DSO Reliability

[Wuerstchenhund]

I just checked mine as well and found this...    I assume it's the same as your Xi? 

Yes, it's the same.

Also I was running some advanced functions, and long time div + FFT basically locked up the UI....I can see that processor and RAM u/g is going to be necessary.

That is because of the Celeron's small cache. For heavy processing it becomes a bottleneck. I think LeCroy lost it a bit when they put such poor CPU in these scopes, but at least this problem can be corrected easily.

So far I am really impressed with the scopes functions and toolsets, however the update rate is abysmal.  The tool will be usable for a few dev stages, but we really need to get some more horsepower under the hood, if we are going to be sampling 5-10 second intervals, and making changes to topology in real-time. 

If I were you I'd look for a Pentium-M 765 which is the fastest FSB400 P-M (2.1GHz). I guess you also noticed that sometimes the UI seems to lag a bit? That was completely gone after I upgraded to the 1.8GHz P-M.

BTW: in the settings there's a control that allows you to change if the scope puts more performance into the update rate or in processing.

I'm sold though.....LeCroy scopes easily outclass Agilent, in terms of triggers and operators.  As soon as I grab an ms-500 i will check the protocol analysis and see if it's even close to Agilents solution

Well, the logic analysis part is good but Agilent still leads there in my opinion. But in terms of protocol analysis your 64MXi offers a lot, I'm not sure you'll find a comparable set in a similar Agilent scope.

edit (to satisfy someone who is grumpy today) : I am quite pleased that my Waverunner 64MXi trigger and math functions, easily outclass the Agilent MSOx2k I used to have.  Especially considering the 4 year time gap in release dates, and considering the prices paid for each example.  [/quote]

It does, but don't forget that the whole MSOX2k only costs around the same as one or maybe two of the software options of your 64MXi. The whole scope was probably closer to the £30k mark.

[coppice]

edit (to satisfy someone who is grumpy today) : I am quite pleased that my Waverunner 64MXi trigger and math functions, easily outclass the Agilent MSOx2k I used to have.  Especially considering the 4 year time gap in release dates, and considering the prices paid for each example. 

It does, but don't forget that the whole MSOX2k only costs around the same as one or maybe two of the software options of your 64MXi. The whole scope was probably closer to the £30k mark.

Yep. He's still acting like a fanboy, even after his edit. I'm no particular fan of any test equipment maker. Any that have survived have made some good stuff, and all have them have made some crap. You have to compare things of a similar age, price and target application when making a comparison, otherwise you just appear deranged. No reasonable person should have been "quite pleased" to find what he found. They should have been thoroughly pissed off if it wasn't the case.

[TunerSandwich]

edit (to satisfy someone who is grumpy today) : I am quite pleased that my Waverunner 64MXi trigger and math functions, easily outclass the Agilent MSOx2k I used to have.  Especially considering the 4 year time gap in release dates, and considering the prices paid for each example. 

It does, but don't forget that the whole MSOX2k only costs around the same as one or maybe two of the software options of your 64MXi. The whole scope was probably closer to the £30k mark.

Yep. He's still acting like a fanboy, even after his edit. I'm no particular fan of any test equipment maker. Any that have survived have made some good stuff, and all have them have made some crap. You have to compare things of a similar age, price and target application when making a comparison, otherwise you just appear deranged. No reasonable person should have been "quite pleased" to find what he found. They should have been thoroughly pissed off if it wasn't the case.

still grumpy I see...I am also no particular fan of a specific manufacturer....I simply stated I am pleased with the triggering in the WR64MXi.  Seems like you just want to be rude. 

I own various scopes, from various manufacturers....Rigol, to Tek to LeCroy, and have owned quite a few others.  They all have plus and minus....so how does it make me a fanboi to say the triggering on a specific make/model beats the triggering on another? 

[TunerSandwich]

That is because of the Celeron's small cache. For heavy processing it becomes a bottleneck. I think LeCroy lost it a bit when they put such poor CPU in these scopes, but at least this problem can be corrected easily.

It's interesting how Agilent chooses to do the majority of their processing on their own hardware, and LeCroy chooses to do it they other direction....def preferred the responsiveness of some of the higher end Agilent units I have used.

If I were you I'd look for a Pentium-M 765 which is the fastest FSB400 P-M (2.1GHz). I guess you also noticed that sometimes the UI seems to lag a bit? That was completely gone after I upgraded to the 1.8GHz P-M.

thanks for the tip....I will have a look for one

BTW: in the settings there's a control that allows you to change if the scope puts more performance into the update rate or in processing.

I did play with the setting, and wound up close to the middle

It does, but don't forget that the whole MSOX2k only costs around the same as one or maybe two of the software options of your 64MXi. The whole scope was probably closer to the £30k mark.

Granted it did, as new, but considering that you can get the WR64MXi for around the price of the MSOX2k today....I think it represents a better value for money than MSOX2k.  As soon as you load up the Agilent it's too costly IMO.  Which is why mine went away.  I did, however prefer a few things about Agilents applications.  The UI was much better utilized, and the large voltage display was nice. 

All in all I am still very impressed with the WR64MXi value.  "Fanboi" or not it's a compelling toolset.  Granted I can immediately see some limits, but nothing that renders it "obsolete", even by todays standards   

Looking forward to demo'ing the HDO8k

[tom66]

One of the rotary encoders on my DS1102E broke - I ended up replacing the whole board, from Rigol about £55 inc shipping and VAT.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Yep. He's still acting like a fanboy, even after his edit.

I'm sorry but I really can't see anything that can be considered fanboyism. Either you have no clue what the word "fanboy" means or you're trolling.

I'm no particular fan of any test equipment maker. Any that have survived have made some good stuff, and all have them have made some crap.

That is true for everything made by man, so what? If anything it shows that the merits and problems of individual products need consideration.

You have to compare things of a similar age, price and target application when making a comparison, otherwise you just appear deranged.

That is a pretty stupid comment. Quite frankly, personally attacking someone by calling him "deranged" because he compared a newer device to a higher class older device actually says a lot more about you than it says about him. And I can tell you that the image you presented here so far has been pretty ugly.

This aside, reality is that most of the time when purchase decisions are made the limit is in the budget, and it is completely legitimate to compare what amount X gives you when buying new over buying second hand. People and companies around the world do exactly that every day. Not just for test gear but for things like TVs, cars and even houses. I guess they're all deranged as well.

No reasonable person should have been "quite pleased" to find what he found. They should have been thoroughly pissed off if it wasn't the case.

If someone invests a noticable amount of money in a complex device he has only heard and read about before but which he did not try before splashing out all the cash, and then finds that certain properties exceed his expectations, expressing this is in my opinion a perfectly reasonable reaction.

But I guess that means I'm deranged too, and that I shall seek medical help immediately.

[J-D-H]

Congats on the find and hopefully a full repair.
So often another scope is needed to repair another. 
Nothing like keeping your eyes open though for the obvious.

Good call to proceed with the purchase of a DSO, you will marvell at their capabilities.

If what I was told about the limited usefulness of the FFT function in these DSOs is true, I must admit that some of my interest has dissipated.  However, who knows, maybe the spectrum analyzer aspect is better now....

You can most certainly buy something like a Meyer SIM system is you want proper FFT.....buying a scope for FFT seems a bit backwards though....most of the scope FFT functions I have used are painfully slow, have limited range and are lacking in resolution to be of any significant use.....other than taking a glance into defining a starting point for proper spectral analysis

to me the biggest problem with modern DSO's is the lack of external clock sync and tools to time align with other acquisition tools.....that baffles me beyond any of the other potential "problems" with these tools...

Never having used one of these modern DSOs, my interest in the FFT function was more a matter of hoping for a free lunch.  As always, oh well.

[J-D-H]

If what I was told about the limited usefulness of the FFT function in these DSOs is true, I must admit that some of my interest has dissipated.  However, who knows, maybe the spectrum analyzer aspect is better now....

You get what you pay for. The Rigols all have very poor FFT which only uses a few hundred points, and I'd assume (haven't checked if the figure is out there) that Siglent SDS1000/2000 scopes use similar low numbers which they do because their processing is dog slow.

Really old DSOs often use something around the 10kpts mark which, while being much better than modern day Rigols, is still too little, and scopes like the TDS700 Series (which at that time was their highend model) use somewhere around the 100kpts which is where FFT starts to become actually useful, but since these scopes are really old (close to 20 years) and their processing is very slow as well.

Honestly, if you want good FFT then you should have a look at a LeCroy scope. Even the now roughly 20 yrs old 9300 Series could use up to 6Mpts for FFT (although of course the processing is also slow by today's standard due to their age). But the later scopes (i.e. WaveRunner LT) have much faster processing, and with the EMM or WAVA option use the full available sample memory for FFT. They also show signal phase, which most scopes don't.

A Spectrum Analyzer is of course much better for analyzing the RF spectrum than any scope, but you do pay a lot for that. FFT in a good(!) scope however can often be more than good enough.

Thanks for the recommendations.  I'll check to see if any of the scopes you mentioned are affordable (from my POV anyway) on the used market.

[J-D-H]

With my limited home shop budget, it sounds like I need to revisit to used market.  Thamks for the tips.

Think about what you really want from a scope, and then have a look at the 2nd hand market. There are lots of attractive deals out there, even for newer scopes (you don't have to settle for a boat anchor with a fish bowl).

In terms of what to buy, Agilent and (some, not all!) Tek is usually a safe bet but prices are higher (as they're more sought after than other brands) and depending what you want you get average features at best.

But if you want advanced FFT and signal analysis then definitely look at LeCroy (not WaveSurfer/WaveAce models, though!). They really do make the most advanced scopes, and because most people only think "Tek" and "Agilent" when thinking about scopes prices are often lower. Another benefit is that the probe interface is mostly unchanged since the 9300 Series from 1994.

At this point in time, having a spectrum analyzer is more a "nice to have" here, certainly not a "must have".  That said, I'll keep my eyes open for the used LeCroy gear you mentioned.  Thanks.

[J-D-H]

Maybe so, but my experience with dome switch computer keyboards has been less than stellar.  Of course this may be an apples to orange comparison, but I'd still rather see more robust hardware (for a few bucks more, of course).

You don't have a choice. All modern test equipment uses the same kind of switches, from the cheapest DSO, to the most expensive exotic comms analysers. Some examples of these switches are a bit better made, but they are all pretty similar. The biggest problem comes when heavy units need to be moved. Its very common for one or two of the switches to take a big enough hit from the mover that you end up with damage - often a switch ripped right out of the membrane sheet. These can be very costly to fix. You can't go to anyone but the original source for a replacement membrane, and they can charge whatever they like. A short time after production stops the supply of suitable spares will dry up. These are the real issues with membrane switches, not general wear and tear.

As for computer keyboards, your view might be distorted. If you have trouble and open up a keyboard you will find it is a membrane type. However, almost all the ones which don't give trouble are also the membrane type. Only a small quantity of specialised keyboards, like those available from pckeyboard.com, are not membrane ones.

I use computer keyboards which incorporate great mechanical switches made by Cherry.  Beautiful feel, long life, and while more costly than rubber dome style products, they don't break the bank.  However if all modern DSOs use the same switch types, of course this falls out of my decision tree.  Thanks for the input re this....

With my limited home shop budget, it sounds like I need to revisit to used market.  Thamks for the tips.

As I have stated before, failures with DSO membrane keypads have been non-existant IME.

However I have repaired many CRO's I have owned in the past and consider their reliability to be much more questionable.
The HV portions for the CRT and the CRT plate output circuits in particular.
I qualify this with mention of the humid climate here in NZ, that may have a bearing on CRT HV leakage and or PCB corrosion.
These areas are electrically stressed by design and with age they are prone to failure.

DSO's by comparison have been highly reliable IME, no failures in any I have supplied ASFAIK.
I was given a 20 yr old TDS210 with no backlight that turned out to have a failed backlight oscillator, needing only a 30c cap for a full repair.

This thread has confirmed my beleif that DSO's in general have been very reliable to date, and it will be interesting as more decades slip by to see if this remains the case.

J-D-H, it seems FFT performance is of importance to you and a new thread on this matter may be worthy of thought.

No, the FFT aspect was just the hope of a newby to these inexpensive DSOs.  I'm going to back-burner that interest for now.  Thanks for your insights re reliability -- good to hear!

[J-D-H]

He also described how these modern DSOs implement the FFT spectrum analyzer function (or at least how many of them used to do it).  I was blown away when he said most have no calibration for this function -- IOW, no freq scale.  He also said they have no means to adjust the freq scale.  It sounded like he was describing more of a toy than anything else when it comes to the FFT aspect.  He did mention that they get better all the time, so that it's possible that the latest units might have a more worthwhile and useful FFT capability -- but I suppose he wasn't sure of the current state of the art.

The issue here may be that many DSOs do not apply the correction factors needed to produce a calibrated output making them difficult to use in place of a spectrum analyser.  This EDN article discusses it:

http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-practicing-instrumentation-engineer/4427466/DSOs-and-noise-
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-practicing-instrumentation-engineer/4427466/2/DSOs-and-noise-

Thanks for this....

This article is referring to measuring noise with a DSO.  Is that your application?

A DSO will display FFT peaks calibrated in both frequency and amplitude, and the frequency scale (you mean span & center?) is adjustable.   To get the best results you have to select an appropriate sampling speed in the time domain for the signal of interest, and you need to be cognizant of FFT aliasing issues.

What does he mean by it's "not calibrated"?

I had heard that the FFT display of these low-end DSOs was simplistic, without even freq nor amplitude scale markings.  But no matter, I've now been re-educated in this regard.

[J-D-H]

I was told that the freq span in FFT mode would always effectively be equal to the bandwidth of the scope.  So in my case, the span would be 100 MHz -- not very useful if I'm looking for the harmonic content of some audio device.  Furthermore, I heard that the spectrum display is not calibrated either in freq or in amplitude.  Sounds like this may not have been completely accurate -- but close?

That would be a function of the sample rate and/or bandwidth. Let's say you were using one of those old shit TDS3000 lunchboxes. 10,000 points. You want the FFT for audio? Figure 50kHz is the max window you want for whatever reason. If the scope is fixed at 10kpts you need to oversample by 2 (nyquist), so you would set the horizontal divisions to 10,000/(2*50,000) = 10.0ms to get 100ms capture. 100ms cut into 10,000 pieces gets you 10us/sample for your 100kHz nyquist rate and 50kHz effective upper end. Your minimum resolution would be 1/0.1s or 10Hz.

It's all about knowing how to manage the FFT, but it's still an FFT which means your vertical resolution will be shite compared to a good spec an.

It seems that the explanation I was given was wrong -- or at least simplistic.  Thanks for the explanation.

[G0HZU]

I've only used the FFT function on my TDS2012 here at home or on similar scopes at work or the big scopes like the MSO4104.

However, I can do some useful things with the creaky old TDS2012 in FFT mode.

eg I can measure the OIP3 performance of a GALI-51 amplifier from MiniCircuits using a two tone test and the FFT mode on the TDS2012. I get the same result on my old (but lab grade) Advantest TR4172 here.

http://194.75.38.69/pdfs/GALI-51+.pdf

If I measure the OIP3 with the low drive level as per the datasheet then I get +34.7dBm. But to do this with the TDS2012 I have to drive it harder to get IMD terms up around -45dBc. It can see a fair bit lower than this though.

If I do the test at the higher drive level then both the analyser and the scope measure an OIP3 of approx +32.6dBm at 28.5MHz. Obviously, I wouldn't really recommend using a TDS2012 for something like this but it can be very useful in FFT mode as long as you don't expect too much from it.

It can easily display typical classic SSB IMD plots from a ham transmitter and do it with acceptable performance. The trick is to exploit the alias limitations of the scope and to effectively undersample the 28MHz signal so it looks like it has been downconverted to audio in the scope.

I'm not suggesting that JDH should buy an old TDS2012 but you can do useful things with a cheap old DSO in FFT mode

[J-D-H]

I've only used the FFT function on my TDS2012 here at home or on similar scopes at work or the big scopes like the MSO4104.

However, I can do some useful things with the creaky old TDS2012 in FFT mode.

eg I can measure the OIP3 performance of a GALI-51 amplifier from MiniCircuits using a two tone test and the FFT mode on the TDS2012. I get the same result on my old (but lab grade) Advantest TR4172 here.

http://194.75.38.69/pdfs/GALI-51+.pdf

If I measure the OIP3 with the low drive level as per the datasheet then I get +34.7dBm. But to do this with the TDS2012 I have to drive it harder to get IMD terms up around -45dBc. It can see a fair bit lower than this though.

If I do the test at the higher drive level then both the analyser and the scope measure an OIP3 of approx +32.6dBm at 28.5MHz. Obviously, I wouldn't really recommend using a TDS2012 for something like this but it can be very useful in FFT mode as long as you don't expect too much from it.

It can easily display typical classic SSB IMD plots from a ham transmitter and do it with acceptable performance. The trick is to exploit the alias limitations of the scope and to effectively undersample the 28MHz signal so it looks like it has been downconverted to audio in the scope.

I'm not suggesting that JDH should buy an old TDS2012 but you can do useful things with a cheap old DSO in FFT mode

Thanks for your experiences with your older DSO.

I going to keep an eye open for good used gear.  However, having read all the helpful advice here, I'm thinking of going ahead and buying something new.  So I called a well-known test equip vendor and discussed the purchase.  Given the recommendations here, we first spoke about Rigol DSOs.   Maybe some would consider the aspect of display size to be unimportant, but when I noticed that the Rigol's I was considering have 5.6" displays while other have 7" (and even 8") displays, we talked about other brands too (mostly Siglent).  Can anyone confirm the things I was told by this vendor?  I was told that....

Rigol = Previous OEM mfgr of HP, Agilent, then Keysight scopes.  Their tech supt is in Wash state.

Siglent = Previous OEM mfgr of B&K Precision scopes. Their tech supt is in the USA too.

The above came about after I mentioned my decades-back preference for Tektronix, HP, and sometimes even B&K Precision scopes.  Admittedly I was primarily speaking about old analog scopes, nonetheless the rep cited the above as part of my "education process".  The last thing the seller mentioned was that they consider the Siglent to be in the same league as Rigol.  In all cases, we were discussing 100 MHz DSOs.

[nctnico]

Siglent is an OEM for many brands including Lecroy : https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-metrix-dox2000-scopes-by-chauvin-arnoux/

[Wuerstchenhund]

Can anyone confirm the things I was told by this vendor?  I was told that....

Rigol = Previous OEM mfgr of HP, Agilent, then Keysight scopes.  Their tech supt is in Wash state.
Siglent = Previous OEM mfgr of B&K Precision scopes. Their tech supt is in the USA too.

Not quite. Rigol is the OEM of Agilent's bottom-of-the-barrel entry level scopes. The better scopes were all made by Agilent themselves.

Rigol never ever made something for HP.

Siglent is the OEM for BK Precision and some other B-brands. Similar to what Rigol did for Agilent, Siglent is also the OEM for LeCroy's bottom-of-the-barrel WaveAce scopes (which are made and designed by Siglent, LeCroy provides just the label and an excessive price tag). They are also the OEM for the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 scope, but unlike the WaveAce Series this scope (which is sold as Siglent SDS3000 in China) has been designed and developed by LeCroy, with Siglent merely acting as the hardware manufacturer. All LeCroy scopes aside from WaveAce and WaveJet are LeCroy designed and developed.

Rigol has a NA service center from which I mostly heard positive things. Siglent apparently also opened a service center there more recently.

[TunerSandwich]

On that note Maynuo is also the OEM/ODM for some BK precision products.  Most notably the DC electronic loads.  I have the Maynuo M9712C and it meets the exact performance specs of the BK branded version, with the welcome addition of having a better display (shows 4 metrics, as opposed to BK's 3).  The difference in cost was in favor of the Maynuo.  Also a better software compliment.  However BK unit had a better manual.   

I see no issue with certain manufacturers re-branding hardware.  Especially if it injects a lower cost solution into foreign markets.

On the issue of the LeCroy waveAce....I had one for a few weeks (when they first came out), and I can whole heatedly say it is overpriced crap.  The only nice feature was the split windowing/multi graph view.  However the screen size made that useless as well.  If it was $350 though, it wouldn't be a terrible "first scope" option.  It appealed to me because of it's size.  Though it would be a nice option for portability and versatility.  Nope....

Agilent (keysight) is no longer re-branding the Rigol line (to my knowledge).  I think the MSO2000 is a direct competitor for the MSO3000x series, so it would not be in Agilents favor to cooperate.  The Agilent hardware is a bit overpriced in comparison.  Although it is superior, in nearly every way. 

My dealings with Rigol NA have been less that beneficial or productive.  They don't seem to answer email, in a timely way.  Others experiences might be different? 

[J-D-H]

Thanks for the information about the relationship between these brands.  So the explanations given by the vendor were somewhat inaccurate -- not surprising given the sale incentives.

Let me ask a question which is unfortunately another matter of opinion:  Several companies sell what seem to be very similar 100MHz DSOs at almost the same price point.  All of them have 7" (or even 8" displays) except for Rigol -- their display is 5.6".  So having zero experience with these brands, I would ordinarily lean toward the 7" display, yet several here have recommended Rigol.  If Rigol is truly head and shoulders better (and I hope that implies something about reliability), I would forgo my preference for the larger screen.  OTOH, if these are a toss-up in most ways, the other brands seem to win (and this includes B&K Precision, Siglent, etc.).  Any thoughts on this?

So far there has been little or no mention of hacking.  Folks have written that it is trivial to up the bandwidth by two to one with some (all?) of these scopes by a simple hack (in some cases, changing a file name, I believe).  Is this widely done?  Or is this dangerous to the point of possibly "bricking" the scope?  If hacking is thought to be an okay idea, what if repair is needed?  Is it possible to reverse the hack before sending in the scope so there's no question about a voided warranty?  Or is it better to just forget this whole idea and leave the thing "stock"?

John

[TunerSandwich]

Thanks for the information about the relationship between these brands.  So the explanations given by the vendor were somewhat inaccurate -- not surprising given the sale incentives.

Let me ask a question which is unfortunately another matter of opinion:  Several companies sell what seem to be very similar 100MHz DSOs at almost the same price point.  All of them have 7" (or even 8" displays) except for Rigol -- their display is 5.6".  So having zero experience with these brands, I would ordinarily lean toward the 7" display, yet several here have recommended Rigol.  If Rigol is truly head and shoulders better (and I hope that implies something about reliability), I would forgo my preference for the larger screen.  OTOH, if these are a toss-up in most ways, the other brands seem to win (and this includes B&K Precision, Siglent, etc.).  Any thoughts on this?

So far there has been little or no mention of hacking.  Folks have written that it is trivial to up the bandwidth by two to one with some (all?) of these scopes by a simple hack (in some cases, changing a file name, I believe).  Is this widely done?  Or is this dangerous to the point of possibly "bricking" the scope?  If hacking is thought to be an okay idea, what if repair is needed?  Is it possible to reverse the hack before sending in the scope so there's no question about a voided warranty?  Or is it better to just forget this whole idea and leave the thing "stock"?

John

It depends on the model.  I don't think anyone can touch Rigol on the DS2000 series.  MSO or DSO, nothing is going to compete on features, build quality and price.  The quality of the 2000 series, internals rivals anything else I can think of.  Good engineering, layout and components. 

There are, however, some reported firmware "bugs".  Without knowing the exact model and options, feature sets, intended uses etc, its hard to know how to make any recommendations.  If FFT and math functions are a critical aspect, stay far away from the Rigol and go with Agilent 2000 series, or 3000 if you need MSO.  The Agilent units do mathematical processing on dedicated hardware.  The Rigols do NOT.  The Rigol FFT misses a lot of data.  So much so, that I would say its not useful, for anything other than a quick glance, for something very very obvious.  The Agilent, on the other hand, has truly excellent math functions and speed.  The unit I had didn't miss a beat.  Neither of these lower priced options are ideal, so you have to pick and choose your battles. 

To sum it up....if you have under $2k USD to spend I would go with a Rigol.  If you have $4k USD to spend, i would go with MSO3000x from Agilent.  If you have up to $7k to spend I would go with a nice used LeCroy WR or Agilent MSO4000. 

All if this is shooting from the hip though...without really knowing what specific things the tools will be used for.  There is no ideal all in one solution....yet.  When comparing tools, I think the "hacking" aspect should be somewhat ignored.  There is always a risk of going that direction, and shouldn't be a benchmark for purchase.  Not saying it's not possible or useless, just not the wisest way to make a decision on something.  If you can hack a feature into something, it's gravy, but if the tool is inadequate w/o the "hack" that says a lot.

P.S.  one truly beneficial of the Rigol DS2000A is the low noise front end and 500uV/div vertical scale.  Also it's ability to AC couple inputs at 50 ohm internal termination.  If you are needing to do DC PSU measurement, this is the only way to go (for sane money).  Obviously you need a proper differential preamplifier and probe setup, but that is par for the course, with any other scope.

[J-D-H]

Thanks for the information about the relationship between these brands.  So the explanations given by the vendor were somewhat inaccurate -- not surprising given the sale incentives.

Let me ask a question which is unfortunately another matter of opinion:  Several companies sell what seem to be very similar 100MHz DSOs at almost the same price point.  All of them have 7" (or even 8" displays) except for Rigol -- their display is 5.6".  So having zero experience with these brands, I would ordinarily lean toward the 7" display, yet several here have recommended Rigol.  If Rigol is truly head and shoulders better (and I hope that implies something about reliability), I would forgo my preference for the larger screen.  OTOH, if these are a toss-up in most ways, the other brands seem to win (and this includes B&K Precision, Siglent, etc.).  Any thoughts on this?

So far there has been little or no mention of hacking.  Folks have written that it is trivial to up the bandwidth by two to one with some (all?) of these scopes by a simple hack (in some cases, changing a file name, I believe).  Is this widely done?  Or is this dangerous to the point of possibly "bricking" the scope?  If hacking is thought to be an okay idea, what if repair is needed?  Is it possible to reverse the hack before sending in the scope so there's no question about a voided warranty?  Or is it better to just forget this whole idea and leave the thing "stock"?

John

It depends on the model.  I don't think anyone can touch Rigol on the DS2000 series.  MSO or DSO, nothing is going to compete on features, build quality and price.  The quality of the 2000 series, internals rivals anything else I can think of.  Good engineering, layout and components. 

There are, however, some reported firmware "bugs".  Without knowing the exact model and options, feature sets, intended uses etc, its hard to know how to make any recommendations.  If FFT and math functions are a critical aspect, stay far away from the Rigol and go with Agilent 2000 series, or 3000 if you need MSO.  The Agilent units do mathematical processing on dedicated hardware.  The Rigols do NOT.  The Rigol FFT misses a lot of data.  So much so, that I would say its not useful, for anything other than a quick glance, for something very very obvious.  The Agilent, on the other hand, has truly excellent math functions and speed.  The unit I had didn't miss a beat.  Neither of these lower priced options are ideal, so you have to pick and choose your battles. 

To sum it up....if you have under $2k USD to spend I would go with a Rigol.  If you have $4k USD to spend, i would go with MSO3000x from Agilent.  If you have up to $7k to spend I would go with a nice used LeCroy WR or Agilent MSO4000. 

All if this is shooting from the hip though...without really knowing what specific things the tools will be used for.  There is no ideal all in one solution....yet.  When comparing tools, I think the "hacking" aspect should be somewhat ignored.  There is always a risk of going that direction, and shouldn't be a benchmark for purchase.  Not saying it's not possible or useless, just not the wisest way to make a decision on something.  If you can hack a feature into something, it's gravy, but if the tool is inadequate w/o the "hack" that says a lot.

P.S.  one truly beneficial of the Rigol DS2000A is the low noise front end and 500uV/div vertical scale.  Also it's ability to AC couple inputs at 50 ohm internal termination.  If you are needing to do DC PSU measurement, this is the only way to go (for sane money).  Obviously you need a proper differential preamplifier and probe setup, but that is par for the course, with any other scope.

Oh yes, my budget is well below $2000 -- more like $400-500.  I wish I could be more specific, but the usage will be for general home shop tasks such as audio equipment troubleshooting, ham radio projects, etc.  I looked up the models you mentioned and found that they are all out of my price range.  Once again, I have been trying to constrain myself to looking only at 100 MHz scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, maybe B&K, maybe one or two others, but only the ones sold at the $500 and less price point.

[TunerSandwich]

Thanks for the information about the relationship between these brands.  So the explanations given by the vendor were somewhat inaccurate -- not surprising given the sale incentives.

Let me ask a question which is unfortunately another matter of opinion:  Several companies sell what seem to be very similar 100MHz DSOs at almost the same price point.  All of them have 7" (or even 8" displays) except for Rigol -- their display is 5.6".  So having zero experience with these brands, I would ordinarily lean toward the 7" display, yet several here have recommended Rigol.  If Rigol is truly head and shoulders better (and I hope that implies something about reliability), I would forgo my preference for the larger screen.  OTOH, if these are a toss-up in most ways, the other brands seem to win (and this includes B&K Precision, Siglent, etc.).  Any thoughts on this?

So far there has been little or no mention of hacking.  Folks have written that it is trivial to up the bandwidth by two to one with some (all?) of these scopes by a simple hack (in some cases, changing a file name, I believe).  Is this widely done?  Or is this dangerous to the point of possibly "bricking" the scope?  If hacking is thought to be an okay idea, what if repair is needed?  Is it possible to reverse the hack before sending in the scope so there's no question about a voided warranty?  Or is it better to just forget this whole idea and leave the thing "stock"?

John

It depends on the model.  I don't think anyone can touch Rigol on the DS2000 series.  MSO or DSO, nothing is going to compete on features, build quality and price.  The quality of the 2000 series, internals rivals anything else I can think of.  Good engineering, layout and components. 

There are, however, some reported firmware "bugs".  Without knowing the exact model and options, feature sets, intended uses etc, its hard to know how to make any recommendations.  If FFT and math functions are a critical aspect, stay far away from the Rigol and go with Agilent 2000 series, or 3000 if you need MSO.  The Agilent units do mathematical processing on dedicated hardware.  The Rigols do NOT.  The Rigol FFT misses a lot of data.  So much so, that I would say its not useful, for anything other than a quick glance, for something very very obvious.  The Agilent, on the other hand, has truly excellent math functions and speed.  The unit I had didn't miss a beat.  Neither of these lower priced options are ideal, so you have to pick and choose your battles. 

To sum it up....if you have under $2k USD to spend I would go with a Rigol.  If you have $4k USD to spend, i would go with MSO3000x from Agilent.  If you have up to $7k to spend I would go with a nice used LeCroy WR or Agilent MSO4000. 

All if this is shooting from the hip though...without really knowing what specific things the tools will be used for.  There is no ideal all in one solution....yet.  When comparing tools, I think the "hacking" aspect should be somewhat ignored.  There is always a risk of going that direction, and shouldn't be a benchmark for purchase.  Not saying it's not possible or useless, just not the wisest way to make a decision on something.  If you can hack a feature into something, it's gravy, but if the tool is inadequate w/o the "hack" that says a lot.

P.S.  one truly beneficial of the Rigol DS2000A is the low noise front end and 500uV/div vertical scale.  Also it's ability to AC couple inputs at 50 ohm internal termination.  If you are needing to do DC PSU measurement, this is the only way to go (for sane money).  Obviously you need a proper differential preamplifier and probe setup, but that is par for the course, with any other scope.

Oh yes, my budget is well below $2000 -- more like $400-500.  I wish I could be more specific, but the usage will be for general home shop tasks such as audio equipment troubleshooting, ham radio projects, etc.  I looked up the models you mentioned and found that they are all out of my price range.  Once again, I have been trying to constrain myself to looking only at 100 MHz scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, maybe B&K, maybe one or two others, but only the ones sold at the $500 and less price point.

at that price it's a no brainer decision....http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/ds1000z/  NOTHING is going to touch that scope for the money....how Rigol can offer it at that price point is beyond my comprehension....

[nanofrog]

... rigol ds1000z...  NOTHING is going to touch that scope for the money....

+1 

There are a couple of bugs currently, but it's still quite usable IMHO. Hopefully they'll get fixed soon in the next firmware release.

[TunerSandwich]

... rigol ds1000z...  NOTHING is going to touch that scope for the money....

+1 

There are a couple of bugs currently, but it's still quite usable IMHO. Hopefully they'll get fixed soon in the next firmware release.

yes I experienced the same with my ds2000A when I first got it.....firmware fixed some of the issues I was having.  despite having much more costly and "fancy" scopes I still use my ds2000 quite often.  rigol really does make excellent products, for the money. 

[J-D-H]

Thanks for the information about the relationship between these brands.  So the explanations given by the vendor were somewhat inaccurate -- not surprising given the sale incentives.

Let me ask a question which is unfortunately another matter of opinion:  Several companies sell what seem to be very similar 100MHz DSOs at almost the same price point.  All of them have 7" (or even 8" displays) except for Rigol -- their display is 5.6".  So having zero experience with these brands, I would ordinarily lean toward the 7" display, yet several here have recommended Rigol.  If Rigol is truly head and shoulders better (and I hope that implies something about reliability), I would forgo my preference for the larger screen.  OTOH, if these are a toss-up in most ways, the other brands seem to win (and this includes B&K Precision, Siglent, etc.).  Any thoughts on this?

So far there has been little or no mention of hacking.  Folks have written that it is trivial to up the bandwidth by two to one with some (all?) of these scopes by a simple hack (in some cases, changing a file name, I believe).  Is this widely done?  Or is this dangerous to the point of possibly "bricking" the scope?  If hacking is thought to be an okay idea, what if repair is needed?  Is it possible to reverse the hack before sending in the scope so there's no question about a voided warranty?  Or is it better to just forget this whole idea and leave the thing "stock"?

John

It depends on the model.  I don't think anyone can touch Rigol on the DS2000 series.  MSO or DSO, nothing is going to compete on features, build quality and price.  The quality of the 2000 series, internals rivals anything else I can think of.  Good engineering, layout and components. 

There are, however, some reported firmware "bugs".  Without knowing the exact model and options, feature sets, intended uses etc, its hard to know how to make any recommendations.  If FFT and math functions are a critical aspect, stay far away from the Rigol and go with Agilent 2000 series, or 3000 if you need MSO.  The Agilent units do mathematical processing on dedicated hardware.  The Rigols do NOT.  The Rigol FFT misses a lot of data.  So much so, that I would say its not useful, for anything other than a quick glance, for something very very obvious.  The Agilent, on the other hand, has truly excellent math functions and speed.  The unit I had didn't miss a beat.  Neither of these lower priced options are ideal, so you have to pick and choose your battles. 

To sum it up....if you have under $2k USD to spend I would go with a Rigol.  If you have $4k USD to spend, i would go with MSO3000x from Agilent.  If you have up to $7k to spend I would go with a nice used LeCroy WR or Agilent MSO4000. 

All if this is shooting from the hip though...without really knowing what specific things the tools will be used for.  There is no ideal all in one solution....yet.  When comparing tools, I think the "hacking" aspect should be somewhat ignored.  There is always a risk of going that direction, and shouldn't be a benchmark for purchase.  Not saying it's not possible or useless, just not the wisest way to make a decision on something.  If you can hack a feature into something, it's gravy, but if the tool is inadequate w/o the "hack" that says a lot.

P.S.  one truly beneficial of the Rigol DS2000A is the low noise front end and 500uV/div vertical scale.  Also it's ability to AC couple inputs at 50 ohm internal termination.  If you are needing to do DC PSU measurement, this is the only way to go (for sane money).  Obviously you need a proper differential preamplifier and probe setup, but that is par for the course, with any other scope.

Oh yes, my budget is well below $2000 -- more like $400-500.  I wish I could be more specific, but the usage will be for general home shop tasks such as audio equipment troubleshooting, ham radio projects, etc.  I looked up the models you mentioned and found that they are all out of my price range.  Once again, I have been trying to constrain myself to looking only at 100 MHz scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, maybe B&K, maybe one or two others, but only the ones sold at the $500 and less price point.

at that price it's a no brainer decision....http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/ds1000z/  NOTHING is going to touch that scope for the money....how Rigol can offer it at that price point is beyond my comprehension....

Per your suggestion, I just looked at the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes.  Unfortunately the least expensive 100 MHz model is $830 (unless there are major discounts to be had).  However all of this series are 4 channel scopes, a feature I don't need.  So if the DS1000Z series is unique for some reason compared to the other Rigol scopes, to stay within my budget I would have to drop to a 50 MHz model (the DS1054Z).  Otherwise, I could consider the 2-channel DS1102E at half the price.  Of course that's another series, possibly one inferior to the DS1000Z ones you mentioned (I do know that the DS1102E has a 5.6" display compared to the 7" ones in the DS1000Z series)?

[nanofrog]

FWIW, You can hack the DS1054Z to 100MHz, and enable all of the software options (hack how-to).

Regarding the DS1102E, there's no contest between it and the 1000Z series. Larger screen, persistence display (1102 doesn't have this at all), more memory, and others. And don't discount the extra channels (very useful to have).