A review of the seedstudio DSOquad?

[dumle29]

Hi, i have a hard time finding a good video review of the DSOquad 200$ quad channel oscilloscope, it seems all epic and awesome, but i would like to hear what you guys, and dave would have to say about it.

This is the one im talking about: http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/preorder-dso-quad-beta-test-p-736.html?cPath=174

And sold by sparkfun too: http://www.sparkfun.com/products/10388

thanks

currently stuck with a MASIVE 20MHz analog scope i got free from my school (it pays to ask )

[Bored@Work]

It is a PoS and has been discussed here a few times. Be happy with your 20 MHz oscilloscope. It is likely much safer and more useful. If you want a low-end DSO save your money for a Rigol or a Hantek. The later if you can live with lower quality.

[EEVblog]

It's a toy.
It's only saving grace is that it's small and very portable. If you NEED such a small pocket scope then maybe worth considering, but otherwise don't waste your money.

Dave.

[ejeffrey]

It's a toy.
It's only saving grace is that it's small and very portable. If you NEED such a small pocket scope then maybe worth considering, but otherwise don't waste your money.

And your circuit is low voltage, low power.

[olsenn]

The DSO Nano/Quad is something you'd keep at the end of a key-chain! Like Dave said 100 times, it's a toy. If you think it will give you gratification showing off to your friends at school that you can observe low amplitude/frequency voltage signals with a device you can store in your pocket, and don't mind wasting $200 then go for it... otherwise, buy a benchtop DSO (Rigol etc)!

Even hobby level designs often require a greater bandwidth that this device can operate at (~4MHz). The clock on an Arduino is like 16MHz. Furthermore, even if the signals you intend on viewing are low enough frequency to observe with this device, it's a pain in the a%@ to adjust the time base and amplitude without dedicated knobs, much less on perform more advanced operations. The signal generator is a joke, there is no FFT, no advanced triggering options, and even though the "Quad" markets itself quite strongly as a four-channel oscilloscope, only two of those channels are analog (the other two can only show TTL digital logic).

Once again, buy a Rigol DS1102E!!!!!

[T4P]

You've got to be kidding me!
A STM32F103VCT6 as the main processing device ? 
2MB storage BTW is pathetic as with using a MCU as the display device and the reciever device?
I would highly doubt there actually is a FPGA but i can believe the ADC claim(Just not high speed)
72MSPS is something like 9MHz or 7.2MHz MAX
I would mostly believe that will split up into 2 channels which is further more pathetic, still want the device, REALLY?!

[dumle29]

Thanks, i was seriously considering it, now ill stay 500 miles from it :O

ill stay with my Analog one. Another question, what is a nice flat DSO? and is the cheapest decent one i can get a rigol1052E? (hacked to a 100MHz one ofc )

[T4P]

Thanks, i was seriously considering it, now ill stay 500 miles from it :O

ill stay with my Analog one. Another question, what is a nice flat DSO? and is the cheapest decent one i can get a rigol1052E? (hacked to a 100MHz one ofc )

Yeah sure if you can hack it. Or if you can get a DS1102E at a not so expensive price.


I'd stay 500miles away from the Atten ADS1102CAL too. Shoddy Atten work, i don't want.
But if you got a bit more budget and don't really mind the little software flaws, consider the Owon SDS1102V(or T)

a rigol is sufficient till you step up your game to a DSO3000X, that, you can consider for a long time, even i wouldn't need a agilent dso yet, at least not now, maybe 5 years down the road

[Bored@Work]

Other DSOs to stay away from are Uni-T.

Hanteks are a mixed bag. The 5000D series is hackable and the hardware and software have been extensively reverse engineered. Related series like 5000BM are similar. And occasionally Hantek publishes new firmware. But Hantek is slow to fix bugs. Still better than others, like Uni-T, who don't fix anything.

Owon initially needed a little bit of convincing that their stuff wasn't fault free. Then they did work on the firmware and even did some hardware changes. But it seems there are strange and difficult ways to get a firmware update. They haven't been hacked. People have reported surprising good communication with Owon service for a Chinese manufacturer.

The Rigol DS1052E has been hacked and the hack became so popular that there have been vendors selling  the DS1102E for the same price as the DS1052E, otherwise people wouldn't buy the DS1102E at all. Rigol support is strange. My experience with them is very bad, i.e. no support, rarely any response, and if a response it was nothing but lies. Others claim they occasionally had Rigol people really talking to them.

Atten is mostly junk. Same with Siglent, which is just another brand / undercover operation of Atten.

Little is known about other brands like, for example, Ypioneer, Tonghui, or Lvyang. They occasionally find their way on the western market.

Instek and Hameg are a level above the DSOs mentioned when it comes to quality. Although we had big trouble with getting an Instek DSO serviced by Instek. We finally had to throw it away.

Another level above are the Agilent InfiniiVision 2000X and 3000X series.

A strange beast are Wittig/Weltec DSOs. They were a German company that went bankrupt, not the least because their DSOs had horrible firmware. Batches of NOS of theri DSOs occasionally show up on eBay, sometimes as no-name DSOs. There is a group who has written a replacement firmware as open source for them. If you are interested in hacking a DSO, as opposite to using it for measurement, this might be an interesting choice. Another one would be the Hantek for this purpose.

[Zeph]

It's very helpful to get feedback from people withreal experience, which goes beyond scanning data sheets.

It's also a bit discouraging.  It sounds like somebody with a budget of less than around $300 is kind of stuck with imagining what the waveforms probably look like in their minds, or wasting that limited budget on trash, at least in terms of a DSO.

Are there at least analog scopes worth having for under two hundred?  Any help would be appreciated.

[EEVblog]

It's also a bit discouraging.  It sounds like somebody with a budget of less than around $300 is kind of stuck with imagining what the waveforms probably look like in their minds, or wasting that limited budget on trash, at least in terms of a DSO.

Think yourself lucky in "modern" times. Until just a very short 5 years ago or so it was unheard of to get a new DSO below the $1000 mark.
To be able to get a decent quality 50MHz/1GS/1M DSO for $300 these days is incredible.

Are there at least analog scopes worth having for under two hundred?  Any help would be appreciated.

For $200 I'd be shooting for >100MHz in an analog.
Would I put the $200 toward an analog instead of a $300 digital? no way, save up the extra $100.
Analogs are good as say a basic <$100/free first time scope. I'd only get a more expensive analog as an adjunct to a digital scope.

Dave.

[jcb]

To chime in on this rather stale, but still topical, topic, I've just had my first experience with a DSO Quad. I was extremely disappointed.

The enclosure is beautiful, as is the display, and it comes with a nice-feeling Mueller probe (although that probe isn't 1x/10x switchable, or compensate-able). I was primed to really like this thing.

But operation was infuriating: The controls and menu system are completely non-intuitive. Accuracy is terrible, even after running the calibration utility. Triggering is awful (in Normal mode the waveform appears only momentarily, then clears until the next trigger - what's the use of that!?). The reported 3MHz analog bandwidth is far too low for much of today's digital circuitry.

For less than twice the price one can get a low end Rigol, a true piece of test gear which will retain much of its value over time. The DSO Quad unfortunately seems to be little more than a pricey toy that will be quickly outgrown.

The only reason I can see to buy one of these things is if you absolutely must have a pocket scope. I'm going to toss mine in the tool bag, and pray I never need to rely on it (I'd rather have my old clunky Velleman HPS10 back). Someday someone will make a decent small scope, but this ain't it.

[nitro2k01]

It's a toy.
It's only saving grace is that it's small and very portable. If you NEED such a small pocket scope then maybe worth considering, but otherwise don't waste your money.

Dave.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind seeing a review and teardown, if you can get or borrow one. Wouldn't hurt asking would it?