New Oscilloscope

[VK3DRB]

Hi.

Last night my trusty HP54600B failed at power-on, just when I needed it . The SMPS is crowbar-ing, making a loud repetitive clicking sound. Part of me says "Don't be a loser. Fix it." but part of me says "You don't have time. It is false economy". I will probably fix it in my spare time sometime in the future as a backup but am interested getting new oscilloscope with more features now.

DESIRED FEATURES
A 4 channel CRO - occasionally I need more than 2 channels
Serial decoding would be convenient. Not sure how good this feature is compared to a common logic analyser like the Salae Logic.
Decent FFTs.
Higher bandwidth is better of course, but I have a good mate who will let me borrow his Tekronix 500MHz bandwidth oscilloscope whenever I want.
Reliable and trusted - no some crappy software full of bugs with bling, no crappy soldering or dodgy board layout.
Logically laid out user interface.
Am prepared to hack the new oscilloscope.

OPTIONS

1. Rigol DS1054Z
This looks like a good deal from a trusted local supplier for the 4 channel DS1054Z for about $440 USD including four options https://emona.com.au/products/electronic-test-measure/oscilloscopes/ds1054z.html. The only hack required then would be to increase bandwidth. The only issue is 100MHz is pretty slow for some of my needs, but it will get me out of trouble the majority of the time. The FFT's are pretty poor on the DS1054Z apparently, but there is a workaround to get decent FFTs... https://hackaday.com/2015/09/22/a-better-spectrum-analyzer-for-your-rigol-scope/
With these free options, can I still hack the oscilloscope from 50MHz to 100MHz by changing its model whilst keeping the free legitimate add-ons?

2. Hantek DSO4104C
I am tempted to get a Hantek DSO4104C for $66 USD more from a Hong Kong eBay vendor with a decent rating. According to an excellent hacking post on EEVBLOG, this model might still be hackable (I hope) to get at least 250MHz bandwidth and has an AWG built in.

3. Siglent sds1104x-e
Get a Siglent sds1104x-e and hack it for 200MHz.

4. Old model high-end oscilloscope like the TDS754D
Up to 1GHz bandwidth, but $2K. Very high bandwidth, but a bit expensive, big and bulky, risky second hand and they sport a diskette drive .

5. Keysight or Rhode and Schwartz (and don't tell the wife).
Better made with less issues - the oscilloscope, that is. Could get a Keysight and hack it for greater bandwidth, but at the risk of losing features as per Dave's hacking video on the Keysight. I an not sure whether the extra money for a Keysight worth it over one of the Chinese oscilloscopes.

I have read the many posts around, opinions and reviews and am confused as ever. I am a bit of a tight-arse, but am prepared to spend a little more if I get a lot more bang per buck. Any comment on which oscilloscope you would suggest? I want to end up being biased to one solution; and I believe many other readers would be interested in the results too. Cheers!

[VK5RC]

I have not played with the  Rigol scope, had a play with their Spec An. Really good value for money.
I had one of the very early lcd digital Rigol scopes and it didn't work for me. I put the money down for the Keysight (was then Agilent) MSOX3024 — I find the user interface really intuitive - it has survived my stupidity (voltage across the 'grounds') - in essence I have been very happy with it. I also get a degree of confidence in the measurements using it. Not great value for money - but a quality product.
Rob

[bob91343]

I am very happy with my ancient HP 54542A (I think it is).  It has 500 MHz BW on all four channels, FFT, lots more.

I think it was ahead of its time.  I got it for a nice price on ebay a while back.

[e0ne199]

buy Hantek DSO4104C if you want to hack it to its full potential

[Helix70]

You say you don't want firmware bugs. Sorry, it won't be a hantek, rigol or Siglent.

[tautech]

You say you don't want firmware bugs. Sorry, it won't be a hantek, rigol or Siglent.

Or a KS or R&S.

C'mon man get real. Every manufacturer has bugs. The perfect scope is get to be made.

[Ed.Kloonk]

1. Rigol DS1054Z
This looks like a good deal from a trusted local supplier for the 4 channel DS1054Z for about $440 USD including four options https://emona.com.au/products/electronic-test-measure/oscilloscopes/ds1054z.html. The only hack required then would be to increase bandwidth. The only issue is 100MHz is pretty slow for some of my needs, but it will get me out of trouble the majority of the time. The FFT's are pretty poor on the DS1054Z apparently, but there is a workaround to get decent FFTs... https://hackaday.com/2015/09/22/a-better-spectrum-analyzer-for-your-rigol-scope/
With these free options, can I still hack the oscilloscope from 50MHz to 100MHz by changing its model whilst keeping the free legitimate add-ons?

Whist I swore I would never need a DSO and that my CRO from Jaycar in the very early '90's would be all that I ever need. I went for the emona 1054z. Every fibre in my body wanted to resist the time-based trial-ware features included in the model. And going from a dual-trace CRO to a DSO with, frankly, too many buttons, I wish it had a feature like computer BIOSes now. You know, basic and advanced. Sometimes I wish the 1054z would pretend it is a old fashioned scope. Maybe I'm just an old bastard.

Once I gave the firmware a good old fashioned 'talking to', the scope was nag-free and certainly worth the price I paid and would highly recommend.

[tautech]

Am prepared to hack the new oscilloscope.

In the lost cost hackable DSO's from Siglent that meet your requirements are:
SDS1104X-E. Dual ADC's with 14 Mpts of memory each. $499
SDS2014X Plus. TrioTest doesn't list these yet but should have them soon I imagine. Hackable to 350 MHz and 2 channels can operate at 500 MHz (one on each ADC). Latest challenger to the A brands @ $1400

And the SDS2202X-E, only 2 channels with a single ADC and 28 Mpts memory but also hackable to 350 MHz. $620

These lowest BW models in each range come with lower spec probes so there may be some signal attenuation when hacked to max BW.

[tv84]

SDS2014X Plus.

This one is yet to be seen...   

But you can change a SDS2104X+ to a 70 MHz model, if you want to go lower. 

[tv84]

OPTIONS

You should also consider the trendy:

Rigol MSO5074   (Sooner or later bugs will get ironed out. Or else, it's game over for Rigol...)
Siglent SDS2104X+ (as tautech suggested )

[nctnico]

Hi.

Last night my trusty HP54600B failed at power-on, just when I needed it . The SMPS is crowbar-ing, making a loud repetitive clicking sound. Part of me says "Don't be a loser. Fix it." but part of me says "You don't have time. It is false economy". I will probably fix it in my spare time sometime in the future as a backup but am interested getting new oscilloscope with more features now.

DESIRED FEATURES
A 4 channel CRO - occasionally I need more than 2 channels
Serial decoding would be convenient. Not sure how good this feature is compared to a common logic analyser like the Salae Logic.
Decent FFTs.
Higher bandwidth is better of course, but I have a good mate who will let me borrow his Tekronix 500MHz bandwidth oscilloscope whenever I want.
Reliable and trusted - no some crappy software full of bugs with bling, no crappy soldering or dodgy board layout.
Logically laid out user interface.
Am prepared to hack the new oscilloscope.

OPTIONS

1. Rigol DS1054Z
This looks like a good deal from a trusted local supplier for the 4 channel DS1054Z for about $440 USD including four options https://emona.com.au/products/electronic-test-measure/oscilloscopes/ds1054z.html. The only hack required then would be to increase bandwidth. The only issue is 100MHz is pretty slow for some of my needs, but it will get me out of trouble the majority of the time. The FFT's are pretty poor on the DS1054Z apparently, but there is a workaround to get decent FFTs... https://hackaday.com/2015/09/22/a-better-spectrum-analyzer-for-your-rigol-scope/
With these free options, can I still hack the oscilloscope from 50MHz to 100MHz by changing its model whilst keeping the free legitimate add-ons?

2. Hantek DSO4104C
I am tempted to get a Hantek DSO4104C for $66 USD more from a Hong Kong eBay vendor with a decent rating. According to an excellent hacking post on EEVBLOG, this model might still be hackable (I hope) to get at least 250MHz bandwidth and has an AWG built in.

3. Siglent sds1104x-e
Get a Siglent sds1104x-e and hack it for 200MHz.

4. Old model high-end oscilloscope like the TDS754D
Up to 1GHz bandwidth, but $2K. Very high bandwidth, but a bit expensive, big and bulky, risky second hand and they sport a diskette drive .

5. Keysight or Rhode and Schwartz (and don't tell the wife).
Better made with less issues - the oscilloscope, that is. Could get a Keysight and hack it for greater bandwidth, but at the risk of losing features as per Dave's hacking video on the Keysight. I an not sure whether the extra money for a Keysight worth it over one of the Chinese oscilloscopes.

Add the GW Instek GDS-1054B, GDS-2074E or MSO-2074 to your list. Hackable using a key generator to get more bandwidth (300MHz on the latter two) and unlock other features (like spectrum analyser mode). Good (productive) UI, individual channel controls and really solid firmware.

If you want high bandwidth then I suggest to look at more recent Lecroy (Wavepro 7000 series) or Agilent. The Tektronix TDS500/700 are getting very old and they are hard to calibrate because you need special equipment and software.

[VK3DRB]

Thanks to all.

A friend called in the last hour and offered me a as new (hardly used) DSO5102B for $290 AUD ($200 USD), delivered to my door. He has only used it only a few times in the last few years and it is as new. 100MHz, yet to be hacked. I assume I can hack it. Bad thing is it is only 2CH, but I do have a Bitscope BS42200 spare I can get working to do the odd 4ch 100MHz measurements. I don't like the bitscope model as it is a bit old and the Ethernet connectivity is a P.I.T.A., besides not having a screen.
 
I have used a low end cheapo GW-INTEK before and found it to be horrible. Maybe the GDS-2074E or the MSO-2074 are worth investigating. If they can also work as a spectrum analyser in the one instrument that might be a bit of a bonus; although I do have a PC based one that goes to 4GHz.

[EEVblog]

I an not sure whether the extra money for a Keysight worth it over one of the Chinese oscilloscopes.

Pure bang-per-buck, no.
But if you want a nicer and more responsive and easier to use everyday scope, the Keysight wins. It's the scope I reach for if I just want to look at something.

[VK3DRB]

I an not sure whether the extra money for a Keysight worth it over one of the Chinese oscilloscopes.

Pure bang-per-buck, no.
But if you want a nicer and more responsive and easier to use everyday scope, the Keysight wins. It's the scope I reach for if I just want to look at something.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-DSOX2014A-Oscilloscope-4-channel-100MHz-/174162556528?
It says used, for around 50% off, but sold by Keysight, so it could be OK. Maybe I can hack the resistors to get 200MHz out of it.

I once bought a high end laptop "refurbished" from Dell Factory Outlet (search on Google). It was about 30% off retail and I can guarantee it has never been unpacked of switched on. It was brand new. Been a very good laptop - no problems. Maybe this Keysight is the same? "Used" might mean demo maybe.

[EEVblog]

I an not sure whether the extra money for a Keysight worth it over one of the Chinese oscilloscopes.

Pure bang-per-buck, no.
But if you want a nicer and more responsive and easier to use everyday scope, the Keysight wins. It's the scope I reach for if I just want to look at something.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-DSOX2014A-Oscilloscope-4-channel-100MHz-/174162556528?
It says used, for around 50% off, but sold by Keysight, so it could be OK. Maybe I can hack the resistors to get 200MHz out of it.

The Keysight ebay store are known for bundling in some extra's if you just ask them, so for this scope it's the DSOX2BW24 option 

[shakalnokturn]

5. Keysight or Rhode and Schwartz (and don't tell the wife).
Better made with less issues - the oscilloscope, that is. Could get a Keysight and hack it for greater bandwidth, but at the risk of losing features as per Dave's hacking video on the Keysight. I an not sure whether the extra money for a Keysight worth it over one of the Chinese oscilloscopes.

I have read the many posts around, opinions and reviews and am confused as ever. I am a bit of a tight-arse, but am prepared to spend a little more if I get a lot more bang per buck. Any comment on which oscilloscope you would suggest? I want to end up being biased to one solution; and I believe many other readers would be interested in the results too. Cheers!


Pay extra get something closer to a finished product.

[nctnico]

I an not sure whether the extra money for a Keysight worth it over one of the Chinese oscilloscopes.

Pure bang-per-buck, no.
But if you want a nicer and more responsive and easier to use everyday scope, the Keysight wins. It's the scope I reach for if I just want to look at something.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-DSOX2014A-Oscilloscope-4-channel-100MHz-/174162556528?
It says used, for around 50% off, but sold by Keysight, so it could be OK. Maybe I can hack the resistors to get 200MHz out of it.

Give the GW Instek scopes a look first. 10 times more (actual) memory depth and much easier to operate. I used to own an Agilent MSO7104A and I found it very cumbersome to use because you have to dive deep into the menu structure to set it up if you need things like math or decoding. The GW Instek scopes OTOH have two rows of buttons (vertical and horizontal) so the menu structure is very shallow and you can see what you are doing better. Unlike many other scopes GW Instek scopes have a seperate select button. When combined into one it is very easy to rotate the button when you press it. On the MSO7104A this was a major cause of irritation; I still have the GW Instek scope but I sold the MSO7104A a couple of years ago.

[tooki]

You say you don't want firmware bugs. Sorry, it won't be a hantek, rigol or Siglent.

Or a KS or R&S.

C'mon man get real. Every manufacturer has bugs. The perfect scope is get to be made.

Yeah, but if we "get real", then it's also absolutely true that the big name ones have FAR better firmware than the cheapies. They clearly invest a lot more into testing and bug fixing than the cheapies.

[nctnico]

You say you don't want firmware bugs. Sorry, it won't be a hantek, rigol or Siglent.

Or a KS or R&S.

C'mon man get real. Every manufacturer has bugs. The perfect scope is get to be made.

Yeah, but if we "get real", then it's also absolutely true that the big name ones have FAR better firmware than the cheapies. They clearly invest a lot more into testing and bug fixing than the cheapies.

Not necessarily. It depends on how you defines cheapies. If you mean brands like Owon, Hantek or Rigol (and to a lesser extend Siglent) then you are right. If you define it as 'Asian brands' then you are wrong. GW Instek and MicSig have solid firmware (where GW Instek responds quickly -a couple of weeks at most- with an update if you find a bug; I have not managed to find a bug in MicSig firmware so far so can't comment on how quick they fix things).

[tooki]

You say you don't want firmware bugs. Sorry, it won't be a hantek, rigol or Siglent.

Or a KS or R&S.

C'mon man get real. Every manufacturer has bugs. The perfect scope is get to be made.

Yeah, but if we "get real", then it's also absolutely true that the big name ones have FAR better firmware than the cheapies. They clearly invest a lot more into testing and bug fixing than the cheapies.

Not necessarily. It depends on how you defines cheapies. If you mean brands like Owon, Hantek or Rigol (and to a lesser extend Siglent) then you are right. If you define it as 'Asian brands' then you are wrong. GW Instek and MicSig have solid firmware (where GW Instek responds quickly -a couple of weeks at most- with an update if you find a bug; I have not managed to find a bug in MicSig firmware so far so can't comment on how quick they fix things).

The cheap brands the OP mentioned were Hantek, Rigol, and Siglent. I didn't say anything about origin.

[Martin72]

Yeah, but if we "get real", then it's also absolutely true that the big name ones have FAR better firmware than the cheapies. They clearly invest a lot more into testing and bug fixing than the cheapies.

Go and tell it Lecroy please, maybe then our wavesurfer would be getting bug-free at last..

And by the way, the term "buggy" is far too negative in my opinion.
It suggests that you can't work with the device, and in most cases this is completely wrong.
I´ve owned 3 different rigol models (DS1000Z, DS2000Z, MSO5000), 2 different Siglent (SDS1104X-E and my actual one, the SDS2354X+     ), a Uni-T ( my first cheap DSO in 2009, after some older lecroys) and another one, I´ve forgotten it´s name.
And they all have bugs, more or less.
But you could work with them, none of them was so "buggy" that you would throw it out of the window.
In my case it was always a matter of technical limitation I´ve explored while using them, which made me swop to another model.
Bugs are everywhere, if you spend 400 oder 4000 or even 12000 bucks for a scope.
The above mentioned wavesurfer for example, we know it´s bugs and trying to avoid them ( e.g. the bug that the scope freezes when you press "find trigger level" on lower timebases - just don´t do it.).
Untill it´s debugged.

[Helix70]

You say you don't want firmware bugs. Sorry, it won't be a hantek, rigol or Siglent.

Or a KS or R&S.

C'mon man get real. Every manufacturer has bugs. The perfect scope is get to be made.

Yes, this is true.

But.

Hand on heart, which scopes have fewer bugs? Which have more refined HMIs? Which have more money spent on the interface and user experience?  Let’s be honest.

[nctnico]

Hand on heart, which scopes have fewer bugs? Which have more refined HMIs? Which have more money spent on the interface and user experience?  Let’s be honest.

I hope you realise that these are extremely difficult questions with no clear cut answer. There are very cheap scopes which are easy to operate and there are very expensive oscilloscopes which are difficult to operate. Allow me to provide an extreme example: signal filtering. I have a Lecroy Wavepro 7300A (list price $28000) and a MicSig TO1104 (list price around $500). Both offer signal filtering. On the MicSig it is simple to setup. Works out of the box in seconds. On the Lecroy Wavepro however I have not managed to get signal filtering working even though spending quite a bit of time on it. It seems I'm even allowed to make settings which result in no signal on the Wavepro 7300A. So in the end which oscilloscope has the more refined UI? I'd vote for the MicSig one in this case.

[Helix70]

Hand on heart, which scopes have fewer bugs? Which have more refined HMIs? Which have more money spent on the interface and user experience?  Let’s be honest.

I hope you realise that these are extremely difficult questions with no clear cut answer. There are very cheap scopes which are easy to operate and there are very expensive oscilloscopes which are difficult to operate. Allow me to provide an extreme example: signal filtering. I have a Lecroy Wavepro 7300A (list price $28000) and a MicSig TO1104 (list price around $500). Both offer signal filtering. On the MicSig it is simple to setup. Works out of the box in seconds. On the Lecroy Wavepro however I have not managed to get signal filtering working even though spending quite a bit of time on it. It seems I'm even allowed to make settings which result in no signal on the Wavepro 7300A. So in the end which oscilloscope has the more refined UI? I'd vote for the MicSig one in this case.

We can all pluck out specific examples of the exception instead of the rule, but I would expect the LeCroy to offer many other examples where it wins over MicSig.

In General, the more time, effort and money a company spends on a product, the better it will be. Sometimes there are flukes, sometimes an exception, but I am generalising my experiences. Another good indicator of attention to detail, "care factor" if you will, is the documentation for a device. Jump on the KS website and check out the manuals, then compare. It isn't hard to see where at least some of the extra money is going.

[tautech]

Hand on heart, which scopes have fewer bugs? Which have more refined HMIs? Which have more money spent on the interface and user experience?  Let’s be honest.

I hope you realise that these are extremely difficult questions with no clear cut answer. There are very cheap scopes which are easy to operate and there are very expensive oscilloscopes which are difficult to operate. Allow me to provide an extreme example: signal filtering. I have a Lecroy Wavepro 7300A (list price $28000) and a MicSig TO1104 (list price around $500). Both offer signal filtering. On the MicSig it is simple to setup. Works out of the box in seconds. On the Lecroy Wavepro however I have not managed to get signal filtering working even though spending quite a bit of time on it. It seems I'm even allowed to make settings which result in no signal on the Wavepro 7300A. So in the end which oscilloscope has the more refined UI? I'd vote for the MicSig one in this case.

We can all pluck out specific examples of the exception instead of the rule, but I would expect the LeCroy to offer many other examples where it wins over MicSig.

In General, the more time, effort and money a company spends on a product, the better it will be. Sometimes there are flukes, sometimes an exception, but I am generalising my experiences. Another good indicator of attention to detail, "care factor" if you will, is the documentation for a device. Jump on the KS website and check out the manuals, then compare. It isn't hard to see where at least some of the extra money is going.

Bugs IS a very generalised word.
For basic operation few scopes have show stopping bugs now, even at release.
Add into the mix a wider feature set that some A brands don't even offer and the chance of bugs are increased until a feature gets polished as a result of customer feedback.
Today can you say KS's initial poor implementation of FRA/Bode plot has even changed at all ?
Or does their 'care factor' = zero ?