Products > Test Equipment

Is Rigol DS1054Z still a good option in 2019?

<< < (20/34) > >>

Martin72:
Gwinstek I don´t know really.
Got experiences with Tektronix, Lecroy, Siglent; Uni-T, Rigol.

GW claims to have 10mpts per channel memory - If it were so, it would be a benefit (when needed).
But in the specs it wouldn´t be claimed, only 10mpts in general.

DS1000Z got 12mpts/24mpts optional/ hacked, divided when more channels are active.
Also the same screensize and resolution.
Tons of trigger-things they got both, except alternate which the gwinstek got.
Rigol got lots of math functions, including filters.

I don´t see really remarkable advantages.



nctnico:

--- Quote from: Martin72 on December 24, 2019, 12:25:43 am ---Gwinstek I don´t know really.
Got experiences with Tektronix, Lecroy, Siglent; Uni-T, Rigol.

GW claims to have 10mpts per channel memory - If it were so, it would be a benefit (when needed).
But in the specs it wouldn´t be claimed, only 10mpts in general.

I don´t see really remarkable advantages.

--- End quote ---
Then please read a review before making wrong assumption. For starters the GDS1054B has 20Mpts per channel in segmented mode. This is a GDS2024E review I wrote a long time ago: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/
It basically covers everything the GDS-1054B has when hacked. The only differences are a smaller screen on the GDS1054B and half the samplerate (which is why the GDS1054B has a hardware fixed bandwidth of 100MHz). Other than that it is the same hardware & software platform:


When hacked the GDS1054B is miles ahead of what the Rigol 1054Z can do. GW Instek has many clever productivity boosters in their firmware as well.

Martin72:

--- Quote ---Then please read a review before making wrong assumption.
--- End quote ---

It should be enough to trust on the specs they disclaim, not to wait/ search for private peoples reviews…
But thank you, I´ll read it soon.

nctnico:

--- Quote from: Martin72 on December 24, 2019, 12:49:34 am ---
--- Quote ---Then please read a review before making wrong assumption.
--- End quote ---

It should be enough to trust on the specs they disclaim, not to wait/ search for private peoples reviews…
But thank you, I´ll read it soon.

--- End quote ---
The specs usually paint only half the picture when it comes to an oscilloscope. You really need to test an oscilloscope thouroughly yourself or go by thourough reviews. For me it was a nice surprise the firmware was quite mature on the GW Instek compared to what Siglent and Rigol tend to put on the market when a device is still relatively new. And bugs where fixed quickly too.

rsjsouza:
Differently than Rigol or Siglent, keep in mind that GW Instek does not offically support decoders on their oscilloscope. You need to hack it to get this functionality.

Sure, others report that it works well, but it is surely worth noting. I personally would be very cautious, but YMMV.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod