Author Topic: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback  (Read 625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline imk

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: gb
HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« on: May 11, 2021, 02:55:27 pm »
Hello
I am thinking of buying an Hantek DSO2D10 scope and wondering what the owner experience is?
I have looked at reviews and watched a comprehensive video review of the DSO2C10
One thing that looks to me that might be really annoying is when you are selecting sub-menus/function etc
Is that the menu items popup and seem to only show for a sort time before they disappear.

It seems that the user is hardly given time to read the options before they have gone.
So just wondering what the DSO2xxx scopes are like in real use or is the popup timer user configurable
many thanks in advance imk 
« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 03:27:04 pm by imk »
1201 Alarm
 

Online tunk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 435
  • Country: no
 

Offline imk

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: gb
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2021, 06:29:35 pm »
hello tunk
thanks for info had already  looked at 1st thread but noticed in second thread lockup issues.
Hence my question am interested in owner feed back as always a good indicator.
imk
« Last Edit: May 11, 2021, 06:33:03 pm by imk »
1201 Alarm
 

Offline Algoma

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Country: ca
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2021, 08:00:45 pm »
So far the recent firmware updates have each greatly improved settings.

Any of the rare lockups I've encountered haven't actually occurred during normal usage. Its typically when experimenting with switching between more specific and obscure functions. Like the scope gets itself into an invalid state trying to change its internal settings. Either a quick power cycle, or a press of the restore defaults button brings it all back to normal.
 

Offline imk

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: gb
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2021, 08:23:47 pm »
Hello Algoma and many thanks for the reply,

I have been looking for competitively priced scope for a while now to replace my TeK 2236 which is a bit big for my modest man cave since we right sized the house.
And it seems that the desk top DSO2D10 is about best bang for buck for my now only electronic hobby needs.
But I was concerned about the lock up comment and the menu pop ups being a bit short.
I have recently purchased a DreamSourceLab DSLogic Plus I got off BG that i must say i am really impressed with.
Hence if the Hantek is as good a buy as the DS I don't think i'll be disappointed.
Are there any other little quirks to the Hantek i should be aware of please?
Many thanks in advance imk
1201 Alarm
 

Offline MADxHAWK

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
  • Country: de
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2021, 09:36:35 am »
Hello
I am thinking of buying an Hantek DSO2D10 scope and wondering what the owner experience is?
 

Dont do It !! --> https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/my-experience-review-hantek-dso2d10/

Get yourself a Rigol DS1102Z-E its just slightly more expensive and nowadays comes with all options enabled by default (at least mine from Amazon did)
It has a way better Display, better messurment options, protocol decoding and even more memory.
 

Offline imk

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: gb
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2021, 11:58:13 am »
Hello MADxHAWK

Firstly many thanks for your reply, unfortunately i have read it too late and the DS02D10 is on its way to me.
I must admit i did look at the Ragol and Siglent similar spec scopes but the only one that have a signal generator in them had a significant price increase.
I will have a good read of your note and make the decision between now and it arrival with respect to keeping it or ebay'ing as new.

I must admit my scope needs these days are very modest so i don't really need something super just something that will give me Go, No Go status.
As I recently bought a DreadSourceLabs Logic Analyzer  Pro which i am really pleased with and it covers my modest digital needs pretty well.

I shall heed your advice and act accordingly, many thanks imk
1201 Alarm
 
The following users thanked this post: MADxHAWK

Offline Marvinmg

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
  • Country: au
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2021, 02:21:48 pm »
My DSO2D15 is a lemon and Hantek’s support sucks

In March I bought a DSO2D15 having read the posts on various forums which gave the consensus that the Hantek hardware was acceptable but the software was rather buggy.  On receiving the DSO and exploring is features various software bugs that locked up the machine were experienced but as Hantek were issuing firmware updates I expected they would eventually have fixes for major software problems.
Unfortunately I then begin to find that my unit exhibited a number of significant problems in its basic operation.
•   Traces exhibited phantom noise on signals. I don’t mean digitation noise of a minor division or so, but random spikes that can be up to 1 major division high on displayed waveforms, including those directly from its internal signal generator.
•   Poor triggering. The unit is unable to sync stably on just basic waveforms, even its calibrator and its internal signal generator.
•   Significant offset on channel traces after zeroing. The voltage measurements displayed are affected by these DC offsets. On attempting calibration to correct the problem the calibration procedure usually failed with varying error messages. Even if successful the offsets remained.

These problems mean that the scope cannot be relied on to stably or accurately display even basic signals.

After trying a number of the firmware up-grades without any success in resolving these problems I contacted Hantek support. In describing the problems, I mentioned that I had observed the waveforms from the internal generator and from external circuits with my analog scope and that the waveforms appeared clean and were able to stably trigger.
Hantek asked me to send them comparative videos of the DSO and the analog scope to show the problems described.  I sent the videos.  Now after 4 weeks I have received no response, even though I sent weekly follow up emails. In my last email I advised Hantek that if I did not receive a response I would post the problems with their instrument to the EEVBlog Forum for all to see. No reply was received.
It appears to me that these problems are either hardware design issues or a manufacture problem with my particular unit.

I would therefore suggest to those contemplating the purchase of a DSO2x1x to be aware that they could also receive a lemon and if so will get poor/no support from Hantek.
If anyone is interested in seeing the videos and screen captures of the problems, they are at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MrwXf4mSIksYND4oyVKzrqQihpCTnqy2?usp=sharing

 
The following users thanked this post: eevbstedt, MADxHAWK

Offline SimonM

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 35
  • Country: gb
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2021, 01:25:54 pm »
My DSO2D15 is a lemon and Hantek’s support sucks

In March I bought a DSO2D15 having read the posts on various forums which gave the consensus that the Hantek hardware was acceptable but the software was rather buggy...

On receiving the DSO and exploring is I would therefore suggest to those contemplating the purchase of a DSO2x1x to be aware that they could also receive a lemon and if so will get poor/no support from Hantek.
If anyone is interested in seeing the videos and screen captures of the problems, they are at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MrwXf4mSIksYND4oyVKzrqQihpCTnqy2?usp=sharing

I'm interested (and I also bought the DSO2D15) and I have downloaded, watched all your movies, and looked at the screenshots. I have to remind myself that I made the "obvious" mistake of buying the DSO2D15 at a higher price than a DSO2C10. Both scopes are essentially the same with only a few components changed/added. So, I'm perhaps expecting more from my "expensive" product than is deserving of a low-priced unit. There are many similar scopes and the teardowns show that the packaging on the inside e.g. screening varies, so the Hantek is better than some of the dearer scopes.

Movie #1

The offset you see is indeed not typical e.g. I don't get a similar result, so it does suggest you do have a "lemon", or at best, the results across different units are not well controlled (with a sample size of just 2).

I use my scope on the dc setting and occasionally on the ac setting. I don't use the gnd setting because I prefer just to turn off the channel. It probably has its uses e.g. for internal calibration etc.

The default button returns the scope to factory settings. It's not the ideal range to measure a small signal e.g. you wouldn't set a multimeter to 300V and measure the voltage across a 1.5V battery? On my scope, there is an offset, but it is much smaller. If you were measuring a circuit with small amplitudes, then you could "zoom in" and take a reading with the DVM that doesn't have this offset and the waveform doesn't show an offset.

There is a difference in how the gnd "works" across different V/div settings. I had both channels set to different V/div and noticed that switching to gnd was different from the two settings. At the default setting, you don't hear a relay and at 200mV/dv or lower you do hear a relay. I don't know how this is implemented, but I'm guessing the relay switches out the channel input and connects the input to gnd for the lower range.

On the higher ranges it doesn't, so it may try to pull the input to gnd e.g. a mosfet. The degree to which this "works" may vary, so different probes may have an influence. I don't know why it is done like this, except that relay contacts (when they move) cannot tolerate high voltages reliably?

I had a faulty probe and the supplier is sending me a replacement. I was provided with a PP150B probe and the replacement is a PP-250. The PP150B was "broken" because the probe tip was retained in the probe clip part - if that makes sense. So, I couldn't probe a circuit. With the 5v @ 1 kHz setting, I could get a decent square wave without any obvious ringing or overshoot. With the supplied probe, connected to a BNC - croc (and without a 50-ohm load), the output from the AWG looked terrible 5V @ 1 kHz square wave, which wasn't the same. I did see the overshoot and the lesson learned is not to use the BNC - croc clips as a probe, at least not without a termination. I could make my own 10x voltage divider as well.

The supplied probe combo with the croc clip/BNC, would exhibit the overshoot that you see e.g. the square wave going as much as 1/3 higher or lower. With the decent probe (and no croc clip/BNC) that problem goes away. I put this down to user error or inexperience. The faulty probe looks to me like a kit-probe e.g. one you would want not want to keep for everyday use. PP-250 is indeed a very nice probe.

Movie #2

DSO scopes do not exhibit the clean waveform of analog scopes. The analog scope shows the average of many cycles and looks"nicer" but if you turn up the brightness you may also see additional content. The DSO has the advantage that you can trigger on one cycle and see a problem that would not show up on the analog scope.

The DSO2D15 does have some noise on the input. It does seem to be related to the probe used. Have you tried the same test, switching the probes, and comparing the sync issue? I was using my scope with the DVM to measure small offsets (I attached a scope print earlier) where the DC offset was 362 uV. The average is exactly on the zero volts line but there are a few 1-bit glitches up or down. I get the impression that the DVM is interpreting the scope's digitally sampled 8-bit signal and counting and averaging the values. With more glitches below than above, the average will be less than zero.

