Author Topic: UNI-T UTD2102CEL vs. Rigol DS1102E? (Read 78137 times)

slburris · « **Reply #25 on:** September 25, 2010, 01:20:01 am »

Can you post some pictures of UT-818's insides?

Scott

Kiriakos-GR · « **Reply #26 on:** September 25, 2010, 01:59:42 am »

Quote from: alm on September 25, 2010, 12:17:20 am

I wonder if some of their products are bought from other vendors? It seems strange that the build quality of a more expensive bench meter is worse than cheap handheld meters (from what I remember from Dave's review, the $100 meter wasn't great either, but not that bad). It does show that you can't just rely on the Uni-T brand for even mediocre quality.

I have stop to wonder about such matters , even Olympus that does digital cameras for many years now,
had very few truly worthy models ..

And my opinion are , that today we must looking and buy only the well made models , from any brand ..

Fraser · « **Reply #27 on:** September 25, 2010, 11:14:45 am »

As has been noticed, I made a typo in my last message...ooops

"Upon opening the UT-81B I was confronted by a total pile of rubbish" should read "Upon opening the UT-804 I was confronted by a total pile of rubbish".

My excuse... it was late and I was tired

I think I have some pictures of the UT-804 internals if anyone would like a laugh .... I will have a look though my archives. I still have the 804's sitting in their boxes under my bench in disgrace.... can't be bothered to sort them out for the moment.

I should have done more research before buying but didn't find anything about this speific meter when I searched previously.

The UT-81B appears (outwardly anyway) to be quite sturdy and well constructed.... better than the 'feel' of the UT-804 and , as a low bandwidth scopemeter performs well. I have not taken it apart yet as the warranty is still valid. My Fluke 97 Scopemeter is better built but then it cost significantly more than the UT-81's GBP 90 when new

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #28 on:** September 25, 2010, 11:50:09 am »

Quote from: Fraser on September 24, 2010, 11:53:49 pm

Upon opening the UT-81B I was confronted by a total pile of rubbish. 90% of the meter case is empty. There is a PCB running the full length of the front panel with a small daughter board for

then maybe we should be getting this

anyone?

3X the price (Hantek DSO1200 200MHz):
http://cgi.ebay.com.my/Hantek-DSO1200-200MHz-HandHeld-Scope-Meter-Oscilloscope-/270544410880?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3efdb41900

10X the price (Fluke 196C 100MHz):
http://cgi.ebay.com.my/Fluke-196C-ScopeMeter-Oscilloscope-Scope-Meter-196-/390243341327?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item5adc50d40f

the Hantek seems interesting too at the price of 3X UT81B, we get 25X the bandwidth. Any review/comment?
so maybe if i buy this (Hantek) i'll get 3 in 1 ie: DMM, Scopemeter (which is what it designed for

), and most importantly for me is Greater than Rigol DS1102 and Uni-T 2102 performance

200MHz man! 200MHz! errr. except for the 500MS/s, well, at least half?

Fraser · « **Reply #29 on:** September 25, 2010, 05:23:07 pm »

Hi All,

I have added a couple of internal pictures to the UT-81B to the review thread that is already running if anyone is interested.

I am also attaching a couple of pictures I have of the UT-804 internals to this message.

The poor terminal contact construction using self tapping screws is visible on the right hand side of the front panel picture. Sadly I cannot find any pictures of the front panel PCB itself.... I think I had given up on the UT-804 by then !

You sure get a lot of fresh air for your money with this unit but maybe that's just large scale integration for you

I personally think it is probably a very similar design to many of the UNI-T handheld multimeters, just in a bench case and more money.

I ended up buying two used Fluke 8840A bench multimeters with the AC RMS and GPIB options fitted. When you look inside those Fluke units you get a feeling of true quality. They may be old but by heck they were built well and they have software configured calibration.... no mechanical pots to adjust

Accuracy was excellent when tested against my employers standards.

Regards

Fraser

Bored@Work · « **Reply #30 on:** September 25, 2010, 06:23:17 pm »

Quote from: Fraser on September 25, 2010, 05:40:40 pm

Damn, another typo ... Fluke 8845A should read 8840A ...oops!

Why don't you press the Modify button on your posting and correct it?

Fraser · « **Reply #31 on:** September 25, 2010, 06:58:26 pm »

Thanks....Done.

Newbie learning the forum functionality

Fraser

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #32 on:** September 26, 2010, 12:28:04 am »

you picture of UT804... yea its terrible compared to what i've seen, i'll second you on "very similar design to many of the UNI-T handheld multimeters, just in a bench case and more money" thanx for the review. ~~but where is your UT81B pictures? can you post as well?~~
o ok, i saw it in https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1349.15;topicseen

Bored@Work · « **Reply #33 on:** September 26, 2010, 06:32:13 am »

Unlike Dave I do like bench multimeters, but that UT804 isn't a bench multimeter, it is an expensive lunch box. 260 USD for mostly air enclosed in cheap plastic.

Not that others cheap bench multimeters are much better. Some time ago I had the chance to peak inside a Mastech MS8050. http://www.p-mastech.com/products/04_dm/ms8050.html It had a robust metal enclosure, and wasn't as much highly integrated than the UT804 (read: the enclosure was halfway filled), but I saw one of the most shoddy soldering jobs I ever saw. It was a real shame.

The worst were three SMD resistors, flipped and "glued" (I refuse to call that soldering), "glued" together in the form of a triangle / pyramid. It looked like they didn't have a particular resistor value, and made on from three others. And had an absolute beginner in soldering "glue" the resistors together.

There were also tiny splashes of solder all over the PCB. Just as if someone wanted to get rid of excess solder on the tip and shook it off from the tip instead of using the sponge, splashing solder into the instrument.

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #34 on:** September 26, 2010, 09:14:59 am »

terrible in my previous comment, look at the sale on ebay, i think it just maybe deserve that way at $167.00, other portable DMM maybe in that price range too http://cgi.ebay.com.my/Uni-T-UT804-Bench-Type-Digital-Multimeters-w-driver-USB-/220663448987?pt=BI_Analyzers&hash=item336091059b. The picture shows you can as well put something on the top (inside) of it

alm · « **Reply #35 on:** September 26, 2010, 06:52:20 pm »

All bench meters I've taken apart had at least one PCB almost filling the case with analog and digital electronics. They weren't as tightly packed as handhelds, but not almost empty like this one. But they were at least 5.5 digits and made by real brands like HP or Keithley. For that kind of performance, you can't just use an off the shelf IC like the ICL7106, especially 15-30 years ago (these things are way too expensive for me to buy new). The ADC is usually build from discrete components (including op-amps).

I too agree with the handheld meter in a bench box and expensive lunch box comments (although I'm not sure I'd trust my lunch to one).

hyiu00 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 25, 2010, 01:21:35 am »

I just bought one UTD2102CEL in Hong Kong for HK$2600 (about US$333). I think for a hobbyist electronics, it is not worth paying for a fortune to put a scope at home, as the electronics you repair within the oscilloscpe lifetime will probably cost less than the scope itself. Therefore I choose to buy a cheap one. It works fine, but I do not have much equipment to check its full performance.

I used similar Rigol and Tektronix scope before with my previous jobs. One thing I notice about Rigol compared with Tektronix TDS1000 series is that Rigol is a little bit more noisy when turned to very small V/div. But unfortunately I cannot compared it with my Uni-T since I do not work there any more.

IanJ · « **Reply #37 on:** February 05, 2011, 08:47:38 am »

Hi all,

Just bought a Uni-T UTD2102CEL for home use........looking forward to it.

I'm building a new garden w/shop for all my home projects........great fun populating it with new toys.

Ian.

Mechatrommer · « **Reply #38 on:** February 05, 2011, 10:22:17 am »

pls review for us

saturation · « **Reply #39 on:** February 05, 2011, 12:59:04 pm »

Yes, please review it for us!

Here are some simple suggestions for quick overview of its performance.

Check the rise time, all you need is a square wave generator to about 1-10MHz, use the fastest scope timebase, and use the automatic measure function to see what rise time it gives you at the leading edge of the wave. If you don't have 10 MHz, any square wave generator will do for now, if you can find its documented rise time. The internal calibration square wave may not be fast enough.

See how close you can get to 3.5ns.

A quick test of the vertical amp, just measure the DC output of a 1.5V battery and compare it against your DMM.

Mala_elektronic · « **Reply #40 on:** February 06, 2011, 07:38:44 pm »

Hi,
I recently had the Uni-Trend UTD2052CEL. It didn’t like it. So I sent it back.
I wrote a small review of the UTD2052CEL.
You can read it here in german:
http://www.martin-lauff.de/uni-trend-utd-2052cel-test.html
and here in English (Google translated):
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martin-lauff.de%2Ftekway-dst1102b.html

Same things are very bad with the UTD2052CEL. The FFT has an error of about 20% and the Screen resolution is not fully used. They use 4 pixels for one. I have make same screenshots of it which you can see in the review.
I sand it back and buy the Tekway DST1102B. This one uses the full display and gives a correct FFT. I make a review of it, too.
Here in German: http://www.martin-lauff.de/tekway-dst1102b.html
and here in English (Google translated, too):
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martin-lauff.de%2Funi-trend-utd-2052cel-test.html

saturation · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2011, 12:34:30 pm »

Vielen danke, Herr Mala_elektronic. One of the most extensive reviews I know out in the Internet on both DSOs. Still reading through.

Also, your forum link has more information.

Quote from: Mala_elektronic on February 06, 2011, 07:38:44 pm

Hi,
I recently had the Uni-Trend UTD2052CEL. It didn’t like it. So I sent it back.
I wrote a small review of the UTD2052CEL.
You can read it here in german:
http://www.martin-lauff.de/uni-trend-utd-2052cel-test.html
and here in English (Google translated):
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martin-lauff.de%2Ftekway-dst1102b.html

Same things are very bad with the UTD2052CEL. The FFT has an error of about 20% and the Screen resolution is not fully used. They use 4 pixels for one. I have make same screenshots of it which you can see in the review.
I sand it back and buy the Tekway DST1102B. This one uses the full display and gives a correct FFT. I make a review of it, too.
Here in German: http://www.martin-lauff.de/tekway-dst1102b.html
and here in English (Google translated, too):
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martin-lauff.de%2Funi-trend-utd-2052cel-test.html

Mala_elektronic · « **Reply #42 on:** February 08, 2011, 02:11:10 pm »

no problem. I have looked myself for a review, but couldn’t find one.
There are definitely still some gaps in it. So if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I don’t have the UTD2052CEL anymore, but maybe I still remember same details and can help you. I talked to some people which has the Uni-T DSO too and send it although back. So I can ask them too.
I am more often in my forum, so I could respond there more quickly. (You can also write in English).

saturation · « **Reply #43 on:** February 09, 2011, 12:56:42 pm »

Yes, I'd prefer to see more performance tests that usability or ergonomic evaluations, but overall, the photos are very revealing. I put measurement precision and accuracy first before all else. Since the Uni-t has the amplitude error in FFT function, what else can is wrong? What bothers me is that the factory did not bother check for it, so what else could be missing that may take substantial testing to find? There may be non-linearities, poorly aligned ADC, all will create subtle errors.

The Rigol, for all its pluses and minuses, does not have such glaring faults, and what little bugs I've found are minor and ergonomically related than measurement quality.

Quote from: Mala_elektronic on February 08, 2011, 02:11:10 pm

no problem. I have looked myself for a review, but couldn’t find one.
There are definitely still some gaps in it. So if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I don’t have the UTD2052CEL anymore, but maybe I still remember same details and can help you. I talked to some people which has the Uni-T DSO too and send it although back. So I can ask them too.
I am more often in my forum, so I could respond there more quickly. (You can also write in English).

alm · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:41:35 pm »

Quote from: saturation on February 09, 2011, 12:56:42 pm

The Rigol, for all its pluses and minuses, does not have such glaring faults, and what little bugs I've found are minor and ergonomically related than measurement quality.

I would consider the issues with automatic measurements (based on low-resolution screen instead of original signal, and results sometimes appear to depend on the position of the waveform on the screen) related to measurement quality, although they may not be as bad as the Uni-T issue.

saturation · « **Reply #45 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:31:13 pm »

This is true, but its holds to the documented specs of ~ 3-4%, up to 6% when you include the conditions mentioned in the manual.

Its easy to test, for amplitude vertical accuracy is calibrated against DC. However, like the olden days of reading off graticules, the error is least if your waveform fills the screen without overshoot and increases to maximum with small images, because of reduced resolution. For frequency, rise time, period etc., all can be compared against manual measurements.

Quote from: alm on February 09, 2011, 01:41:35 pm

Quote from: saturation on February 09, 2011, 12:56:42 pm
The Rigol, for all its pluses and minuses, does not have such glaring faults, and what little bugs I've found are minor and ergonomically related than measurement quality.
I would consider the issues with automatic measurements (based on low-resolution screen instead of original signal, and results sometimes appear to depend on the position of the waveform on the screen) related to measurement quality, although they may not be as bad as the Uni-T issue.

alm · « **Reply #46 on:** February 09, 2011, 04:43:46 pm »

Quote from: saturation on February 09, 2011, 03:31:13 pm

Its easy to test, for amplitude vertical accuracy is calibrated against DC. However, like the olden days of reading off graticules, the error is least if your waveform fills the screen without overshoot and increases to maximum with small images, because of reduced resolution. For frequency, rise time, period etc., all can be compared against manual measurements.

This is correct, but you could also work around the FFT error by doing the FFT yourself on a PC. The point of features like automated measurements like automated measurements is convenience, just like built-in FFT, and this advantage is lost if you have to do it manually.

IanJ · « **Reply #47 on:** February 15, 2011, 10:15:42 pm »

Hi all,

Took delivery of my Uni-T UTD2102CEL today............had to laugh though, it took me 20mins to get it powered up in ENGLISH..........it was shipped with a Chinese manual only. Eventually I found an English pdf via google.......

Ian.

Murer · « **Reply #48 on:** June 15, 2011, 09:37:17 pm »

Quote from: IanJ on February 15, 2011, 10:15:42 pm

Hi all,

Took delivery of my Uni-T UTD2102CEL today............had to laugh though, it took me 20mins to get it powered up in ENGLISH..........it was shipped with a Chinese manual only. Eventually I found an English pdf via google.......

Ian.

So... what do you think? Is it a good device?

I'm choosing between Rigol DS1052E and Uni-T UTD2052CL, which one do you guys think I should choose? Are the two channels using the same ADC on the Uni-T so you get 250MS/s if you use both channels at the same time?

The1 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 16, 2011, 10:12:21 pm »

Quote from: IanJ on February 15, 2011, 10:15:42 pm

Hi all,

Took delivery of my Uni-T UTD2102CEL today............had to laugh though, it took me 20mins to get it powered up in ENGLISH..........it was shipped with a Chinese manual only. Eventually I found an English pdf via google.......

Ian.

Please let us know how it went, seeing you have had a few months to play now


EEVblog Main Site	EEVblog on Youtube	EEVblog on Twitter	EEVblog on Facebook	EEVblog on Odysee