By the way, Rigol has just released a new firmware yesterday. According to several reviews on this forum, it makes the user interface (trace adjustment) feel more responsive, and it fixes a bug with RMS measurements. I am pleased to see that Rigol still actively care about the product, and look forward to trying out the new firmware.
So, why many people consider it to be the "best" oscilloscope for hobbyists?
Is it just because it is cheap? Does that mean it is just like a toy for hobbyists rather than a piece of instrument for serious scientific research and academic use at graduate/postdoc level?
I can imagine that if a measurement instrument has bugs, it may not be a good idea to use it as incorrect measurements and incorrect scientific findings may result.
By the way, Rigol has just released a new firmware yesterday. According to several reviews on this forum, it makes the user interface (trace adjustment) feel more responsive, and it fixes a bug with RMS measurements. I am pleased to see that Rigol still actively care about the product, and look forward to trying out the new firmware.
Thanks. Any video about the new user interface?
however while i don't share fungus' enthusiasm (it hasn't improved that much in speed in doing basic things like moving the trace up/down/left/right) it must be said that it has improven a lot since the beginning of this year.
it's a very serious scope. NASA could use it just like they could use any other modern advanced 100MHz digital scope.
5 years ago this would have been a very advanced scope worth 10 times the price.
10 years ago it would have been an extraordinary bit of kit most would have lusted over.
I am a bit confused. I read many reviews and posts about this inexpensive oscilloscopes. Some users are strongly in favor of it. I heard that it is the cheapest one with lots of functionality. Many people consider it to be the "best" oscilloscope for "hobbyists". Some people mentioned that they are very satisfied with it even they have used more expensive oscilloscopes from other manufacturers. However, there are also people mentioning that it has many bugs, "you get what you pay for", Rigol does not know what they are doing while copying the design of others, since it is so cheap some faults can be tolerated, it is a piece of sh*t, etc.
So, why many people consider it to be the "best" oscilloscope for hobbyists? Is it just because it is cheap? Does that mean it is just like a toy for hobbyists rather than a piece of instrument for serious scientific research and academic use at graduate/postdoc level? I can imagine that if a measurement instrument has bugs, it may not be a good idea to use it as incorrect measurements and incorrect scientific findings may result.
When you read about all the problems with Rigol, make sure the poster actually knows how to operate a scope.
Nope, it's a very serious scope. NASA could use it just like they could use any other modern advanced 100MHz digital scope.
5 years ago this would have been a very advanced scope worth 10 times the price.
10 years ago it would have been an extraordinary bit of kit most would have lusted over.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing in any way that the DS1054z is currently the best bang for the buck you can find in the $400 price bracket,
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing in any way that the DS1054z is currently the best bang for the buck you can find in the $400 price bracket,That is only true IF YOU HACK IT! Otherwise the DS1000Z series is actually rather expensive and limited compared to the competition.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing in any way that the DS1054z is currently the best bang for the buck you can find in the $400 price bracket,That is only true IF YOU HACK IT! Otherwise the DS1000Z series is actually rather expensive and limited compared to the competition.
to the OP: seeing all you topics my final suggestion is: get a 1054Z.
altough you seem to have the budget for much better equipment you also seem to have no idea if you will need it or not. get a 1054, find out if you are able to get your work done with it.
if you can good for you! you saved at least 2600.
if you can't at worst you wasted 400 if you don't want to resell it, but having a spare wheel is always useful
i'm sure i'm not the first to say itQuoteWhen you read about all the problems with Rigol, make sure the poster actually knows how to operate a scope.oh boy, the topic from that guy that wanted to look at a 10Vpp sinewave with 10 mV per division vertical scale or something like that. i don't want to dig it out... that was embarassing
to the OP: seeing all you topics my final suggestion is: get a 1054Z.
altough you seem to have the budget for much better equipment you also seem to have no idea if you will need it or not. get a 1054, find out if you are able to get your work done with it.
if you can good for you! you saved at least 2600.
if you can't at worst you wasted 400 if you don't want to resell it, but having a spare wheel is always useful
i'm sure i'm not the first to say itQuoteWhen you read about all the problems with Rigol, make sure the poster actually knows how to operate a scope.oh boy, the topic from that guy that wanted to look at a 10Vpp sinewave with 10 mV per division vertical scale or something like that. i don't want to dig it out... that was embarassing
I don't see how the OP can publish papers for peer review with scope screenshots from a Rigol and not get laughed at. Serious research requires serious instrumentation. Not that the answers are any different, they probably won't be, but anything by Keysight will have more impact than anything by Rigol. Serious instrumentation implies serious costs. Keysight can easily fill that requirement.
I don't see how the OP can publish papers for peer review with scope screenshots from a Rigol and not get laughed at. Serious research requires serious instrumentation.
I don't see how the OP can publish papers for peer review with scope screenshots from a Rigol and not get laughed at. Serious research requires serious instrumentation.I'd rather say: NIST traceable calibration.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing in any way that the DS1054z is currently the best bang for the buck you can find in the $400 price bracket,That is only true IF YOU HACK IT! Otherwise the DS1000Z series is actually rather expensive and limited compared to the competition.
Yes, but then look at who'd buy a $400 scope. It'll be pretty much hobbyists and for them the idea of "hacking" a scope (which as I understand it is really using an online key generator) is probably exciting. Quality or maturity aren't necessarily top issues as long as the scope does mostly what they want. So it's fair game, and under that circumstances I'd say that the DS1054z is pretty much the best offer on the market.
If I had to spend $400 on a brand new scope I'd probably buy the GW Instek GDS1054B because of its better FFT and because I assume it's more mature, but that's me. And frankly, I'd rather spend the money on a 2nd hand scope, which is exactly what I did when I needed a cheap simple scope (I thought about buying a DS1054z, but then bought a HP 54645D MSO instead for a bit over half the money)
QuoteI can imagine that if a measurement instrument has bugs, it may not be a good idea to use it as incorrect measurements and incorrect scientific findings may result.
If it had that serious a bug it would have been found by now by the community.
Not to mention that I want full support from the manufacturers even if the gear costs a little bit more...
If it had that serious a bug it would have been found by now by the community.Actually it was. VRMS measurment "digital crosstalk" bug.