If this noise (sampling error) is on the signal and the scope interprets an increasing signal as a trigger, then it can trigger on a rising edge that can be on a rising or falling waveform. So what you observe is likely to happen. Moving the trigger point might help, but it wouldn't remove this issue entirely.

A better scope might either have a larger threshold, look for an increase across several samples and integrate the result to prevent false triggering. I don't have these issues and I'm using the better probe.

Movie #3
I see a pattern here and the quality (or variety) of the videos is getting better. I can't see the probe for the Hantek but I do see the same probe used on the analog scope. Have you tried swapping the probes around?

Is it a phantom signal? Why would the scope only show the negative tails and not show them either in the signal or above it e.g. they could be there? Have you tried triggering below the square wave for a single shot? You might be surprised to consistently capture a "repeating" waveform outside of the region you are looking at.

The analog scope "sweeps under the carpet" lots of things that a DSO displays, especially at this price point. That's not a bad thing because we use a scope to identify problems and there is no need for it when things work.

Capture #1 and capture #2
It is interesting that you have an issue at the base and not at the top. Are you using the supplied probe and does your circuit have a load so that the probe is measuring but not interfering with what you are seeing? If it's the internal AWG then you might infer that it drives the output high better than it pulls it low.

Did your scope come with a PP-150 (grey) probe with correction on the BNC, or a PP150B (black) with correction on the probe. Neither probe is ideal for the DSO2D15 because:

1. The PP-150 is a 100Mhz probe and (good as it is) isn't matched to a 150 MHz scope
2. The PP150B is marked as 150MHz (but other literature also says 100MHz)

The results of the PP-250 are so much better than the PP150B to suggest that the PP150B is just a starter/kit probe that's only fit for the bin. I noticed that the 10 version of the scope also only has one probe that is 80MHz.

PP-250 has a sprung loaded BNC, correction on the BNC, correction point isn't at one end of the capacitor and it is stable. The clip attaches with a positive connection (like a 3.5mm jack plug) rather than just pushing on. In my case, the probe tip stays with the probe on the better probe.

FWIW I don't agree with scopes (or probes) being marked in Mhz. It's misleading and they should be rated as "rise time aware". The supplier wanted to give me their PP-150 probe but the supplied manual shows that the PP150B is a 150MHz probe, so the supplier then offered the PP-250 as an alternative to the PP-150. Although you can disregard what is printed in the manual about the probe, having a better probe solves a lot of issues. My supporting argument was that with a PP-150 (that is 100 MHz), there is no value in charging more for the 150MHz scope over the 100MHz and they might want to refund the difference as the pp150B (in the box) was to a "higher" spec - of course, it's rubbish.

Any more videos?
Simon

 
 
« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 01:56:20 pm by SimonM »
 
The following users thanked this post: eevbstedt

Offline Marvinmg

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
  • Country: au
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2021, 04:28:06 am »
Simon,
Thank you for taking the time to view my videos and your detailed critique and suggestion. The videos were taken to demonstrate the problems to Hantek. I was not planning to start a YouTube channel any time soon, just to get some resolution from Hantek. So no more videos are available at the moment.

I agree with your point that the digitation nose on the captured waveform could cause the scope to mis-trigger on the noise rather than signal. That's why I used volt level test signals. I must admit that I initially envisaged that like an analog scope the trigger signal is taken from the scope’s front end amplifiers. But on thinking about it, with all the tricky trigger modes available in a DSO the trigger condition would be looked for in the digital converted data. But surely digital filters to discriminate against triggering on sampling artifacts or quantisation noise will be in the trigger processing. It’s just software.

Also I agree that the spikes shown in the video and captures are mainly on the low or negative levels of the signals. That was just the luck of the draw. At other times they are noticeable on high or positive levels as well.

I have to say that I think your concern about different probes is unnecessary, except for when frequencies approaching the nominal bandwidth of the probe. After all a correctly compensated passive x10 probe is just an impedance based voltage divider whose frequency specification is an indication of how effectively the reactance and resistance in the probe body and distributed in the lead etc., in conjunction with the scopes input resistance and capacitance will maintain this impedance ratio over frequency. Such a probe compensates for the shunting of the scope’s input by the scope’s own capacitance which reduces the scope’s usable bandwidth.

If the probes bandwidth is much higher than the signals of interest then with sufficient scope bandwidth and sampling rate an effective representation of the signal will be captured, be it an analog or digital waveform.

For DC and audio frequencies a x10 probe is normally just considered as a means to decreases the loading on the circuit being probed because loading can affect a circuit’s operation. Using the croc clip lead would be a recipe for problems. Their unknown bandwidth would attenuate and hide spikes if they actually existed on the input test signals. I would never use them except for DC or low frequency, say 50Hz, signals.

That is why in the video I showed that x10 probes were used on both scopes and were correctly compensated. But in reality compensation would not have matted much with the 1KHz sine wave test signal used. Some effect may have been noticeable on the 1KHz square or the digital waveforms comparisons, but only in distorting the waveforms, not introducing noise or spikes.

Also rise time is just an alternate way of classifying what a probe is useful for. What you prefer probably depends on the type of signal you monitor. If interested in digital signals then rise time conveys how high a clock frequency digital waveform you can capture and be able to be analise it digitally, while if analog signals are the interest, then frequency more conveys the range for use. Remember in the frequency domain a pulse can be considered as an infinite train of frequency components. How much of those frequency components are passed without major attenuation determines the shape of the pulse reproduced. A measure of how quickly a pulse transition can change is its risetime.

As for the probes actually used, the Hantek had its supplied PP150B, while my analog scope was using an AMP150 which is a medium frequency x10 passive probe from Amphenol (now no longer marketed). I liked the Amphenol probes because their probe tip to handgrip distance was shorter than other probes, so better for probing high density PCBs. These days as I am now on my last Amphenol, I will probably just buy some of the grey P200 or P250s as they seem better quality than the black probes. In the uses that I need them for I am not so concerned about the maximum frequency rating of the probes rather their robustness and reliability.

I also disagree that the noise spikes are overshoot. The noise spikes could not be overshoot when they occur in the middle of the level section of the square wave, only if at transitions. Also, overshoot is not a single isolated spike but a decaying or repeating waveform at the signal transition edges.

In regards confusing the noise spikes with digitation nose I specifically mentioned the difference in my post and I think also in one of the videos.  Also in the video I mentioned turning up the analogue scopes brightness to see if there was any hash visible on the signals. Finally, the internal ARB appears to have the expected output buffer stage as it can apply DC offsets to the output signal and has switchable drive impedance – high impedance or 50 ohms, so that’s not a source of problems.

Thanks again for the suggestions.
 

Offline tttonyyy

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Country: gb
Re: HanTek DSO2xxxx User Feedback
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2021, 08:31:56 am »
My DSO2C15 has a more significant offset (over 300mV) when set to GND mode on CH1 (the other is over 100mV).   This is not affected by recalibration, and only seems to manifest in GND mode - possibly some bug?  When in normal DC input the offset disappears - there is still something of order 10mV-ish, but this for some reason depends on the Y position of the trace on the screen.  If zero'd to the middle of the screen, this offset goes away too.

In DVM mode there is a range displayed below the DVM voltage reading, at the zero Y position and 1V/div this range is -4.0V to +4.0V (makes sense, 8 squares, 8V range).  Moving the Y position moves the upper and lower range settings.  If you put in a DC voltage outside of the range, E DCV is displayed - evidently outside the scope's capture range - unless the Y position is adjusted so the voltage range encompasses the DC voltage being measured.  OK, this is fine and is a facet of the 'scope ADC being ranged to cover the visible vertical scale with as much resolution as possible.  If the Y position is rapidly moved, this knocks the DVM measurement up or down briefly too (possibly as the scope is adjusting these capture limits).

Accuracy is a bit meh.  If I put a 30V source into CH1 the DVM reports 29.4-29.5V depending on Y position.  In CH2, 29.8-30.0V depending on Y position.  This isn't great.

Here's the bit I don't understand - with this range of 8V across the height of the screen (8 squares), if the capture is 8 bit then every bit represents 8/(2^8) = 31.25mV, so reasonably this is the smallest voltage step the DVM function could show.  But the DVM reading displays far finer resolution - could this be averaging of multiple capture points?

In terms of noise seen on the input signal - the capture noise can be mitigated against with HR acquire mode, averaging or the band limit.  The amount of single bit noise does seem dependent on the probe used.  This seems common to DSOs though I don't remember seeing so much on my LeCroy (probably had more than 8 bit capture, though).

Triggering on anything other than a rapid edge appears to be awful, however.  I've not found a way to mitigate against this, even if I set a decent hold-off that just seems to cause the trigger point to "slide" in relation to a sine wave.  Setting a "slope" trigger with decent voltage window and time not far off the 1/2 cycle time gets rid of the odd 180 degree excursion, but it still jitters about.  I suspect the trigger logic does not apply the rules set under the acquire menu but runs off the raw capture data, complete with spikes and other noise.

Triggering aside, I still consider this a very useful bit of kit with respect to the cost of the scope.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 10:50:11 am by tttonyyy »
 
The following users thanked this post: eevbstedt


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf