Seeed DSO Quad vs DSO Nano V2 with BenF firmware?

[EmbeddedEric]

For a low-end "hobbyist" grade handheld portable scope which is better (as of today) the DSO Nano or DSO Quad?

http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/dso-quad-aluminium-alloy-silver-p-1033.html?cPath=174

http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/dso-nano-v2-p-681.html?cPath=174

I have a 100 MHz dual channel scope already and have access to a 1GHz (4 Gsps) scope at work, but I am looking for a portable scope to play with and do some hobby Arduino and audio frequency level analog stuff. I really like the DSO Quads specs and the Dual channel would be nice. The frequency sweeper application written by jpa looks great and would be a neat feature to have with some of my audio filter projects.

My concerns are based on the feedback on the Seeed forum not a lot of people are happy with the DSO Quad (as of today) and would I be better off buying the DSO Nano v2 and running the BENF firmware? Any thoughts? Is anyone happy with the DSO Quad?

[Lightages]

I am afraid you will find that neither is recommended as a scope for anyone on this forum. Both of their capabilities rank them as toys and their input protection and lack of safety precautions in the design make them suitable for nothing more than maybe looking at audio signals inside preamps. You will quickly find their limitations and at worst you could get injured trying to use them in some real world uses.

Yes I know you say you want something simple for audio work, but they don't have good reputations for accuracy as well.

If you want a low end beginner scope that will be safer and more rugged, although with less bells and whistles, then look at the UNI-T UT81B
http://www.dealexcel.com/unit-ut81b-oscilloscope-8mhz-w-usb-vivid-and-lcd_p390.html

This would be a much better buy as far as safety and actual usefulness goes.

[EmbeddedEric]

Lightages,

Thanks for your response I'll have to take a look at the Uni-T UT81B Oscilloscope. I am mostly looking at the DSO nano or Quad for just a visualization scope to have next to my computer (which is in a different room from my lab bench) when I write software or take a simple measurement. For less than $200 I wasn't expecting much in terms of accuracy from the Quad or Nano, but was hoping with calibration you could get in the 1-2% ball park range for voltage measurements. I have never played with one, but I have heard they have accuracy issues when in the different ranges.

The safety issues with these low-end scopes is good for you to point out. I don't work on anything higher than 30V, but you defiantly wouldn't want to use these scopes for AC mains primary connected circuits.

[Chet T16]

I've always fancied one for poking around on the cars but i never really looked into them as the money was always needed elsewhere

[FenderBender]

About a year ago, I was looking into a little handheld scope because it was cheap and looked nice. But as others have said, it's just going to be a pain in the arse for you in the end.

If you really want handheld scope worth while, you might want to consider some of the options by Hantek, Owon etc. if you have a little more money, you can try finding a second hand Fluke, Extech (meh), or even a Tektronix.

But if you are really in between those two, I would choose the Quad, though I don't exactly have an argument to back it up.

Again this is pricey, but it will be much more useful in the end: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hantek-DSO1060-60MHz-HandHeld-scope-meter-60MHz-150-MSa-/280628232311?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item4156bf0077

And forgot to add, that Uni-T scopemeter is more than decent. It can actually do it's rated spec and a little bit more. People  have said that they have got accurate reading up to around 10-15MHz. Internal build is quite nice also. Not amazing, but pretty good. I think it has an FPGA or CPLD and some pretty good quality parts.

[PeterG]

I will take my UT81B over a Seeed DSO any day. I have both and fine i reach for my 81B most of the time. I tend to think of the Seeed DSO' as a toy. The UT81B also doubles a reasonably accurate multimeter.

The UT81B also feels a LOT more robust. i am always worried about breaking the connectors on the Seeed scopes.

Regards

[EmbeddedEric]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. I will have to look at the UT81B more closely.

The DSO Quad has so much potential with it being open source hardware and software. I am just wondering if it hasn't been released long enough to have third party developers really step up the quality of the firmware. I have heard good things about the DSO Nano when it is running the BenF firmware; the DSO Nano was released in 2009 and I am not sure how long it took before the first variants of the BenF firmware came out. The Quad was really just release this past year to beta testers.

Thanks for your insight. Right now the DSO Quad in the Aluminum case is out of stock and I am guessing it won't be in stock until mid to late Feb due to Chinese New Year.... I guess I have a little bit of time to think about it and see if it is worth the $220.

Thanks,
Eric

[tinhead]

Eric,

where you from ? United States of patriot Act victims (patent pending) ?

So then i exaplin it in a simple way^^ (don't take it personal, but after 4hrs meeting with some US guys i'm burned out) :

open hardware - is just piece of nothing, in case of these (both) toys just a sticker. The FPGA design, which belongs to hardware
is "open source" but you can't synthesize (afaik) with test/students/whatsoever non comercial version - so full fail/crap

open source sw - another one typical cheap (chinese? well common) marketing joke - when you can't reuse/change the hardware
then its useless and the software is twice that useless.

I'm not sure where is (you personal) border, but for me everything where i have to pay is "commercial" and not open-whatever.
Sure, as a EE i wish to make some money, and for sure others wish it too, but there is no single reason to use
"open source" sticker for good commercial products (yeah, for cheap crap for sure, that's why you can find
more and more such things like DSO nano/quad toys).

Unfortunately there is no central organization/guru who can stop all these marketing spammers from flooding the
market with pseudo-os/oh "products".


Regardles of these things above these DSO nano/quad are just useless, i would say if you get quad for 20$ they
buy it - but everything above didn't make sense (or well, you can use few LEDs with simple R/C combination to get
exact the same accuracy/resolution/visibility )

If you wish a decent handheld scope and have no issues with chinese products consider Hantek, they have everything
from 60Mhz bw and 250MSs up to 200MHz bw and 1GSs with isolated channels (DSO1060, DSO1200, DSO8060, DSO1062B, DSO1062S,
DSO1062BV and so on ... up to DSO1202S). The integrated DMM is 6k counts 1%  class DMM (all of them).

[alm]

open hardware - is just piece of nothing, in case of these (both) toys just a sticker. The FPGA design, which belongs to hardware
is "open source" but you can't synthesize (afaik) with test/students/whatsoever non comercial version - so full fail/crap

Just because the tools aren't free doesn't preclude the hardware from being open.

open source sw - another one typical cheap (chinese? well common) marketing joke - when you can't reuse/change the hardware
then its useless and the software is twice that useless.

You can change the hardware. You may need an expensive license for the FPGA, but you don't for the analog circuit, and based on the reports, it seems like an improved front-end wouldn't hurt.

Not arguing about the crap quality of the DSO Nano, but at least it's open crap .

[tinhead]

Just because the tools aren't free doesn't preclude the hardware from being open.

...

You can change the hardware. You may need an expensive license for the FPGA, but you don't for the analog circuit, and based on the reports, it seems like an improved front-end wouldn't hurt.

oh well, the first line of so calles open source firmware (well, FPGA design is actually hardware) begins
with  (C) COPYRIGHT 2011 e-Design Co.,Ltd.

So single line nor statement that you can use it, no whatsoever licensing. Ever more funny is
that the FPGA source 2.5 is already outdated, not stable and published after massive presure in DSO crap froum.
Sources for 2.6.1 are not available, developer is not responding but alive - so typical open source
marketing bullshit.

Actually i don't really care about ppl who bought this crap and will wait forever for sources,
however i think it is important to show other ppl what is the truth abouth these cheaters
from Seeed Studio ...

[Polossatik]

ho well, i think this video gives a good idea of what these "scopes" give:

this is the 75$ version on DX http://www.dealextreme.com/p/ds0201-2-8-lcd-pocket-mini-oscilloscope-v1-5-complete-kits-39753

[ejeffrey]

oh well, the first line of so calles open source firmware (well, FPGA design is actually hardware) begins
with  (C) COPYRIGHT 2011 e-Design Co.,Ltd.

So what?

[EmbeddedEric]

Polossatik - thanks for posting that Youtube video. Pretty much confirms the 200KHz analog input bandwidth of the DSO Nano. I have pretty much talked myself out of the DSO Nano do to its very limited bandwidth and single channel. The DSO Quad may still make a fun "toy"; maybe I'll get one a shoot a bunch of videos just to paint a clear picture of it's performance. There is still a lot of mixed reviews on the DSO Quad and I don't know how much of it is user error or truly performance limitations on the hardware and current software.

Thanks,
EH

[Br0ski]

I want to chime in on the DSO nano phenomonon I am guessing since no one has posted here in 120 days everybody got the memo except me.

It's a Junk/Toy Dave was 2000% right. I got the v3 (great case all aluminum). One guy had a great point portability. As a portable device could be a great seller if research and a user friendly final product was put out. Then future development to get even smaller would 10-fold the price.

Audiophiles would buy them to set their gains.
The best solution right now is http://www.sonicelectronix.com/item_61378_SMD-DD-1-Distortion-Detector-Analyzer-by-Steve-Meade-Designs.html
Currently there is no cheap o-scope solution and the best way to set gains is not with a multimeter but with an o-scope but because they are expensive and no one knows how to use them except us nerds not many have one.

Anywho... I bought the DSO Nano v3 and the BenF firmware was never upgraded after the v2 of the DSO Nano (I think it might have been a $$$ issue of some sort) so using the user interface of the stock firmware is next to impossible. I scowered forums to draw this conclusion. I could not achieve scaling and my waveforms were all off the screen. I could use the scroll button but as far as user friendly the thing sucked.

Thanks to Dave for making me step up with a Rigol 1102E as a good starting scope with a good price with great features.

$90 bucks down the toilet.
In a few months you'll see my DSO Nano up on eBay for real cheap.

Br0ski

[Stonent]

I've always fancied one for poking around on the cars but i never really looked into them as the money was always needed elsewhere

Yes I was thinking the same thing. I don't want to balance a 10kg analog scope on the car with a long cord.

[dennis788]

Solution for new nano devices for BenF fw:

http://www.seeedstudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=18556#p18556

 O0

[echen1024]

I've always fancied one for poking around on the cars but i never really looked into them as the money was always needed elsewhere

Yes I was thinking the same thing. I don't want to balance a 10kg analog scope on the car with a long cord.

Maybe a Rigol D1052E or a Tek TDS 210?

[jmacqueen]

Polossatik - thanks for posting that Youtube video. Pretty much confirms the 200KHz analog input bandwidth of the DSO Nano. I have pretty much talked myself out of the DSO Nano do to its very limited bandwidth and single channel. The DSO Quad may still make a fun "toy"; maybe I'll get one a shoot a bunch of videos just to paint a clear picture of it's performance. There is still a lot of mixed reviews on the DSO Quad and I don't know how much of it is user error or truly performance limitations on the hardware and current software.

Thanks,
EH

The quad is head and shoulders above the nano Dave tested, I figure it is only about a 5mhz scope but that beats the nano's what, .25Mhz..

It is a toy pretty much though and I don't think it is for really beginners unless the beginner wants to do a lot of learning and work to use it. User friendly does not apply here and you really need to know or learn how to use a scope to even try to use one.

On top of that you do need to load the open source community produced firmware, well one of the open source firmwares as there are three I know of, 2 are free one costs a few bucks. Personally I would not even attempt to run it on the factory software, the community GCC port is the most popular and makes a big difference in UI changes, added functionality and bug fixes.

There are also other apps you can install on it for frequency response curves, FFT, spectrum analysis, logic analyzer, digital volt/ohm meter etc., I just noticed one today for USB protocol analyzer.

There is also a pawn scripting language module to develop your own apps, and someone even made a tetris game for it.

It also comes totally uncalibrated, so after replacing the stock software with the community GCC ported software you have to calibrate the thing in software to get it fairly accurate, and then you also have to adjust probe compensation by opening the back and tuning a couple internal trim pots to get it to work well and get the best display.

Of course there is little documentation for all this firmware upgrading and calibrating and compensation adjustment, it's kind of spread out in forums and blogs and you have to go find it.

To me it would be perfectly fine for hobbyists working on arduino circuits looking at logic level stuff, PWM signals and such or audio frequency range stuff as well as using it in automotive work.