Please seriously consider the Rigol DS1054Z. There is a version with an integrated signal generator as well.
If you are short on funds and really only need audio-level performance, consider the low-end PicoScopes. They have integrated signal generators with 600ohm output impedance (mainly intended for audio), and match most of your requirements.
Thanks dadler. The PicoScopes are USB scopes, right? I'd prefer a bench top scope.
It looks like the Rigol with generator function gets expensive quickly. But I will certainly consider Rigol. What's your feelings for the 1054z over other makes?
I have the DS1054z and it is an extremely well made and capable scope for the price.
The build quality really is up there, close to the likes of Agilent etc. They feel like much more expensive products than they are in price.
If I were you, I would get the DS1054Z with the EEVblog discount for $375, and get a separate function generator that meets your needs.
I have the DS1054z and it is an extremely well made and capable scope for the price.
The build quality really is up there, close to the likes of Agilent etc. They feel like much more expensive products than they are in price.
If I were you, I would get the DS1054Z with the EEVblog discount for $375, and get a separate function generator that meets your needs.EEBblog discount? O0 Tell me more...
So it looks like the DS1074Z-S is the lowest cost model with the generator. It's like $800 or so.
A 4 channel scope seems a little over kill for me, but it seems to be worth the cost over the 1052. Why do they not have a 2 channel version with all these features?
Something they seem to highlight in the specs on their website is the " 30,000wfms/s Waveform Capture Rate". Is that like a refresh rate? I'm not sure what the other scopes have, but I assume this is pretty good.
Thanks for the heads up. Now I have to seriously consider this.
No one has responded to the sampling rate/memory depth thing for FFT thing yet. I'm not quite understanding this relationship.
Primarily, I just want to see a simple waveform representation form one stage to the next, and make sure I am adequately seeing any oscillation effects (which would most likely be higher frequency).
Secondly, I'd like to analyze the harmonic distortion with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Everything else is secondary to those concerns, although I will say I do consider form factor in such endeavors. Nothing wrong with having the tools to do the job, and looking nice too.
I am not sure if you already have done so, but take a look at pages 8~9 of this Agilent document. LeCroy also has an interesting article. A summary on this EDN article. Perhaps they will explain this better than I.
Most oscilloscopes have a more limited number of FFT points - for example, Rigol DS1000Z series goes up to 1024 points, while DS2000 and DS4000 series use 2048 points. This impacts the dynamic range of the FFT (or perhaps the frequency resolution, I am not 100% sure). In the case of audio, where the frequency of interest is closer to zero, this is not a very limiting factor.
Maybe I am wrong, as I do not work with audio as much, but I have the impression the dynamic range of a typical oscilloscope front end may not be up to par with the THD measurements of high performance audio (check pages 10~12 of Agilent's document above). Again, it all boils down to how much is a "reasonable degree of accuracy" for you.
A device such as Keithley 2015 will spit out a very accurate THD number as well as other parameters. It also incorporates an internal precision sinewave generator. However it costs an arm and a leg.
I hadn't even considered the oscilloscope front end being a factor. I did read an article from pico scopes that showed the difference in resolution on 8, 12, and 16 bit scopes. It was significant.
Really more for learning and/or fun. So I should probably stop obsessing.
Bit of shameless self-promotion here - I've written an article on the various specifications for a scope (bandwidth, sampling rate, update rate etc). Nothing about FFT but it might make for interesting reading? Anyway, you can find it here.
Then the oscilloscopes mentioned above will be absolutely perfect for this task.
For your sleepless nights, I found a very interesting article that talks about FFT basics and covers most of the aspects you are interested.
If you can afford it, I really again recommend the 1054z. It is a ridiculous amount of scope for the price. The build quality is so much better than anything in this price range. It really is amazing that they can make such a full-featured, quality product for this price.
If you can afford it, I really again recommend the 1054z. It is a ridiculous amount of scope for the price. The build quality is so much better than anything in this price range. It really is amazing that they can make such a full-featured, quality product for this price.I could challenge you on this statement but I know many look at the 1054z with rose tinted glasses.
Reasoning
Design flaws identified by Bud and MarkL
Only 1 Gsa/s sampling shared across 4 channels
Single vertical attenuator across 4 channels
Only 300V channel inputs
And the latest, there is apparently no power cycle bootsrap counter on Rigol products.
In the secondhand market, how will one know how much work these products have done?
Will this de-value them?
How can one know if a unit is NOS or been extensively used?
@ Rogue
Study the Siglent SDS1000CML or CNL series.
They are an established, mature and reliable unit, while not with all of the features of 1054, some specs are better, just as it is across the massive TE range.
What's the channel input voltage for the Siglents?
What's the channel input voltage for the Siglents?All models 400V max
I guess this brings up another question. I don't see much information on the probes that come with the units. Are they generally the same voltage rating as the scope input?
I can find DC voltages of 450+ commonly. It would be nice to check for ripple with a scope. Sure, a 10x probe should be fine for getting the voltages down for the scope, but what about the probes themselves? I don't see much information on them when reading the scope specs.