-
I would love to see the Rigol go up against OWON, Siglent, BK and others in that price class.
Use something like the Agilent 2000 as a reference and lets see how these guys stack up on waveform reproduction, Glitch capture Triggering and all the other features. Teardowns would be great but I would just settle for knowing how good each of these units are in this price range.
Your multimeter episodes are some of your best work so I think a Scope shootout would be even better.
After that maybe you can do PSU's and Signal Generators.
-
Hello.
1. I agree.
2. I remember, that Dave don't want to make a shootout again (like the legendary Multimeter- Shootouts).
Too much work and effort of time...
3. I believe, your Posting is in the wrong part of the forum. Therefor exists "Suggestions".
Regards
Hartmut
-
I think a comparison in real world usage would be a great idea. After all that Korad power supply looked great on paper and in the video until Dave actually tried to use it!!
Something like a standard set of measurements, display features, ability to trigger on certain waveforms (without decent triggering every scope is useless) etc. Plus signal fidelity tests such as flatness in frequency response, pulse response, recovery in the front end when swamped etc. Maybe pick 10 tests and try that. Suggest scopes are also grouped by bandwidth not price. Then we can see what we are really getting for our $$$.
My Tip: Always buy the lowest performing/priced model in a product line. Then you get hardware that is dumbed down to a price-point but is capable of operating at a higher spec. -
2. I remember, that Dave don't want to make a shootout again (like the legendary Multimeter- Shootouts).
Too much work and effort of time...
I do want to do it, but yes, it is a massive investment in time and effort.
And then there is always the argument over how it's done - as say in-depth separate reviews and then a separate summary "shootout" comparison video. Or just the one shootout video that lacks all the detail. A full review for one scope runs in the order of 45min to an hour long.
Dave. -
I think such a review would be really popular.
I know there are a lot of use looking to upgrade from a rigol ds1052E. I often wonder if the new batch of so scopes (with bigger screens) are worth the extra money. -
Hi Dave
Thanks for the reply and I do understand that it's a lot of work but when I reflect back on the aprox 150 episodes I have watched to date you are at your best when you did the really hard comparison/consumer orientated episodes. It's what makes eevblog appealing to many of your viewers. If I may suggest why not make it a 5-10 part series starting with ergonomics, look and feel in episode 1 and maybe do successive episodes on different signal tests and then do the last two or so on teardowns.
Just a thought and thanks again for the great work and the humour
I just about choked on my drink when you went on that rant about the worlds cheapest multimeter in the mailbag episode. Those kind of Rants are also what make your show entertaining while being educational.
-
I think such a review would be really popular.
I know there are a lot of use looking to upgrade from a rigol ds1052E. I often wonder if the new batch of so scopes (with bigger screens) are worth the extra money.
I'd be hugely interested in a shoot out too! Just saving up the cash right now, won't pull the trigger until I see a review and comparison from Dave though.
Looking to get a four channel scope with a big screen and a quite fan in the next twelve months. Till then the rigol 1052e will do.
Ken -
I think a comparison based on Bandwidth would not be very useful for your typical hobbiest!
What's the point of showing me how much better a $3000 scope is in comparison to a $500 scope?
Most people who have $3000 or $4000 to burn make up a very small percentage of eeblog viewers and if you do fall in that bracket why would you care about a cheap Chinese scope when you have Agilent type cash on hand?
BTW I agree with everything else you said, the tests sound spot on but I really want to see what's the best the market has to bare in the typical hobbiest price range.I think a comparison in real world usage would be a great idea. After all that Korad power supply looked great on paper and in the video until Dave actually tried to use it!!
Something like a standard set of measurements, display features, ability to trigger on certain waveforms (without decent triggering every scope is useless) etc. Plus signal fidelity tests such as flatness in frequency response, pulse response, recovery in the front end when swamped etc. Maybe pick 10 tests and try that. Suggest scopes are also grouped by bandwidth not price. Then we can see what we are really getting for our $$$.
My Tip: Always buy the lowest performing/priced model in a product line. Then you get hardware that is dumbed down to a price-point but is capable of operating at a higher spec. -
Do separate videos of each scope and upload them over the course of two weeks or so. Then you make a video in the end comparing them and pointing out what's good, what's bad and what's missing.
-
The Rigol DS2202 is on the Fedex truck.
And I can get my hands on anything available at Trio Smart Cal just a round the corner, so shootouts are possible.
Dave. -
I think a comparison based on Bandwidth would not be very useful for your typical hobbiest!
What's the point of showing me how much better a $3000 scope is in comparison to a $500 scope?
Most people who have $3000 or $4000 to burn make up a very small percentage of eeblog viewers and if you do fall in that bracket why would you care about a cheap Chinese scope when you have Agilent type cash on hand?
Well that's the thing. At this low end level, price is pretty much everything. So shootouts should essentially be based on cost. But one could argue that they could be separated into 2 or 4 channel as well.
And it would be valuable to know "How much better is an $800 scope (Rigol 2000) to a $400 scope (Rigol 1052)" and is it worth the money?
At this stage I'm favouring just separate reviews, and then sort summary "shootout" videos of various types perhaps.
Dave. -
A scope is only as good as its trigger, so can you set up a standard torture test for the triggering? If there is an identical test for all the scopes, it makes it easy comparing scopes.
Well that's the thing. At this low end level, price is pretty much everything. So shootouts should essentially be based on cost. But one could argue that they could be separated into 2 or 4 channel as well.
And it would be valuable to know "How much better is an $800 scope (Rigol 2000) to a $400 scope (Rigol 1052)" and is it worth the money?
At this stage I'm favouring just separate reviews, and then sort summary "shootout" videos of various types perhaps.
Dave.
This includes tests like:
Accuracy of the trigger level for low, medium and max-rated frequency
Minimum deflection for a stable trigger
Maximum frequency for stable trigger with a 1 division amplitude waveform
Minimum pulse width for a trigger
What is the triggering jitter? (persist all the samples with the scope in dot display mode and see the spread)
With delayed trigger and the display on a 10nS/div timebase, what is the maximum separation in time from the trigger to the display? I think with the Rigol DS1052E, the delayed trigger only works within the bounds of the Long Memory capture duration, so it is nothing like a proper delayed trigger on an analog scope.
How well does the triggering on pulse width work? There was the case in the forum a while ago where someone found that it didn't work at all on a low-end LeCroy scope.
Also, can you do slow captures (like 10 seconds or more) at full Long Memory resolution? The DS1052E seems to disable Long Memory if you set the timebase lower then something like 20mS/div.
The thing is an average scope with a great trigger and delayed trigger is probably much more useful then a fabulously-optioned scope with a bad trigger and delayed trigger. I have had surprises in the past where a cheap scope triggers on everything and the expensive scope looses it when the amplitude drops below 1 division p-p.
Richard -
Sounds like the way to go... If you could do some "standardized" or should I say repeatable tests, during the reviews, I would think you could just assemble clips of those tests in the final shootout video to show side by side comparisons.
Price is a key point for many, and it could be argued that while someone might have "Agilent" funds.... it's no easier to select your best value for the $$ spent as there are many seemingly excellent choices as you climb the cost ladder.
Any plans of doing bench height drop tests with these scopes?
Regards
Christian
-
I think teaching what to look for, what the numbers mean, and belief or trust in a brand. All of which have a cost. Spend 10 minutes and show good, bad, and ugly triggering. What a cheap digital can't do but an old cro can, and vice versa. Ideally start with a known signal and say what you think is there and the use a few scopes to show what is really there. Comment on setup time, clairity of signal and screen size panel layout.
...mike -
I think a comparison based on Bandwidth would not be very useful for your typical hobbiest!
What's the point of showing me how much better a $3000 scope is in comparison to a $500 scope?
Most people who have $3000 or $4000 to burn make up a very small percentage of eeblog viewers and if you do fall in that bracket why would you care about a cheap Chinese scope when you have Agilent type cash on hand?
Well that's the thing. At this low end level, price is pretty much everything. So shootouts should essentially be based on cost. But one could argue that they could be separated into 2 or 4 channel as well.
And it would be valuable to know "How much better is an $800 scope (Rigol 2000) to a $400 scope (Rigol 1052)" and is it worth the money?
At this stage I'm favouring just separate reviews, and then sort summary "shootout" videos of various types perhaps.
Dave.
I think the thing is that every time a new model comes out, the review changes or gets outdated. Individual reviews and commenting on the point where the product stands compared to others is more useful I think.
Furthermore, I also sometimes think a xx $ shootout tends to focus on choosing the best out of the range.
I see you have another Rigol scope coming, so I think the best thing is comparing scopes against each other individually.
Then again, for that it also requires a lot of knowledge what's out there, how good it is etc. So it's tricky in general.
I don't mind either way. I have some scopes on the list I'm interested in, especially a 2000-s Rigol scope because of its price point and much beefier performance than a 1052E. So let the review and teardown come
, can't wait
-
Sounds like the way to go... If you could do some "standardized" or should I say repeatable tests, during the reviews, I would think you could just assemble clips of those tests in the final shootout video to show side by side comparisons.
I've had plans for a long time for drawing up standard check-sheets I can use reviewing any sort of gear. So that I don't miss anything with my off-the-cuff random approach.
And then there is the possibility of doing maybe separate comparison videos on key features like triggering. That way it's not a massive time investment, and I don't have to be brief on that aspect as I would in a huge shootout video that tried to compare 10 different features across 4-5 scopes.
Dave. -
Make the shootout simple, as a follow-up to individual product reviews. Identify the scopes that have standout individual features, then the scopes that have the best overall feature sets, ending with your personal favorites on the "bang for the buck" scale.
This way, the shootout it will be easier to update as new models and firmware revisions appear.
Perhaps in addition to the "mail bag" segment, you could have "scope bag" and "meter bag" segments to keep us up-to-date on the low-end instrument markets.
I'd love to see an under-$10 analog multimeter shootout! Perhaps at the very beginning of April... ;^)
-
This should be one of the best episode sets since the Multimeter episodes. I really hope that OWON 8000 series finally gets a teardown and testing and given a proper Dave Grading. BTW Dave I have to agree with you on the thumbs up on some products that might garner a few negatives in certain areas but excel in others. I hear so much talk about features on products, the funny part is that I know the same people talking about it will probably never use in real life but it's oh so important during testing.
Coming from the Analog days and owning old Tek scopes I have come to appreciate the simplicity of a good design that one can trust, I hate too many menu's, I hate paying for complex features that some programmer makes up at the expense of building hardware that I can trust. My old Tek scopes never gave me pause to think that what I was seeing on the screen was the real signal and that's something I would like to know more about with this new crop of low end DSO's.
-
BTW Dave I have to agree with you on the thumbs up on some products that might garner a few negatives in certain areas but excel in others.
That's the hard part, as most products will fulfil some user cost/requirements niche, so it's hard to give overall thumbs up or thumbs down on any product.
Dave. -
BTW Dave I have to agree with you on the thumbs up on some products that might garner a few negatives in certain areas but excel in others.
That's the hard part, as most products will fulfil some user cost/requirements niche, so it's hard to give overall thumbs up or thumbs down on any product.
Dave.
Very true because most people only see things in black and white!
What's one mans problem is just trivial to another. BTW may I suggest you throw in an old Analog CRT based Tek scope into the tests. They fall into the same price range as these new DSO scopes and it may end up surprising your viewers when they see how well it does.
Robert -
How about rather than just a binary "1" or "0" (thumbs up or down), have a grading system. "7 Dave faces out of 10 for bang for buck"... "6 Dave faces out of 10 for overall build quality"... or something. I dunno.
-
^should be something like 1 out of 5 gigawatts(or another back to the future reference)? 1 out of 5 kangaroos?
-
You guys are right, this is to complicated for a final verdict of just thumbs up or down.
Each test area needs at least a 1 to 5 rating and then add the up and divide them for the average.
Now this is Dave were talking about so 1-5 is needed on the score sheet but for filming it's got to be better. I think A Dave scale is the solution, maybe we can use Daves own scale and add some more to it.
1 = Bloody Awful
2
3
4
5 = Sex On A Stick
Any ideas on filling out the rest or changes? -
just brilliant!
-
3. "Par for the course"
4. "Not too bad at all"