Is the RiGOL DS1054Z still Dave's choice for under $500?

[Fungus]

Thanks everyone for all the replies.  Someone on another forum said they recently purchased the Rigol HDO1074.  It's a 12 bit ADC and only $699?  I imagine it can be hacked eventually as well.

It's already been hacked.

[JeremyC]

Thanks everyone for all the replies.  Someone on another forum said they recently purchased the Rigol HDO1074.  It's a 12 bit ADC and only $699?  I imagine it can be hacked eventually as well.

If I got the HD01074 instead of the Sigilents mentioned above, what would I be lacking ?  How does the UI and display performance compare between the them?   Seems like 12 bit ADC is a huge upgrade. SIXTEEN times the resolution!

I believe the HDO1074 is $999, the 1072 (2 channel) is $699.
Yes, you will get 12bit, but you should ask yourself if you really need it.
The Rigol 12bit series doesn’t have Bode plot as option (it maybe not important for some people, but it’s for me).

[JeremyC]

If I got the HD01074 instead of the Sigilents mentioned above, what would I be lacking ?  How does the UI and display performance compare between the them?   Seems like 12 bit ADC is a huge upgrade. SIXTEEN times the resolution!

If you want compare "apples to apples" then you should compare SDS2000X Plus series with SDS2000X HD. In Rigol line the closest would be the HDO4000 series and not the HDO1000...

[2N3055]

Thanks everyone for all the replies.  Someone on another forum said they recently purchased the Rigol HDO1074.  It's a 12 bit ADC and only $699?  I imagine it can be hacked eventually as well.

If I got the HD01074 instead of the Sigilents mentioned above, what would I be lacking ?  How does the UI and display performance compare between the them?   Seems like 12 bit ADC is a huge upgrade. SIXTEEN times the resolution!

Hi,

you should do more research than just wikipedia. Rigol and Siglent have web sites with detailed documentation. They both have USA/EU HQ and several well respected distributors that also give customer support. I would at least download datasheets and compare feature sets to see if scopes have functions you need.

Comparison between SDS2000X+ and DHO1000 is not really one to one.    DHO1000 has 12bit ADC, 4 analog ch. Also it also goes to only 200MHz. SDS2000X+ goes to 500 Mhz, has 4 analog and 16 digital channels (20 total signals).
DHO1000 series is also really new (just released) and you have to be prepared to deal with early software releases and wait for Rigol to fix all the early release bugs.

More resolution is nice. OTOH most people out there use 8bit scopes.

It really depends what you plan to do with it.

If nothing is know of application, then max number of channels and biggest BW is prefered, because there is nothing you can do if you don't have enough of those for the application.

If you need to look at 432MHz signal, 200MHz scope wont do regardless of resolution. If you want to debug 12 digital signals, you need that many channels. If you need to measure very low level signals with absolute best resolution, you need low noise high resolution scope.

[JenniferG]

Thanks everyone for all the replies.  Someone on another forum said they recently purchased the Rigol HDO1074.  It's a 12 bit ADC and only $699?  I imagine it can be hacked eventually as well.

If I got the HD01074 instead of the Sigilents mentioned above, what would I be lacking ?  How does the UI and display performance compare between the them?   Seems like 12 bit ADC is a huge upgrade. SIXTEEN times the resolution!

Hi,

you should do more research than just wikipedia.

I never said I was relying on Wikipedia.  I just said I found it odd Siglent doesn't even have an entry nor does Rigol have more than 2 paragraphs.

Thanks for all that great info though about the scopes.

[nctnico]

Ofcourse it is. Don't get fooled by the form factor; it is a full fledged bench oscilloscope. It has all the right features to make it a true bench oscilloscope. Rock solid firmware as well. It is not a 'typical' handheld/portable DSO-ish device that can only show some wiggly lines. You'd be wrong to leave the MicSig TO1000 (or one of the recent incarnations with knobs) out in a US $500 price bracket shootout.

It would be a $500 price bracket bench scope shootout.
If you don't like that then you are free to make your own shootout 

But why do you not qualify the TO1000 as a bench scope? By all means it is a bench scope. Just like the new (flat) Tektronix you reviewed. Or wouldn't you classify that as a bench scope either?

With the stand and the front bottom mounted inputs like a normal bench scope, plus controls, the Tek makes the grade as a bench scope. It's clearly designed as a bench scope with some portability in mind.
The Micsig TO1000 is literally a tablet scope only. Inputs are on the top not the front, and no front panel controls. It's clearly not a bench scope 
It literally says Tablet Oscilloscope on the front of it!

You do realise that the one you have is an older model; the newer models do have knobs. And your logic about the location of inputs or what it says on the badge doesn't make sense. Feature wise, the MicSig with or without knobs is perfectly useable as a bench scope and thus is a serious option to consider when looking for a low cost oscilloscope. I see a lot of prejudice and very little logic.

As a side note:
Recently I bought a portable base station analyser that can do both spectrum analysis and vector network analysis. Nice little, portable machine that works quite well as a spectrum analyser and VNA. For a recent EMC job I noticed that I used the base station analyser more rather than my high end spectrum analyser. And the reason is simple: the base station analyser just takes less space and it is quiet. Feature wise it has everything I need for EMC precompliance testing. I'm also in the process of getting better tooling for EMC testing. This also means setting up automated testing so I had a choice to make: do I use my big spectrum analyser or the portable one? One of the things I had to step over was a mental barrier: the base station analyser is just a little portable device; not serious test equipment. Just like you have with the MicSig DSO. However, after thinking about it logically and just making a list with pros and cons the base station analyser comes out on top to use as a spectrum analyser for my EMC testing setup (even without having a SCPI protocol specification).

[2N3055]

Thanks everyone for all the replies.  Someone on another forum said they recently purchased the Rigol HDO1074.  It's a 12 bit ADC and only $699?  I imagine it can be hacked eventually as well.

If I got the HD01074 instead of the Sigilents mentioned above, what would I be lacking ?  How does the UI and display performance compare between the them?   Seems like 12 bit ADC is a huge upgrade. SIXTEEN times the resolution!

Hi,

you should do more research than just wikipedia.

I never said I was relying on Wikipedia.  I just said I found it odd Siglent doesn't even have an entry nor does Rigol have more than 2 paragraphs.

Thanks for all that great info though about the scopes.

Sorry if I misunderstood. Article in Wikipedia is something that is not guaranteed. It is community moderated, and it poses an interesting question who writes all these Wikipedia topics on large companies and for what purpose... And what information is there and what isn't..

Chinese manufacturers don't have a culture of that kind of marketing.

[2N3055]

Ofcourse it is. Don't get fooled by the form factor; it is a full fledged bench oscilloscope. It has all the right features to make it a true bench oscilloscope. Rock solid firmware as well. It is not a 'typical' handheld/portable DSO-ish device that can only show some wiggly lines. You'd be wrong to leave the MicSig TO1000 (or one of the recent incarnations with knobs) out in a US $500 price bracket shootout.

It would be a $500 price bracket bench scope shootout.
If you don't like that then you are free to make your own shootout 

But why do you not qualify the TO1000 as a bench scope? By all means it is a bench scope. Just like the new (flat) Tektronix you reviewed. Or wouldn't you classify that as a bench scope either?

With the stand and the front bottom mounted inputs like a normal bench scope, plus controls, the Tek makes the grade as a bench scope. It's clearly designed as a bench scope with some portability in mind.
The Micsig TO1000 is literally a tablet scope only. Inputs are on the top not the front, and no front panel controls. It's clearly not a bench scope 
It literally says Tablet Oscilloscope on the front of it!

You do realise that the one you have is an older model; the newer models do have knobs. And your logic about the location of inputs or what it says on the badge doesn't make sense. Feature wise, the MicSig with or without knobs is perfectly useable as a bench scope and thus is a serious option to consider when looking for a low cost oscilloscope. I see a lot of prejudice and very little logic.

As a side note:
Recently I bought a portable base station analyser that can do both spectrum analysis and vector network analysis. Nice little, portable machine that works quite well as a spectrum analyser and VNA. For a recent EMC job I noticed that I used the base station analyser more rather than my high end spectrum analyser. And the reason is simple: the base station analyser just takes less space and it is quiet. Feature wise it has everything I need for EMC precompliance testing. I'm also in the process of getting better tooling for EMC testing. This also means setting up automated testing so I had a choice to make: do I use my big spectrum analyser or the portable one? One of the things I had to step over was a mental barrier: the base station analyser is just a little portable device; not serious test equipment. Just like you have with the MicSig DSO. However, after thinking about it logically and just making a list with pros and cons the base station analyser comes out on top to use as a spectrum analyser for my EMC testing setup (even without having a SCPI protocol specification).

Newest ones again took proper knobs away and replaced them with funky little joysticks... Which i never tried but used devices with these little joysticks I don't like the idea..

[Fungus]

your logic about the location of inputs

The inputs on the top is absolutely the best place for them. It gives the 'scope a much smaller footprint on the bench.

(In case thinks they'll dangle down in front of the screen: They don't, they go down behind and come out around the side...)

My guess is that Dave doesn't have a Micsig and doesn't want to buy one for the shootout. 

Whatever, it's his video so his rules...

[Fungus]

Which i never tried but used devices with these little joysticks I don't like the idea..

I'm not sure I do either but:
a) They're not the only way to do things (you can operate a Micsig without ever touching a knob)
and
b) People have said they're OK in the Micsig thread.
c) Micsigs have "autoranging" mode so you don't have to touch the controls anywhere near as often as on other 'scopes.

See this video at 12m45s:

[artag]

Far better off with any generic FX2 based logic analyzer and sigrok - check your signal integrity with the scope, if you want to look at data, capture it into something useful.

Agreed. I have an Agilent DSO7014A. It's old now but pretty capable - unusally for its time, and possibly still now, it has hardware serial decode. This means that you can trigger on the serial pattern, not just edges. Frustratingly, it will only decode two channels : it ought to use the hardware decode for the trigger channel and software-decode other channels.

But although I occasionally use that feature because the scope's on the bench and usually switched on, for any substantial serial decode I use a salae analyser. It doesnt have hardware triggering (I think the latest software does have a software trigger) but the ability to capture and work with a practically infinite length of capture is a killer feature - and available at very low cost if you use Sigrok instead of Saleae.

Even though later scopes have deeper capture than my agilent, searching, panning and listing on a PC interface is worlds away from doing it on a scope screen, even a big one like the 7014.

Put all your effort into the first line features - update rate, sample rate, readability - and leave the features like  serial decode, function generators etc. to dedicated boxes. In some circumstances it can be attractive to have everything in one box but the upgrade route is restricted and 'jack of all trades is master of none'.

[2N3055]

Which i never tried but used devices with these little joysticks I don't like the idea..

I'm not sure I do either but:
a) They're not the only way to do things (you can operate a Micsig without ever touching a knob)
and
b) People have said they're OK in the Micsig thread.

Video:

Yeah but that means you don't need stupid things at all if you have to use touch screen (so no need for those little joysticks at all).
And also, in video you linked in almost an hour that person used joysticks maybe 2 times. He pressed few buttons. Of course he will say it's alright because he didn't need them at all...

For instance, moving cursors with finger is horribly inaccurate. You select cursor with finger (that is fast and intuitive) and then move it with a button.
Same applies to many other operations. Or you tap on value to enter it numerically. When you move waveform, if you just want to move somewhere else to see something, touch gestures work ok. If you want to move it precisely, use knob... Or type in numerical value.

I don't know, I'm not luddite, but not everything new is a progress. I'm not convinced. 

[2N3055]

Far better off with any generic FX2 based logic analyzer and sigrok - check your signal integrity with the scope, if you want to look at data, capture it into something useful.

Agreed. I have an Agilent DSO7014A. It's old now but pretty capable - unusally for its time, and possibly still now, it has hardware serial decode. This means that you can trigger on the serial pattern, not just edges. Frustratingly, it will only decode two channels : it ought to use the hardware decode for the trigger channel and software-decode other channels.

But although I occasionally use that feature because the scope's on the bench and usually switched on, for any substantial serial decode I use a salae analyser. It doesnt have hardware triggering (I think the latest software does have a software trigger) but the ability to capture and work with a practically infinite length of capture is a killer feature - and available at very low cost if you use Sigrok instead of Saleae.

Even though later scopes have deeper capture than my agilent, searching, panning and listing on a PC interface is worlds away from doing it on a scope screen, even a big one like the 7014.

Put all your effort into the first line features - update rate, sample rate, readability - and leave the features like  serial decode, function generators etc. to dedicated boxes. In some circumstances it can be attractive to have everything in one box but the upgrade route is restricted and 'jack of all trades is master of none'.

Hardware decode is not prerequisite to serial triggers. Siglent, for instance has software decoding but hardware based serial triggers.
Also hardware decoding has benefit of speed, but has big drawback that you have to capture data with the decoder in a first place..
Which means you have to setup everything perfectly, and then capture to get data decoded.
On scopes with software decode, you can simply capture any signal, and then turn on decoding and keep setting it up until it recognizes data protocol properly.  You can try different speeds, setting, or even protocols while trying do figure out what kind of protocol is that.
On Picoscope you can even decode from Math channel, which allows you to precondition signal before decoding.

Decoding on a scope is very convenient. It allows you to look at data in analog and digital domain simultaneously. When you have problems with something you need to check both.

But I already said before, for debugging software layer, and lots of data a USB protocol analyser that logs unlimited data to PC is better.
I was planning to get one long time ago (and got 2) but realized that for this type of work Picoscope with deep memory will do great job of both...
So never bought a Saelae (which I could have bought while it's price made more sense than today).
If I buy any LA in the future, it will be 32 channels... I had occasional need for more than 16 inputs...Maybe DSLogic U3Pro32?
I have older Zeroplus LAP-C 16256 and don't use it. It has limited memory and cannot stream to PC directly. It decodes loads of protocols though. New LAP-C Pro 32064M sounds fantastic, but is expensive for a thing I would use very rarely. I would rather buy DMM6500 or new VNA...

I also have Digital Discovery. About which I have mixed feelings. It has some unique features (like pattern generation or ROM mode) and I mostly use it for that.  It's biggest problem is that it's inputs a very fragile. They directly connected inputs to FPGA over some resistors and that's it. All my MSO scopes have good protection and variable thresholds. (MSOX3104T: Maximum input voltage ± 40 V peak CAT I; transient overvoltage 800 Vpk).
But maybe an input conditioning board could be made and it is very useful device. For instance, I used it test two communications problems, where I used it to generate random signals simulating sensors triggering, and looking for relay activations and serial messages being sent... After few hours of that running on it's own, I found there was one state that went into interlock. Some changes in code, and that was it..

[Fungus]

But although I occasionally use that feature because the scope's on the bench and usually switched on, for any substantial serial decode I use a salae analyser. It doesnt have hardware triggering (I think the latest software does have a software trigger) but the ability to capture and work with a practically infinite length of capture is a killer feature - and available at very low cost if you use Sigrok instead of Saleae.

Yeah, but sometimes you really want to see it in real time, not press "record", wait a while... press "stop"... then start mousing around looking for something useful.

eg. I was writing a bitbang I2C last week and my Micsig was showing the test packet in real time, along with all the ACK/NAK bits, etc.

No need to touch the 'scope at all while I was coding. I just glance at the screen and there it is.

That's "killer" for that job, not the memory length.

[Monkeh]

But although I occasionally use that feature because the scope's on the bench and usually switched on, for any substantial serial decode I use a salae analyser. It doesnt have hardware triggering (I think the latest software does have a software trigger) but the ability to capture and work with a practically infinite length of capture is a killer feature - and available at very low cost if you use Sigrok instead of Saleae.

Yeah, but sometimes you really want to see it in real time, not press "record", wait a while... press "stop"... then start mousing around looking for something useful.

eg. I was writing a bitbang I2C last week and my Micsig was showing the test packet in real time, along with all the ACK/NAK bits, etc.

No need to touch the 'scope at all while I was coding. I just glance at the screen and there it is.

That's "killer" for that job, not the memory length.

Now imagine that it's near impossible to get it to decode correctly, and the triggers only work on blood moons.

[james_s]

The vast majority of digital scopes are only 8 bit, personally I have never found that to be a limiting factor and I would take other features over increased ADC resolution at a given price point. There may be some tasks where 12 bit offers an advantage, but that is a niche case and if you need it you would probably know.

[markone]

But although I occasionally use that feature because the scope's on the bench and usually switched on, for any substantial serial decode I use a salae analyser. It doesnt have hardware triggering (I think the latest software does have a software trigger) but the ability to capture and work with a practically infinite length of capture is a killer feature - and available at very low cost if you use Sigrok instead of Saleae.

Yeah, but sometimes you really want to see it in real time, not press "record", wait a while... press "stop"... then start mousing around looking for something useful.

eg. I was writing a bitbang I2C last week and my Micsig was showing the test packet in real time, along with all the ACK/NAK bits, etc.

No need to touch the 'scope at all while I was coding. I just glance at the screen and there it is.

That's "killer" for that job, not the memory length.

The current Logic 2 program version shows traces and decoded serials in real time too, while it records, with simple Cypress FX2 LAs in streaming mode (at least within certain time scales and baud rate).

Worth a try, Just in case.

[Karel]

One thing I don't like about the DS1054Z is that the serial decoding is done only on what is visible on the screen.
And if the screen trace does not start just before the start bit, the decoding fails.
This means that if you capture a long string from a serial port you can only decode the beginning of that string.
I find that very annoying when debugging a board.

[markone]

One thing I don't like about the DS1054Z is that the serial decoding is done only on what is visible on the screen.
And if the screen trace does not start just before the start bit, the decoding fails.
This means that if you capture a long string from a serial port you can only decode the beginning of that string.
I find that very annoying when debugging a board.

I also own a DS1054Z from awhile, i think it is still a great instrument for the price but some functionality are quite slow for the current standards, among them there are serial decoder and remote control, if I had to make use of these I would opt for another instrument otherwise is still a good purchase.

In any case, for serial interface decoding / recording makes much more sense to use a cheap LA with proper SW.

[RoGeorge]

DS1054Z ... quite slow ... remote control

Can you give an example of how slow it is, or what bothers exactly when remote controlling the DS1054Z?

Asking because I've tried recently to download the full 24 million ADC samples, and with the proper setup it went from 22 minutes to 22 seconds.

[Karel]

22 seconds for 24 MiB is still laughable. But I guess it's all they can do for that price.
And for the price it's a nice hobby scope.

[nctnico]

One thing I don't like about the DS1054Z is that the serial decoding is done only on what is visible on the screen.
And if the screen trace does not start just before the start bit, the decoding fails.
This means that if you capture a long string from a serial port you can only decode the beginning of that string.
I find that very annoying when debugging a board.

Yes, when choosing a DSO for decoding, make sure it does full memory decoding, not just what is on screen. Otherwise you'll suffer when needing to inspect parts of packets to verify timing of the signals.

[markone]

DS1054Z ... quite slow ... remote control

Can you give an example of how slow it is, or what bothers exactly when remote controlling the DS1054Z?

Asking because I've tried recently to download the full 24 million ADC samples, and with the proper setup it went from 22 minutes to 22 seconds.

To be honest I never tried to dump raw data, but the interval time that you report seems a lot out of place (to say the least), AFAIK Dsremote is much faster in that.

I was instead referring to screen waveforms data retrieve and setting command response in general, among the causes it's kwon that Rigol choose to organize data in 64 bytes block on USB interface while the standard is 512, at the expense of data transfer performance.

Talking instead about serial decoder there is a lag in the order of hundreds of milliseconds, that varies with memory depth, horizontal scale and baud rate, often you can see decoded data not aligned with signal  trace.

But we are talking about an old instrument, it's to be said that Rigol DS1000 and the DS1000Z series were the best instruments in the low cost class, at the time mostly populated with a ton  of crap.

[Fungus]

Asking because I've tried recently to download the full 24 million ADC samples, and with the proper setup it went from 22 minutes to 22 seconds.

To be honest I never tried to dump raw data, but the interval time that you report seems a lot out of place (to say the least), AFAIK Dsremote is much faster in that.

I was instead referring to screen waveforms data retrieve and setting command response in general, among the causes it's kwon that Rigol choose to organize data in 64 bytes block on USB interface while the standard is 512, at the expense of data transfer performance.

Screen waveform is only 1200 bytes so it's obviously a lot faster than grabbing the full 24Mb.

IIRC you can grab the full screen image about 3 times/sec. for remote control/viewing

USB was also found to be much slower than Ethernet, probably for the reason you mention.

[Fungus]

Now imagine that it's near impossible to get it to decode correctly, and the triggers only work on blood moons.

We get it. It doesn't decode full memory, for that you need something else.

But: "Horses for courses".

For decoding a few bytes and looking at signal integrity it works just fine.

Using a logic analyzer would have been a complete pain in the ass for coding an I2C interface like I was doing last week.

For only $6 extra you can have both.