Author Topic: Which scope?  (Read 2338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rat_PatrolTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • Country: us
Which scope?
« on: February 19, 2020, 09:57:02 pm »
Looking at these scopes:
Rigol DS1202Z-E
Rigol DS1054Z
SDS1202X-E

The most demanding use would probably be decoding SPI, and then general troubleshooting/debugging/general use.

One particular project I have in mind is to catch a cam sensor signal on an engine so I can re-create it digitally, but its a diesel, so less than 3k RPM and a 28 hole cam gear. Not particularly demanding.

They are all similarly priced and similar features. Which one do I want?
 

Offline DaJMasta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2393
  • Country: us
    • medpants.com
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2020, 11:25:14 pm »
Probably not the best subforum for the question, but all the same:

My UI preference is Siglent's between the two, though both will work fine.  The DS1054Z is the oldest design of the three, so if Rigol hasn't updated it since then, it may feel the least responsive of the three.  I also really prioritize 4 channels over 2, when possible, though.  Since bandwidth doesn't seem to be a concern, what about Siglent's SDS1104X-E?  I think it's even had a price drop recently.
 

Offline Rat_PatrolTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • Country: us
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2020, 11:35:52 pm »
Looks like the SDS1104X-E is going to be about $100 more.

Probably worth it, but I'd rather not spend it.

I was considering the DS1054Z simply because it was 4 channel. But starting with a 50 MHz scope and dividing that by 4, its getting kind of low on bandwidth. Maybe it still good enough though? At least at this point, I'm no power user.

I have an old analog Tektronix 2235, so if I really need more than 2 channels, I could fire that back up. I can't say its been calibrated recently though  ;D .

I've also though about selling the 2235 to put into the new digital scope. I can't see where an analog is better than even these cheaper Rigol and Siglent, but if its a good idea to hold onto it, I will. It still works fine.
 

Online thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7523
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2020, 11:44:22 pm »
Sell the tek if you can get anything for it.
For decoding SPI I would get a cheap $10 saleae clone.
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline DaJMasta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2393
  • Country: us
    • medpants.com
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2020, 12:00:21 am »
The nice thing about the 1054Z is that the hacks to get full bandwidth and options are well documented, so as long as you don't mind running through some software stuff, you can get a lot more bandwidth out of it (and I think more memory and all decoding options) relatively easily.

The 1104X-E may very well be more expensive, I think it's like $440 on amazon right now.  In the same vein as the Rigol, I believe it's software hackable pretty easily to 200MHz bandwidth.


Also worth mentioning (since I managed to miss it the first time), 2 channels isn't really enough to decode SPI.  You can get both data channels, sure, but it's much easier when you can get the clock (and the chip select, why not!) on your inputs.  Certainly helps in making sure things are being selected right and that the whole system is acting in a way you expect.  Alternatively, you could measure a data line or two and a power rail to correlate some reset failure, or an output of a DAC being driven by the SPI line, or whatnot.
 

Offline Alex Eisenhut

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3550
  • Country: ca
  • Place text here.
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2020, 12:34:08 am »
But starting with a 50 MHz scope and dividing that by 4, its getting kind of low on bandwidth.

That's not the way it works. Each channel has a 50MHz -3dB point, it's the scope's total samples/sec that will get divided up.

Plus if you want to decode a logic signal... use a logic analyzer. Smaller, cheaper, faster, easier. Solved.
Hoarder of 8-bit Commodore relics and 1960s Tektronix 500-series stuff. Unconventional interior decorator.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline TK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1722
  • Country: us
  • I am a Systems Analyst who plays with Electronics
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2020, 12:56:54 am »
The nice thing about the 1054Z is that the hacks to get full bandwidth and options are well documented, so as long as you don't mind running through some software stuff, you can get a lot more bandwidth out of it (and I think more memory and all decoding options) relatively easily.

The 1104X-E may very well be more expensive, I think it's like $440 on amazon right now.  In the same vein as the Rigol, I believe it's software hackable pretty easily to 200MHz bandwidth.


Also worth mentioning (since I managed to miss it the first time), 2 channels isn't really enough to decode SPI.  You can get both data channels, sure, but it's much easier when you can get the clock (and the chip select, why not!) on your inputs.  Certainly helps in making sure things are being selected right and that the whole system is acting in a way you expect.  Alternatively, you could measure a data line or two and a power rail to correlate some reset failure, or an output of a DAC being driven by the SPI line, or whatnot.
To decode SPI you need clock on one channel and MISO or MOSI on the other channel.  You can leave one data line and CS out, but not the clock.  I also prefer 4-channel scope for SPI decoding, but as others said, a scope is usually the wrong tool for SPI decoding besides signal integrity.  After you check the signals are there and they look correct (integrity wise), it gets cumbersome if you want to do a lot of protocol analysis on a long capture.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 12:58:44 am by TK »
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9321
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2020, 01:03:31 am »
Plus if you want to decode a logic signal... use a logic analyzer. Smaller, cheaper, faster, easier. Solved.
At $6 or so, a FX2 board along with the free Sigrok software is a must have.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline Rat_PatrolTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • Country: us
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2020, 04:37:29 am »
I still need a scope, the SPI decoding and cam signal capture were the only projects I had waiting in line for it.

 

Offline aheid

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 245
  • Country: no
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2020, 08:09:14 am »
The protocol decoding on the 1054z is limited to what is in view at any time, unlike the X-E from Siglent. Its interface is also sluggish compared to the Siglent.

I just used my Siglent 1104X-E to debug some SPI and it worked quite well, but for serious debugging that is not related to signal integrity a cheap logic analyzer as mentioned is much more ergonomic.
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 29811
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2020, 09:04:22 am »
I still need a scope, the SPI decoding and cam signal capture were the only projects I had waiting in line for it.
You can do basic SPI decoding with the 2ch SDS1202X-E just using the clock and data line and instead of clock sense (CS) use CLK Timeout.
This screenshot is from a much higher spec SDS5054X and although the UI is different the same settings will apply:

Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
 

Offline Prehistoricman

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Country: gb
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2020, 01:19:23 pm »
The 1054Z's interface is not just sluggish. The horiz and vertical movement is particularly bad because the acceleration feature usually kicks in at the worst moment. You're nudging your signal over to get it in the right place and all of a sudden it teleports off screen. FW doesn't get updates any more AFAIK but it still has bugs. I've experienced memory corruption on the trace in normal/stop mode.

Offline TK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1722
  • Country: us
  • I am a Systems Analyst who plays with Electronics
Re: Which scope?
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2020, 02:46:11 pm »
I still need a scope, the SPI decoding and cam signal capture were the only projects I had waiting in line for it.
You can do basic SPI decoding with the 2ch SDS1202X-E just using the clock and data line and instead of clock sense (CS) use CLK Timeout.
This screenshot is from a much higher spec SDS5054X and although the UI is different the same settings will apply:


Is the screen showing a single shot?  Why MOSI is showing transitions after SIGLENT_ ?  All screenshot posts of the SDS5000X and SDS2000X Plus show the same behavior
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf