Author Topic: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A  (Read 26434 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ag3c

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« on: June 11, 2012, 04:25:45 pm »
With the Rigol DS2000 series now out, I'm trying to decide between the Rigol DS2102 and the Agilent DSOX2012A.  This is my third or fourth scope, second DSO.  I do mostly digital stuff, but it's time for me to replace my half-dead Owon with a real tool.  I'm ready for an "advanced hobbyist" level scope.   :)

Things that make me favor the Agilent:
- Agilent quality
- based on Dave's review, I've seen it in action (I've only seen product literature for the Rigol)
- slightly larger screen (though same resolution)
- might be nice to upgrade it to 200MHz in the future?

Things that make me favor the Rigol:
- advanced math features seem superior
- price is a bit better
- more soft keys = faster UI navigation?
- better triggers?
- better use of screen space?

I have a great Logic analyzer and don't plan to upgrade the Agilent.  (Besides: $$$!)
And I have a signal generator, so the current Agilent promotion to enable the DSOX2012A's built-in signal generator doesn't seem so useful to me.

So other than that... the stats on these models are pretty similar in terms of channels, bandwidth, waveforms/sec.
What should I get?  Or... what factors should I be thinking about?
 

Offline 0xdeadbeef

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1532
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2012, 05:46:41 pm »
The DSOX2000 has very little memory and the DS2000 has 4 times more than a DSOX3000 with memory upgrade.
This is a big plus for the DS2000. Then again, you can't search the memory on the DS2000 and it seems to have inherited several functional limitations from the DS4000.
Trying is the first step towards failure - Homer J. Simpson
 

Offline Fox

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Country: de
  • Electronics Engineer
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2012, 06:48:18 pm »
Have you thought about an HAMEG on for example a HMO1522 or HMO2022 are around the same price point as the Agilent.
They are mixed signal scopes and can do serial decoding (optional of course about 200€ for i2c,spi,uart on analog chanells, 290€ on analog and digital channels).
More sample memory than the Agilents but not as fast 2000wfs against 50000wfs.
Review of the HMO2024
http://youtu.be/HJ-hUTDfOlw
A closed Switch should have zero Ohms or less!
 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2012, 09:31:10 pm »
Agilent's DSO2000 X- and DSO3000 X-Series has got 4mV vertical sensitivity at maximum, 1mV and 2mV are scaled values only. According to the datasheet they recommend to calculate with 32mV accuracy. 

Rigol DS4000-Series has got real 1mV/DIV as well as Hameg HMO which contain low noise ADCs, Rigol DS2000-Series offers even 0.5mV/DIV.

Agilent DSO2000 X-Series does not offer search functionality, too and bus decoding is only available for 3000 X-Series. Bus decoding for all HMOs is applicable, there are special offers which include them for free at the moment.

HMOs and RIGOL DS2000-Series contain more mathematical functions than DSO2000 X-Series from Agilent.

So, there are good reasons to study the datasheets carefully first before degrading Rigols and Hamegs.

Cheers
 

Offline jpb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1732
  • Country: gb
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2012, 09:04:04 pm »
This is my first post, though I've been reading the forums for a little while.

I'm looking to get a good quality but not-too-expensive 100MHz scope. Trying to keep the budget below around £1k leads to a choice between
Agilent DSOX2012A, the Rigol DS2102 and the Lecroy Wavejet 312A (which is heavily discounted at present).

The Rigol has the better specs on paper. The Agilent is the most expensive but has the function generator so if I allow around £250 for that it is good value but has the least memory. The Lecroy is the cheapest but has the lowest spec.

What I really would like to know is the comparitive robustness, button quality, service etc. I read bad things on the LeCroy WaveAce on here but is the Wavejet better quality. The Agilent seems good quality but apart from a good refresh rate seems to be crippled in a lot of ways (no hardware counter, only 100k memory, the function generator is not AWF) and would be expensive to upgrade. The Rigol claims 50,000Wf/sec refresh (in dot mode) but is it really that high or is that just a peak value?

Can anyone comment on the comparitive solidity of these three scopes? (I refer to the firmware/software as well as the buttons etc).
 

Offline QRomo

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • Country: ca
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2012, 09:39:39 pm »
I don't know if this will affect your decision, but Agilent is currently running a promo for a free WaveGen/DVM upgrade on their x-series scopes, which I think is offered worldwide.
 

Offline T4P

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3706
  • Country: sg
    • T4P
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2012, 04:51:53 am »
This is my first post, though I've been reading the forums for a little while.

I'm looking to get a good quality but not-too-expensive 100MHz scope. Trying to keep the budget below around £1k leads to a choice between
Agilent DSOX2012A, the Rigol DS2102 and the Lecroy Wavejet 312A (which is heavily discounted at present).

The Rigol has the better specs on paper. The Agilent is the most expensive but has the function generator so if I allow around £250 for that it is good value but has the least memory. The Lecroy is the cheapest but has the lowest spec.

What I really would like to know is the comparitive robustness, button quality, service etc. I read bad things on the LeCroy WaveAce on here but is the Wavejet better quality. The Agilent seems good quality but apart from a good refresh rate seems to be crippled in a lot of ways (no hardware counter, only 100k memory, the function generator is not AWF) and would be expensive to upgrade. The Rigol claims 50,000Wf/sec refresh (in dot mode) but is it really that high or is that just a peak value?

Can anyone comment on the comparitive solidity of these three scopes? (I refer to the firmware/software as well as the buttons etc).

Just completely stay away from LeCrap, it's probably Iwatsu's and LeCrap is horrible even on the high-end.
 

Offline grenert

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 446
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2012, 07:21:06 am »
The Agilent seems good quality but apart from a good refresh rate seems to be crippled in a lot of ways (no hardware counter, only 100k memory, the function generator is not AWF) and would be expensive to upgrade.
Someone on this forum mentioned that if you shell out $75 for the silly DVM option on the Agilent, you also get the hardware counter activated.
 

Offline armandas

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 336
  • Country: jp
    • My projects
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2012, 07:22:40 am »
I'm looking to get a good quality but not-too-expensive 100MHz scope. Trying to keep the budget below around £1k leads to a choice between
Agilent DSOX2012A, the Rigol DS2102 and the Lecroy Wavejet 312A (which is heavily discounted at present).

Where can you buy a WaveJet 312A for around £1k?
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1090
  • Country: gb
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2012, 08:03:10 am »
I'm looking to get a good quality but not-too-expensive 100MHz scope. Trying to keep the budget below around £1k leads to a choice between
Agilent DSOX2012A, the Rigol DS2102 and the Lecroy Wavejet 312A (which is heavily discounted at present).

Where can you buy a WaveJet 312A for around £1k?
A quick Google shows Sematron offering the 312A for £898 on Amazon. Only 1 in stock, though...
 

Offline 0xdeadbeef

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1532
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2012, 08:56:22 am »
Just completely stay away from LeCrap, it's probably Iwatsu's and LeCrap is horrible even on the high-end.
Not that I share your opinion about LeCroy, since I still consider the WaveRunner and WaveSurfer series to be the best available DSOs in the 10k€ range, but he WaveJet series is indeed designed (and most probably also manufactured) by Iwatsu. Which doesn't mean that the WaveJets are bad. Indeed I read nothing negative about them. Just the memory (500k) is a little small, but not as small as the DSOX2000's.
Also I think there are no protocol decoding options available, but then again there aren't any for the DSOX2000 as well and if there were, they'd be too expensive anyway.
So, though a bit outdated, a WaveJet for <1k£ could be a good deal. I must admit, I can't really see the big discount here around, as the 312A still costs ~3k€ wherever I looked. This of course is a bit expensive considering its features.

IMHO, the DSOX2000 is crippled in too many ways to be interesting and the DSOX3000 is a bit expensive. The Rigol DS2000/4000 are interesting, but currently lack some features and trusting that Rigol will improve the SW soon is a bit risky from my point of view.

Anyway, I'd like to second the idea to consider a Hameg HMO1022 or 1024. They are very small and incredibly silent, still they have very good signal quality, a pretty good screen resolution (640x480) and good memory depth (2ch: 2x1Mpts or 1x2Mpts, 2ch: 4x1Mpts or 2x2Mpts). They are also pretty feature rich. E.g. the mask test is for free (option on the Agilent DSOX), they have relatively cheap serial decoding options (I2C, SPI and UART for 190€ excl. VAT  on analog channels or 290€ on analog/digital channels) and can be extended to an MSO with an 8ch digital probe (190€ excl. VAT). They also come with very good quality 250MHz 10:1 probes with auto-detect.
Trying is the first step towards failure - Homer J. Simpson
 

Offline jpb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1732
  • Country: gb
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2012, 10:43:27 am »
Thanks for the replies.

The Hameg HMO1022 looks a nice scope, though it is a little pricier (around £1400 on a quick search). I see it is a Rohde Schwartz company, hopefully this means it is a quality product.
 

Offline 0xdeadbeef

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1532
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2012, 10:59:25 am »
Hameg was taken over by R&S after the HMO series was already close to production. So the HMOs are designed in Germany, but built in a R&S factory in the Czech republic. Thus the design is very decent and the built quality as well. And as the HMO (722 up to 2024) line came out about one year ago, there shouldn't be any blatant bugs in the software any more.

As a side note: maybe the 722 could be an option if price is an issue. The 72x and the 102x share the same software, sampling rate etc. So I wonder if the 30MHz difference in bandwidth will make much of a difference in real life.
Trying is the first step towards failure - Homer J. Simpson
 

Offline Gunb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 221
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2012, 12:53:53 pm »

The Agilent seems good quality but apart from a good refresh rate seems to be crippled in a lot of ways (no hardware counter, only 100k memory, the function generator is not AWF) and would be expensive to upgrade. The Rigol claims 50,000Wf/sec refresh (in dot mode) but is it really that high or is that just a peak value?

Can anyone comment on the comparitive solidity of these three scopes? (I refer to the firmware/software as well as the buttons etc).

Small memory of the DSO2000X-series was one thing not to decide for this model, the function generator is no arbitrary one which allows the design of individual curves - so not really a bonus.

The 50.000 wfm/s means always "up to", also for Agilent scopes. It always depends upon the timescale you're just using, for further information Agilent offers notes somewhere on their server.
Decision which scope to buy should not be related to wfm/s only, especially if you don't need it for your purposes. Besides this value is not bad for that money.
Many scopes only have got refresh rates in the range of a few thousand wfm/s, also expensive ones, but that must not mean any restriction. It depends on your needs.


Thanks for the replies.

The Hameg HMO1022 looks a nice scope, though it is a little pricier (around £1400 on a quick search). I see it is a Rohde Schwartz company, hopefully this means it is a quality product.

Hameg products are developed at a few sites in Germany. HMO scope firmware is developed in Chemnitz, East Germany, others still in Mainhausen. Support is also in Mainhausen at traditional Hameg site and separated from R&S, which resides in Munich.
Production of Hameg products have been consolidated with R&S production to reduce costs at Czech republic according to R&S manufacturing quality standards. Partially R&S had an impact on Hameg products.

Hameg support is commendable. Their manuals could be better.

Bus decoding options are great and well-priced.
 

Oracle

  • Guest
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2012, 07:03:52 pm »
If i were you, I would buy the Agilent DSOX2012A: because you  told to do most of digital stuff, and it can be upgraded whit a logic analyzer.... Anyway the Rigol DS2102 seems more advanced, so you can do more things. Depends what do you want: more function or  instruments...
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32164
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2012, 12:19:56 am »
I have only briefly played with the Rigol 2000, but I must say that I am pretty impressed.
On the surface it seems like the Rigol has the Agilent beat hands down in most areas.
A ton more memory, waveform reply, serial decode option (Agilent may include that in the future on the 2000X, the button is there), the lower noise floor and vertical ranges, Ethernet standard.

But the 2000X has a few advantages in terms of upgradability. The wavegen, the bandwidth, mixed signal digital, the hardware serial decoding (I think the Rigol is software decode, but have not confirmed), and 4 channel option.

One annoying feature of the Rigol is that when you move the waveform with the vertical position adjust, it just goes blank screen, and stays that way whenever you are turning the knob. Really annoying. Firmware bug perhaps?

If I was using my own money, and only needed a 2 channel scope, I'd get the Rigol, based on the big memory and the low noise performance alone. And it's cheaper.
And I get the feeling my review will end up with the same conclusion.

Agilent have very serious competition here, but the Agilent is still the clear winner in the education scope market.

Dave.
 

Offline zaoka

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 373
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2012, 12:40:54 am »
Dave please explore features of Rigol and make a review, nobody does it better than you!
 

Offline ejeffrey

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2268
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2012, 09:31:09 am »
Agilent have very serious competition here, but the Agilent is still the clear winner in the education scope market.

Yeah -- once you throw in a free wavegen and a 30% academic discount, the agilent starts to look pretty good.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32164
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2012, 09:48:51 am »
Yeah -- once you throw in a free wavegen and a 30% academic discount, the agilent starts to look pretty good.

It's not just that, they have educational course material too.
And yes, the combo of the inbuilt dual channel wavegen and the inbuilt help system combined with the educational printed material makes it far superior.

Dave.
 

Offline ToBeFrank

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 234
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2012, 03:08:53 pm »
Really annoying. Firmware bug perhaps?

This would be the deciding factor for me... how buggy is the firmware? I know when I had the 1052e, there were always bugs. New versions of firmware would fix some bugs and introduce new ones. I see on the forum there have been some serious bugs with the 2000 series too. So far, I haven't encountered any firmware problems with my agilent 3000 series. I've upgraded it I think 3 times now. I didn't have any problems with the 2000 series agilent either.
 

Offline kg4arn

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2012, 07:56:46 pm »
I have a 3000 series and there are some bugs.  In Firmware Version 2.10 User calibration caused my scope to lock up and become unusable, but they fixed that in 2.12.  Occasionally, mine will stop calculating statistics.  Usually have to do a preset of the scope to get it back again.

But overall using my x3000 series scope had been a delight.   I would buy it again in a heartbeat.  For performance and usability I would give it a score of 98/100.
 

Offline rbola35618

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 295
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2012, 01:44:42 am »
I evaluated both the Rigol DS4054 and the Agilent 3000.  What I noticed is that the Rigol at times had a much dimmer screen plots than those of the Agilent 3000.  Perhaps Dave can do a side by side comparison.

The other thing I noticed that was a big difference is when looking at a complex waveforms such as the video of a camera. A Video signal is a very difficult for scopes to display. The digital phosphor or digital persistence(intensity grading) is much better in the Agilent 3000. It shows the intensity of the waveform much, much better that the Rigol.

Again maybe Dave can show the big difference in the digital persistent.  Overall, I thing the Display on the Agilent looks much better.  The Agilent's displays feels like I am using an Analog scope. Its display is much faster and gives it a display that looks like an analog scope.

Robert
 

Offline T4P

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3706
  • Country: sg
    • T4P
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2012, 07:09:39 am »
DS4012 vs DSOX3012
110,000 vs 1million You judge
140MB vs 2MB
2000$ vs 3000$
triggering options
1,500$ for CAN,SPI,I2C & RS232 vs 2187$ for CAN,LIN,RS232/UART,I2C and SPI
SPI Option
500$ vs 729$
RS232
500$ vs 729$
Flexray
1,200$ vs 1,530$

 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12246
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2012, 07:50:39 am »
Quote
This would be the deciding factor for me... how buggy is the firmware?
All software inevitably has bugs - the important thing is how responsive the manufacturer is in fixing them, testing and being open to suggestions for improvement.
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline nanofrog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5448
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol DS2102 vs Agilent DSOX2012A
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2012, 08:38:25 am »
Quote
This would be the deciding factor for me... how buggy is the firmware?
All software inevitably has bugs - the important thing is how responsive the manufacturer is in fixing them, testing and being open to suggestions for improvement.
This is what makes me nervous about Rigol for the higher level scopes. I just don't know enough about them in this regard to take them over an Agilent, even if the Agilent is a bit more expensive.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf