Author Topic: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000  (Read 12112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline olsenn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 993
Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« on: March 04, 2013, 02:03:30 am »
So I am thinking of purchasing a new oscilloscope (right now I have the DS1102E) and I am considering the DS4024, which is a 4-channel, 200MHz, 4GSa/s DSO with 110,000 updates/sec and 140M memory points. I am also considering the DS2202, which is a 2-channel, 200MHz, 2GSa/s DSO with 14M memory points (upgradeable to 56M) and 50,000 updates/sec.

I am willing to pay the extra money for the DS4024 if it's worth it, but I wanted to get your guys' feedbakck first. I heard someone say teh noise floor on the DS4000-series is higher than the DS2000-series; any comments? Also, one thing that I never understood is sample rate... doesn't this only need to be twice the bandwith (400MSa/s for 200MHz)? How would 4GSa/s benefit over 2GSa/s with the same bandwidth?

Thanks in advance for your comments!
 

Offline AndyC_772

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3400
  • Country: gb
  • Will design for cookies
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2013, 04:17:25 am »
If you need 4 channels then, of course, there's no choice. I find myself needing more than 2 channels so frequently that I wouldn't even consider a 2 channel scope - which is a shame because the 2000 series does look to be considerably better value spec for spec than the 4000. Of the models you've mentioned, the 4024 is nearly twice the price of the 2202.

I also wouldn't spend too much time worrying about the noise floor. I've rarely if ever found myself trying to measure a signal that gets lost in the scope noise, and been unable to improve the signal with averaging, high resolution mode or some other technique. Noise is also a function of bandwidth, and when people compare noise between scopes they don't always do so over equal bandwidths.

At 200 MHz you really won't see that much difference between 2GSa/s and 4GSa/s. Don't worry about it. The higher sample rate is useful on the higher bandwidth models available in the 4000 series, though.

I had a demo of a 4054 last year and really liked it.
 

Offline Hydrawerk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2365
  • Country: 00
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2013, 05:23:46 am »
I would not buy the DS4000. It is not cheap! For the same price you can probably get a decent Agilent DSOX2000 or so.
Amazing machines. https://www.youtube.com/user/denha (It is not me...)
 

Offline dougg

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 25
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2013, 05:24:22 am »
With only 2 channels on the DS2000 series and a (not so) old 'scope you could use the Trigger out from the DS2202 wired into the Ext Trig on your DS1102E. So then when looking at something like SPI you could put the SPCK and MOSI into the DS2000 then put the MISO and CSn into your DS1102E. The SPI trigger would be set up on the DS2202, of course. The downside is you get to see MISO but it won't be decoded (and its sample buffer will be much less). Obviously you could do the same sort of thing with a 4 channel DS4000 if 4 channels wasn't enough :-)

The DS2000 series is a little more recent than the DS4000 and might have some advantages (other than lower noise floor which Rigol do note) that Rigol do not want to advertise as that might eat into the DS4000 market. If Rigol ever come out with new firmware for the DS2000, it will be interesting to see if any new features are exposed.
 

Offline olsenn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 993
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2013, 07:35:28 am »
Thanks for the info. I guess I just don't want to move one step up from my current DSO; I would like this to be the last scope I'll ever need to purchase (at least for a decade). With the 56Mpnt option, the DS2022 will cost $2k, so I figure I might as well spend the extra $800 to get a 4-channel scope with over twice the memory depth and update rate. However, I may just wait until the next generation of scopes to come out if the DS2000 wins in other areas since it's newer.
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 2766
  • Country: gb
  • Occasionally active on the forum, available via PM
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2013, 09:21:40 am »
I guess I just don't want to move one step up from my current DSO; I would like this to be the last scope I'll ever need to purchase (at least for a decade).

I'm not sure Rigol is such a wise choice then.
Brexit n - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.
 

Offline PA4TIM

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1116
  • Country: nl
  • instruments are like rabbits, they multiply fast
    • PA4TIMs shelter for orphan measurement stuff
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2013, 07:12:27 pm »
I agree, buy Hameg or Agilent if you want a decade of use.

The rest is personal,
I never us more then two channels and if I do, i use two scopes. Betters as 4 traces with no details beause the are less as 2 divisions high or overlap. I personally like two timebases more.

For my use the noise level is important, i got rid of my 1102E because the bad build quality, high noise level, high jitter level an to inaccurate. So if the 4000 is twice the 2000 just buy two 2000 ;-)

Waveform updates is only important if you are looking,  for non-repetitiv signals like runts or glitsches. Agilent started this hype. It is not just marketing or so, for some it will be important, but it is in my opinion more like a bonus as it would be the reason I choose one.

Memory, if you need it, you need it. I have no need for large memory but f you are in to digital and oneshot things you probably need it.  But I think that the memory size alone is not all, should it not be interesting to know if it is fast enough ? I get the feeling scopes are now following the IBM clones in the beginning of the PC area. Processors got faster, 16 bit, later 32 bit but often that fast processor had nothing to do because it was waiting because the too slow memory, videocard or slow 8 bit databus, instead of 16 or 32 bit, but that was not in the sales brochure.

For 4 channels you need 4 GSa/s, that will give you 1GSa/s per channel. I'm into digital theory but as far as I know you need at least 1GS/s per 100 MHz for best details and around 500 as a minimum, I think like with bndwidth, you need 10X the BW to see enough details on a squarewave and 5X is still sort of useable.

www.pa4tim.nl my collection measurement gear and experiments Also lots of info about network analyse
www.schneiderelectronicsrepair.nl  repair of test and calibration equipment
https://www.youtube.com/user/pa4tim my youtube channel
 

Offline nack

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Country: nl
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2013, 08:38:49 am »
I've had the same mental debate. 4ch channels on the DS4000 vs 2 channels on the DS2000. I rarely do use more than two channels, however to be able to analyze a SPI interface using all four channels. The serial decode options for the DS2000 series is also quite substantially cheaper (230 euros in Europe) in comparison to the DS4000 series decoder options (520 euros).

Also the DS4000 series is about twice the price as a DS2000... I have considered an Agilent two channel DSOX2000 for a while. But spec wise it is no match for the DS2000 considering price. I totally bailed-out once I saw the prices for the Agilent serial decode options... 710 euros!

So personally I think I will also go for a DS2000 series in the near future. However I am a little concerned about the firmware support of Rigol. Dave's DS2000 is also said to be getting an update. However that was said in November! We have not seen a review from Dave and the DS2000 and it's March already... That makes me rethink the Agilent option somehow...
 

Offline bingo600

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1350
  • Country: dk
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2013, 12:10:30 am »
Why not consider a logic analyzer for the "Bus decoding" ?
I'm currently using my DigiView DV-100 for decoding GPIB , that would be hard with a scope.

And then use the scope for what's a scope is best at ...
I have a Rigol 1102E , and a TEK TDS-320 @home , and rarely turns on the TEK anymore.

But then i'm just a hobbyist.

But i can't seem to get the "pay $300" for a serial decode module , when you can get a LA for that money that can do a lot more.

/Bingo
 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2013, 08:12:00 am »
I would not buy the DS4000. It is not cheap! For the same price you can probably get a decent Agilent DSOX2000 or so.

When I compared both devices last year and I've noticed the large memory of the DS4000 series I quickly discarded the Agilent and bought the DS4012 - until today I'm very happy with the scope. The memory of the DSOX2000 is simply not sufficient for a few of my purposes and the Rigol DS4000 series is cheaper. At work I'm using several Agilents with sufficient memory but they are much more expensive than the DSOX2000 series.

If I would buy an Agilent I would start with the DSOX3000 series at least.
 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2013, 09:14:21 am »
I agree, buy Hameg or Agilent if you want a decade of use.

That's simply not true if we're talking about the RIGOL DS2000 or DS4000 series. They both are competitors to the Hamegs and Agilents DSOX2000 series, absolutely not comparable with the cheap Rigol scopes as the 1052 model or the 1102E type.

The rest is personal,
I never us more then two channels and if I do, i use two scopes. Betters as 4 traces with no details beause the are less as 2 divisions high or overlap. I personally like two timebases more.

Personal? Really?. I've got a few cases where I need 4 channels and where a need one trigger for all traces. Hamegs HMOs offer a comfortable virtual screen which is more than sufficient for 4 traces - IF you need them at all. It's not a question what you like than what you need. And you can never measure so exactly with two scopes instead of one scope if you need one cursor to measure all 4 traces. By the way not very comfortable having two scopes on a desk.

For my use the noise level is important, i got rid of my 1102E because the bad build quality, high noise level, high jitter level an to inaccurate. So if the 4000 is twice the 2000 just buy two 2000 ;-)

Yes, but the DS4000 and the DS2000 are not the 1102E. First devices are no low price scopes, the last is. I'm pretty sure since I've got the HMO2524 with all serial options and the RIGOL DS4012 at home, a few Agilents and Teks at work.

Waveform updates is only important if you are looking,  for non-repetitiv signals like runts or glitsches. Agilent started this hype. It is not just marketing or so, for some it will be important, but it is in my opinion more like a bonus as it would be the reason I choose one.

wfm/s is not a hype but a historical part of any scope since the first was made. Analog scopes have got an "infinite" wfm/s compared to digital ones and so it's really easy to see glitches of disturbed signals. Digital scopes have got the essential disadvantage that they need processing time for the display refresh instead of using a very fast ray as analog ones do. The only way of making random glitches visible in a certain amount of time is to make the wfm/s high enough to increase the probability of catching it. Hype? Never, especially not for communication engineers. But I agree: if you don't need to measure such signals, it's not the most important issue.

Memory, if you need it, you need it. I have no need for large memory but f you are in to digital and oneshot things you probably need it.  But I think that the memory size alone is not all, should it not be interesting to know if it is fast enough ? I get the feeling scopes are now following the IBM clones in the beginning of the PC area. Processors got faster, 16 bit, later 32 bit but often that fast processor had nothing to do because it was waiting because the too slow memory, videocard or slow 8 bit databus, instead of 16 or 32 bit, but that was not in the sales brochure.

 :palm: Hä? Don't know what scopes you're using but the Rigol is not slower than Agilent or Hameg. The memory is fast enough to be written with the highest sample rate of the ADC and that's what we need to get any sample provided by the ADC. Zoomed in you can measure the smallest time unit in the range of the ADC's sample rate. Think, there's no need to be faster.

And: one of the most important features of the RIGOL DS2000 and DS4000 series using the large memory is that a signal measured in ROLL mode can be recorded for a long period and zoomed in afterwards when the recording is stopped. That's a feature I know from the first Megazoom days of Agilent and what I'm missing at Hameg's HMO series. There's not zoom in the Hameg HMO devices when ROLL mode is stopped. At work I need that mode daily and RIGOL's Ultravision is very similar to Agilent's Megazoom.

For 4 channels you need 4 GSa/s, that will give you 1GSa/s per channel. I'm into digital theory but as far as I know you need at least 1GS/s per 100 MHz for best details and around 500 as a minimum, I think like with bndwidth, you need 10X the BW to see enough details on a squarewave and 5X is still sort of useable.

No. It's a question of the ADCs how high the sample rate is if 4 channels are used. In case all 4 channels are used the Hameg 352x HMOs do use 4 x 2GS/s, the HMO 2524 still uses 4 x 1.25GS/s.
And it doesn't matter if you have a 2 channel or 4 channel scope, in both cases the sample rate is higher than the bandwidth of the scope, i.e. if you're scope has got a 250MHz bandwidth you can differ a sine from a ramp in detail if you sample with 25MS/s in case using your 10X example. 1GS/s is overkill related to the bandwith of the scope.

A higher sample rate reveals more details since the time interval between to subsequent samples is small, it cannot overcome the limits of the input amplifier.

No reason not to buy a 4 channel scope except a limited budget.


Rgds
Gunb
 
 
The following users thanked this post: Slappy_g

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28653
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2013, 09:21:14 am »
So personally I think I will also go for a DS2000 series in the near future. However I am a little concerned about the firmware support of Rigol. Dave's DS2000 is also said to be getting an update. However that was said in November! We have not seen a review from Dave and the DS2000 and it's March already... That makes me rethink the Agilent option somehow...

I still have not seen the new Rigol firmware.
So either John at Emona has forgotten about it, or Rigol haven't supplied it to him yet. I'll have to ask...
I was holding off on the review until I got it.

Dave.
 

Offline PA4TIM

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1116
  • Country: nl
  • instruments are like rabbits, they multiply fast
    • PA4TIMs shelter for orphan measurement stuff
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2013, 10:18:13 am »
Gunb, I do not get some of your comments.

Who are you to decide what I find personal. I 'm only into RF and analog design and repair.
If I need 4 channels I use more scopes, even for two chanels I often do. Think outside your own world. One simple example, in an analog world or RF you often need more then one timebase. For instance the modulation on one trace and the LO on the other, or the LF input, or the in and output of a mixer. Then 4 vertical inputs will not help, two separate timebases will. And I know the virtual screen but that is virtual, i have to use knobs to see it and i hate switching. That is the same reason I use 4 bench meters. So I do not have to switch and I can monitor 4 things at one. Besides that I often use a handhed for probing around

Not accurate ? It can be even better. If there is a fault in your scope you will not know, two scopes make it possible to check meaurements, often I did not find a problem on a DSO but i did on an analoge scope, and vise versa. Or I got weird result, and if that is on both scopes, i know it is probably realy there and not a fault in the scope.
Besides that, i have scope calibrators for voltage and timebase so I can check both. My analog once are easy to calibrate.

I just mean by wfu/s what you tell in your last line, thats all. Hype will not say it is not important, but it is just one factor. Agilent started promoting it because they increased it very much. The rest follows.
People tend to focus on those highlights and forget the rest. The whole package must be in balance and have what you as user need. For me huge meomory, scroll mode, zoom ect is not important.

The new Rigols may be good, we will know in a few year. The problems on my Rigol started after 2 years. The knobs were flimsy hollow on a hollow shaft of aa encoder/potmeter. But mybe the Hameg is not durable too, i will tell you over a few year. Upto know I like it ( 2 channel HMO3522 350 MHz) one reason i took the 2 channel was i often need extern trigger and on the 2 channel that is on the front.

 :palm: makes no sense, you totaly misunderstand me. Please read again. Probably my fault, I'm not English. The compare about memory and PCs is not an attack on your precious Rigol, i never said Rigol is slower. it it just a thing I ask my self after reading specs of many ( entry level) instruments. It is very normal today to have Chinese mulimeters that have much more digits as needed, giving a false idea of accuracy. Like 4.5 digit and 1%. Many people only see the 4.5 digit but do not know what 1% stands for. And I'm afraid scopes will follow.

About sample rate, that is just what I was telling, so why the "no" ? For more details you want a higher sample rate, like why you need more BW for an analog scope. Just to see more details.

Think outside your own ( i think) digital world ;-)  ) not every one works at the same way and has the same demands
www.pa4tim.nl my collection measurement gear and experiments Also lots of info about network analyse
www.schneiderelectronicsrepair.nl  repair of test and calibration equipment
https://www.youtube.com/user/pa4tim my youtube channel
 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2013, 06:21:35 pm »

 :palm: makes no sense, you totaly misunderstand me.

No, read your comment, Mr. Sensible, nothing else. Read it yourself again ;-)

About sample rate, that is just what I was telling, so why the "no" ? For more details you want a higher sample rate, like why you need more BW for an analog scope. Just to see more details.

And? You argumented that sampe rate is reduced with a 4 channel scope against 2 channels - of course, and? As long as it is much higher than the bandwidth limit it don't care at all. 1 GS/s is still high enough even it would be for a 350MHz scope. So your argumentation against 4 channels is worthless.

I agree, buy Hameg or Agilent if you want a decade of use.

That was your initial statement and the one I'm related to. I've been in touch with Hameg in Germany many times during the last 4 years, a few bugfixes of the scope that have been made are the result of many error reports I've sent. I can tell you that neither Hameg nor Agilent or.... have less bugs than Rigol has (had/got). And you're comparing the low price units with mid price scopes - that's a fault. Especially the 8k Agilent at work has got a few bugs for years now - don't see that Agilent has fixed them. Where's the decade that you're talking about?

I had to sent my Hameg many times to the service since they had to fix some bugs and at last exchange some parts of the hardware to get the latest update running. I can guarantee that the DS4012 is much better regarding this issue than the HMO was - unfortunately! As a German I grew up with Hameg and I still appreciate their devices but as many other users I've also noticed that Rigol has made a giant step forward - and many users of their cheap models make the mistake to compare Agilent's or Hameg's of the mid price region with the cheap RIGOLs - that's a mistake. If you don't know the DS2000 or DS4000 series by using it than your initial statement is wrong - just that simple.

The new Rigols may be good, we will know in a few year. The problems on my Rigol started after 2 years. The knobs were flimsy hollow on a hollow shaft of aa encoder/potmeter. But mybe the Hameg is not durable too, i will tell you over a few year. Upto know I like it ( 2 channel HMO3522 350 MHz) one reason i took the 2 channel was i often need extern trigger and on the 2 channel that is on the front.

For that I don't need years. I study the device carefully and try to find bugs. Two of them I reported to their support in Munich and got an update the next day. Another bug I reported concerned the cursor measurement regarding long time signals where both cursors need more room than a display, i.e., measuring not only in display memory. It took a few month but suddendly I got a mail a few weeks ago - fixed the problem perfectly!

Concerning the quality of the hardware I would say that the knobs of the RIGOL are made from higher quality than the knobs of the HMOs. And again, you can't compare the DS2000/4000 series with the cheaper RIGOLs (1052/11xx).

By the way: the Rigol has got rubber foots and is absolutely skidproof opposed to my 5k HMO that I had to modify to protect it against skidding on my desk. Would say, the HMO has more details where they count, especially the bus decoding and better cursor measurement features, but even Hameg buys more or less the same parts for there scopes as RIGOL. Rather they try to use the cheaper parts to reduce costs in Europe.

And: I've also own the Rigol DSA815-TG and the DG1022A. I've bought the function generator after I've bought the expensive HMF from Hameg. The reason was fruststration about many firmware bugs of the HMF and bad signal quality of arbitrary signals at higher frequencies. I can guarantee that I was amazed when I checked the DG1022 for about 380,-€ against the HMF of more than 1000,-€. The HMI of the DG1022 is much better, the signal quality is much better, the built-in signals are more comprehensive - FOR LESS MONEY! Now buy a RIGOL of the 4000 series and compare what you get again for less money. On my desk at work I've got the Agilent 33220A arbitrary generator and even that device does not offer more or better features than the Rigols do.
I had to ship back the HMF a few times, at last because of burning effects of the display.

Yes, support is an issue. But what does the best support offer when firmware updates take too long? Then I'd rather buy a cheaper Chinese unit with less bugs from the beginning than waiting until I will retire! Or the more expensive manufacturers should try to solve there problems faster and more reliable.

Sorry, but quality is an issue of ANY device today. No reason against Rigol, and I wasn't always a friend of Chinese products - but of fair play.



And: I've understood very well what you've tried to explain, and I'm also not an Englishman.


As your neighbour from Germany I like Dutch people very much, so let's go on in a peaceful manner and  restart without misunderstandings.




Kind regards
Gunb

So, calm down.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 07:14:58 pm by Gunb »
 

Offline nack

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Country: nl
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2013, 09:44:26 pm »
@Gnub

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. I currently own a DS1022C (yeah, even prior to the 1052E era) which I still find quite useful and well build. Your experiences with Rigol do give me more confidence in buying a higher spec Rigol any time soon!

@Dave
Still looking forward to your DS2000 review. There are not many in-dept reviews on the net on the DS2000 except for the review from Mark Madel.

 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2013, 03:31:01 am »
@Gnub

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. I currently own a DS1022C (yeah, even prior to the 1052E era) which I still find quite useful and well build. Your experiences with Rigol do give me more confidence in buying a higher spec Rigol any time soon!


Yes, RIGOL has got interesting devices which can be an alternative, especially the DS2000/DS4000 series.

Hameg is still my favorite because they offer more features without extra fees, the HMO series has got much better cursor measurement features than the RIGOL has. Related to the xy-mode the brightness of the trace can be modulated by the 3rd z-input if you've got a 4 channel type. I've noticed also that the cursors cannot be activated with the RIGOL whereas Hameg offers plenty cursor measurement options.

Also the serial decoding functionality of the HMO is much better and has got more options as RIGOL offers - and: the Hameg's serial bus decoding options are much cheaper! I've got them all: UART, I2C, SPI, PARALLEL, LIN & CAN and I won't miss them! Really a well done job by Hameg.

But that's not an quality issue, and that's what I wanted to say. I don't deny that the low-price Rigols have less quality but the DS2000/4000 series don't. Because mentioned above the knobs of these Rigols are very comfortable to use. Don't know the English for these grease-filled knobs but they're of this kind with definite notches. First I ordered the scope for a trial period of 14 days because I was a bit skeptical about Chinese RIGOL, but after 1 day I decided to keep it.
One of the reasons was the stoppable ROLL-mode and the option to zoom in. This feature I know from my Agilent 54xxx at work and the HMO doesn't support that function.

Another quality issue might be the protected inputs when the 50Ohm impedance is switched on. In case you apply a too high voltage that might destroy the input stage a relay is separating the input automatically. Speaks also for a well designed circuit, doesn't it?

My DS4012 has got a built-in ethernet interface. I've connected it to one of my access points at home, nice to have with no extra costs.

Worth to be mentioned: if you need a scope with a very low noise level at 1mv/DIV then Hameg is the absolute favorite. Even most Agilents do not provide such low noise levels with this sensitivity. The Rigol has got 1mV/DIV, too but it has got much more noise than the Hamegs. Also the new high end HMOs introduced a few days ago score concerning noise.

Kind regards
Gunb
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 03:42:28 am by Gunb »
 

Offline Hydrawerk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2365
  • Country: 00
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2013, 06:28:23 am »
Worth to be mentioned: if you need a scope with a very low noise level at 1mv/DIV then Hameg is the absolute favorite. Even most Agilents do not provide such low noise levels with this sensitivity.
That is because Hameg has only about 2500 waveforms per second. Hameg is for those who need a really small oscilloscope, but VGA screen.  ^-^
Amazing machines. https://www.youtube.com/user/denha (It is not me...)
 

Offline olsenn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 993
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2013, 12:18:08 pm »
So I think I'm going to pull the trigger on the DS4024, but I wanted to get one last shot at feedback before I do.

The DS2022 (which was the other option I was considering) costs $334 for the 56MPts memory upgrade, and $222 for the advanced triggering upgrade, bringing the total to $2,182 for 2-channels, 56Mpts Memory, and 50,000 waveforms/sec. The DS4024 will cost me $2,899 and provide me with 4-channels, 114Mpts Memory, and 110,000 waveforms/sec.

Any comments on firmware, reliability, or anything else of interest? I'm really not interested in Hameg, Agilent, or any other brands.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28653
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2013, 02:03:07 pm »
The DS2022 (which was the other option I was considering) costs $334 for the 56MPts memory upgrade, and $222 for the advanced triggering upgrade, bringing the total to $2,182 for 2-channels, 56Mpts Memory, and 50,000 waveforms/sec. The DS4024 will cost me $2,899 and provide me with 4-channels, 114Mpts Memory, and 110,000 waveforms/sec.

Forget the memory and wfms, they are just a bit more of the same, the real choice here is 2 channel or 4 channel.
If you are comfortable with the price, then I don't think you'll ever regret the 4 channel 4024. There is a chance you may come to regret the 2 channel 2022 though.

Dave.
 
The following users thanked this post: Slappy_g

Offline Hydrawerk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2365
  • Country: 00
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2013, 01:07:53 am »
The DS4024 (...) 110,000 waveforms/sec.
Well, this is a peak value, according to Rigol manual, it is in
Quote
single-channel mode, sine signal with 10 ns horizontal scale, 4 div input amplitude and 10 MHz frequency, edge trigger.

In fact the waveform update speed still changes according to any conditions.  :P
Amazing machines. https://www.youtube.com/user/denha (It is not me...)
 

Offline olsenn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 993
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2013, 01:47:50 am »
Quote
Forget the memory and wfms, they are just a bit more of the same, the real choice here is 2 channel or 4 channel.
If you are comfortable with the price, then I don't think you'll ever regret the 4 channel 4024. There is a chance you may come to regret the 2 channel 2022 though.


So is what you are saying, that apart from having 4 channels instead of two, the DS4024 is not really much better than the DS2022?
 

Offline Hydrawerk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2365
  • Country: 00
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2013, 02:13:40 am »
DS4000 has more back connectors.
Amazing machines. https://www.youtube.com/user/denha (It is not me...)
 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2013, 02:28:44 am »
Worth to be mentioned: if you need a scope with a very low noise level at 1mv/DIV then Hameg is the absolute favorite. Even most Agilents do not provide such low noise levels with this sensitivity.
That is because Hameg has only about 2500 waveforms per second. Hameg is for those who need a really small oscilloscope, but VGA screen.  ^-^

No, that's not true.

The reason for the 2500 wfm/s is caused by the internal SPI connection to the display memory that causes the bottle neck and that's independent from the inputs.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 02:45:17 am by Gunb »
 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2013, 02:41:52 am »

Forget the memory and wfms, they are just a bit more of the same, the real choice here is 2 channel or 4 channel.
If you are comfortable with the price, then I don't think you'll ever regret the 4 channel 4024. There is a chance you may come to regret the 2 channel 2022 though.

Dave.

I agree.

When I bought the DS4012 the 2000 series was not on the market. So the wfm/s and the large memory is nice-to-have, but not mandatory for most purposes. Even the 2500wfm/s at max of the Hameg HMO (the latest HMOs have got up to 5000 wfm/s) are enough for most purposes. Many more expensive Teks don't provide more wfm/s.

The only reason for having higher wfm/s and large memory is searching for disturbed signals with random and rare glitches - I assume, most people don't do that.

If the DS2000 series would be there when I decided to buy the RIGOL I propably would have bought this one. The sensitivity is even a bit better (500µV/DIV) and even the noise floor is of better quality as the DS4000 series. I assume they use better ADCs.

Most scopes of today have got 4/8MPts and I haven't seen that anyone complaining about less memory. So, 14MPts should be more than enough then.

 
The following users thanked this post: Slappy_g

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2000 vs DS4000
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2013, 03:02:45 am »
Quote
Forget the memory and wfms, they are just a bit more of the same, the real choice here is 2 channel or 4 channel.
If you are comfortable with the price, then I don't think you'll ever regret the 4 channel 4024. There is a chance you may come to regret the 2 channel 2022 though.


So is what you are saying, that apart from having 4 channels instead of two, the DS4024 is not really much better than the DS2022?

I recommend to look into both manuals. The CONTENTS at the beginning show which triggers are built-in and which are optional that you have to pay for related to the DS2000. On the other hand there are new triggers that are not implemented in the DS4000.

What I've noticed looking into the DS2000 manual and compare it with the DS4000:

less memory
less wfm/s
less sample rate
partially trigger options are optional not included from the beginning

If you need more of the above options is a question that you have to answer yourself. From my point of view the DS2000 scopes are sufficient for most purposes.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf