These days 4 channels is the minimum I would recommend for someone getting startedYet a good portion of our sales are to those stepping up from a CRO and even after years of hobbyist use they can't/don't see a need for 4 channels for what they do. Most often they select the SDS1202X-E for raw and cheap BW as it's more valuable to them than an additional 2 channels.
Just as an aside, I think it would be interesting to do a video on the development of DSO's and the major ones that "changed the game" over the last say 30 years.
I think there would be viewing interest/hunger for that 'economy' category, the Fnirsi, Owon, Hantek.
That would be another interesting video "What is the lowest cost USABLE bench scope". You would have to differentiate between bench and handheld here I think.
IMHO US$1000 is a bit of a blank area where it comes to oscilloscopes. A limit of US$2000 would be more sane because that will include way more interesting models which really sit above the low end segment. In that price range you can also get several A-brand scopes.
I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.
Why does it matter if it's handheld or not? A lot of handhelds can be plugged in and left running all day.
That would be another interesting video "What is the lowest cost USABLE bench scope". You would have to differentiate between bench and handheld here I think.Why does it matter if it's handheld or not? A lot of handhelds can be plugged in and left running all day.
A recurring theme on EEVBLOG is why aren't those Owons/Hantek bench 'scopes worth buying? They look just like Rigols/Siglents in adverts.
Why is Rigol the starting point for "an oscilloscope actually worth owning"?
I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.
That's easy: The Rigol MSO5000. (which now has hi-res mode!)
In a couple of weeks time though? It might be the new 12-bit Rigol HDO1000.
In that case, such a video might be easy!
I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.
I don't see it as being a bang-per-buck shootout, then you get into arguments that some $500 model is the winner. So it's more like what is the best most powerful scope you can get under US$1000.
A problem I see here is what defines "the most powerful". Does that mean inclusion of protocol decoding, frequency counter, fft, etc. Or is it the bandwidth and sample rate that defines it. Then there is screen size, user interface and whatever you can think of.
It might also differ from person to person what they actually need for their jobs at hand.
For me a proper comparison between the different models over different use cases in a similar price bracket would be more interesting then an overall shoutout on a wide price range under 1000 USD.
Lets say scopes in the lowest price bracket <300USD like the FNIRSI 1014D, Hantek DSO2D15, OWON SDS1102.
Then the price bracket of >300USD to <700USD like GW Instek GDS-1202B, Rigol DS2202A, Siglent SDS2202X-E, Hantek MPO6004D, Micsig STO1152C.
And at last the price bracket of >700USD up to 1000USD like Keysight DSOX1102A, GW Instek GDS-1104B, Micsig STO2202C, Owon XDS3104AE, Siglent SDS1204X-E, Rohde & Schwarz RTC1002EDU, Rigol MSO5074.
Just a bit random lists in three brackets, because there are many more to choose from, and might need a bit of matching between parameters like bandwidth and sample rate. The number of channels is, in my opinion, less important, because most vendors have models with either 2 or 4 channels based on the same scope engine. So for a basic comparison of features not of interest.
Dunno about Dave and others but IMO tablets need be in their own class just as HH portables.
Dunno about Dave and others but IMO tablets need be in their own class just as HH portables.No. There is absolutely no reason to do that. So far only MicSig and Tektronix have produced tablet form factor oscilloscopes but besides the form factor, these offer exactly the same features as oscilloscopes in a bigger casing. Putting tablet form factor scopes into a seperate class is nonsense. The only real difference is the amount of air inside the casing.
Just my comment:
this discussion is getting too elaborate.
There is inherent problem with saying scopes under 5000USD, for instance.
What does that mean? By opinion of some here that should include actually making list for 100-300, a list for 300-500, a list for 500-750, a list 750-1000 .... etc. You get my drift.
Dave cannot do that. That is too much work for lots of repetitive data.
Scopes under 1000USD means maybe one scope that seems to have best BW/capability/quality mix and a second place one that is almost as good, and maybe few notable mentions like a form factor that is interesting to some, a best analog performance, a best decode scope etc.
Making comprehensive market analysis is not a topic here, I think. Just my 5 cents.
I prefer comparing scopes in different use categories along the lines of your “honorable mention” ideas — form factor, bandwidth, analog performance, decode performance, etc — the kinds of “what-do-you-need-this-for” issues that experienced hands in this forum always encourage people to think carefully about before making any purchase.
I think this is a valid scenario. Especially leaving out the "bang for the buck". That way you pick a number of scopes under $1000 that have a fair chance of competing with each other. That will generally mean the prices of all of them will come in pretty close to the $1000 mark. Then using Dave's usual scale of "rubbish", "good enough for Australia", "does the business" and "Bobby dazzler" judge them on the most frequently used/requested features and hopefully in the end we have a "Winner, winner, chicken dinner!"
I think it makes little sense to declare what is "best", as there is no such thing, only more or less appropriate for a given situation.
It would probably be more interesting to show the widest variety of what's available within that budget.
e.g. highest bandwidth 2-channel, most channels (analogue+digital), most protocol decoding, portable , PC-based, biggest screen etc.
The issue is whether or not it makes sense to pick a single, arbitrary price range — $1 to $1000 — as the basis for comparison. Based on the discussion so far, that just seems silly. The use-cases for scopes — and the corresponding value of this or that feature — simply vary too much.
The issue is whether or not it makes sense to pick a single, arbitrary price range — $1 to $1000 — as the basis for comparison. Based on the discussion so far, that just seems silly. The use-cases for scopes — and the corresponding value of this or that feature — simply vary too much.
Historically though those "budget" title based videos have been very popular.
No videos regardless of how it's done can be of value to everyone.
Go ahead and make a $1k scope shootout video, but also fill it with demos of scopes above and below the price point so we can be educated on additional concepts/features we may not be focused on.
Some scopes have a feature on paper, but when you enable it the scope slows down drastically, for example.