MSO5000 Bode Plot Capability: Is it Good Enough? [Many tips about a 1st scope]

[balnazzar]

Hi,

1. If the OS is fast and responsive, compared to Instek's.
2. If the user interface is intuitive to use (again, compared to the Instek's).

Both can be answered by someone who works with all of the mentioned scopes - And then it´s his own impression.
In my case, I got following "scope owning history":

- Rigol DS1000Z
- Rigol DS2000
- Siglent SDS1104X-E
- Rigol MSO5000
- Siglent SDS2000Xplus
- Siglent SDS2000X HD (actual scope)

GW Instek never came into my mind, maybe they making good scopes and nearly nobody knows about, or they knowing about it and this may explain their place by the hobbyists. 

Interesting. Two questions:

1. Why did you switch from the 2K plus to the 2K HD?
2. How did the MSO5K compare with the SDS1104X-E *purely in terms of noise and OS/UI quickness*?

Thanks.

[balnazzar]

Feature set and specs determine what one can do with any instrument not how fast it can do it.

True, but it's not exactly about analyzing a circuit in five minutes vs. (say) seven.
It's about how much responsive the instrument is. If you read the threads here and there, users with slow scopes are pretty pissed off, and, by my limited experience, with good reason.

I bought that crappy Hantek a while ago. Slow and laggy as hell. Returned.
Bought as a temporary solution an Owon HDS242s handheld (it costs just 167 eur and I needed a scope). It's like 10X more responsive. I mean, it's a very limited machine, but you can work with it, whereas you couldn't with the Hantek (*).

That's what I meant by 'fast'.

(*) I joined the exclusive NAH! club (Never Again Hantek!).

[nctnico]

Hi,

1. If the OS is fast and responsive, compared to Instek's.
2. If the user interface is intuitive to use (again, compared to the Instek's).

Both can be answered by someone who works with all of the mentioned scopes - And then it´s his own impression.
In my case, I got following "scope owning history":

- Rigol DS1000Z
- Rigol DS2000
- Siglent SDS1104X-E
- Rigol MSO5000
- Siglent SDS2000Xplus
- Siglent SDS2000X HD (actual scope)

GW Instek never came into my mind, maybe they making good scopes and nearly nobody knows about, or they knowing about it and this may explain their place by the hobbyists. 

GW Instek never came into my mind... same here but due to lack of other interesting models I tried a GDS-2204E nevertheless (with very explicitely requiring to be able to return the oscilloscope) and got a very pleasant surprise. I use the GW Instek regulary besides the higher end R&S oscilloscope that is also on my desk.

[nctnico]

Feature set and specs determine what one can do with any instrument not how fast it can do it.

Faster means an instrument is more efficient and more enjoyable to use. So yes, being able to make measurements fast is a good feature. But it is missing from datasheets and specs. Reading specs is like judging a book by the cover. You still don't know whether you'll enjoy the book. You either have to read the book or go by the reviews (which might be skewed).

I used to own an Agilent MSO7104A (4 channel 1GHz + 16 channel MSO) which IIRC costed like $20k when new. It required endless dicking around with knobs and going through deep menus in order to configure things like decoding or math. The GW Instek GDS-2204E I bought later on was such a relief compared to the MSO7104A. The MSO7104A is long gone but I still have the GDS-2204E because it is such a pleasant oscilloscope to use.

[2N3055]

All Siglent DSO's capable of Bode plot

Apart from the bode plots, if you had to make a case for the Siglent scope vs. the Instek, what would you say to a prospective customer?
What does your scope have that the Instek lacks?

Many things. 
It has 2 1GS/S ADC instead of one. It has more display modes. It has better vertical sensitivity.  Web control.

Nico owns GW Instek scope, but a 2000E series that is nice little scope but much more expensive.
GDS1054 has some thing going for it and it is better than, say, Rigol DS1054, but not SDS1104X-E.

Truth to be told, I have been following discussion here and I think you might be expecting too much from a price range you are prepared to pay for.  I don't think GDS1054 will carry you for years. Neither the AD2 is what you might expect it to be.. 

Excuse me for being blunt, but you seem to be asking unusual questions and seem to more be arguing and inciting adversarial discussion than really trying to get good information which will help you decide what equipment would be good for your use case..
And for some time now discussion has been going in circles...
You don't want to read datasheets but UI responsiveness is important. An intuitiveness, whatever that means..
You have no set application target.
You are a beginner and this is your first scope.
And then you want sophisticated scope although there will be years before you need anything more sophisticated than either GDS1054, Rigol DS1054,  SDS1104X-E.
AD2 is not really "good" for digital except very slow stuf.
You cannot combine AD2 and any other scope with a software. It doesn't work that way..

Again, sorry for being direct. But my opinion that for a beginner you should start with any of the mentioned scopes. If this is a hobby maybe you will lose interest. If you are doing this long term and or pro you will need many thousands € for equipment in coming years..
If I were in your place I would either buy SDS1104X-E and SDG1000X AWG for more analog minded application or a MSO5000 if you are going to predominantly do microcontrollers robotics, motor control and such.
First option gives you great little scope and a 2ch real AWG and Bode plot that works really well. MSO5000 is not really good for hardcore analog stuff but has proper MSO integration and it also has 2CH AWG although very limited in amplitude and features.
If you overgrow any of mentioned equipment you will easily sell it and move on to better stuff.. Or keep it for reserve or whatever..

[nctnico]

All Siglent DSO's capable of Bode plot

Apart from the bode plots, if you had to make a case for the Siglent scope vs. the Instek, what would you say to a prospective customer?
What does your scope have that the Instek lacks?

Many things. 
It has 2 1GS/S ADC instead of one. It has more display modes. It has better vertical sensitivity.  Web control.

Nico owns GW Instek scope, but a 2000E series that is nice little scope but much more expensive.

Still it runs the same firmware as the GDS-1054B. In comparison to the model I have, the GDS-1054 has half the samplerate and you can't enable the spectrum analysis option on it.

GDS1054 has some thing going for it and it is better than, say, Rigol DS1054, but not SDS1104X-E.

You forget that the SDS1104X-E has some useability issues like decoding only what is on screen and suboptimal memory management (recording only enough data to fill the screen). Based on that alone, it is not an optimal choice for doing digital / firmware development. In this price range you'll always need to compromise somehow.

[tautech]

.............
If I were in your place I would either buy SDS1104X-E and SDG1000X AWG for more analog minded application or a MSO5000 if you are going to predominantly do microcontrollers robotics, motor control and such.
First option gives you great little scope and a 2ch real AWG and Bode plot that works really well.

Yep, our most popular budget conscious pairing, SDS1104X-E and SDG1032X and those with a little more go for SDG2042X that if both are 'improved' pushes out to the 120 MHz max of Siglent Bode plot capability.

[2N3055]

Feature set and specs determine what one can do with any instrument not how fast it can do it.

Faster means an instrument is more efficient and more enjoyable to use. So yes, being able to make measurements fast is a good feature. But it is missing from datasheets and specs. Reading specs is like judging a book by the cover. You still don't know whether you'll enjoy the book. You either have to read the book or go by the reviews (which might be skewed).

I used to own an Agilent MSO7104A (4 channel 1GHz + 16 channel MSO) which IIRC costed like $20k when new. It required endless dicking around with knobs and going through deep menus in order to configure things like decoding or math. The GW Instek GDS-2204E I bought later on was such a relief compared to the MSO7104A. The MSO7104A is long gone but I still have the GDS-2204E because it is such a pleasant oscilloscope to use.

I don't disagree that instrument that is more "enjoyable to use" will be "more enjoyable to use".. That is pretty much a truism, but is pretty undefined what it really means. Specifically there are thousands of people that "revere" Keysight scope (including one you didn't like) as best ones to use.... So that is by definition individual and very vague.

And your comparison with the book is not very good one, sorry.  Datasheet is detailed explanation of what the book is all about. It is necessary to pick a book from right genre etc..

Instrument can be very enjoyable to use (to me for instance) but if datasheet shows it has no measurement functions I need it is a moot point. People say Apple phones are joy to use but if they cannot run application my company standardizes on, then it is useless to me, enjoyable or not. 

Datasheet is absolute necessary first data point. How many channels?  Trigger input ?  And many other functions.
Only when you have several devices that all can fulfill your function then you start comparing how well they work.

Once you make a list of devices that do stuff you need and do it well, then absolutely, pick one with bigger, better screen, nicer colour, and whatever subjective, cosmetic or whatever differences there are.
But it has to be able to do the work for you first..

[balnazzar]

Feature set and specs determine what one can do with any instrument not how fast it can do it.

Faster means an instrument is more efficient and more enjoyable to use. So yes, being able to make measurements fast is a good feature. But it is missing from datasheets and specs. Reading specs is like judging a book by the cover. You still don't know whether you'll enjoy the book. You either have to read the book or go by the reviews (which might be skewed).

I used to own an Agilent MSO7104A (4 channel 1GHz + 16 channel MSO) which IIRC costed like $20k when new. It required endless dicking around with knobs and going through deep menus in order to configure things like decoding or math. The GW Instek GDS-2204E I bought later on was such a relief compared to the MSO7104A. The MSO7104A is long gone but I still have the GDS-2204E because it is such a pleasant oscilloscope to use.

I meant exactly that. It has to let you use it 'easily', so that you can focus upon your work.

Anyway, interesting and useful opinion, although the GDS-2204E is not exactly a low end instrument (~2000 eur).
Did you ever own or use comparable Siglent scopes?

[nctnico]

Feature set and specs determine what one can do with any instrument not how fast it can do it.

Faster means an instrument is more efficient and more enjoyable to use. So yes, being able to make measurements fast is a good feature. But it is missing from datasheets and specs. Reading specs is like judging a book by the cover. You still don't know whether you'll enjoy the book. You either have to read the book or go by the reviews (which might be skewed).

I used to own an Agilent MSO7104A (4 channel 1GHz + 16 channel MSO) which IIRC costed like $20k when new. It required endless dicking around with knobs and going through deep menus in order to configure things like decoding or math. The GW Instek GDS-2204E I bought later on was such a relief compared to the MSO7104A. The MSO7104A is long gone but I still have the GDS-2204E because it is such a pleasant oscilloscope to use.

I meant exactly that. It has to let you use it 'easily', so that you can focus upon your work.

Anyway, interesting and useful opinion, although the GDS-2204E is not exactly a low end instrument (~2000 eur).
Did you ever own or use comparable Siglent scopes?

That is a bit of a long story. I bought a Siglent SDS2000 (2.5k euro) when it was released. It was so horrible with no outlook on Siglent getting it fixed to an acceptable level that I more or less threw it in the bin (Siglent didn't want to take it back) and I ended up spending more money on a used A-brand scope. Nowadays Siglent scopes are better and people seem to be happy with them. OTOH, I buy test equipment to make money and I need equipment to work as expected instead of throwing me a curve ball at the worst possible moment. Based on the good experiences on this forum I recommended one of my customers to buy some Siglent gear but that turned out to be a horrible mistake. Basically they wasted their money and spend a bunch of hours on an issue that was a fault in the Siglent equipment. In the end buying A-brand equipment was cheaper. Personally I stay clear from Siglent equipment for any serious work (same for Rigol BTW) since then. Their firmware quality control just isn't good enough for me to work with.

[balnazzar]

@2N3055 [I'll avoid quoting multiple chunks]

No need to be sorry for being direct/blunt as long as one elaborates, and you did. Only allow me to say I don't know if I want to promote 'adversarial discussions'. If that means I'd like people reporting something along "I owned these scopes and I found that that one was better at such and such tasks, while the other..", then that's exactly what I wanted: usage experience.

The discussion doesn't seem to go in circles. Only recently the Instek popped up, and it's an alternative I didn't knew about. I'm trying to gather information about it. Preferably, comparative information (see below), and subjective impressions indeed.

UI responsiveness is important for me, since I had a bad experience with a scope that looked OK (for the price) on the datasheet, but had so a sluggish UI that it was basically not usable. Along the same line, the MSO5000 looked like a no-brainer for the price on the datasheet (8 MSa/s, 2 Ch awg, external trigger, 9" touch, independent channel control, and whatnot), but the same datasheet doesn't specify that it is so noisy.
 
What do 'intuitiveness' mean: that for doing a certain operation or access a certain function, you don't have to fiddle across multiple menus for two minutes.

More detail about my usage scenario: I just took a course in general electromagnetism at the university. We studie basic circuits with linear components. Now I have to take a 1-semester course in Electronics, and I'd like not to be dependent upon the laboratory at the university. Plus, I'm starting to enjoy the matter, and will likely keep studying it independently.

Now I understand that from the standpoint of a person having years upon years of experience, a beginner bothering people for a 500$-class scope may sound silly, and that any scope would be ok(-ish?) for learning, but I'm just trying to spend my (hardly earned) money the best way I can, and avoid spending more within just a few weeks or months. If I had no return options, I would have had to fling that Hantek directly into the trash, because, trust me, it was not OK for learning.

That's all.

[balnazzar]

That is a bit of a long story. I bought a Siglent SDS2000 (2.5k euro) when it was released. It was so horrible with no outlook on Siglent getting it fixed to an acceptable level that I more or less threw it in the bin (Siglent didn't want to take it back) and I ended up spending more money on a used A-brand scope. Nowadays Siglent scopes are better and people seem to be happy with them. OTOH, I buy test equipment to make money and I need equipment to work as expected instead of throwing me a curve ball at the worst possible moment. Based on the good experiences on this forum I recommended one of my customers to buy some Siglent gear but that turned out to be a horrible mistake. Basically they wasted their money and spend a bunch of hours on an issue that was a fault in the Siglent equipment. In the end buying A-brand equipment was cheaper. Personally I stay clear from Siglent equipment for any serious work (same for Rigol BTW) since then. Their firmware quality control just isn't good enough for me to work with.

Our usage cases are very different, of course. Yet, that's still an useful opinion. Thanks.

Particularly, it's significant that a professional using A-brands still finds the Instek being OK (or even enjoyable) to use.

[2N3055]

@2N3055 [I'll avoid quoting multiple chunks]

No need to be sorry for being direct/blunt as long as one elaborates, and you did. Only allow me to say I don't know if I want to promote 'adversarial discussions'. If that means I'd like people reporting something along "I owned these scopes and I found that that one was better at such and such tasks, while the other..", then that's exactly what I wanted: usage experience.

The discussion doesn't seem to go in circles. Only recently the Instek popped up, and it's an alternative I didn't knew about. I'm trying to gather information about it. Preferably, comparative information (see below), and subjective impressions indeed.

UI responsiveness is important for me, since I had a bad experience with a scope that looked OK (for the price) on the datasheet, but had so a sluggish UI that it was basically not usable. Along the same line, the MSO5000 looked like a no-brainer for the price on the datasheet (8 MSa/s, 2 Ch awg, external trigger, 9" touch, independent channel control, and whatnot), but the same datasheet doesn't specify that it is so noisy.
 
What do 'intuitiveness' mean: that for doing a certain operation or access a certain function, you don't have to fiddle across multiple menus for two minutes.

More detail about my usage scenario: I just took a course in general electromagnetism at the university. We studie basic circuits with linear components. Now I have to take a 1-semester course in Electronics, and I'd like not to be dependent upon the laboratory at the university. Plus, I'm starting to enjoy the matter, and will likely keep studying it independently.

Now I understand that from the standpoint of a person having years upon years of experience, a beginner bothering people for a 500$-class scope may sound silly, and that any scope would be ok(-ish?) for learning, but I'm just trying to spend my (hardly earned) money the best way I can, and avoid spending more within just a few weeks or months. If I had no return options, I would have had to fling that Hantek directly into the trash, because, trust me, it was not OK for learning.

That's all.

Thank you for not quoting multiple chunks.. 
As I said sorry for being blunt. Sometimes it is faster and easier but lacks finesse.. I didn't mean that you are inciting things deliberately but  that discussion kinda going that way because of not too well defined target..It tends to do that on Internet..

And now back to useful stuff.
As for scopes, there seems to be level of scopes, roughly beneath Rigol DS1000Z, that I guess are better than not having any scope but in reality nothing but toys.
If you had one of these your frustration is understandable.

In my opinion none of the scopes mentioned (even Rigol DS1000Z) are not sluggish to the point of being problem. That being said, there is a small number of people that expect absolutely instantaneous response for every function, even when with FFT settings they set scope needs 10 seconds to do capture...

GDS is nice little scope but feels outdated (a bit old school, which is not a problem per se). It has toyish look (I don't care). One thing that shows age is screen rendering, where it's digital phosphorus emulation (emulation of analog CRT) is very "digital" and is not very realistic. Some don't care, some find it it looks like a 1980es Commodore 64... I think it is usable but it definitely doesn't look anything like analog CRT scope. It also has only one AD converter that makes it sample at only 250MS/s at 4 ch.

SDS1104X-E has better screen rendering, dot mode, color grading etc.. It has 2 ADC so never samples at less than 500MS/s. It uses same processor platform as GDS. It has very good Bode plot software..

MSO5000 is more modern type of platform. Bigger screen. Touchscreen. It visible delays refreshing screen on some operations..Is it a problem to you or not I don't know. Some people like it fine, some find it unusable. I find much more expensive R&S RTB2000 slow screen updates on par with MSO5000 and both of them sometimes slowish. And usable. I don't know, never used them in a hurry, being nervous... Maybe they would be annoying then. Bode plot on MSO5000 looks like a something implemented just so it can be listed on datasheet. It nominaly has a feature but it is simplistic and not very elaborate. It has many other features though..

Having a low budget and trying to be responsible with your money is nothing to frown upon. I respect that and it is a smart thing to do. But it does limits you to a range where compromises had to be made to deliver decent instrument for that kind of money. So it is pretty much for you to decide what compromises are acceptable for you.

Looking at that last answer, you will need a complete small lab, not only scope. Make note of that, I don't know what else you have but there will be budget for that too..

best,
Sinisa

[balnazzar]

Thanks for your detailed reply. Based upon the other replies and yours, I think it's better to rule out the MSO5000.

As for the home lab, I bought two multimeters, a little soldering station with spare parts for soldering, desk mats, an arduino board with accessories, kits of linear an nonlinear components, and the Uni-T 2-channel waveform generator (30 MHz), not mentioning the little Owon 40 MHz handheld scope.

All of that already required some amount of money, which subtracts from the grand total I can allocate.

Going back to the scope, it boils down to the Siglent and the Instek. I'll think and brood a few more days about the information you all gave me (and the datasheets  ) and then I'll make a decision, aware of the fact that it will be the wrong decision, by Murphy's law.

 

[2N3055]

Thanks for your detailed reply. Based upon the other replies and yours, I think it's better to rule out the MSO5000.

As for the home lab, I bought two multimeters, a little soldering station with spare parts for soldering, desk mats, an arduino board with accessories, kits of linear an nonlinear components, and the Uni-T 2-channel waveform generator (30 MHz), not mentioning the little Owon 40 MHz handheld scope.

All of that already required some amount of money, which subtracts from the grand total I can allocate.

Going back to the scope, it boils down to the Siglent and the Instek. I'll think and brood a few more days about the information you all gave me (and the datasheets  ) and then I'll make a decision, aware of the fact that it will be the wrong decision, by Murphy's law.

It won't be wrong just maybe suboptimal... 

[balnazzar]

One thing I noticed it that Siglent's remote control seems to be pretty decent:

https://youtu.be/Cxh_Liay09E?t=132

This partly solves the problem of having a small screen on the scope itself.

I wasn't able to find any information about the Instek on that matter. Any input would be welcome.

[2N3055]

One thing I noticed it that Siglent's remote control seems to be pretty decent:

https://youtu.be/Cxh_Liay09E?t=132

This partly solves the problem of having a small screen on the scope itself.

I wasn't able to find any information about the Instek on that matter. Any input would be welcome.

That is part of old school. It does not have it.

[balnazzar]

One thing I noticed it that Siglent's remote control seems to be pretty decent:

https://youtu.be/Cxh_Liay09E?t=132

This partly solves the problem of having a small screen on the scope itself.

I wasn't able to find any information about the Instek on that matter. Any input would be welcome.

That is part of old school. It does not have it.

Thanks. I think that that makes the overall balance shift towards the Siglent.
I'll wait a further 24-48hrs not to rush things and then order the Siglent (and maybe other users will chime in, setting me back into indecision ).
The ability to fling the scope screen on my 27" inch monitor mounted on a VESA arm really is something I want to have.

Now that I think about it, it really escapes me why oscilloscopes manufacturers don't drill four holes on the back of their devices. It costs nothing, and would add a lot more practicality, rather than having the scope occupying space on the bench and getting into your way.

[Martin72]

Now that I think about it, it really escapes me why oscilloscopes manufacturers don't drill four holes on the back of their devices.

WORD 

[nctnico]

Now that I think about it, it really escapes me why oscilloscopes manufacturers don't drill four holes on the back of their devices. It costs nothing, and would add a lot more practicality, rather than having the scope occupying space on the bench and getting into your way.

AFAIK Tektronix has VESA mount holes on their oscilloscopes as a standard. But no other oscilloscope manufacturer seems to do this (does Tektronix have a patent or something?).

[balnazzar]

Now that I think about it, it really escapes me why oscilloscopes manufacturers don't drill four holes on the back of their devices. It costs nothing, and would add a lot more practicality, rather than having the scope occupying space on the bench and getting into your way.

AFAIK Tektronix has VESA mount holes on their oscilloscopes as a standard. But no other oscilloscope manufacturer seems to do this (does Tektronix have a patent or something?).

I don't think 4 holes on the back of a device can be patented..
I think I'll concoct some contraption to attach the scope to a vesa arm. It's definitely something I need.

[mwb1100]

I think I'll concoct some contraption to attach the scope to a vesa arm. It's definitely something I need.

That's a damn good idea - one of those "<slap your head> why didn't I think of that" moments.

It looks like either of these could be easily adapted to set (and strap) a scope on and bolt to a VESA mount (these are straight-up Amazon links - no embedded affiliate tags):

  - https://www.amazon.com/VIVO-Monitor-Devices-Speakers-MOUNT-SF01M/dp/B09MSWPMF7
  - https://www.amazon.com/VIVO-Monitor-Profile-Platform-Mount-SFVA1/dp/B0971PTQ63

[nctnico]

Now that I think about it, it really escapes me why oscilloscopes manufacturers don't drill four holes on the back of their devices. It costs nothing, and would add a lot more practicality, rather than having the scope occupying space on the bench and getting into your way.

AFAIK Tektronix has VESA mount holes on their oscilloscopes as a standard. But no other oscilloscope manufacturer seems to do this (does Tektronix have a patent or something?).

I don't think 4 holes on the back of a device can be patented..
I think I'll concoct some contraption to attach the scope to a vesa arm. It's definitely something I need.

You can buy shelves that bolt on Vesa arms. Random Google find:
https://www.amazon.com/VIVO-Monitor-Devices-Speakers-MOUNT-SF01M/dp/B09MSWPMF7

[balnazzar]

Good tips!

[tautech]

One thing I noticed it that Siglent's remote control seems to be pretty decent:

https://youtu.be/Cxh_Liay09E?t=132

This partly solves the problem of having a small screen on the scope itself.

I wasn't able to find any information about the Instek on that matter. Any input would be welcome.

If you haven't got LAN right there on the bench and some portability could be useful get a TP-Link TL-WN725N N150 Nano USB Wi-Fi Adapter to use in the scope.