Instek GDS2202a vs Rigol DS2202 - any Opinions?

[marmad]

The Instek GDS-2000 seem to offer a lot of scope for the price.  Anyone have any experience yet?  I came across it searching for scopes of this class that still offer independent (alternate) channel triggering and the GDS-2202a has it.

john

As I've written elsewhere, I think the Rigol DS2000 is definitely a better deal than the GW-Instek GDS-2000A 2-channel scopes:

The Rigol has a low-noise front-end with real vertical sensitivity down to 500 µV/div.
The Rigol has 14MB sample memory (56MB optional) and an extra 100MB segment memory standard.
The Rigol has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video, Runt, Slope, Setup/Hold, RS232/UART, I²C, SPI
The Rigol has Parallel decoding standard
The Rigol has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >=5 µs/div.
The Rigol has 350MHz 10:1 probes and LAN connection standard.

Now, the GW-Instek GDS-2000A 4-channel version is a different story, and perhaps the best bang-for-buck (at the moment) for 4-channels.

[grego]

The Instek GDS-2000 seem to offer a lot of scope for the price.  Anyone have any experience yet?  I came across it searching for scopes of this class that still offer independent (alternate) channel triggering and the GDS-2202a has it.

john

As I've written elsewhere, I think the Rigol DS2000 is definitely a better deal than the GW-Instek GDS-2000A 2-channel scopes:

The Rigol has a low-noise front-end with real vertical sensitivity down to 500 µV/div.
The Rigol has 14MB sample memory (56MB optional) and an extra 100MB segment memory standard.
The Rigol has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video, Runt, Slope, Setup/Hold, RS232/UART, I²C, SPI
The Rigol has Parallel decoding standard
The Rigol has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >=5 µs/div.
The Rigol has 350MHz 10:1 probes and LAN connection standard.

Now, the GW-Instek GDS-2000A 4-channel version is a different story, and perhaps the best bang-for-buck (at the moment) for 4-channels.

Assuming you don't want/need any expandability (MSO option, waveform gen, etc) I'd concur with that.  Then again with the Instek, just like the Agilent, you pay a bit more for the ability to have a 4 channel scope.  Not that you can upgrade it later, but it's identical otherwise.  The 2000 and 4000 Rigols are completely different.

I will nitpick and say that the fact that the Rigol has 350Mhz probes standard is a "who cares" kind of thing - as long as your probes are rated for your scope the different is negligible.  Standard LAN connection is something I wish I had though, I will freely admit that.  The hi-res is on the firmware roadmap (e.g. who knows when it'll arrive) and the Rigol crushes the Instek in memory depth.  Too bad you can't search it. ;-)

But yeah - if someone wants a high quality 2 channel scope you would be EXTREMELY hard pressed to beat the Rigol 2000 series in pretty much every category except expansion.  Bang for buck is huge on that thing.

[Salas]

Because I have my Rigol right in front of me as we post and its weak and soft. It even darkens the graticule matrix if I move my head level to it. Luckily I watch it from above. Many guys needing the scope on a shelf above eye level, and it will darken out even more. I love the scope but the screen is cheap crap and it does not adorn it at all. The cooling fan could be less noisy too. Its how a tool feels for long work as important as it performs some times. The Instek shines its screen quality on the video, easy to see.

I totally disagree with this; I don't have any problems whatsoever with the screen at all. I use it both day and night in a giant room full of massive windows and tons of daylight. Maybe you have a bad backlight or something?

No adverse ambient conditions in my room or any suspicion for my scope's screen condition. Looks exactly as in Dave's videos. Its just a washed out screen compared to the rich display of some vivid scopes in my view. And it would be welcome if better but not a party stopper either. Up to anybody's priority list.

[marmad]

No adverse ambient conditions in my room or any suspicion for my scope's screen condition. Looks exactly as in Dave's videos. Its just a washed out screen compared to the rich display of some vivid scopes in my view.

I guess it's a subjective perceptual thing connected to you then, because I haven't heard anyone else claiming that the screen was 'cheap crap'.

[marmad]

I will nitpick and say that the fact that the Rigol has 350Mhz probes standard is a "who cares" kind of thing - as long as your probes are rated for your scope the different is negligible.

Well, it's helpful for when Rigol starts selling BW upgrades for the DS2000 that you have probes that can handle well past 200MHz 

[marmad]

I came across it searching for scopes of this class that still offer independent (alternate) channel triggering and the GDS-2202a has it.

john

John,

As I posted elsewhere, while the Rigol DS2000 doesn't have the ALT trigger mode, it has many other complex triggers - one of which is called Delay- that can use both CH1 and CH2 as the trigger source - each on it's own edge, with < / > / <> / >< delay parameters with a large time range. So it's quite easy to set up the scope to display stable waveforms with unsynced signals (as in the attached image - both waveforms were perfectly stable). This would work in many situations where you might normally use ALT trigger.

Mark

[rbola35618]

I agree with Salas, the Rigol seems to be more dim for my preference. That was my major complaint I had about it. I guess my old eyes need a brighter screen.

I still wish Grego would connect a video signal to see how the display looks and look at both at Vertical speed 60 Hz Horizontal speed 15734 Hz. 

RB

[grego]

I agree with Salas, the Rigol seems to be more dim for my preference. That was my major complaint I had about it. I guess my old eyes need a brighter screen.

I still wish Grego would connect a video signal to see how the display looks and look at both at Vertical speed 60 Hz Horizontal speed 15734 Hz. 

RB

I'll see what I can do - I've never done it before as I normally work in the digital realm but there's a first time for everything, right?

[Hydrawerk]

As I've written elsewhere, I think the Rigol DS2000 is definitely a better deal than the GW-Instek GDS-2000A 2-channel scopes:
the Rigol crushes the Instek in memory depth.  Too bad you can't search it. ;-)

That's it. For such a large 14MB per channel memory there should be a place mark, search and scroll function. As Wave Inspector on Tektronix or similar features on GW Instek or even Hameg.

[marmad]

That's it. For such a large 14MB per channel memory there should be a place mark, search and scroll function. As Wave Inspector on Tektronix or similar features on GW Instek or even Hameg.

True. OTOH, if you ask me whether I'd rather have (while in NORMAL mode) 7MB or 28MB per channel (versus 500k on the Instek) - OR - a marker and search routine for the memory - I'd have to go with the larger memory. Because you can always write software that implements a search routine (which is exactly what I'm doing): since you have to stop the DSO to search the memory, it's all post-processing. But you can never physically add more memory to your DSO.

[Hydrawerk]

Well, even the expensive DSOX3000 has only 2Mpoints per channel (probably). It has a search function, but you cannot place marks manually. http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-6619EN.pdf
What's the purpose of the DSOX3MEMUP anyway?? There must be a mistake?

[Yaksaredabomb]

I'm uploading a video now with a modulated waveform showing persistence.  I also pan the camera at different angles to the screen so you can get an idea of its brightness and accurate angles.

Video uploaded:

Hi grego - thanks again for posting those videos!  I know life "gets in the way" (and it should), but if you find time to post any more that would be cool.  Doesn't have to be polished or anything - could even be just random tinkering or using it with whatever project you happen to be working on that minute so it doesn't take much time for you.
 
One idea would be messing around with a video signal and intensity grading (I don't have much interest there but someone mentioned it I think).  Also, it would be interesting to see those 600 rows of pixels put to work with the logic analyzer - if you get to it.

[EEVblog]

True. OTOH, if you ask me whether I'd rather have (while in NORMAL mode) 7MB or 28MB per channel (versus 500k on the Instek) - OR - a marker and search routine for the memory - I'd have to go with the larger memory.

Me too. Memory depth wins hands down every time.
Having briefly played with the GDS-2000A, I was not that impressed. Whereas the Rigol I was instantly impressed out of the box.
I have not found anything compelling on the Instek yet to recommend it over the Rigol, but that may change with use.

[marmad]

Me too. Memory depth wins hands down every time.
Having briefly played with the GDS-2000A, I was not that impressed. Whereas the Rigol I was instantly impressed out of the box.
I have not found anything compelling on the Instek yet to recommend it over the Rigol, but that may change with use.

Well, sorry to hear that on one hand - OTOH, it's probably good for Rigol.

I do think Rigol made a clever choice by blasting by everyone else in terms of memory depths offered (even going so far as to having extra, dedicated, segment memory - a full 64MB on the DS2000). As with PCs, once you have all that memory for up to 65000 segments - or for maintaining the 2GSa/s rate down to the 2ms/div. time base setting - it's hard to go back