EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: bestel on August 20, 2020, 07:32:02 am
-
Hi guys,
[CONTEXT]
I'm starting my new activity as a Freelance embedded system developer, so I plain to use this scope a few month/years before I can buy better.
I think I will buy a Keysight DSOX1202G or something like that in the future.
But for now I'm struggling with an old Hameg 407-2 (old CRT 2x40Mhz / 100MS/s) hard to repair (channel 2 is dead, focus is dead, some knobs are dead, ...), so I need a cheap and good solution for the start.
[/CONTEXT]
For the digital decoding part, I will order soon a saleae logic 8 pro. I'm a big fan (I've used one previously at work, so no doubt here).
So I think I need at least a 2x100MHz / 1GS/s oscilloscope to be able to look in real time some signals, I don't really need decoding.
Maybe some FFT would be good for analyzing some noise, but won't be crucial in my application.
It will become my backup, so I don't want to mess things up.
So there is a lot of possibilities :
USED
- Tektronix 1000/2000 series - no USB - between 100€ and 200€
- Tektronix 1000B/2000B series - between 200€ and 300€
NEW
- Hantek DSO5102P - 210€ on amazon.fr
- Siglent SDS1202X-E - 400€ (little too expensive for me considering the next buy)
Well, for me the really good argument for buying an old Tektronix is the real 2 channel 1GS/s sampling, and of course the reliability.
For the idea of buying new, I don't care about fancy stuff (the 7" screen for example), but it's true they have good memory for zooming and FFT... but a 500MS/s sampling in 2 channels mode... And some folks got problems
What do you think ?
How does it really compare ?
Am I missing something ?
Thanks guys !
-
A non-working scope is a pain, and not acceptable in a commercial environment.
The combination of scope and LA is sensible, but do you need to spend money on other equipment such as evaluation boards, or signal/pattern generator, or PSUs or peripherals? It sounds like you are conserving your money to allow future purchases; that is very sensible, since you don't know what special equipment the next job will need.
Having used that combination for developing embedded systems over the decades, my opinion is that the one time you require a digitising storage scope is to capture one-off transient events. In other cases and with thoughtful design and implementation, it is possible to make signals repetitive, in which case an analogue scope is sufficient.
When looking at digital signals, your principal tools are a scope, LA, and printf() statements. The unique advantage of a scope is that it allows you to observe the analogue waveform shape, which allows you to ensure digital signal integrity. Once that has been ensured, it is possible and often better to flip to the digital domain and use the LA and printf() statements. The main requirements for digital signal integrity measurements are bandwidth and a decent probe. Given your limited resources, you could consider a hgh quality working analogue scope, e.g. a Tek 465/475/485 or Tek 24x5 which has been recapped.
When looking at analogue signals, the characteristics of the signal and signal source will determine what you need from a scope and probe. There are many types of probe, and in some circumstances it is mandatory to use special types - especially anywhere near mains voltages and where you cannot connect the UUT to mains earth via the probe's shield. Be careful to look at the cost of such probes!
You should also be aware of the limitations that a low-resolution digitising front end will have when measuring noise and similar. I suspect they might be able to measure the presence of EMI/EMC problems, but not assure their absence.
As with anything, if you understand your tools and use your imagination, you will be able to do more. See my .sig :)
-
A non-working scope is a pain, and not acceptable in a commercial environment.
The combination of scope and LA is sensible, but do you need to spend money on other equipment such as evaluation boards, or signal/pattern generator, or PSUs or peripherals? It sounds like you are conserving your money to allow future purchases; that is very sensible, since you don't know what special equipment the next job will need.
Having used that combination for developing embedded systems over the decades, my opinion is that the one time you require a digitising storage scope is to capture one-off transient events. In other cases and with thoughtful design and implementation, it is possible to make signals repetitive, in which case an analogue scope is sufficient.
When looking at digital signals, your principal tools are a scope, LA, and printf() statements. The unique advantage of a scope is that it allows you to observe the analogue waveform shape, which allows you to ensure digital signal integrity. Once that has been ensured, it is possible and often better to flip to the digital domain and use the LA and printf() statements. The main requirements for digital signal integrity measurements are bandwidth and a decent probe. Given your limited resources, you could consider a hgh quality working analogue scope, e.g. a Tek 465/475/485 or Tek 24x5 which has been recapped.
When looking at analogue signals, the characteristics of the signal and signal source will determine what you need from a scope and probe. There are many types of probe, and in some circumstances it is mandatory to use special types - especially anywhere near mains voltages and where you cannot connect the UUT to mains earth via the probe's shield. Be careful to look at the cost of such probes!
You should also be aware of the limitations that a low-resolution digitising front end will have when measuring noise and similar. I suspect they might be able to measure the presence of EMI/EMC problems, but not assure their absence.
As with anything, if you understand your tools and use your imagination, you will be able to do more. See my .sig :)
You understood my problem very well, I put a lot of money in the logic analyser (500MS/s for digital, but only 50MS/s for analog) because this will be my main usage... but I need to check the signal I'm decoding first ! :-+
This is why I thought it would be important to upgrade my current oscilloscope.
Let's consider CRT scope for the moment, how do you think they compare to Tektronix TDS1000/TDS2000/TDS1000B/TDS2000B series ?
-
Hi guys,
For the digital decoding part, I will order soon a saleae logic 8 pro. I'm a big fan (I've used one previously at work, so no doubt here).
Have you seen the Digital Discovery? It's a beast.
https://store.digilentinc.com/digital-discovery-portable-usb-logic-analyzer-and-digital-pattern-generator/ (https://store.digilentinc.com/digital-discovery-portable-usb-logic-analyzer-and-digital-pattern-generator/)
For the idea of buying new, I don't care about fancy stuff (the 7" screen for example), but it's true they have good memory for zooming and FFT... but a 500MS/s sampling in 2 channels mode... And some folks got problems
What do you think ?
How does it really compare ?
Am I missing something ?
I don't think the 500MS/s sampling in 2 channels mode is as much of a problem as you're imagining, but...
If you're definitely going to go for something higher later on then for now just get something that works. If you live in a place where you can get a working Tektronix for $200 then go for it, I'm sure you'll be able to sell it for $250 later on. I have my doubts you can find one though, the Tektronix fanboys are legion.
For new stuff: I'd stay away from Owon/Hantek. They have a reputation for massive firmware problems.
If all you want is a basic device that shows wiggly lines on a small screen then Rigol still makes that.
eg. https://www.tequipment.net/RigolDS1052E.html (https://www.tequipment.net/RigolDS1052E.html)
(nb. can be hacked to 100Mhz)
-
Let's consider CRT scope for the moment, how do you think they compare to Tektronix TDS1000/TDS2000/TDS1000B/TDS2000B series ?
It's like apples vs. oranges.
Digital devices are much more powerful tools but you often need to understand some sampling theory to get the most from them. This is where the ratio of samples:bandwidth enters into play but I'm not convinced you need the 10x ratio that's often claimed by Tektronics fanboys.
In my experience: Going from 2.5x ratio to 5x ratio can show a small difference. Going from 5x to 10x? Much less so.
-
A non-working scope is a pain, and not acceptable in a commercial environment.
The combination of scope and LA is sensible, but do you need to spend money on other equipment such as evaluation boards, or signal/pattern generator, or PSUs or peripherals? It sounds like you are conserving your money to allow future purchases; that is very sensible, since you don't know what special equipment the next job will need.
Having used that combination for developing embedded systems over the decades, my opinion is that the one time you require a digitising storage scope is to capture one-off transient events. In other cases and with thoughtful design and implementation, it is possible to make signals repetitive, in which case an analogue scope is sufficient.
When looking at digital signals, your principal tools are a scope, LA, and printf() statements. The unique advantage of a scope is that it allows you to observe the analogue waveform shape, which allows you to ensure digital signal integrity. Once that has been ensured, it is possible and often better to flip to the digital domain and use the LA and printf() statements. The main requirements for digital signal integrity measurements are bandwidth and a decent probe. Given your limited resources, you could consider a hgh quality working analogue scope, e.g. a Tek 465/475/485 or Tek 24x5 which has been recapped.
When looking at analogue signals, the characteristics of the signal and signal source will determine what you need from a scope and probe. There are many types of probe, and in some circumstances it is mandatory to use special types - especially anywhere near mains voltages and where you cannot connect the UUT to mains earth via the probe's shield. Be careful to look at the cost of such probes!
You should also be aware of the limitations that a low-resolution digitising front end will have when measuring noise and similar. I suspect they might be able to measure the presence of EMI/EMC problems, but not assure their absence.
As with anything, if you understand your tools and use your imagination, you will be able to do more. See my .sig :)
You understood my problem very well, I put a lot of money in the logic analyser (500MS/s for digital, but only 50MS/s for analog) because this will be my main usage... but I need to check the signal I'm decoding first ! :-+
This is why I thought it would be important to upgrade my current oscilloscope.
Let's consider CRT scope for the moment, how do you think they compare to Tektronix TDS1000/TDS2000/TDS1000B/TDS2000B series ?
I'm afraid I don't know those scopes, so I can't offer a valid opinion.
I will say that I hate some of the older digitising scopes, around the TDS340 class or anything from that era or earlier. I would avoid anything that uses a CCD as a digitiser, since that limits the capture depth too much.
Fungus' comment "If you're definitely going to go for something higher later on then for now just get something that works" is definitely worth considering, as I hinted above.
-
Let's consider CRT scope for the moment, how do you think they compare to Tektronix TDS1000/TDS2000/TDS1000B/TDS2000B series ?
It's like apples vs. oranges.
Digital devices are much more powerful tools but you often need to understand some sampling theory to get the most from them. This is where the ratio of samples:bandwidth enters into play but I'm not convinced you need the 10x ratio that's often claimed by Tektronics fanboys.
In my experience: Going from 2.5x ratio to 5x ratio can show a small difference. Going from 5x to 10x? Much less so.
There are two points in favour of the *10 spec. It makes the anti-aliasing filter easier, and it looks good to the uninitiated on a spec sheet. Now, are those points relevant to the end user - or not!
More important to me is that important config isn't hidden in the depths of a menuing system, and that the join-the-dots line can be turned off so I can see what the scope actually captured.
-
More important to me is that important config isn't hidden in the depths of a menuing system, and that the join-the-dots line can be turned off so I can see what the scope actually captured.
The whole point is that it's not just "join-the-dots", it's a mathematical reconstruction of the true signal. :)
-
More important to me is that important config isn't hidden in the depths of a menuing system, and that the join-the-dots line can be turned off so I can see what the scope actually captured.
The whole point is that it's not just "join-the-dots", it's a mathematical reconstruction of the true signal. :)
Oh, but it isn't :) It is a guess as to what the "true signal" is doing based on what the scope captured. It uses maths to make that guess :)
In some (corner) cases the guess can be seriously misleading :)
-
Thanks to all of you for participating :-+
If you're definitely going to go for something higher later on then for now just get something that works. If you live in a place where you can get a working Tektronix for $200 then go for it, I'm sure you'll be able to sell it for $250 later on. I have my doubts you can find one though, the Tektronix fanboys are legion.
Yes, here in France, I can find LCD Tektronix between 100€ - 300€ (or 120$ - 360$ or 90£ - 270£).
In fact yesterday I've missed a Tektronix TDS2002 1GS/s 60MHz (hackable to 100MHz) for 130€.
Digital devices are much more powerful tools but you often need to understand some sampling theory to get the most from them. This is where the ratio of samples:bandwidth enters into play but I'm not convinced you need the 10x ratio that's often claimed by Tektronics fanboys.
I agree, with a digital oscilloscope you need a better understanding of what you see (think to see).
I was a true defender of analog during the transition "analog to digital" (2006 - 2010) and I've to deal with horrible B/W LCD screens during high school... But now I understand I was a stupid little kid, digital worth the effort.
Have you seen the Digital Discovery? It's a beast.
https://store.digilentinc.com/digital-discovery-portable-usb-logic-analyzer-and-digital-pattern-generator/
Yes specs are amazing, but I love the "logic" software of salaea too much. You can try it, it will show you something to analyse (demo) when it can't find hardware.
It support a loooooooot of protocols, and you can add yours easily.
Anyway I'm glad it's not stupid to prefer an "old" used tektronix vs a brand new Hantek/Owon.
I already use a Rigol, but never a Siglent. It seems today they're in competition for the same market... But no one sell them as used.
So everybody keep them, or maybe they all dies after a couple of years I don't know :-DD
-
For those who will come here from google (or the search bar) later, I think it's "OK" to buy an old tektronix below 200€, otherwise buy new (if the drop of 500MS/s don't bother you).
Here is what we can buy new (image)
[attachimg=1]
-
FWIW my first DSO was a Tek TDS2102B some years before I started selling Siglents.
A SDS1202X-E will wipe its arse on all counts and the many dozens I sold have given few issues. IIRC just one had to be fixed under warranty.
SDS1202X-E still remains our best seller.
You mention reliability, well my Tek is busted and may never go again and what caused a trace on a 100 pin SMD IC to be corroded through can't happen on a Siglent as they are not top vented so contaminants can't fall onto the PCB.
I've fixed a few of the lunchbox TDS over the gears and flicked them on to others.
-
Ok this might sound cheap but why not fix the scope you have until the money is there to buy the scope that you want? If you can't DIY it, having somebody repair it for $100 or so would still save you money. I'm surprised that nobody has suggested this avenue.
If the current scope is simply not worth it, buying a used scope is always an option, however why is your search limited to Tektronix? There are other players in the used market and you might actually get a better deal on a performance and features basis.
-
My two most successful mixed signal embedded products ever were developed with a TDS2024B (200MHz 4ch 2GSa/s, only 2.5kpts/ch memory, colour telly) and a Logicport LA (500MHz 34 channel, 2k/ch limited sample buffer but has compression), but that was over ten years ago.
Then I discovered eevblog and contracted TEA syndrome. Am I any more productive because of the lab full of gear I have? It’s definitely a law of diminishing returns, but yes, a limited number of things are easier, before I’d be more likely to improvise alternative methods that took longer.
The scope and LA memoies (or lack of it) were probably the weakest link, but you work around that usually by generating your own triggers in your firmware by twiddling a GPIO. That’s one of the great benefits of being weaned on CROs where typically trigger options are far more limited than they are on today’s modern DSOs, so you have no choice but to be inventive.
One point on LAs like the Saleae that do a data grab is that they have limited triggering facilities, it’s more about post processing, however I always feel that you’re missing out a lot on not being able to harness the power of more complex triggers afforded by many scopes. More of a problem with the low end Saleaes is that they lack sample rate.
-
FWIW my first DSO was a Tek TDS2102B some years before I started selling Siglents.
A SDS1202X-E will wipe its arse on all counts and the many dozens I sold have given few issues. IIRC just one had to be fixed under warranty.
SDS1202X-E still remains our best seller.
You mention reliability, well my Tek is busted and may never go again and what caused a trace on a 100 pin SMD IC to be corroded through can't happen on a Siglent as they are not top vented so contaminants can't fall onto the PCB.
I've fixed a few of the lunchbox TDS over the gears and flicked them on to others.
The RIgol DS1202Z-E is now 50€ cheaper than the siglent here, and come with better probe. You could say to me that the Siglent has better wfms/s... I think (for the moment) that the day I'll buy new it will be a keysight or tektronix... But never say never :P
Ok this might sound cheap but why not fix the scope you have until the money is there to buy the scope that you want? If you can't DIY it, having somebody repair it for $100 or so would still save you money. I'm surprised that nobody has suggested this avenue.
If the current scope is simply not worth it, buying a used scope is always an option, however why is your search limited to Tektronix? There are other players in the used market and you might actually get a better deal on a performance and features basis.
The first thing I tried is of course to fix my scope. But when I saw that the channel 2 was dead... But ok, why not taking the service manual, the thing is : this model has a horrible design, you need to dismount everything to get what you wanted first... Hope I won't need a real scope to fix my scope, maybe the 50MS/s of the saleae -10v/+10v will be enought !
My search is not limited to tektronix, this is just the most popular one... If you know a good reference that will fit my need please tell me !
I saw a Tektronix tds380 for 250€, this is a real monster (specs are amazing, but the size...) :o
I'm looking for something that do not take 90% of my desktop >:D
My two most successful mixed signal embedded products ever were developed with a TDS2024B (200MHz 4ch 2GSa/s, only 2.5kpts/ch memory, colour telly) and a Logicport LA (500MHz 34 channel, 2k/ch limited sample buffer but has compression), but that was over ten years ago.
Then I discovered eevblog and contracted TEA syndrome. Am I any more productive because of the lab full of gear I have? It’s definitely a law of diminishing returns, but yes, a limited number of things are easier, before I’d be more likely to improvise alternative methods that took longer.
The scope and LA memoies (or lack of it) were probably the weakest link, but you work around that usually by generating your own triggers in your firmware by twiddling a GPIO. That’s one of the great benefits of being weaned on CROs where typically trigger options are far more limited than they are on today’s modern DSOs, so you have no choice but to be inventive.
One point on LAs like the Saleae that do a data grab is that they have limited triggering facilities, it’s more about post processing, however I always feel that you’re missing out a lot on not being able to harness the power of more complex triggers afforded by many scopes. More of a problem with the low end Saleaes is that they lack sample rate.
The new beta software have new option for triggering on data with "Logic version 2", and I will get the 8 pro version with 500MS/s on digital signals, this is why I need a real scope because it's 50MS/s only for analog. I'm not a reseller, I just love them ^-^
-
FWIW my first DSO was a Tek TDS2102B some years before I started selling Siglents.
A SDS1202X-E will wipe its arse on all counts and the many dozens I sold have given few issues. IIRC just one had to be fixed under warranty.
SDS1202X-E still remains our best seller.
You mention reliability, well my Tek is busted and may never go again and what caused a trace on a 100 pin SMD IC to be corroded through can't happen on a Siglent as they are not top vented so contaminants can't fall onto the PCB.
I've fixed a few of the lunchbox TDS over the gears and flicked them on to others.
The RIgol DS1202Z-E is now 50€ cheaper than the siglent here, and come with better probe. You could say to me that the Siglent has better wfms/s... I think (for the moment) that the day I'll buy new it will be a keysight or tektronix... But never say never :P
I could say that but why, you already know it. ;)
However you did mention FFT, did you notice the Z-E datasheet doesn't even mention the # of FFT points as it must be low like in the 54Z whereas the SDS1202X-E is among the best in this class with 1 Mpts FFT....and that's not worth an extra 50 Euro ? :-//
-
FWIW my first DSO was a Tek TDS2102B some years before I started selling Siglents.
A SDS1202X-E will wipe its arse on all counts and the many dozens I sold have given few issues. IIRC just one had to be fixed under warranty.
SDS1202X-E still remains our best seller.
You mention reliability, well my Tek is busted and may never go again and what caused a trace on a 100 pin SMD IC to be corroded through can't happen on a Siglent as they are not top vented so contaminants can't fall onto the PCB.
I've fixed a few of the lunchbox TDS over the gears and flicked them on to others.
The RIgol DS1202Z-E is now 50€ cheaper than the siglent here, and come with better probe. You could say to me that the Siglent has better wfms/s... I think (for the moment) that the day I'll buy new it will be a keysight or tektronix... But never say never :P
I could say that but why, you already know it. ;)
However you did mention FFT, did you notice the Z-E datasheet doesn't even mention the # of FFT points as it must be low like in the 54Z whereas the SDS1202X-E is among the best in this class with 1 Mpts FFT....and that's not worth an extra 50 Euro ? :-//
Haha, you're a good seller.
Nope sir, it's not ;D
For me the memory is not a "must have".
I search in that order : good brand, good sampling, good bandwidth and good rise time.
But i'm ready to change my mind ^-^
-
For me the memory is not a "must have".
I search in that order : good brand, good sampling, good bandwidth and good rise time.
:o :scared:
Good memory depth is the real power of a DSO which is why the modern offerings are so popular and the A brands are yet to catch up.
Just a couple decades back 10's of Kpts was considered satisfactory while today those that embrace DSO's look for as much as they can get where for $1k you can have 200+ Mpts.
-
Very sensible points around. I know you didn't mention this, but would a USB scope be an option? If so, a "stop gap" option that can be had on the cheap *new* is the Owon VDS1022 or VDS1022I (USB isolated).
These oscilloscopes do not have very large memory depth (25kpts 5kpts) and are 25MHz, but their PC software is very well made, easy to use and there is a thread around where some folks were able to customize it. One advantage is that they have much less parts to fail, and could even be used to repair your Hameg if you wish to do so.
Another option is a used Rigol DS1052E/1102E if you can get one cheap and in good shape. This also does not have deep memory (25kpts IIRC 1Mpts) but it has higher bandwidth (50 or 100MHz).
I have the Owon and had the Rigol. Both serve/served me well.
Another manufacturer that is usually mentioned is GW Instek: their models GDS1054B or GDS1072B have equivalent prices, tend to be a tad cheaper than the Siglent and their usability is praised. I don't have one, but other folks mention their very reasonable quality and usability.
Good luck in your decision!
-
Very sensible points around. I know you didn't mention this, but would a USB scope be an option? If so, a "stop gap" option that can be had on the cheap *new* is the Owon VDS1022 or VDS1022I (USB isolated).
These oscilloscopes do not have very large memory depth (25kpts) and are 25MHz, but their PC software is very well made, easy to use and there is a thread around where some folks were able to customize it. One advantage is that they have much less parts to fail, and could even be used to repair your Hameg if you wish to do so.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-vds1022i-quick-teardown-(versus-the-hantek-6022be)/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/owon-vds1022i-quick-teardown-(versus-the-hantek-6022be)/)
Memory depth is 5kpts by the way, not 25, but USB isolation is a big strength.
florentbr's S/W is the current 'state of the art' by the way. It runs on pretty much all platforms... https://github.com/florentbr/OWON-VDS1022 (https://github.com/florentbr/OWON-VDS1022)
-
For me the memory is not a "must have".
I search in that order : good brand, good sampling, good bandwidth and good rise time.
:o :scared:
Good memory depth is the real power of a DSO which is why the modern offerings are so popular and the A brands are yet to catch up.
Just a couple decades back 10's of Kpts was considered satisfactory while today those that embrace DSO's look for as much as they can get where for $1k you can have 200+ Mpts.
I'm interested, do you have a "real world" measurements benchmark between low Kpts vs new Mpts?
Another option is a used Rigol DS1052E/1102E if you can get one cheap and in good shape. This also does not have deep memory (25kpts IIRC) but it has higher bandwidth (50 or 100MHz).
Why not, I will take a look at it. Beside memory, old tektronix have better specs !
-
Memory depth is 5kpts by the way, not 25, but USB isolation is a big strength.
Thanks, Gyro. I corrected my post.
One of the aspects of buying the Owon is that, given the software is not tied to the manufacturer anymore, it can potentially be perpetually supported. Not to mention its usability is very good and it really has a smooth responsiveness.
Another option is a used Rigol DS1052E/1102E if you can get one cheap and in good shape. This also does not have deep memory (25kpts IIRC) but it has higher bandwidth (50 or 100MHz).
Why not, I will take a look at it. Beside memory, old tektronix have better specs !
You may want to check Rigol's clearance online store. I think they give warranty.
https://shop.rigol.eu/clearance/
-
For me the memory is not a "must have".
I search in that order : good brand, good sampling, good bandwidth and good rise time.
:o :scared:
Good memory depth is the real power of a DSO which is why the modern offerings are so popular and the A brands are yet to catch up.
Just a couple decades back 10's of Kpts was considered satisfactory while today those that embrace DSO's look for as much as they can get where for $1k you can have 200+ Mpts.
I'm interested, do you have a "real world" measurements benchmark between low Kpts vs new Mpts?
Namely capture depth for waveform analysis.
Even at 1 GSa/s memory depth gets consumed very quickly so captures are very short in relation to real time where for example you might want to examine a series of data bursts or look for an event or multiples of it.
Without deep memory we can only see a very small slice in time.
Some screenshots and captures in this thread may be of interest WRT mem depth discussion:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2202x-e-know-bugs/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2202x-e-know-bugs/)
Another option is a used Rigol DS1052E/1102E if you can get one cheap and in good shape. This also does not have deep memory (25kpts IIRC) but it has higher bandwidth (50 or 100MHz).
DS1052E has 1 Mpts which in their day was a revelation for a cheap DSO, then Siglent came out with the 2 Mpts SDS1102CM ....and so on until today.
-
Another option is a used Rigol DS1052E/1102E if you can get one cheap and in good shape. This also does not have deep memory (25kpts IIRC) but it has higher bandwidth (50 or 100MHz).
DS1052E has 1 Mpts which in their day was a revelation for a cheap DSO, then Siglent came out with the 2 Mpts SDS1102CM ....and so on until today.
Sorry, my memory keeps failing me. I'll shut up now. :-[
-
Another option is a used Rigol DS1052E/1102E if you can get one cheap and in good shape. This also does not have deep memory (25kpts IIRC) but it has higher bandwidth (50 or 100MHz).
DS1052E has 1 Mpts which in their day was a revelation for a cheap DSO, then Siglent came out with the 2 Mpts SDS1102CM ....and so on until today.
Sorry, my memory keeps failing me. I'll shut up now. :-[
Don't as we each have something to offer those that are trying to get their heads around the complexities of the current DSO offerings let alone understand how a DSO works and the relationship between GSa/s and mem depth.
-
DS1052E has 1 Mpts which in their day was a revelation for a cheap DSO, then Siglent came out with the 2 Mpts SDS1102CM ....and so on until today.
The OP has already said he's looking for something cheap to keep him going until he saves up enough to get a real oscilloscope (moving straight past the SDS1xxx). :horse:
-
Another option is a used Rigol DS1052E/1102E if you can get one cheap and in good shape. This also does not have deep memory (25kpts IIRC) but it has higher bandwidth (50 or 100MHz).
DS1052E has 1 Mpts which in their day was a revelation for a cheap DSO, then Siglent came out with the 2 Mpts SDS1102CM ....and so on until today.
Sorry, my memory keeps failing me. I'll shut up now. :-[
Don't as we each have something to offer those that are trying to get their heads around the complexities of the current DSO offerings let alone understand how a DSO works and the relationship between GSa/s and mem depth.
I found that I took "bad habits", I mean using DSO like analog scope : never zoom in / out, and retake a single shot for inspection.
But after I've done some research, I will totally consider memory depth for my next "real/pro" purchase.
For now I still search for a not overpriced old Tektronix... I also search for agilent/keysight, ... Maybe Rigol and Siglent ?
I saw a video on youtube titled "Oscilloscope performance vs. specifications", and this is also my feeling :
I see really good specs with Siglent/Rigol, even Owon and Unit-t, but how do they compare in real life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CDJbi8E0UE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CDJbi8E0UE)
In his video, we see that specs aren't the only parameter, because we just know the "maximum" rating, not the rating we'll have for our measure.
I will continue my research and post my thought here...
-
I see really good specs with Siglent/Rigol, even Owon and Unit-t, but how do they compare in real life?
Owon and Uni-T aren't well regarded because the raw numbers on the sales brochure don't tell the whole story. Firmware with a decent amount of features that that isn't constantly locking up counts too.
-
I found that I took "bad habits", I mean using DSO like analog scope : never zoom in / out, and retake a single shot for inspection.
But after I've done some research, I will totally consider memory depth for my next "real/pro" purchase.
Good, understanding the features of what a good DSO offers is key to making good purchase choices.
I saw a video on youtube titled "Oscilloscope performance vs. specifications", and this is also my feeling
Well yes it's an old video however it does offer some good core DSO understanding but 7 years later today there are now offerings that were barely dreamed of in 2013.
Pricing has mostly remained unchanged but feature sets have improved immensely.
-
But after I've done some research, I will totally consider memory depth for my next "real/pro" purchase.
Lots of memory is good but some of the best oscilloscopes really don't have much memory (Keysight), they're just better at being able to capture the interesting parts of the signal.
-
I think we need to make some measurements become a standard when reviewing a scope.
Testing max bandwidth with frequency folding in mind, testing the peak detect, ...
Specs are good (when they are true) but not enough, it would be fun to make a board that can "auto test" a scope and give a score at the end...
-
Yep you will always get a better deal on a used piece of gear.
For the lower performance scopes it still makes sense to buy new since you get a new scope with warranty and all for around 400 bucks(if you can afford it that is). But when it comes to higher performance scopes of >300 MHz it can get pretty hard to justify a brand new scope as the prices start go up exponentially.
But when it comes to high performance scopes, i find that you often don't need the power of a high end scope in day to day work. So the clunky interface of an old high performance scope can be fine too as long as you also have a good modern low performance "daily driver scope". So instead of buying a stopgap scope towards a nice scope it might make sense to buy this daily driver scope now and then later on pick up an old high performance scope on the used market when you need it.
My own daily driver scope is a Agilent MSO6034A. Pretty old scope that is still modern enough to have most of the X3000 series functionality.
-
I think we need to make some measurements become a standard when reviewing a scope.
Testing max bandwidth with frequency folding in mind, testing the peak detect, ...
We each have different ways of evaluating the basic performance of a scope however the modern scope is more than just a scope so where must we begin and stop. For the online reviewer I challenge any to know a modern scope well within a week which is why Dave limits his reviews to basic functionality and a browse over the feature set.
There are some quite good reviews online but in most cases reviewers have owned and used that particular instrument for some time before attempting to make a video. Those that haven't well demonstrate their unfamiliarity with the scope. |O
Specs are good (when they are true) but not enough,
Trust A and B rand specs to be a very accurate representation of the scopes capability, why wouldn't you when their brand reputation is at stake ?
Datasheets and manuals generally tell most of the full story yet omissions of some specs can be revealing so proper comparisons between competing models really need datasheets printed and specs ticked off one by one to reveal what's missing in one or the other. Beware of terminology too as 2 datasheets might not describe the same spec with the same words.
it would be fun to make a board that can "auto test" a scope and give a score at the end...
The subject is so vast such a board would be so complex and most likely not represent how I .....or you might use a scope.
We each have our own workflow and approach measurement problems from different paths and to add to this not all scopes work in the same manner.
-
... For the online reviewer I challenge any to know a modern scope well within a week which is why Dave limits his reviews to basic functionality and a browse over the feature set.
There are some quite good reviews online but in most cases reviewers have owned and used that particular instrument for some time before attempting to make a video. Those that haven't well demonstrate their unfamiliarity with the scope.
That's pretty much the case, and brings some corollaries:
- the complexity is an impediment for a beginner that doesn't understand the fundamentals of scopes
- the complexity can lull those with some experience into various more subtle errors[1]. Ditto those that lack understanding of fundamental theory
- the complexity represents a learning curve even for experienced users, and doubly so for beginners
- it is difficult to get a decent comparative review of scopes
- it is likely that those who make very definite statements are only familiar with one brand and/or type of scope
[1] gliding instructors (and probably more) know that dealing with inexperienced Bloggs is easier that dealing with Bloggs that are nearing going solo. The former make simple obvious mistakes; the latter make more surprising (and dangerous) mistakes.
-
My own daily driver scope is a Agilent MSO6034A. Pretty old scope that is still modern enough to have most of the X3000 series functionality.
I run an MSO7104B as my daily driver, so the same scope as yours, but with a bigger telly, and that's despite having a reasonable selection of other more modern and better specified scopes (including an MSOX3104T that's also out on the bench). It's the 7104B that used before anything else because its UI is so straightforward and responsive, and it boots faster.
-
I run an MSO7104B as my daily driver, so the same scope as yours, but with a bigger telly, and that's despite having a reasonable selection of other more modern and better specified scopes (including an MSOX3104T that's also out on the bench). It's the 7104B that used before anything else because its UI is so straightforward and responsive, and it boots faster.
Yep i would ideally want a MSO7104 as a daily driver, but that 6000 was the best 2nd hand scope i could find for a good price back then. But it has stuck with me because that boot time and fast UI makes it the fastest at getting the job done. Hence these old 5000/6000/7000 series scopes still fetch a fairly high price on ebay these days.
-
But after I've done some research, I will totally consider memory depth for my next "real/pro" purchase.
Lots of memory is good but some of the best oscilloscopes really don't have much memory (Keysight), they're just better at being able to capture the interesting parts of the signal.
It's the law of diminishing returns IMHO. Being able to stop the scope and still see the trace is the killer feature of a DSO over a CRO. Then having 10k points over just a screen full. Then having 1M points over 10k points. But the benefit of having 100M points over 1M points isn't really such a step change, more of a nice to have.
The other thing about the Keysights is the automatic management of deep memory, having the option of manual configuration taken away from you actually improves your workflow, and the scope always uses all of its memory anyway. With other scopes, particularly Tek, I find myself continually having to adjust the memory depth for each situation, not least because it's so darned slow. It's difficult to fall in love with another scope once you've experienced a Keysight.
-
I've always enjoyed working in the lab with scopes and such, but ~20 years ago executive management moved me out to teach others and develop new chips ???
They said I was worth more outside the lab and the bottom line is all that mattered, so in front of a computer screen I went :o
I retired last year and got a couple old HP34401s to repair, then a couple Tek 2465 scopes to fix. Never had a chance to play with any of the new DSOs, although I did use an old LeCroy (rebranded Siglent I found out) when I need to "capture" a waveform now and then (wasn't impressed tho).
Figuring I need a new DSO, I've studied all the posts here on the various scopes and decided on the Siglent SDS2104X Plus only to find out it was backordered, so got the SDS2102X Plus which was in stock. I needed to do some work for someone working a university research project right away, so needed the scope.
After a week with this new DSO I must say I'm impressed. Will it replace my Tek 2465....probably not, but already has shown so much capability it will likely take much more of my "scope time" away from the Tek 2465 than I would have thought ::)
Can't say much about the other DSOs (suspect they are all really good), but this SDS2102X Plus is much better than I thought, and that's coming from an old diehard analog type :-+
Best,
-
Yep this "always using max memory and always running max speed" is also one of the things that makes the Agilent/Keysight scopes feel a lot like an analog scope.
Not only you never need to tell it how much memory to use, but it doesn't even let you use less than max memory because there is no menu to even set it. The point is that all of the sample memory is inside the acquisition ASIC, this means that there is such massive memory bandwidth available so the ASIC can render the entire memory to screen within pretty much a single LCD refresh cycle, yet as a downside this limits the amount of memory before the ASIC die would start becoming too big. But with the 8Mpts of memory on my MSO6000 i can't say i ever had a situation where i really needed more memory than that. Its still plenty enough memory to single shot capture a long busy waveform and then zoom into parts of it for a closer look. I gladly take the "small" sample memory in return for the responsive UI. Pretty much every touch of a knob responds on the screen instantaneously (Like literally the next LCD refresh, faster than the blink of an eye) this is what makes it feel so much like its an analog scope, yet you can still freeze the waveform whenever you want.
I have another scope with 1000Mpts of waveform memory and i have yet to use it for anything useful. Using full memory makes the screen update turn into more of a fast paced slideshow of a few frames per second, but when you turn on a software feature like serial decode or math channels or even some automates measurements the thing suddenly slows down to seconds per frame! Turning on a bunch of them and you can literally end up waiting for more than a minute for the screen to update! So even if you have all the memory you would ever want it still pays off to set up segmented acquisition and do it with less memory because its more practical.
-
but I need to check the signal I'm decoding first ! :-+
It probably depends what exactly you want to look at. One of the problems that I found with some of the cheaper old scopes is that they did not show clock edges very accurately. I ended up getting a Hameg HZ 60 scope tester which generated a good low overshoot square wave to test them - yes this was a long time ago. The newest scope I have which is a Picoscope 3206B does not do too bad a job, but is not up to a 1980s Philips!
In practice, the probe setup is often the bigger issue.
-
Can't say much about the other DSOs (suspect they are all really good), but this SDS2102X Plus is much better than I thought, and that's coming from an old diehard analog type
I got an SDS2104X plus in nearly two weeks ago. I have the same feelings, it's certainly impressed me. A shame you couldn't get the 4 channel version :-(
The front end produces super crisp waveforms, when I first got it I thought the timebase must have stopped! It's reasonably responsive for most use cases too. Touch screen gesturing is pretty crap, although single finger prodding operations such as accessing menus are OK, which it needs to be because a lot of functionality isn't available form the front panel buttons.
-
Can't say much about the other DSOs (suspect they are all really good), but this SDS2102X Plus is much better than I thought, and that's coming from an old diehard analog type
I got an SDS2104X plus in nearly two weeks ago. I have the same feelings, it's certainly impressed me. A shame you couldn't get the 4 channel version :-(
The front end produces super crisp waveforms, when I first got it I thought the timebase must have stopped! It's reasonably responsive for most use cases too. Touch screen gesturing is pretty crap, although single finger prodding operations such as accessing menus are OK, which it needs to be because a lot of functionality isn't available form the front panel buttons.
Needed 3 traces right off to plot a 16 bit DAC output voltage vs. the position feedback sensor voltage and the high drive voltage for the piezo element stage. This is a nanometer level positioning controller based upon a piezo electric element for supporting a university research project (for someone), each DAC step represents 4 nanometers. With the scope traces you can see the feedback voltage perfectly follows the DAC command voltage and the piezo element non-linearity and hysteresis in the driver voltage, had to use 2 different plots to show this with the 2 channels. If I had waited for the 4 channel I'd still be waiting since they are still backordered.
I did look at the pulse response and compared to the Tek 2465 (after upgrading the BW to 350MHz), pretty much the same response.
Agree the gesturing is useless, but the prodding seems to work OK, and the Bode is very slow.
Best
-
A little list of all scope I'm looking for ;D
-
Apparently you can get a new Rigol DS1102Z-E for 215 Euros.
(on Aliexpress)
-
A little list of all scope I'm looking for ;D
Good work.
Now you need examine specs a little more closely and the feature sets. ;)
-
Yep, you will always get a better deal on a used piece of gear.
This completely depends on where you live.
Here in NZ, the options for buying second-hand gear are very scarce. And when you do see it for sale it is usually overpriced.
I just searched our local buy/sell site for scopes and this "bargain" popped up.
For that money, you would get a much much nicer Siglent or similar with a warranty and it won't use 3 square feet of your bench and 500W to run.
-
If you buy a 15+ year old scope you are likely to get a small memory depth and slow update rate, and you'll probably be saving for your new keysight right from the start.
If you spend the EUR400 for the siglent. there is a good chance it's "good enough" for multiple years, and you may never need a "better" scope.
And if you upgrade later, you can still sell it for a good 2nd hand price.
-
If you buy a 15+ year old scope you are likely to get a small memory depth and slow update rate, and you'll probably be saving for your new keysight right from the start.
If you spend the EUR400 for the siglent. there is a good chance it's "good enough" for multiple years, and you may never need a "better" scope.
And if you upgrade later, you can still sell it for a good 2nd hand price.
"The plan" is to buy for 1 year (or less) and then re-sell when I'm ready to buy the real one (or my business does not works).
The advantage of buying an used tektronix/keysight/agilent/... is the "no money lost", because normally I will be able to sell it at the same price I've bought it... If I bought it at a good price of course...
In both cases I know my first scope will not be enough for all my use cases... this is why I ask for your help to found a "good offer", but it seems there is no "magic" :P
-
Hi guys!
Just an update, I just picked up a dead free Metrix Scopix OX 7104-C... No charger, battery was dead... I dismount it, check some datasheet for not destroying it before putting 12V in place of the dead NiMh and it works well!
It's a CDD based osciloscope, but specs are good for a free one ^-^
Bandwidth of 4 x 100MHz, 4 x 1 GS/s with 12 bits of resolution (thanks to the CDD design) and all input are ground isolated.
I think I will be OK ;D
-
That seems to be an excellent acquisition! Congratulations!
-
Thanks for reporting back.
With that you will be able to learn a lot about scopes and electronics.
As with any tool, you will find it has limitations. With skill and imagination you will be able to work around many of the limitations. When you find something you cannot workaround, you will have discovered what you need, and you will be in a better postition to specify what your next tool must have.
Do make sure you have appropriate probes for your task, and use the scope safely. See https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/library-2/scope-probe-reference-material/ for practical and safety pointers. At a quick glance that scope appears to be one of the few which avoid the traditional dangers when probing near mains - but you should RTFM about that! If that really is the case then you will probably want to keep that scope even if you buy another.
-
But after I've done some research, I will totally consider memory depth for my next "real/pro" purchase.
Lots of memory is good but some of the best oscilloscopes really don't have much memory (Keysight), they're just better at being able to capture the interesting parts of the signal.
It's the law of diminishing returns IMHO. Being able to stop the scope and still see the trace is the killer feature of a DSO over a CRO. Then having 10k points over just a screen full. Then having 1M points over 10k points. But the benefit of having 100M points over 1M points isn't really such a step change, more of a nice to have.
I sometimes get involved in the use of a scope that isn't exactly electronics. For example phase adjustments and timing setup on high speed packaging machinery. These are not MHz class signals but interestingly how a storage scope behaves can be interesting in these low speed signal.
The other thing about the Keysights is the automatic management of deep memory, having the option of manual configuration taken away from you actually improves your workflow, and the scope always uses all of its memory anyway. With other scopes, particularly Tek, I find myself continually having to adjust the memory depth for each situation, not least because it's so darned slow. It's difficult to fall in love with another scope once you've experienced a Keysight.
I've never had the pleasure of a Keysight but I have to wonder if your experiences might align with mind in that sometimes you really wish that the scope would be have differently when capturing digitally. It has been sometime since I had to deal with this struggle, so I can't remember what the exact frustration was but it seemed to involve a mode switch as the time based was slowed down.
-
The other thing about the Keysights is the automatic management of deep memory, having the option of manual configuration taken away from you actually improves your workflow, and the scope always uses all of its memory anyway. With other scopes, particularly Tek, I find myself continually having to adjust the memory depth for each situation, not least because it's so darned slow. It's difficult to fall in love with another scope once you've experienced a Keysight.
I've never had the pleasure of a Keysight but I have to wonder if your experiences might align with mind in that sometimes you really wish that the scope would be have differently when capturing digitally. It has been sometime since I had to deal with this struggle, so I can't remember what the exact frustration was but it seemed to involve a mode switch as the time based was slowed down.
There is some mutuality between the automatic memory management, and the fact that Keysight Infiniivision scopes have a very responsive UI. On Teks, for example, as soon as you start using deep memory, they become sluggish. Once you start adding a serial decode, which for me is a very common use case, you have to start weighing up the pros and cons of having a 10kpt buffer (reasonably fast) compared to a 100k, 1M or 20Mpt buffer (increasingly like swimming in treacle). With the Keysight, it's always responsive, not just the UI, but the decode too, so there's no downside to it using the entire memory.
In a recent firmware update, Keysight introduced Digitizer functionality on their 3000T series that does let you manually set both the sample rate (from 2kSa/s to 5GSa/s in 24 steps) and memory depth (from 200pts to 4Mpts is 16 steps) independently. I've never found the need for it, but I'd be interested to understand the use cases for it.
-
Im guessing the "digitizeer functionality" is useful for people who run it as part of a automated test setup over SCPI commands. You might want to run at certain exact sample rate that your software wants to use and you might not want to transfer so much data to use full memory.
But yeah this UI responsiveness is something that is hard to put into the numbers of a datasheet. Just simply if someone places a bunch of different scopes on your bench and tells you "use whichever one you want" you will end up using the one with the quickest UI even if it might not be the highest performance scope. You can tolerate a slow UI for times where you need a really high spec scope with like 40GS/s and 8GHz of bandwidth since whatever you measure with such a scope probably also needs a ton of fancy probing setup anyway, so whats a few more seconds of pushing buttons on a scope.
-
if someone places a bunch of different scopes on your bench and tells you "use whichever one you want" you will end up using the one with the quickest UI even if it might not be the highest performance scope.
This. I have a 20GHz scope on the bench stack ready to go, but it gets used <0.5% of the time.
-
After reading forums and reviews I tried and returned a Rigol DS1202Z-E. It seemed slow and clunky. One of the major problems with software scopes is the lack knobs for controls, instead when have hierarchical menu trees. The AC/DC coupling input option should have a mechanical switch, not be just menu software controlled. Clicking Auto, to get the scope in range, should switch the scope from AC coupling to DC coupling.
So now I have ordered a Keysight DSOX1202G, since I still need a small and light scope that can easily be put away. I much prefer the old Tektronix Analog scopes for each of use, but they are too big and heavy for my current needs (and limited space).
Added comment, the reason for choosing a Keysight DSOX1202G scope over other options: Perceived reliability, user ergonomic interface and support.
-
That is not to say that Keysight scopes have the best UI layout tho. Some settings are still burried pretty deep.
One that bugs me is trigger settings. In all these X series and the old 5000/6000/7000 series have the trigger channel buried under trigger->channel->twist knob to select. On the Keysight Infiniium scopes there is a little trigger section on the front panel that directly sets the basic trigger settings. If you want to trigger on a different channel just hit the 'Source' button until the LED at the desired channel lights up. If you want to change the edge just hit the 'Slope' button until the right combination of edge indicator LEDs above it show up. If you want to go between manual or auto trigger just kit the 'Sweep' and see the appropriate one light up above it. When the trigger fires it also blinks a LED behind the "Trig'd" text to give you a nice visual indication from a far that the trigger is doing its thing.
In my opinion having a dedicated section for trigger like that makes it feel more like a analog scope where you can set the trigger by flipping switches. No dicking around in menus, just hit a button and done. And yet they only do this nice fast trigger panel on the big Windows PC based Infiniium scopes that are clunky and slow to set up due to having to set up everything else trough a touchscreen and countless deep menus (they kinda have to tho due to the amount of features). Yet i can't get these nice trigger buttons on the lower end scopes that i use to for quick poking around where having these quick trigger controls would be the most useful.
-
That is not to say that Keysight scopes have the best UI layout tho. Some settings are still burried pretty deep.
One that bugs me is trigger settings. In all these X series and the old 5000/6000/7000 series have the trigger channel buried under trigger->channel->twist knob to select. On the Keysight Infiniium scopes there is a little trigger section on the front panel that directly sets the basic trigger settings. If you want to trigger on a different channel just hit the 'Source' button until the LED at the desired channel lights up. If you want to change the edge just hit the 'Slope' button until the right combination of edge indicator LEDs above it show up. If you want to go between manual or auto trigger just kit the 'Sweep' and see the appropriate one light up above it. When the trigger fires it also blinks a LED behind the "Trig'd" text to give you a nice visual indication from a far that the trigger is doing its thing.
In my opinion having a dedicated section for trigger like that makes it feel more like a analog scope where you can set the trigger by flipping switches. No dicking around in menus, just hit a button and done. And yet they only do this nice fast trigger panel on the big Windows PC based Infiniium scopes that are clunky and slow to set up due to having to set up everything else trough a touchscreen and countless deep menus (they kinda have to tho due to the amount of features). Yet i can't get these nice trigger buttons on the lower end scopes that i use to for quick poking around where having these quick trigger controls would be the most useful.
Well said!
I hear people trumpeting about how Keysight scopes are easy to use.. I have 3000T and it is not easy to use. It took me quite some time to memorize where what is and how to get there.
All these scopes nowadays have just too many options and functions, everything is few menus deep..
Only saving grace is individual chanel controls, but if you pay attention, I realized I lose more time with other functions, like setting up measurements, cursors, triggering....
I'm more and more believer that hieratically well laid out touch screen interface is the only option for faster and more logical work with modern scopes...
-
I haven't used any of the new touchscreen X series scopes. The one at work is a regular MSOX3000 while i have the old MSO6000 at home. But id imagine a touchscreen does open up a great chance to modernize the UI for quicker access than a front panel could provide.
Not that the UI is particularly bad, lots of scopes have a worse UI, its just that it got a little bit outdated. Things like the HP 54600 series scopes ( https://www.keysight.com/en/pd-1000000812%3Aepsg%3Apro-pn-54624A/portable-dso (https://www.keysight.com/en/pd-1000000812%3Aepsg%3Apro-pn-54624A/portable-dso) ) with BW CRT screens already used the UI layout and same front panel and all. It was just brought forward with minimal modifications to support new features. The X series got a bit of a front panel button shuffle but the buttons stayed the same (This is why i keep looking in the wrong area for the butto on the new X series, since im used to where the exact same button with the exact same function is on my old 6000). So its mostly a "if its not broken, don't fix it" kind of scenario. And its okay, but the amount of features is starting to overwhelm this old UI design. But at least they also kept the lightning fast responsiveness off the UI, that responsiveness is what makes Keysight scopes nicer to use than a lot of others.
-
In my opinion having a dedicated section for trigger like that makes it feel more like a analog scope where you can set the trigger by flipping switches. No dicking around in menus, just hit a button and done.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-used-vs-new-revival/?action=dlattach;attach=1174358;image)
I'm more and more believer that hieratically well laid out touch screen interface is the only option for faster and more logical work with modern scopes...
Like this? :)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-used-vs-new-revival/?action=dlattach;attach=1174378;image)
-
Like this? :)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-used-vs-new-revival/?action=dlattach;attach=1174374;image)
Yeah Micsig went in the right direction but i have other gripes about there UI. We have one at work and its a nice little portable scope but the slow and clunky UI is annoying. Also the auto trigger on it seams to be a bit weird. But i will admit i didn't miss the channel and horizontal knobs as much as i thought i would.
Keysight Infiniium scopes did a reasonably good job with the basic controls there too, if you use a mouse and place the cursor above a control like channel controls or horizontal controls the scroll wheel becomes that control. Making it very intuitive to just mouse over the horizontal scale and scroll to turn it up or down. But getting to the trigger settings with a mouse is still a menu chore.
-
Yeah Micsig went in the right direction but i have other gripes about there UI. We have one at work and its a nice little portable scope but the slow and clunky UI is annoying.
I never thought I'd hear the words "Micsig" and "slow and clunky UI" in the same sentence. :-//
If you try and navigate the menus with the knobs then maybe, but it's a touch screen...
-
Berni is right again, while Micisg is going in the right direction, it is far from perfect.
Combined with some unusual choices, it is half the scope it could be...
And to answer to question, I find LeCroy concept to be most logical....