so, having to cry just once. Even if he doesn't know right now which one that task could be. While saving that money, he will not be able to do any work, yet he expects all the necessary things he's going to read about it in the meanwhile will remain clear in his memory. Then, when the time to begin to use that equipement finally comes, he will be like a caveman that is suddenly put at the driving wheel of a 800HP Ferrari... My bet: he will probably have a crash at some corner. Don't you guys think so?

So, I see OP is in for a dissapointment unless he changes his thinking. There are so many things that need to be understood before working efficiently, that OP approach can't possibly work, I think. Big problems have to be solved by dividing them in small steps. So he has a project that looks as purely analogic and low-frequency. Instead of waiting to save 3000 bucks while studying manuals, he would be better getting a cheap oscilloscope and putting hands at work right now. It's just that DSO154 isn't good enough to do useful work after he understand the basics. But DSO2512 will allow him to begin the work and to make his learning easier right now, and to look at things like PSUs at the future (by getting a probe adequate to the task, but this can be put aside until need arise). That while maintaining is "good" oscilloscope apart from mains connected devices, so safe. Being portable as an added bonus. So it will be useful now and in the future, and he will not waste his money by getting it now to begin his journey.

After getting this project done, perhaps he will take on another project, this one having a LCD screen to show, say, temperature. Then he will need to handle digital communication between thermocouple/ADC, microcontroller and screen. He will have to learn how digital signals work. He will know about UART, I2C, SPI. He will know logic analyzer will decode the messages and oscilloscope will show if signals are OK. He will understand why having a 4-channel oscilloscope is a plus. Initial approach could be donee done with a $10, an $100 or an $1000 logic analyzer. Hopefully he will get a $10 one, learn how to use it, then decide if he needs a $100 or a $1000 one in the future. Or a 4-channel mixed signal oscilloscope with a very very big screen.

Same for any other project/equipement. Step by step along his way. Not waiting to have all the real good equipement to do it all at once. Do you think guys this is bad advice?

Juan, you must understand you seem to be in for a long trip on this train. You expect this train to have a diesel locomotive: just turn the key and the train will be going. But you are wrong, this train has a steam locomotive and to raise steam pressure (knowledge) will take some time. You can make the wait shorter and the trip easier by taking small steps and going progresively.

To put your lab up, look for Dave's videos, it has a couple of them about it, one with a normal-low budget and one with a very low budget. To learn to use an oscilloscope, you can get a $500 one to start with, but you'll probably find it too complicated at first, then realize there are tasks where a mistake could make that $500 oscilloscope become  scrap. Why do you think I'm looking for an old, used, analogic oscilloscope when I already got a modern, better oscilloscope, and even a $200 differential probe? To learn to use your oscilloscope, the thread were Charlotte learned rstofer mentioned is probably the best way to follow. I didn't, so my bad . And you'll have to do your homework.

Well, I have to mind my own business now.  Writing these posts, trying to make them logically yarn, while trying to make my english grammatically and ortographically as correct as I can, is taking too much time from me. I intend to come back to this thread now and then, but I will make my post as short as possible

Thankyou for taking the time to make such a detailed and informative post I do appreciate it .
I have already been watching Davids posts and learning a lot . However I do understand where you are coming from on this issue .  I already have a good variable power supply that suits me and a quality German made solder station and a cheaper but also good solder station for larger parts . I will not be going into digital circuits .
I am not rich and it's hard to justify buying  too much gear so once I get one oscilloscope that will be it . So I just thought I would get a good one straight up . However you do make some excellent points I never thought about due to lack of experience . So as I learn along and save some more money I may well take your advice at some point . I will look into what you have advise and see how I go saving . Who knows something may happen that means I can't spend 3000 anyway and have to go much cheaper . I will not be testing any main line powered circuits I only work on battery powered stuff mainly 12 volt . I understand the importance of the Earth lead. I  now know how to set the probe to the internally generated square wave . I understand the trigger point adjustment and the zoom in and out of the wave form . I am getting there slowly . I did mention I am a slow learner that is true but I did not mention that once I do learn something I tend to retain it

[tatel]

Can I suggest you use the "quote" link at the top right of all posts.

Care to let us in on who were you responding to?

Yeah, I often do. However this time I thought it was clear I was responding to domlisms. My bad...

[tatel]

Thankyou for taking the time to make such a detailed and informative post I do appreciate it .
I have already been watching Davids posts and learning a lot . However I do understand where you are coming from on this issue .  I already have a good variable power supply that suits me and a quality German made solder station and a cheaper but also good solder station for larger parts . I will not be going into digital circuits .
I am not rich and it's hard to justify buying  too much gear so once I get one oscilloscope that will be it . So I just thought I would get a good one straight up . However you do make some excellent points I never thought about due to lack of experience . So as I learn along and save some more money I may well take your advice at some point . I will look into what you have advise and see how I go saving . Who knows something may happen that means I can't spend 3000 anyway and have to go much cheaper . I will not be testing any main line powered circuits I only work on battery powered stuff mainly 12 volt . I understand the importance of the Earth lead. I  now know how to set the probe to the internally generated square wave . I understand the trigger point adjustment and the zoom in and out of the wave form . I am getting there slowly . I did mention I am a slow learner that is true but I did not mention that once I do learn something I tend to retain it

Juan, of course you are free to do it your own way. It's just that getting a 350 MHz scope to do a 30 KHz project is more than overkill, it's going thermonuclear. And I can see the wait frustrated you. Any low-end oscilloscope, even a toy one, will be able to cope with that project. So no need to be frustrated for a so long time. However, if one wants to get an oscilloscope that will remain useful in the future, it should be able to do some serious work.

Looking at PSUs is in the low-end range of serious things, a 20 MHz scope can do it. Even if you don't plan to work with mains-connected devices, it's quite possible that some day, some device that you really appreciate will be not working anymore, and there's a good chance it's PSU will be to blame. PSUs often are connected to mains.

Now, after radiolistener statements, I'm not so sure DSO2512 could be good enough to do that. An Owon handheld alternative has been suggested.

But of course you can go with SDS1xxx or even SDS2xxx. Just remember you can buy the lowest one, then unlock it to the highest.

Boa sorte

[rstofer]

Another approach:  Get what you can afford, learn to use it and learn its limitations.  Then sell it and upgrade to what you really need.  There is no reason to believe that your first scope is your last scope.

For my simple needs when working with uCs and FPGAs, a 100 MHz scope is adequate.  The signals I might look at are around 10 MHz for external devices.  Sure, internally, the FPGA may be running at 100 MHz or more but the external components are not.

At some point, a logic analyzer is more useful than an oscilloscope.

[tatel]

Not saying OP should get DSO154, but would you say that thing could work good enough to do a 30 KHz project?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/zeeweii-toyscopes-how-do-they-do-it/msg4828307/#msg4828307

[tggzzz]

Another approach:  Get what you can afford, learn to use it and learn its limitations.  Then sell it and upgrade to what you really need.  There is no reason to believe that your first scope is your last scope.
...
At some point, a logic analyzer is more useful than an oscilloscope.

This is sound advice.

People's needs change over time - not only in terms of one tool's specification, but also in terms of needing different types of tool.

[rstofer]

Not saying OP should get DSO154, but would you say that thing could work good enough to do a 30 KHz project?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/zeeweii-toyscopes-how-do-they-do-it/msg4828307/#msg4828307

It seems to me, after BRIEFLY reviewing the specs, that it could be entirely adequate for a low frequency project.  It is a single channel scope and that SERIOUSLY limits its utility but it could still be useful in many applications.  It's a starting point.

It costs about $27 USD at Amazon (by way of AliExpress) and, at that price, it would be worthwhile for the education alone.

It doesn't seem to come with a decent scope probe either.  This will be important for higher voltages (x10 range) and higher input impedance.  They don't cost much...

https://www.amazon.com/Oscilloscope-Probe%EF%BC%8C1x-Attenuation-Portable-Accessories/dp/B07XPVLV1P

There are always other options and many have been covered here.

[tatel]

Well, after my rant about analog scopes on Europe,  I found a Tektronix 2246 almost locally. Seems to work, owner provided pictures with traces on the screen. €200 sadly, but hey, after seeing how much is asked for 20 MHz Hamegs I'm considering it. I'm told it hasn't so many unobtanium hybrids inside. Will see.

For OP, there are some real cheap oscilloscopes, two of them could be enough for more advanced projects than the one it already is in:

Zeeweii DSO154 https://aliexpress.com/item/1005004972406356.html can also be bought with battery and probe. Battery runs out quickly, so if one has a probe, it could be wise to bought the cheap version, whose hardware is absolutely identical, and get a battery with more amps/hour. Since it has only one channel and just 18 MHz bandwidth, it would be recommendable only on a very low budget and under the circumstances already expressed by rstofer. About €40 with battery and probe.

Zeeweii DSO2512 https://aliexpress.com/item/1005003085753955.html Thats the one aldo22 suggested. aldo22 and I are getting a lot of fun with it (altought I don't even own it). We also already learned a couple things about aliasing, etc. Double channel, seems that it could do at least 20 MHz with both channels, perhaps 40 MHz. It's battery is said do be quite a lot better than DSO154's. Link to the relevant thread was already provided by aldo22. About €100

Somebody suggested an Owon handheld, I think he's was suggesting HDS200 series. Low end model would be HDS242, dual channel 40 MHz, it has 20 MHz bandwidth limit button (so looks more serious than Zeeweei's models) and it's also a 20000 count multimeter. Other models go at least up to  100 MHz, even higher than that, and can include also signal generator. However HDS242 could be the same that HDS272 without even unlocking?

Not really sure about that, and higher models could go up to €200 and more. At that price range an old analog could be found near that price?

It seems that most software bugs have been already ironed out. However it also seems that it gets hot after some minutes powered on and recalibration is often needed. Firmwares available, while (somewhat scarcely) provided by Owon, are heavily model and even serial number dependent. And it comes with just one probe. This is the forum thread about it (26 pages): https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-hds-200-handheld-oscilloscope-w-builtin-dmmawg/ HDS242 is about €125. Can be found here: https://es.aliexpress.com/item/1005005174220079.html

[tatel]

Sorry I couldn't resist. It looks that european virus got into the US. See attachment