EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: lordvader88 on December 30, 2016, 04:14:40 am
-
I have a Tektronix 2430A with a partially broke CH1, so time to start thinking and saving for some modern mid-level scope.
I a hobbyists, maybe some day more, but so its not for work. What are some I should be watching for, and what prices are mid-level scopes? Thanks, I know this gets asked a lot.
-
Without knowing anything else - Rigol DS1054Z.
-
Have you given up on repairing the Tek already ? :scared: :-//
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/)
I think you can go quite a bit further without another scope in order to try and fix it or are you well out of your depth ?
Not everybody is around ATM, many are on hols so not all the help that's available here has yet come forth.
You need study the Service manual more, the clues on how to fix it will in there. ;)
-
I have a Tektronix 2430A with a partially broke CH1, so time to start thinking and saving for some modern mid-level scope.
I a hobbyists, maybe some day more, but so its not for work. What are some I should be watching for, and what prices are mid-level scopes? Thanks, I know this gets asked a lot.
"Mid level" isn't helpful. Compared to what? If the top-of-the-line Keysight is, say, $150k, a mid-level scope might be $75k. Somehow, I don't think this is what you have in mind.
Mid level to me implies something that costs a few thousand dollars. As a hobbyist, that is out of my reach. So, it gets down to 'reasonable' and that, to me, means something under a grand. I am quite happy with my Rigol DS1054Z and it has a lot of fans on this forum. There is a lot of bang for the buck and a comparable scope is at least 3x as expensive. I paid about $400 for my DS1054Z and that's about all I wanted to spend. It's a hobby, not a profession!
Do some searching around, avoid the threads that are hundreds of pages because most of the content predates the latest firmware, and see what you think.
Four channels is sweet for decoding SPI and more channels are always better than less. Nevertheless, most of my scope usage is just one channel. Until it isn't!
Unlocking the scope to get the 100 MHz bandwidth and decoding is well understood. You wind up with a 4 channel 100 MHz scope with full decoding and expanded memory all for $400. Pretty hard to beat.
I suggest you drive a stake in the ground for price and then see what's available.
-
I have a Tektronix 2430A with a partially broke CH1, so time to start thinking and saving for some modern mid-level scope.
Get rid of the unquantified adjectives and you might be able to formulate a useful starting point.
I know this gets asked a lot.
So, have you bothered to read the answers? If not, why should people spend their time on yet another thread on this subject - which you probably won't read.
Maybe this (https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/library-2/good-questions-pique-our-interest-and-dont-waste-our-time-2/) would help everybody.
-
Rigol DS1054Z and it has a lot of fans on this forum. There is a lot of bang for the buck and a comparable scope is at least 3x as expensive.
Agree with fans part. Do not agree with "comparable" part. It's effectively a 1.2k memory scope for many tasks with many functions totally broken or awkwardly implemented. Unbelievably useless in sub-MHz region etc. There is nothing to compare with GW Instek, Siglent etc besides look and feel of the knobs. If you do not know or do not want to know any better its your choice, do not make it OPs problem.
Just few links to get the general idea:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg584436/#msg584436 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg584436/#msg584436)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/msg1091320/#msg1091320 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/msg1091320/#msg1091320)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-how-to-get-_maximum_-positive-slew-rate/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-how-to-get-_maximum_-positive-slew-rate/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1097348/#msg1097348 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1097348/#msg1097348)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/msg563208/#msg563208 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/msg563208/#msg563208)
-
Rigol DS1054Z and it has a lot of fans on this forum. There is a lot of bang for the buck and a comparable scope is at least 3x as expensive.
Agree with fans part. Do not agree with "comparable" part. It's effectively a 1.2k memory scope for many tasks with many functions totally broken or awkwardly implemented. Unbelievably useless in sub-MHz region etc. There is nothing to compare with GW Instek, Siglent etc besides look and feel of the knobs. If you do not know or do not want to know any better its your choice, do not make it OPs problem.
Just few links to get the general idea:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg584436/#msg584436 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg584436/#msg584436)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/msg1091320/#msg1091320 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/msg1091320/#msg1091320)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-how-to-get-_maximum_-positive-slew-rate/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-how-to-get-_maximum_-positive-slew-rate/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1097348/#msg1097348 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1097348/#msg1097348)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/msg563208/#msg563208 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/msg563208/#msg563208)
Have you really got NOTHING positive to say at all? Why do you even bother posting here?
How about mentioning that it's the best all-round scope for under $1000, and you only need to pay $400 to get one?
How about mentioning that most of the 'problems' you've identified are complete non-problems to the rest of the world? We've had entire threads where you've gone on and on at great length about some 'critical' problem you've discovered in the the DS1054Z and the rest of the world went "meh". :-//
How about mentioning that most of the "problems" you've identified also appear on other 'scopes, including GW Instek, Siglent, etc.
Lastly, how come you own a DS1054Z? If it's as bad as you claim then surely you should have sold it by now... :popcorn:
-
Lastly, how come you own a DS1054Z? If it's as bad as you claim then surely you should have sold it by now... :popcorn:
We have seen too much, its never about that scope anyway, its all about his pathetic career life as programmer, the scope is just a venting tool.
-
I a hobbyists, maybe some day more, but so its not for work. What are some I should be watching for, and what prices are mid-level scopes? Thanks, I know this gets asked a lot.
Yes it has been asked before many times and the usual concensus here is that the DS1054Z (still) has the best
price/performance ratio for hobbyists.
How many people here have bought one? A lot.
How many people weren't satisfied and sent it back or sold it? One or two.
But I don't care because I'm not affiliated to Rigol. Buy another brand if you wish and tell us if you like it.
For me, I'll never buy (anymore) Rigol stuff for work. I did it once and I regret it. For serious work buy an R&S, Keysight or LeCroy.
However, at home on my desk, next to my pc, sits a DS1054Z.
Not that I have so much time to do some hobby stuff. But because this little scope is so much fun to have and play with.
Specially when you connect it to a pc.
-
How many people here have bought one? A lot.
How many people weren't satisfied and sent it back or sold it? One or two.
How many people weren't satisfied, not going to send it back .. and yet .. keep whining and use the scope as social tool ?
We got one here. :-DD
And if you think about it, that particular poor DS1054Z valued more than it should be, its pretty darn cheap I should say for it's functionalities. :palm:
-
How many people here have bought one? A lot.
How many people weren't satisfied and sent it back or sold it? One or two.
How many people weren't satisfied, not going to send it back .. and yet .. keep whining and use the scope as social tool ?
We got one here. :-DD
Makes a useful counterbalance to the "rabid DS1054Z fanboys" that claim it is the only valid choice ;)
-
Isn't it strange how Rigol can build a better mid-level oscilloscope than factories can?
-
I have a Tektronix 2430A with a partially broke CH1, so time to start thinking and saving for some modern mid-level scope.
I a hobbyists, maybe some day more, but so its not for work. What are some I should be watching for, and what prices are mid-level scopes? Thanks, I know this gets asked a lot.
The answer to your question is: 42
What kind of budget do you have? Bandwidth? Purpose (do you work with microcontroller or mostly analog circuits)?
-
Makes a useful counterbalance to the "rabid DS1054Z fanboys" that claim it is the only valid choice ;)
Are there any of those? I've never seen one.
There may be a few people who say that warts and all, it's the only sensible choice in this price range unless you have a specific need for good FFTs or something like that.
Sure, it's not perfect. If it was perfect there wouldn't be any $1000+ oscilloscopes on the market.
But... you get a $1000 'scope for $400. What's not to like? :-//
-
I am one of the ones that evaluated Rigol's oscilloscopes before the DS1000Z series came out and concluded that they were junk and that Rigol's lying marketing department was running the company. So I never bought one and went with an ancient $80 Tektronix 2230 instead. Later analysis of the DS1000Z series reinforced my opinion about Rigol and their products.
As far as lordvader88's question, we need a better definition of "middle level oscilloscope." Maybe you have a budget range or application in mind? The often recommended Rigiol DS1054Z is what I would consider a low end digital storage oscilloscope and I agree with rstofer that middle level could extend up to $20,000 or so depending on your point of view.
-
I am one of the ones that evaluated Rigol's oscilloscopes before the DS1000Z series came out and concluded that they were junk and that Rigol's lying marketing department was running the company. So I never bought one and went with an ancient $80 Tektronix 2230 instead. Later analysis of the DS1000Z series reinforced my opinion about Rigol and their products.
As far as lordvader88's question, we need a better definition of "middle level oscilloscope." Maybe you have a budget range or application in mind? The often recommended Rigiol DS1054Z is what I would consider a low end digital storage oscilloscope and I agree with rstofer that middle level could extend up to $20,000 or so depending on your point of view.
David, the OP is attempting to fix his Tek:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/)
You're no doubt more familiar with them than I am and some guidance would be appreciated.
-
Any more clues on budget, or a spec?
Bandwidth, sampling rate, number of channels, mixed signal capability? Or just something as similar as possible to the Tektronix scope?
For a $600 or less I went for the Micsig TO1104 in preference to the Rigol, but both scopes go up to 100Mhz, with a 1Gsample convertor split across up to 4 channels, the Micsig is a slightly more expensive but portable with battery.
The next step up is the 2Gsample 2 channel 200MHz scope some of which can be had for ~$1200 or so, the Rigol 2000 series is a good example.
Moving up from there you get the Rigol 4000 scope,R&S HMO 3000 (Hameg scopes etc) if guess around ~$5000,
The highest I was interested in was the R&S RTM2034 or Keysight MSO 3000 series, at around the price level ~$8000 I found the R&S RTM2034 an nicer scope, so bought that in preference.
All prices are year old very crude estimates from memory, and converted from GBP.
For real prices check on line and for the more expensive scopes see what offers the reps have.
Check the 'scopes spreadsheet for other suggestions. A better idea of the requirements or budget might help I have know hobbyist who have scopes that range 1GHz bandwidth Keysight scopes , down to small USB RPi scopes.
-
David, the OP is attempting to fix his Tek:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/)
You're no doubt more familiar with them than I am and some guidance would be appreciated.
I am very familiar with the 2440 series but I followed that discussion and did not have anything useful to add. The posters are making suggestions that are on the right track. I am sure I could find the problem in an hour but I would be doing what nctnico suggests in his most recent post using another oscilloscope to compare the circuits for channel 1 to channel 2 with a known low frequency input signal. That should easily reveal at what point the channel 1 signal is corrupted.
As to the question of modern middle range digital storage oscilloscopes, the only modern DSOs I have studied recently are the Rohde & Schwarz models formerly made by Hameg which range in price from $1000 to $5000. I am sure Rohde & Schwarz sees the lower price and perhaps all of them as entry level.
-
David, the OP is attempting to fix his Tek:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/)
You're no doubt more familiar with them than I am and some guidance would be appreciated.
I am very familiar with the 2440 series but I followed that discussion and did not have anything useful to add. The posters are making suggestions that are on the right track. I am sure I could find the problem in an hour but I would be doing what nctnico suggests in his most recent post using another oscilloscope to compare the circuits for channel 1 to channel 2 with a known low frequency input signal. That should easily reveal at what point the channel 1 signal is corrupted.
Yes that obvious to most of us of course and just what I've suggested to him in another thread.
Of course scope newbies like the OP take the punt and buy something cheap not knowing what questions to ask a seller and ends up with only 1/2 the scope working as it should. Then of course they're somewhat limited with the gear and tools to progress further without some serious assistance. Most of us started there but have the understanding of how to go about signal tracing along with the gear to do so.
This guy has a DMM and not much more and if the fault is in the analog input stage it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Like the old saying, buy a old scope but make sure you have another to keep it in working order.
-
Of course scope newbies like the OP take the punt and buy something cheap not knowing what questions to ask a seller and ends up with only 1/2 the scope working as it should. Then of course they're somewhat limited with the gear and tools to progress further without some serious assistance. Most of us started there but have the understanding of how to go about signal tracing along with the gear to do so.
This guy has a DMM and not much more and if the fault is in the analog input stage it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Like the old saying, buy a old scope but make sure you have another to keep it in working order.
+1 :-+
PS : That last line is quote worthy. :clap:
-
Of course scope newbies like the OP take the punt and buy something cheap not knowing what questions to ask a seller and ends up with only 1/2 the scope working as it should if they are lucky. Then of course they're somewhat limited with the gear and tools to progress further without some serious assistance. Most of us started there but have the understanding of how to go about signal tracing along with the gear to do so.
This guy has a DMM and not much more and if the fault is in the analog input stage it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Like the old saying, buy a old scope but make sure you have another to keep it in working order.
+1 :-+
PS : That last line is quote worthy. :clap:
Thanks BravoV but just rereading it again I've realised I've left out another point. Added.
-
Well around $1000 I guess, my gaming GPU cost +$1100 and thats top of the line and I barely use it anymore.
So $1000 for a modern scope would make a nice tool/toy, and it could be 2nd hand too. Locally my chances of getting anything used are very very low. And I'd say local stores charge way way too much.
I see lots of reviews of scopes on the EEVblog, and I haven't watched many. Unlike DMM reviews there isn't usually a review of a few at a time, and labeled things like MID-LEVEL MULTIMETER SHOOTOUT.............which probably deals with "MID-LEVEL MULTIMETERS"
In 2 weeks I'm pretty sure I'm getting a Brymen BM869
-
You are still saving up for your scope, which is about the same situation as mine - no immediate needs. I figure there is no correct answer now, and the scope maybe a future scope that is yet to be launched or to be made. The tablet scope that Mike recently reviewed is an interesting scope that can justify for my next purchase. The field deployable feature is always high up in my priority list in evaluating tools.
-
Unbelievably useless in sub-MHz region
Can you elaborate on that? I just connected the scope to a 1KHz sine wave and it shows what I expected:
a 1KHz sine wave.
-
David, the OP is attempting to fix his Tek:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/)
You're no doubt more familiar with them than I am and some guidance would be appreciated.
I am very familiar with the 2440 series but I followed that discussion and did not have anything useful to add. The posters are making suggestions that are on the right track. I am sure I could find the problem in an hour but I would be doing what nctnico suggests in his most recent post using another oscilloscope to compare the circuits for channel 1 to channel 2 with a known low frequency input signal. That should easily reveal at what point the channel 1 signal is corrupted.
For the record: I'm suggesting to use only ONE scope to measure itself using the working channel. I've done that before...
To the OP: OK. Now we have a budget. What are you areas of interest? What kind of circuits do you plan to build?
-
Unbelievably useless in sub-MHz region
Can you elaborate on that? I just connected the scope to a 1KHz sine wave and it shows what I expected:
a 1KHz sine wave.
This should be good. :popcorn:
-
Can you elaborate on that? I just connected the scope to a 1KHz sine wave and it shows what I expected:
a 1KHz sine wave.
At it's absolute best could be compared with 3-digit multimeter accuracy in horizontal (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/?action=dlattach;attach=280953). So it could be 998 or 1002Hz. You would never know for sure (unless relying on 1CH-at-the-time hardware counter-bandaid, with pretty limited vertical sensitivity (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/?action=dlattach;attach=274566)). Some think its normal and scope is only for weird and wiggly lines. I have used two 200€ and 400€ scopes for years which deliver accuracy comparable to 4-digit multimeter in horizontal. And not only in "just right" timebase but in almost any timebase up to 3 orders on magnitude apart.
So for me it is absurd that something like Z box is produced and most weirdly, recommended...
-
Like the old saying, buy a old scope but make sure you have another to keep it in working order.
My first answer when someone asks me what oscilloscopes are good for is that they are good for fixing other oscilloscopes.
For the record: I'm suggesting to use only ONE scope to measure itself using the working channel. I've done that before...
I have done it also. It works great *if* you tie the probe's ground lead down preventing it from shorting out on something.
-
At it's absolute best could be compared with 3-digit multimeter accuracy in horizontal. So it could be 990 or 1010Hz.
Have you actually tried it yourself?
Because here the frequency measurement jumps between 1000 and 998Hz.
And the hardware frequency counter says 1.00000KHz (doesn't jump).
-
At it's absolute best could be compared with 3-digit multimeter accuracy in horizontal. So it could be 990 or 1010Hz.
Have you actually tried it yourself?
Because here the frequency measurement jumps between 1000 and 998Hz.
And the hardware frequency counter says 1.00000KHz (doesn't jump).
Perhaps it is better to continue this discussion in the appropriate thread and not repeat the same ad nauseum in every oscilloscope thread.
-
Have you actually tried it yourself? Because here the frequency measurement jumps between 1000 and 998Hz. And the hardware frequency counter says 1.00000KHz (doesn't jump).
Sry 1 beer to much :popcorn: Original post fixed, indeed it will jump about -+2Hz at best timebase (single cycle occupies whole screen). Making it 3-digit at best. Hardware counter is more-less ok but it can be applied to one channel only and it's counter only. While on good scope you would have 4-digit / 10,000 count accuracy on every active channel and all horizontal measurements.
Perhaps it is better to continue this discussion in the appropriate thread and not repeat the same ad nauseum in every oscilloscope thread.
Well dunno, Z box does get recommended in every thread, no? Why not post relevant links to discussion in every thread also? It's all about getting a balanced view on the subject :-+
-
Well as the budget is looking like $1000 the 1054Z is out of the race so perhaps discuss the merits of a scope in the desired price range ? if you want to do a full technical reveiw on the rigol 1054Z your welcome to a whole thread on the topic, just not this one.
-
My advice if you want to spend more money: buy an R&S HMOxxxx. They start from 1800,=.
Most DSO's cheaper than the cheapest R&S HMOxxx have the same "quality" as the Rigol.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-842-rohde-schwarz-hmo1202-oscilloscope-teardown/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-842-rohde-schwarz-hmo1202-oscilloscope-teardown/)
So, either buy the DS1054Z or jump straight to an R&S HMOxxx.
-
it will jump about -+2Hz at best timebase (single cycle occupies whole screen). Making it 3-digit at best.
Hardware counter is more-less ok
Yep, that's typical of Wolfy's definition of "unbelievably useless". :palm:
Perhaps it is better to continue this discussion in the appropriate thread and not repeat the same ad nauseum in every oscilloscope thread.
:horse:
-
it will jump about -+2Hz at best timebase (single cycle occupies whole screen). Making it 3-digit at best.
Hardware counter is more-less ok
Yep, that's typical of Wolfy's definition of "unbelievably useless". :palm:
Perhaps it is better to continue this discussion in the appropriate thread and not repeat the same ad nauseum in every oscilloscope thread.
:horse:
Which is what I just said so why continue yourself ?
-
Well as the budget is looking like $1000 the 1054Z is out of the race so perhaps discuss the merits of a scope in the desired price range ?
OK. First you need to decide how many channels you need.
This will depend on what sort of work you do. For anything related to microcontrollers I'd say get 4 channels.
If you think 2 channels is enough then look at R&S HMO series.
If you need 4 then it's more difficult.
-
Why not 1104B from Gw Instek. Have not tested it personally but from this test seems to be proper 4-digit / 10,000 count scope:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/?action=dlattach;attach=279233 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/?action=dlattach;attach=279233)
Seems good oldschool engineering much like Tek.
BTW most interesting thing - only scope seen so far in tests that calculates signal period with every timebase, not just when screen width > 1 period.
-
My advice if you want to spend more money: buy an R&S HMOxxxx. They start from 1800,=.
Most DSO's cheaper than the cheapest R&S HMOxxx have the same "quality" as the Rigol.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-842-rohde-schwarz-hmo1202-oscilloscope-teardown/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-842-rohde-schwarz-hmo1202-oscilloscope-teardown/)
So, either buy the DS1054Z or jump straight to an R&S HMOxxx.
The R&S HMO (Hameg) series is way too expensive for what it offers. After the Rigol DS1054Z I'd look at GW Instek (GDS-1000B or GDS-2000E series) to go one step up and after that go into the >$5000 range probably from R&S (not Hameg!) if Keysight hasn't come up with scopes which offer deeper memory but even then I'd wonder if it really is worth spending so much money. Currently my Agilent DSO7104A (approx $25k list price) is sitting unused on a shelve because the GDS-2204E is so much easier to use and has some very neat features.
-
Why not 1104B from Gw Instek. Have not tested it personally but from this test seems to be proper 4-digit / 10,000 count scope:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/?action=dlattach;attach=279233 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/testing-dso-auto-measurements-accuracy-across-timebases/?action=dlattach;attach=279233)
Seems good oldschool engineering much like Tek.
BTW most interesting thing - only scope seen so far in tests that calculates signal period with every timebase, not just when screen width > 1 period.
Ok, the Instek 1104B is only $710 so it's a candidate. Does it offer serial decoding? If so, how much extra? I couldn't immediately find the answer to these questions.
Most of the time, I work in the digital domain. I ALWAYS know the frequency and the little frequency counters at the bottom of the screen are meaningless. Further, I view the oscilloscope as a qualitative instrument, not quantitative. I simply don't care if there's a digit error in a measurement based on the screen image. The hardware counter works well enough should I somehow have a brain fade on frequency.
To me, decoding is an absolute requirement for a DSO. Remember, I work only in the digital domain. FFT is generally meaningless. I have used it exactly once in a 30+ year career as a EE. And that was on a study of the 11th and 13th harmonics of a 12 pulse rectifier driving a 20 MW heater. Fun, sure, but that's the only time I have used it.
So, what do I get for the extra $310 dollars? Another digit in a ginned up frequency count? No decoding? Pretty simple choice...
-
I wouldn't call FFT meaningless but then again I'm regulary working on projects involving digital signal processing and (fast) FFT on a scope is very helpfull to look at signals to see if filtering in the digital domain is an option or the analog frontend needs to be better. For one of the projects I'm currently working on FFT has been on constantly.
-
Like the old saying, buy a old scope but make sure you have another to keep it in working order.
My first answer when someone asks me what oscilloscopes are good for is that they are good for fixing other oscilloscopes.
For the record: I'm suggesting to use only ONE scope to measure itself using the working channel. I've done that before...
I have done it also. It works great *if* you tie the probe's ground lead down preventing it from shorting out on something.
Risky to say the least, much better if it's disconnected and the probe tip sleeve is installed to prevent the Gnd ring near the probe tip from making contact with any part of the DUT.
-
To me, decoding is an absolute requirement for a DSO.
...
So, what do I get for the extra $310 dollars? Another digit in a ginned up frequency count? No decoding? Pretty simple choice...
Well such attitude can easily end in tears, perhaps well deserved ;) AFAIK decoding does not work properly in Rigol for exact same reason that it's only "3-digit" scope. But if entry level Instek does not have it at all then yea... Guess it's the case when you pay more or suffer. I have no interest in decoding so perhaps better informed will take over.
-
So, what do I get for the extra $310 dollars? Another digit in a ginned up frequency count? No decoding? Pretty simple choice...
If decoding is a must the you won't get anything below about $1500.
Apart from a hacked DS1054Z that is.
What Wolfy's great discovery is that the DS1054Z (and many other 'scopes) does is make calculations based on screen pixels. The DS1054Z has 800 pixels horizontally, minus the menus at the sides. Calculating a very exact frequency of 1kHz using that information obviously isn't very precise.
His life's ambition (it seems) is to find out all the ways working with on-screen information will make readings inaccurate.
Fortunately the DS0154Z (and many other 'scopes) have separate dedicated hardware for counting frequencies and most of the other readings don't really matter because people naturally zoom in on the area of interest and therefore get more pixels for measuring things like rise/fall times.
Getting back on topic: You're finding out that a hacked DS1054Z beats most other scopes in your target price range. You probably have to spend $1200+ to get something significantly better in terms of features. Serial decoding in particular is expensive.
Serial decoding is also done better by dedicated logic analyzers, eg saleae.
-
Serial decoding is also done better by dedicated logic analyzers, eg saleae.
Yea but my old 400€ scope does serial (lots of protocols) off 48k buffer, not screen :(
900€ scope from same company does 1-Wire, ARINC 429, CAN, DCC, DMX512, FlexRay, Ethernet 10Base-T, USB 1.1, I²C, I²S, LIN, PS/2, SPI, SENT, UART/RS-232 off 128M buffer. But psst... that technology is not supposed to exist, so it is "despised around here" as per herr Fungus. :popcorn:
-
There are a raft of 2Gsps scopes, as a digital scope user one of these would be my best value for money guess, possibly the Rigol 1074B if all the usual hacks work.
Siglent also do a 2Gsps scopes with a deep 140Mpts memory the SDS2000, as do Micsig with the 10 inch tablet scope, TO202a, 90Mpts, 500K wfm/s.
With that kind of budget, it's the 2G sample convertors I'd aim for. Of course other features are important depending on use case. Some hardware debug requires high waveforms per second, and software dbug often benefits from deep memory.
-
If you can connect the DS1054Z to a pc/laptop, you can do the serial decoding there
at the highest samplerate possible (up to 1 GHz) and using the whole waveform memory (up to 24Mpts).
So, the limitation that it decodes only what's on screen, is not valid anymore (if you connect it to a pc).
-
If you can connect the DS1054Z to a pc/laptop, you can do the serial decoding there
at the highest samplerate possible (up to 1 GHz) and using the whole waveform memory (up to 24Mpts).
So, the limitation that it decodes only what's on screen, is not valid anymore (if you connect it to a pc).
With what software would that decoding happen? And how about browsing through the results? Think about segmented acquisitions, triggering on certain packets, etc. If you go that route you are way better off using a USB logic analyser. In other words: doing the decoding offline defeats the purpose of decoding in the oscilloscope because you'll be creating a PC based oscilloscope in the end. Just buy an oscilloscope which has decoding implemented properly.
-
One thing that the Rigol does to do well is serial triggering, despite not doing a great job at decoding.
-
If your doing digital work on a budget, use the scope to check signal integrity and the USB logic analyzer with serial decoders for the serial deciding. (I've been very pleased with the DS logic 16 channel 100MHz, with 16M sample buffer).
Cheaper scopes often have poor ppm xtal for frequency counting.
Micsig TO1104 ~20ppm
Keysight MSO 3000T ~20ppm
Keysight MSO 3000X~ 2.5ppm
Rigol MSO 1104z ~25ppm
R&S RTM2000 ~3.5ppm
Just something to keep an eye on when reading those 6+ digit frequency counters. A similar problem occurs with some dedicated frequency counting hardware.
R&S HMO suffered from a poor memory depth last time I looked. This may or may not be an issue depending on the problem. Even the Keysight MSO3000 depth is poor for a modern scope.
Any thoughts on the Rigol 1074B (2G sample rate 4 chan, 28mpt) or the Micsig TO202 (2Gsps, 90M pt buffer.)
-
2Gs/s is nice for a 500MHz scope but total overkill for anything 200MHz and lower.
-
If you can connect the DS1054Z to a pc/laptop, you can do the serial decoding there
at the highest samplerate possible (up to 1 GHz) and using the whole waveform memory (up to 24Mpts).
So, the limitation that it decodes only what's on screen, is not valid anymore (if you connect it to a pc).
With what software would that decoding happen? And how about browsing through the results? Think about segmented acquisitions, triggering on certain packets, etc. If you go that route you are way better off using a USB logic analyser. In other words: doing the decoding offline defeats the purpose of decoding in the oscilloscope because you'll be creating a PC based oscilloscope in the end. Just buy an oscilloscope which has decoding implemented properly.
DSRemote has a function called "Wave Inspector". It let you browse/zoomin/zoomout through the whole
24Mpts of memory and it is able to decode UART and SPI. This is all done at the aquisition samplerate of
max 1GHz, not the 1200 display samples.
I2C and parallel decoding haven't been implemented yet.
-
I like to have ~10 samples per cycle, not compulsory, but at least some feel for what the waveform looks like. So I'm OK with 1Gsps on a 100Mhz signal. Maybe overkill but since I've got the kit....
The higher speed can useful for checking integrity of the hard edges in digital signals, overshoot, ringing, reflections etc can benefit from a high sample rate.
Also the headline sample rate may be split 2 or even 4 ways.
-
The higher speed can useful for checking integrity of the hard edges in digital signals, overshoot, ringing, reflections etc can benefit from a high sample rate.
Also the headline sample rate may be split 2 or even 4 ways.
With low bandwidth a higher samplerate isn't going to produce more information so the deep memory is just wasted. For looking at edges an older scope with equivalent time sampling can also be an option. If decoding isn't a requirement then there is a whole range of used gear to choose from.
-
With low bandwidth a higher samplerate isn't going to produce more information so the deep memory is just wasted. For looking at edges an older scope with equivalent time sampling can also be an option. If decoding isn't a requirement then there is a whole range of used gear to choose from.
So on new scope high samplerate is always "wasted", but on old scopes it is useful for looking at the edges? :palm:
Recently discussed:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1098795/#msg1098795 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1098795/#msg1098795)
Even on 100MHz scope 1GS/s on every channel is good to have.
-
Yea but my old 400€ scope does serial (lots of protocols) off 48k buffer, not screen :(
900€ scope from same company does 1-Wire, ARINC 429, CAN, DCC, DMX512, FlexRay, Ethernet 10Base-T, USB 1.1, I²C, I²S, LIN, PS/2, SPI, SENT, UART/RS-232 off 128M buffer. But psst... that technology is not supposed to exist, so it is "despised around here" as per herr Fungus. :popcorn:
Sure, as long as you attach a PC to it and enjoy using a double-priced oscilloscope with your keyboard+mouse (ick).
If you're going to use a PC to do the serial decoding then a USB logic analyzer costs $10 (or less) on eBay. No need to spend 900€.
-
With low bandwidth a higher samplerate isn't going to produce more information so the deep memory is just wasted. For looking at edges an older scope with equivalent time sampling can also be an option. If decoding isn't a requirement then there is a whole range of used gear to choose from.
So on new scope high samplerate is always "wasted", but on old scopes it is useful for looking at the edges? :palm:
I guess you never heard about 20GHz scopes with 250ks/s samplerates. Also older DSOs with ETS tend to have Gaussian filters instead of brickwall like modern ones so yes, on an older DSOs you need a higher sampling rate to prevent aliasing.
-
I guess you never heard about 20GHz scopes with 250ks/s samplerates. Also older DSOs with ETS tend to have Gaussian filters instead of brickwall like modern ones so yes, on an older DSOs you need a higher sampling rate to prevent aliasing.
In which fundamental way modern budget DSO with 250MS/s and Gaussian frontend differs from these old DSOs?
If you're going to use a PC to do the serial decoding then a USB logic analyzer costs $10 (or less) on eBay.
OMG you just wiped out while industry producing logic analyzers costing more than $10. Powerful start for new year :-+
-
One thing that the Rigol does to do well is serial triggering, despite not doing a great job at decoding.
Really? I couldn't be able to trigger on serial to save my life. Fortunately (for me) i almost don't use the rigol at all anymore
-
One thing that the Rigol does to do well is serial triggering, despite not doing a great job at decoding.
Really? I couldn't be able to trigger on serial to save my life. Fortunately (for me) i almost don't use the rigol at all anymore
Pretty darn simple once you know how, even not recent DSO's and those without Decoding but with Pulse or adjustable period triggering can do it with minimal effort.
-
One thing that the Rigol does to do well is serial triggering, despite not doing a great job at decoding.
Really? I couldn't be able to trigger on serial to save my life.
Did you try reading the manual?
-
I guess you never heard about 20GHz scopes with 250ks/s samplerates. Also older DSOs with ETS tend to have Gaussian filters instead of brickwall like modern ones so yes, on an older DSOs you need a higher sampling rate to prevent aliasing.
In which fundamental way modern budget DSO with 250MS/s and Gaussian frontend differs from these old DSOs?
You can't see/measure a 40ps risetime, nor measure 20ps time differences. That's rather useful when looking at cables, connectors and short PCB traces, and the various types of input protection diodes to see where they are mangling the signal integrity.
For an example of a cheap 45 year old instrument that measures a ~50ps risetime, see
https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/measuring-input-protection-components-effects-with-a-tdr/
https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/a-traditional-tdr-cable-tester-with-2cm-resolution/
Try doing that with any modern budget DSO!
-
I guess you never heard about 20GHz scopes with 250ks/s samplerates. Also older DSOs with ETS tend to have Gaussian filters instead of brickwall like modern ones so yes, on an older DSOs you need a higher sampling rate to prevent aliasing.
In which fundamental way modern budget DSO with 250MS/s and Gaussian frontend differs from these old DSOs?
I just wrote that: Gaussian versus brickwall filters in the analog frontend.
-
David, the OP is attempting to fix his Tek:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tekronix-2430a-can't-figure-out-vertical-position-setting/)
You're no doubt more familiar with them than I am and some guidance would be appreciated.
I am very familiar with the 2440 series but I followed that discussion and did not have anything useful to add. The posters are making suggestions that are on the right track. I am sure I could find the problem in an hour but I would be doing what nctnico suggests in his most recent post using another oscilloscope to compare the circuits for channel 1 to channel 2 with a known low frequency input signal. That should easily reveal at what point the channel 1 signal is corrupted.
For the record: I'm suggesting to use only ONE scope to measure itself using the working channel. I've done that before...
To the OP: OK. Now we have a budget. What are you areas of interest? What kind of circuits do you plan to build?
I don't know,
soon I will try using this 2430A scope, with CH2, to measure CH1............unless people here think thats a bad idea
I wait til sober tomorrow
-
One thing that the Rigol does to do well is serial triggering, despite not doing a great job at decoding.
Really? I couldn't be able to trigger on serial to save my life. Fortunately (for me) i almost don't use the rigol at all anymore
Pretty darn simple once you know how, even not recent DSO's and those without Decoding but with Pulse or adjustable period triggering can do it with minimal effort.
and that's what i end up doing most of the time, but trigger on serial conditions/specific packet/missing ack, that sort of stuff... what serial triggering should do.. never been able to get a result before i got pissed off and did it in a different way/with a different tool
-
Try doing that with any modern budget DSO!
Missed the point. Point is: What is this wonderful (perhaps quantum?) magic that protects Gaussian rolloff RTS-only budget DSO from stuff above Nyquist so they do not need ETS functionality?
Edit: little example how 5ns rise looks on 25MHz analog bw - 100MSa/s RTS single shot vs 4GSa/s ETS. Same source. CH2 on ~60cm longer cable. Wobbly Sinc crap vs looking at true analog response. Hmm...
-
One thing that the Rigol does to do well is serial triggering, despite not doing a great job at decoding.
Really? I couldn't be able to trigger on serial to save my life. Fortunately (for me) i almost don't use the rigol at all anymore
I've used serial decode *triggers fairly extensively and never had a problem, unlike the decode, which sometimes doesn't decode correctly the sequence that the scope correctly triggered on. Serial triggers aren't computed with the same mechanism that decodes are.
*Edit to correct my mental aberration.
-
One thing that the Rigol does to do well is serial triggering, despite not doing a great job at decoding.
Really? I couldn't be able to trigger on serial to save my life. Fortunately (for me) i almost don't use the rigol at all anymore
I've used serial decode fairly extensively and never had a problem, unlike the decode, which sometimes doesn't decode correctly the sequence that the scope correctly triggered on. Serial triggers aren't computed with the same mechanism that decodes are.
DS1054Z serial decoding isn't much use for decoding massive amounts of data, doing in-depth reverse engineering of communications protocols or anything like that.
OTOH it works just fine (in my experience) for looking at single packets of data, making sure devices are responding properly to requests, checking baud rates, etc. You can trigger on particular sequences of data, with I2C You can trigger by device...it does quite a lot.
(and before the usual suspects leap in and say, "Oh, Rigol is rubbish!", get some perspective. How many other 'scopes can do any better? At what price?)
For massive amounts of serial decoding an oscilloscope really isn't the right tool. Get a USB logic analyzer. Mouse, keyboard and masses of RAM are what's needed for that particular job.
-
For massive amounts of serial decoding an oscilloscope really isn't the right tool. Get a USB logic analyzer. Mouse, keyboard and masses of RAM are what's needed for that particular job.
Very bad advice! When dealing with protocol problems the cause is often in the analog domain which is what gets hidden by using a logic analyser. In other words: it is very beneficial to have good protocol decoding and protocol triggering abilities in an oscilloscope so it might be worth something spending extra money on.
-
For massive amounts of serial decoding an oscilloscope really isn't the right tool. Get a USB logic analyzer. Mouse, keyboard and masses of RAM are what's needed for that particular job.
Hm, but what if oscilloscope already has masses of RAM onboard + PC RAM, mouse, keyboard, 16ch digital, 4ch analog. Why cannot you use that and instead have to resort to some other thing just becasue it's called "logic analyzer"? :-//
Looking here https://www.saleae.com/performancecalculator (https://www.saleae.com/performancecalculator) they are cutting corners pretty round with sample rates massively dropping with all digital channels in use. Much less severe issue with MSOs.
-
Try doing that with any modern budget DSO!
Missed the point. Point is: What is this wonderful (perhaps quantum?) magic that protects Gaussian rolloff RTS-only budget DSO from stuff above Nyquist so they do not need ETS functionality?
Edit: little example how 5ns rise looks on 25MHz analog bw - 100MSa/s RTS single shot vs 4GSa/s ETS. Same source. CH2 on ~60cm longer cable. Wobbly Sinc crap vs looking at true analog response. Hmm...
That's true, of course. But it wasn't the question you asked about 20GHz scopes with a 250kS/s sampling rate, viz:
I guess you never heard about 20GHz scopes with 250ks/s samplerates. Also older DSOs with ETS tend to have Gaussian filters instead of brickwall like modern ones so yes, on an older DSOs you need a higher sampling rate to prevent aliasing.
In which fundamental way modern budget DSO with 250MS/s and Gaussian frontend differs from these old DSOs?
I have a >2GHz scope with a 13kS/s sample rate; it does things simply impossible with modern budget DSOs.
-
My biggest concenrs over USB Logic Analysers, particularly the cheaper ones, are that they tend to lack anything more than quite rudimentary triggering facilities, and are often low sampling rate devices.
Whether you use a USB LA or a scope is often a matter of personal preference, but 99% of the time nowadays I do it on the scope. It wasn't always that way, not long ago parallel busses were far more prevalent, and only the most expensive scopes did serial decode. It's pretty rare I find I need to delve into multi megabit decodes and do post mortem analysis, but I accept that it happens, and indeed I do keep a few USB LAs for this purpose, but they sit in a drawer 99% of the time.
-
For massive amounts of serial decoding an oscilloscope really isn't the right tool. Get a USB logic analyzer. Mouse, keyboard and masses of RAM are what's needed for that particular job.
Very bad advice! When dealing with protocol problems the cause is often in the analog domain which is what gets hidden by using a logic analyser.
I didn't mean to imply the two are mutually exclusive. Obviously you need to look at signal edges if you're designing stuff.
What I meant was: There's not much point in spending $500 extra for serial decoding on an oscilloscope if there's a PC on your bench and a $10 USB device will do the job.
My biggest concenrs over USB Logic Analysers, particularly the cheaper ones, are that they tend to lack anything more than quite rudimentary triggering facilities, and are often low sampling rate devices.
Normally you don't trigger, you record massive amounts of data then do a "search".
Whether you use a USB LA or a scope is often a matter of personal preference, but 99% of the time nowadays I do it on the scope.
I guess if the devices are talking to each other OK (which the 'scope will let you see) then the rest is mostly software debugging. Use printf() for that.
IOW a DS1054Z is usually enough. :)
Hm, but what if oscilloscope already has masses of RAM onboard + PC RAM, mouse, keyboard, 16ch digital, 4ch analog.
Then it's not one of the 'scopes currently being discussed.
-
I have a >2GHz scope with a 13kS/s sample rate; it does things simply impossible with modern budget DSOs.
Im not english speaker it was bad wording. Im well aware of ETS monsters. Also I think that ETS has its place, especially in budget scopes with Gaussian rolloff & sample rates dropping almost to Nyquist limit when enabling more than 1 channel.
Then it's not one of the 'scopes currently being discussed.
Well within "mid-range" price class.
-
For massive amounts of serial decoding an oscilloscope really isn't the right tool. Get a USB logic analyzer. Mouse, keyboard and masses of RAM are what's needed for that particular job.
Very bad advice! When dealing with protocol problems the cause is often in the analog domain which is what gets hidden by using a logic analyser.
I didn't mean to imply the two are mutually exclusive. Obviously you need to look at signal edges if you're designing stuff.
It is not just about timing but the causes of protocol violations. That means being able to trigger on such events (make long segmented recordings!) and look at them in the analog domain. Using two seperate tools for that job just makes things more complicated especially if the error occurs only once per hour.
-
It is not just about timing but the causes of protocol violations. That means being able to trigger on such events (make long segmented recordings!) and look at them in the analog domain. Using two seperate tools for that job just makes things more complicated especially if the error occurs only once per hour.
Who's forcing you to use both? Use the right tool for the particular job.
If you do a lot of serial decoding and one of the tools is only $10 then it's no biggie to have both. There are things the 'scope isn't best at.
-
I have a >2GHz scope with a 13kS/s sample rate; it does things simply impossible with modern budget DSOs.
Im well aware of ETS monsters.
I wouldn't call that a monster. It is battery powered, weighs 8.2kg, is very portable, can be operated in driving rain, and can be submerged 1m under water :)
Also I think that ETS has its place, especially in budget scopes with Gaussian rolloff & sample rates dropping almost to Nyquist limit when enabling more than 1 channel.
ETS is useful for far more than that, even though ETS's key advantages have been eroded by modern ADCs.