| Products > Test Equipment |
| Is Rigol DS1054Z still a good option in 2019? |
| << < (5/34) > >> |
| bdunham7:
--- Quote from: Fungus on August 02, 2019, 10:38:12 am --- --- Quote from: bdunham7 on August 01, 2019, 05:54:25 pm ---I'm not referring to the sampling/bandwidth issue directly, I'm referring to interpolation sometimes being implausible. How do I know what is between the dots? I don't--and this is my point. I want to see the samples displayed directly with no interpolation or interpretation so that I understand what information the scope is working with. --- End quote --- My points were: a) Looking at the dots doesn't tell you anything. If you disagree then feel free to start a thread with screenshots and explanations. I'm sure a lot of signal theorists will be interested in techniques to reconstruct information above the sample rate. And ... much more importantly: b) The only correct thing to do is to turn off a channel or two to get a higher sample rate on the channel of interest. nb. When you do this the Rigol DS1054Z will disable the option to turn off sin(x)/x, which indirectly proves the point being made. --- End quote --- I'm not referring to deselecting sin(x)/x at lower sampling rates. I'm talking about one channel, 1GSa/s and selecting 'DOTS' instead of 'VECTOR'. If it did what I expected, the dots would actually tell me a lot--not about additional magically interpolated information, but rather about how much information I actually had and how accurate it is. Anyway, we've hijacked a thread over something that has been hashed to death elsewhere. The 1054Z would be fine choice for the OP--unless he has more 'additional information' for us. |
| Fungus:
--- Quote from: bdunham7 on August 02, 2019, 03:26:40 pm ---I'm not referring to deselecting sin(x)/x at lower sampling rates. I'm talking about one channel, 1GSa/s and selecting 'DOTS' instead of 'VECTOR'. If it did what I expected, the dots would actually tell me a lot--not about additional magically interpolated information, but rather about how much information I actually had and how accurate it is. --- End quote --- If you have 1GSs/s on a 'scope with ~140Mhz analog bandwidth then it's probably moot. --- Quote from: bdunham7 on August 02, 2019, 03:26:40 pm ---Anyway, we've hijacked a thread over something that has been hashed to death elsewhere. The 1054Z would be fine choice for the OP--unless he has more 'additional information' for us. --- End quote --- Yep. The usage case was : "....debugging low speed analog signals and digital protocols/ communication. I need a 4-channel scope mostly when debugging protocols and mainly never use more than 2-channels for just analog use. If I ever need more digital channels (Witch is rare) then I’ll just my knockoff Salea logic analyzer." The Rigol DS1054Z can do that. |
| Candid:
--- Quote from: Sudo_apt-get_install_yum on July 30, 2019, 02:16:00 pm ---I’m looking into getting a basic oscilloscope[...] I’ve been using the Siglent SDS2304X[...]I’m heading back to school to finish of my studies and think it would be overkill for my private/school use.[...] I’ll be using the scope for debugging low speed analog signals and digital protocols/ communication.[...] I need a 4-channel scope[...] [...]and it seems like the Rigol DS1054Z + unlock is the cheapest and best option. Got any other recommendations or is this still the way to go for budget oscilloscopes. --- End quote --- No other recommendation from me, I would too get the DS1054Z with this recommendations. The right decision from my point of view. You learned to use a Siglent, you should not have a problem in using a Rigol. It's like with a driving license. |
| voltsandjolts:
These type of threads somehow feel like politely asking for a pint at the bar, which then triggers a pub brawl ;D |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: Candid on August 02, 2019, 05:57:41 pm ---No other recommendation from me, I would too get the DS1054Z with this recommendations. --- End quote --- But the DS1054Z is very old and does have several drawbacks. For a little bit more you can buy a much better oscilloscope nowadays. Technology has moved on. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |