1) Accurate measurements & signal quality.You get what you pay for - doubt there will be much to choose between these
2) Stable firmware.We all know Chinese are bad at firmware - Rigol probably the best bet but issues on others are more likely to be annoyances than show-stoppers. Again, .you get what you pay for
PSUs are usually easily repairable
3) High quality internal power supply.
4) Crisp display with nice viewing angles.Why do you need wide view angle? - you will usually want the scope facing you for access to controls
5) Bandwidth >= 50Mhz.50-100M is a reasonable starting point these days - nmot worth looking at anything less as it will probably be cheapo garbage
6) Usable probes for the given bandwidth.You can always buy different probes, but at this bandwidth it's not too critical and chances are they will all come with the same ones.
AT the low=cost end you're probably not going to get much better resolution even on a bigger screen.This is actually a very good point.
Welcome to the world of cut price scopes.
Pick whichever one annoys you the least ;D
I am not buying the Rigol because it has a small screen.
I am not buying the Hantek because it looks cheaply made.
I am not buying the Owon because the firmware lacks in many aspects.
I am not buying the Siglent because nobody knows how it actually performs.
I am not buying the UNI-T because rumor has it that its a bad scope. :)
Welcome to the world of cut price scopes.
Pick whichever one annoys you the least ;D
Pick whichever one annoys you the least ;D
I encourage anyone that does not like to talk a lot :) but has an opinion, to vote for the best
oscilloscope from those listed. Thanks! It will be interesting to see the results.
QuoteI am not buying the Hantek because it looks cheaply made.
Not a big deal - FW crashes are more of an issue; I don't know where that stands currently - check the Hantek thread here for latest info.
QuoteI am not buying the UNI-T because rumor has it that its a bad scope. :)
I don't know anything about Uni-T, other than I've read they've appeared to 'fudge' some of their specs in the past.
QuoteI am not buying the Siglent because nobody knows how it actually performs.
Member Rf-loop sells Siglent here in the EU
Bad Viewing Angle:
This is noticeable but for me not an issue at all. I have it sitting on my desk now, and I did turn up the grid intensity a bit so I can see that part better. If I move my head down low I can notice the difference, but it is not any kind of a problem for me.
Hantek/Tekway is the only chinese DSO which can be placed at and above eye level! When you do this, the viewing angle is perfect.
It was designed by Tekway like that for reason and i'm glad they did it. All others are designed to be placed on desk, for me not this was never
an option as i don't have there space.
I'd choose the one with the highest display resolution. The amount of pixels in height is most important. It allows you to put several traces on screen with some amount of resolution.Well, all those scopes use a 8-bit DAC so the verticl resolution is in fact 256 points.
So if the not so popular scopes are taken into account as well, we might be able to reach a correct conclusion.
And I have read that the Hantek is overheating due to no fan. Really bad. But maybe some Hantek has the fan, who knows.
Here is a comparison between the UNI-T UTD2102CM and the Siglent SDS1102CML scope:
https://www.mortoncontrols.com/blog/files/archive-01-july-2012.html (https://www.mortoncontrols.com/blog/files/archive-01-july-2012.html)
nctnico, a nice point if you are using a lot both inputs.Even if you use one input the more vertical pixels the better. Don't forget that a display with twice the resolution has four times more pixels so text takes 4 times less space!
Owon and Hantek and UNI-T, have the highest vertical resolution.
So we have at least one report that the waveform per second is high on the UNI-T.
Not sure if its 150.000 but its faster then all the others.
I don't know if the high acquisition rate of the UNI-T is correct, but it is not a misprint in the catalogue datasheet, as it is also mentioned in the scope user manual.
I thought that the Uni-T had an external trigger out...?
They actually state that its equal or greater than 150.000 wfrm/s...
I don't think they would deceive their clients purposefully. It could just be a snafu in their publishing department.
The company specifies a lower acquisition rate of 20k waveforms/sec on their new top of the range 1Ghz machine.
That's an input; all DSO's have them.
Also, since the advertised wfrm/s rate on all DSOs is a best case scenario (single channel, one certain timebase, etc), serious DSOs with high rates specify what settings are required to achieve the fastest rate. The UNI-T does not. That means their 150k wfrm/s rate might mean ONLY for the split-second when you turn the dial from 20ns to 10ns - or any other nonsense - since there's no easy way to verify.
Not true, R&S datasheet only mentions an acquisition rate of more than 1 million waveforms per second.
Not true, R&S datasheet only mentions an acquisition rate of more than 1 million waveforms per second.
The things that are more important to me are the following: (with that order)
Price Range around 360 euros / $470. Maximum 400 euros if its a must.
1) Accurate measurements & signal quality. (for the price range)
2) Stable firmware.
3) High quality internal power supply. (very important for any device)
4) Crisp display with decent viewing angles.
5) Bandwidth >= 50Mhz.
6) Usable probes for the given bandwidth.
We are comparing datasheets here, nothing else. So the UNI-T information provided on the datasheet is not necessarily misleading, like you implied.
I will contact UNI-T tomorrow for more information on that strange high acquisition rate and report back soon.
and how someone can measure their claimed wfrm/s rate to verify it (without Trig Out)I saw a method somewhere, but i cannot find the website now. You need a special signal generator or something...
Quoteand how someone can measure their claimed wfrm/s rate to verify it (without Trig Out)I saw a method somewhere, but i cannot find the website now. You need a special signal generator or something...
Quoteand how someone can measure their claimed wfrm/s rate to verify it (without Trig Out)I saw a method somewhere, but i cannot find the website now. You need a special signal generator or something...
You can use a demo board that provides a known glitch every X cycles.
Then you have to run many tests timing how long it takes before the scope captures the glitch.
But this still only gives you a ballpark estimate.
I know you have narrowed down your selection already but have you considered buying 2nd hand?
What do you say? Maybe you can measure Rigol's ds1052e wfrm/s and see if its the same
as the specs.
??? Strange. I think that this spec is quite important in debugging a signal.
Maybe more important that the oscilloscope bandwidth! You will use your
scope to find problems, not just look at nice waveforms.
What about the 100Mhz Rigol or the 2072? Do they have the wfrm/s listed?
Wuerstchenhund I am open to suggestions.
The problem with the used ones is that first of all you will not have any warranty and second that you have to trust the seller because you don't know what you are actually getting...
??? Strange. I think that this spec is quite important in debugging a signal.
Maybe more important that the oscilloscope bandwidth!
You can use a demo board that provides a known glitch every X cycles.
Then you have to run many tests timing how long it takes before the scope captures the glitch.
But this still only gives you a ballpark estimate.
A quicker and more precise way to do it is to use a 2-channel function generator - with each channel set to create a pulse burst with the same amplitude (e.g. 1Vpp); a period inverse to the minimum wfrm/s rate (e.g. if the minimum speed expected is 100 wfrm/s, set the pulse period to 10ms); and a pulse width that is a small fraction of the period on channel 1 (e.g. 10us) and double or triple that size on channel 2 (e.g. if using 10us on ch1, then use 20 or 30us on ch2) so that the pulses can be easily visually distinguished from each other.
You then send the two source channels into one input channel on the DSO (which is running in 'Normal' mode with a short persistence) and start doing manual bursts, while adjusting the delay time between the two pulses. When there is a minimal delay between the pulses, the scope will trigger on the edge of pulse #1 - and all or part of pulse #2 will also be captured in the same acquisition, and displayed to the right of the trigger position. As the delay time between pulses increases, at a certain point pulse #2 will disappear - falling into the dead time of the DSO. As the delay time increases even further, eventually pulse #2 will enter the second acquisition cycle of the DSO, causing a trigger, and you'll see both pulses #1 & #2 appear simultaneously on the DSO screen at the trigger position - being captured in consecutive acquisition cycles. The inverse of the delay time between the pulses at that point is the waveform update rate.
Less time-consuming than running glitch tests - but still a bit of work if you're going to catalog the different timebase settings, sample lengths, etc.
I was planning to do this on my WaveJet that doesn't have trig out, but I've not yet acquired a function generator.
What I'd thought of doing was similar but using a ramp amplitude modulated sin wave in a burst form with the ramp up being such that a few waveforms at least would be captured and the amplitude step between captured waves would give the time step between waveforms (i.e. the waveforms per second).
You might be able to do a similar thing with a rapid frequency sweep and observing the step in carrier wave frequency between waveforms.
When I eventually get a waveform/function generator I hope to have fun experimenting.
No, it isn't. In fact, in many applications it's probably rather irrelevant as long as as it's somewhat reasonable. The lack of high wfm rates hasn't prevented engineers from debugging fast signals in the past. It may help in certain situations (especially on scopes with limited signal analysis capabilities) but you should not get distracted by the marketing blah.
At the end of the day, the most important thing is that you understand your scope and know its limitations.
I was able to accomplish the same thing with a single channel AWG using a waveform consisting of a pulse at the beginning and a pulse (with greater amplitude) towards the end - and then changing the frequency of the AWG. But it was a much bigger pain in the ass to control because, of course, the pulse widths are also affected, the AWG can skip samples, etc, etc.
The lack of high wfm rates hasn't prevented engineers from debugging fast signals in the past.
Exactly, also my opinion. wfm/s means nothing when more important functions/features are missing.
Exactly, also my opinion. wfm/s means nothing when more important functions/features are missing.
Indeed.
I also think that interpolation (or better: the lack of a facility to disable it on some scopes) is a much bigger issue than the wfm rate.
So do you know in which scope of the 5 you can disable it?
Whoever thinks that wfrm/s is not so important should state the wfrm/s of his scope... :)
What I want is the best oscilloscope that I can buy in that price range.
I will not be able to use all its functions in the beginning, but I am a fast learner.
So I am looking for the best one based on the criteria listed on my first post.
2) Stable firmware.
On my DSOX2002A you cannot switch off the interpolation... :-- Well, Agilent is like Apple Iphone, you cannot set a lot of parameters. Even the memory size is fixed, but why not. Vectors are always on. No possibility to switch to dots. But the scope is very easy to use, just like an Apple product. (Well, I am not an Apple fan and I have never bought any their product.)So do you know in which scope of the 5 you can disable it?
You can disable it on all 5 models. But what kind of interpolation each DSO uses - and how well they do it - is a whole different matter.
If it's just for posing then I guess the best scope is the one with the most features.
Not yet, but like others have said, you should not base your buying decision on that feature
alone anyway, which is most probably optimistic at best.
With the exception of the Rigol maybe, I don't think you find a scope without firmware issues in this price range.
What about the Siglent? It looks like it has the same firmware like the Rigol, better screen and its faster
too.
I think that Marmad said something about the Owon being slow in some feature but I did not
understand why.
Marmad is it possible to explain?
Siglent might be my first scope. Not sure if I am making the right decision.
Any final thoughts?
Owon optimized the routines for acquisition (waveform update rate) for 10M sample lengths - so it doesn't get (much) faster rates when you use small amounts of memory (as do most DSOs).
As both tinhead and I already said, before you buy a Siglent (especially from the USA), you should communicate with rf-loop - a long-standing member here who sells and repairs them (and Owon) in the EU. I don't know his prices, but he's a fair, smart guy who will tell you the good and bad points honestly - without trying to sell you something.
The owon had an option for a battery and it doesn't look too expensive. That could be an advantage when you are unsure of grounding your scope or making mistakes while grounding the scope, running on battery could save some disasters.
The owon had an option for a battery and it doesn't look too expensive. That could be an advantage when you are unsure of grounding your scope or making mistakes while grounding the scope, running on battery could save some disasters.
If you are unsure about scope grounding, then a battery powered scope like this, without properly designed isolated jacks or probes, can be just as potentially dangerous.
The safe thing to do is keep the scope on a normal grounded power connection and use the isolation transformer on the device under test. If you can't use an isolation transformer on the device then you need a differential probe or a double insulated hand held scope.
OH, I think I get what dave was saying now. If the DSO isn't made with safety in mind and you gnd your DSO to 300V on DUT then you can easily be hurt from exposed BNC connectors etc as they will be at 300V and can earth through YOU! as opposed to properly isolated handheld DSO with plastic BNC and basically built to be safe (for the user). So the battery operation in the OWON may save your DSO from damage at the expense of user safety. In other words, just ignore what I said about the whole battery thing! unless you just want the option of using the scope away from a power point from time to time.
For what it's worth, I heard back from UNI-T in Shanghai. The advertised acquisition rate of 150,000 waveforms per second for the UTD2102CM is not a misprint. I don't have any information as to under what conditions this is achieved.It's worth absolutely nothing... for all the reasons I've outlined before. Just because you hear back from them is meaningless.
Here are a few more scope screenshots:I see an ugly-looking DSO with bad screen design (layout, use of space, etc). What do you see?
http://www.pinsonne-elektronik.de/pi1/pd125.html (http://www.pinsonne-elektronik.de/pi1/pd125.html)
I see an ugly-looking DSO with bad screen design (layout, use of space, etc). What do you see?
Marmad I see the same things about the screen design etc, but until someone actually measures
the wfrm/s we cannot say that its not true. I have already heard from some users that the scope is
actually extremely fast. Even if the 150.000 is not true, it will definitely not be something like 6.000
I see an ugly-looking DSO with bad screen design (layout, use of space, etc). What do you see?
Compared to the Rigol 1052E; I see a decent looking scope with bigger screen, more real-estate area for statistics and menu, nice looking buttons, single-shot button, much longer memory and basically the same or better capture specs. I am surprised you find it ugly, given your review of the Owon which is full of hard plastic buttons over and under the screen, with a UI that looks like a Nintendo console from the 90's. My main concern from the picture is the small 60mm grille hinting at a fan just as noisy as the 1052E (hopefully not).
But between the two, I'd still buy the Owon - which has been torn-apart, tested, and examined by dozens of independent users - and get the community support, VGA out, larger screen, and battery option - instead of opting for UNI-T's untested and unexamined internals - lack of user-baseI agree.
the Owon is much nicer - sleek, thinline design I have bought the UNI-T UT61E and for the price its simply an unbeatable multimeter.
Maybe they did the same with the oscilloscope. May be they didn't. The fact is that
we don't actually know. We can only speculate. You say that because in a previous
product they gave wrong information then this would be the rule for all the products.
I agree, that's why I haven't already bought the Uni-T.No, but maybe you can reach him via his Siglent forum. (http://siglent.freeforums.org/siglent-equipment-tests-and-information-f5.html)
I've contacted rf-loop but he doesn't seem to get my p.m.
Do you happen to have his personal email?
Well, considering the Rigol DS1000 series design is now 7-years old, better to compare the UNI-T's current design to Rigol's current design...
Which would be the DS2000 serie? It costs 2-3 times as much here in Europe and is thus *far* beyond the 360-400€ category range the OP started this thread on.
I'm sure your skepticism is well founded, but lets compare similar price points since it is the primary parameter above everything else. The Siglent and the UNI-T might well be the best fit in this category, too bad reviews and teardowns of these are so hard to come by.
Maybe they did the same with the oscilloscope. May be they didn't. The fact is that
we don't actually know. We can only speculate. You say that because in a previous
product they gave wrong information then this would be the rule for all the products.
So when you think UNI-T CM is ok for you, or you think to give them a chance, then buy it, make teardown/some pictures and when you able to test, test the wfms/s.
Marmad, thanks. I will try to contact him there.
I am not sure if they will accept to send me a unit for test and if I don't like it to send it back...
I am still waiting a reply from Reichelt.
The Siglent has dual time base!
Looks like that the Siglent is going to be the winner...
The Siglent has dual time base!Why would you need dual time base on a DSO? Just capture at a high sample rate and then zoom in.
Looks like that the Siglent is going to be the winner...
I've already found one seller in ebay that says its the official representative in Europe, but when I ask him about the firmware of the oscilloscope, he says that he doesn't know. Is this possible?
The Siglent has dual time base!Why would you need dual time base on a DSO? Just capture at a high sample rate and then zoom in.
Looks like that the Siglent is going to be the winner...
The only thing that I am not sure about, its the fact that while on a single channel the sampling
rate is 1GSa/s, in the dual channel mode its 500MSa/s but only when the timebase is faster than
50ns/div. What if its slower than the 50ns/div? How low will it go? 250MSa/s or more?
The Siglent has dual time base!Why would you need dual time base on a DSO? Just capture at a high sample rate and then zoom in.
Looks like that the Siglent is going to be the winner...
Have you never used oscilloscope for other work than just looking one single signal?
It makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.
So for up to 50ns/div is the 500MSa/s typical among these range of scopes?
rf-loop thank you very much for your reply!
Apart from the dual timebase which is like having two oscilloscopes on one screen, the Siglent has
also a feature that I am not sure that many other scopes on the similar price range have. On the
X-Y mode it has a variable sampling rate from 15Ksa/s to 250Msa/s
I also like that it has a hardware frequency counter instead of a software one.
The only thing that I am not sure about, its the fact that while on a single channel the sampling
rate is 1GSa/s, in the dual channel mode its 500MSa/s but only when the timebase is faster than
50ns/div. What if its slower than the 50ns/div? How low will it go? 250MSa/s or more?
Watching two signals which have no relation is always difficult with an oscilloscope. Dual timebase is not triggering on two different signals. That makes no sense because where is your reference point? Dual timebase means you can trigger on a signal and view an enlarged portion of it after an adjustable delay (usually its called B sweep). On an analogue scope you can use this feature to zoom in on part of a signal.The Siglent has dual time base!Why would you need dual time base on a DSO? Just capture at a high sample rate and then zoom in.
Looks like that the Siglent is going to be the winner...
Have you never used oscilloscope for other work than just looking one single signal?
Do you know why there is also other channel and for what all it can use. Do you know that some times need really look same time two signals what are not syncronized with each others. For this is ALT in many scopes. But then, it is somehow very limited if both signals can use only same horizontal speed.
I do not at all understand your zoom comment related to this. Do you know what is this whole case about ALT and dual timebase ALT. I can understand your zoom comment if you really do not understand what is this.
Tell me now how you look with normal zoom 2 separate signal what are not in synch.
How if these two are so that other is example 50MHz and other is 1kHz and not in synch.
rf-loop thank you for the countless pages of unbiased information!
Poor Uni-T has only one vote... :) but maybe this is because nobody has any experience with it yet.For some reason, UNI-T scopes are not much sold in English speaking countries. UNI-T doesn't update their English website. http://www.uni-trend.com.hk/ (http://www.uni-trend.com.hk/)
Watching two signals which have no relation is always difficult with an oscilloscope. Dual timebase is not triggering
on two different signals. That makes no sense because where is your reference point?
The results are interesting indeed!
Rigol is clearly the winner but maybe this is because more people have worked with it.
It is the safest choice.
rf-loop thank you for the countless pages of unbiased information!Unbiased? He is a Siglent/Atten reseller, who in the past even ran a few sockpuppets here to promote his business. That and rather strange claims about Siglent quality.
it is not the best choise, it is because Dave said "Rigol DS1000 is good", search the forum (or even other forums) and you
will see many such statements. What ppl didn't understood he didn't said "others are bad", because he haven't tested
others in this price class.
e.g. Dave likes knobs, so he have no problems to use single knob for two channels, where i don't like to spend time on
playing with knobs/buttions where it is not necessary - therefore separate knobs for me are the best.
Are you serous?
...having conversations with himself about Siglent gear!
I understand multiple accounts but "having conversations with himself", a normal person can't do that.
Yes, rf-loop was posting under multiple accounts on this forum having conversations with himself about Siglent gear! :palm:
That other account was banned.
The only reason rf-loop's main account wasn't banned is because he has and does provide good technical detail here.
Now that he's been "exposed" for those sock-puppet accounts, hopefully it won't happen again.
Yes, rf-loop was posting under multiple accounts on this forum having conversations with himself about Siglent gear! :palm:
That other account was banned.
The only reason rf-loop's main account wasn't banned is because he has and does provide good technical detail here.
Now that he's been "exposed" for those sock-puppet accounts, hopefully it won't happen again.
So its true. Not very nice... Maybe he regretted doing it. We all make mistakes sometimes.
Anyway,
Dave please HEEELP! :)
You have to do a review on the Siglent CML series!
People might save some money. If it turns out good people will save some money by buying something
relatively cheap and fully functional. It it turns out bad people will again save a lot more!
A win-win situation... except from you that will have to find one Siglent unit... :)
Watching two signals which have no relation is always difficult with an oscilloscope. Dual timebase is not triggering
on two different signals. That makes no sense because where is your reference point?
in case of these DSO the dual timebase is addition to ALT trigger, so you do have two referece points and each of them can be set to own timebase/trigger. The word "dual timebase" can be easy misunderstood by people knowing the "dual timebase" from analog scopes, which was complettly different thing.
More interessting is to know how far the dual timebase can be used, e.g. is 2ns/DIV for ch1 and 2ms/DIV for ch2 working smooth? Are there any relais clicks when set to such big difference? Is there visible difference (delay in chaniging between channels) when timebase for both channels is equal and when set to 2ns/DIV for ch1 and 2ms/DIV for ch2 ?
Bot channels trigger can select free separately, both channel time/div can select free, both channel can selected for math (but there is only one Math process so ther can not be dual math process)
Bot channels trigger can select free separately, both channel time/div can select free, both channel can selected for math (but there is only one Math process so ther can not be dual math process)
Nice; it's a pity it's not a standard feature on DSOs. So they're using individual, non-interleaved ADCs on each channel?
Here in these images what you ask, and litlebit more.
Relay clicks. No. In this mode both channels its own 500MSa/s ADC group in all time/div settings.
...
Bot channels trigger can select free separately, both channel time/div can select free
There is 10 ADC clocked with 100MHz. In dual channel mode there is 5ADC + 5ADC and both groups of 5ADC are internally interleaved (5 + 5 phase shifted clocks). In one channel mode with high speeds these are combined to one 10ADC group and interleaved. (10 phase shifted clocks)Not sure if it's much important, but for some reason I prefer scopes with real one chip ADC 1GS/s per channel.
Not sure if it's much important, but for some reason I prefer scopes with real one chip ADC 1GS/s per channel.
Anyway, in the end I bought a LeCroy Waveace 1001. Now before anyone dashes my dreams of owning a scope from the big brands, yes, it's a Siglent with a different box. That said, it's configuration is a bit different than the Attens and Siglents normally found sound of say $350.
It's got the 1Gs/s sample rate and the 2Mpt memory of the "higher end" Attens/Siglent models but the compromise is the 40 Mhz front end. As with the Rigol and the Tekway/Hantek I assume this is probably only a software limit. Thus does anyone know if this scope family has been... um... enhanced by amateurs the way the Rigol and Hanteks were?
Near $400 offered some nicer options including the Hanteks (hackable and high resolution screens). But at the $300 and under range it seemed my options were very limited. I don't think the 40mhz limit is going to really mess with any of the work I would likely do.Congratulations on getting your scope. I think you'll be very happy with it.
Ok, I finally bought the 100Mhz Siglent SDS1102CML. :)
Sorry for storming into a thread, but i have a question about displays and creating a new thread to topic related so closely to yours is pointless
Will the resolution of a scope's display adjust itself to match the external monitor? (will it get better?)
For example, could a scope with a lesser quality of built-in display (lower resolution, smaller dimensions of screen) have the same quality/resolution compared to a scope with superior (larger, better) display when BOTH connected to same external (PC) monitor
Awesome hgg, that's also the one I have narrowed in on (chose to get Agilent E3610A PSU + U1272A DMM combo first though). Good luck with it and please keep us posted! :)
Sorry for storming into a thread, but i have a question about displays and creating a new thread to topic related so closely to yours is pointless
You should have opened a new thread, as your question has nothing to do with the scopes discussed in this thread (none of them have an external monitor output), and hijacking threads is considered rude by many.
some of them have Scope to PC software to display waveforms on the PC.
You can jump right to about 2:49 to see the scope. It isn't exactly a demo video but at least you will have a good look at the actual thing. The presenter mentions its 150k wfms/s capture rate and he seems very happy about it for the work he does.
The presenter mentions its 150k wfms/s capture rate and he seems very happy about it for the work he does.
Smells like a fake unboxing. He claims "it is really good", while he hasn't even finished unpacking it. Typical rubbish video by someone who needs to confirm to himself what a smart buyer he is.
Since he was working with transients and he was happy with the scope its definitely faster than 2000wfms/s.
Since he was working with transients and he was happy with the scope its definitely faster
than 2000wfms/s.
Just an assumption.
He specifically mentioned that he needed a fast sampling scope.
If he was looking for signal glitches and was able to see them live maybe that's why he was satisfied.
What indication were you looking for? Screen refresh? Maybe it will not show always on screen, but it will be captured in memory.
Hello,
Let me see what I can do. I read some of the comments. " fake unboxing" lol that made me laugh.
That video was Definitely not an in boxing video but more or less just showing what was I had. :)
I am comparing this scope to the old scope that I had which ran off of a computer ( i think it was a dso2500) and was always troublesome versus this one which is why much more satisfied with this style of bench scope
I had all sorts of shorting problems because it was grounded to the PC
I also went through the why to buy and after reading all the bad's I thought I would give this one a go. I do like it.
The one major downside to the scope is that the grounds are not isolated from each other which makes it difficult to measure certain things depending on what you plan on doing with it.
I have used this scope around extremely nasty RF/high-voltage/EMP pulses and other really nasty Signals so luckily the oscilloscope has shut itself down instead of just blowing up which has been extremely helpful this lets me know I'm over its input/ other and it did not damage the scope turned on just fine.
On the demonstration that you guys are referring to the particular settings to get the fast waveforms are not active. The main reason I wanted this oscilloscope is so that I could see transients which you cannot usually see with digital oscilloscopes
So far I haven't really gotten into the detailed measuring the transients That I originally intended to use this for. But I have experimented and played with it. It's interesting.
I do not feel qualified to do a full-blown demonstration of this oscilloscope but I will try to show the test that you are asking me to do
I will say that this oscilloscope comes with a PC program that allows you to control it through the computer but when you do this it slows everything down but then again none of the other oscilloscopes even had this option so it's kind of nice.
Also, yes the menu is always up on the screen. But the screen also is bigger than than most so it's all good.
The bad so far. You can change the color them but you can't change the color of the trace. It's Annoying but you learn to live with it. The data logging and screen shots on this works well. Te interface is a lot better than most I read about.
For the price range and Comparison of the others. I'm glad I got this scope. It had not failed me yet and it had taken all the nasty signals I have thrown at it.
This week had been crazy so give me a bit and I'll see if I can do the tests.
Anything else you want To see in the video?
Thanks,
~Russ Gries
www.RWGresearch.com (http://www.RWGresearch.com)
Hi,
I contacted Russ, the person in the two previous videos were he was using
the UNI-T oscilloscope and ask him if he can give us some information on the scope.
Below is his reply:
I'd go for the Siglent. If its says Voltcraft you know its crappy.I would not say that Voltcraft is crappy... They just sell rebranded instruments from Asian manufacturers... Like Metex, GW Instek, CEM or Unitrend...
I have two days to decide between Voltcraft 3062D (=Hantek DSO5062B = Tekway DST1062B)Have you seen this video??
Siglent produces scopes for Atten, BK precision and LeCroy.Yes, I just found that under
I have two days to decide between Voltcraft 3062D (=Hantek DSO5062B = Tekway DST1062B)
I just shot a first impressions video of the Tekway/Hantek and I wasn't all that impressed.Maybe you didn't fully understand - my English ... |O
I am impressed by the high recommendations the Rigol DS1052E is getting.
Now, if somebody can tell me (I know I'm a bit off-topic, sorry) about WF "refresh rate" and "hack" possibility. Siglent 1072CML is pretty cheap (300€ from amazon.de, abt. 400USD) here, for example: Rigol 1052E in Conrad is 475€ or 635 USD believe or not! Over e-stores is much cheaper.
My favourite one as of now is the Siglent CML, same here.Yes, me too :-+. We will see...
Another question (except waveform refresh rate) is: Voltcraft's scope has "800x480" pixel diisplay, while Siglent has "only" 480x234 pix. for the same 7" size of display!? I suspect, Voltcraft just cheating (like some el-chipo UNI-T's) compressing 2x2 pixels into one pixel so it turns out the same thing!? But, maybe I'm wrong?
And, yes, Hantek/Volcraft has Linux on it, that's the best thing on this scope by my opinion :D!
In principle there is no physical difference between 800x480 and 480x234, both display areas areI disagree. How about multiple traces? I'm battling with 4 traces on a 640x480 screen. And with a higher resolution the text can also be smaller so more space is left for the traces.
using the same physical space, so the resulting line is exact that thin/thick (depending on manufacturer,
model type, sample rate, depth, DSO technology, etc) as on the other.
If you are wonder what's inside Siglent, see this YT videoThis video is amusing. He spends a good portion of the time elaborating on what "storage" means in "Digital Storage Oscilloscope." Storage to USB Flash, Storage to PC, waveforms, bitmaps, etc., etc.
I disagree. How about multiple traces?Yes, and the potential of the Hantek MSO with up to 16 "logic analyzer" channels. (I think "digital channels" is a more accurate name.)
Siglent 1072CML is pretty cheap (300€ from amazon.de, abt. 400USD) here, for example: Rigol 1052E in Conrad is 475€ or 635 USD believe or not!
In principle there is no physical difference between 800x480 and 480x234, both display areas areI disagree. How about multiple traces? I'm battling with 4 traces on a 640x480 screen. And with a higher resolution the text can also be smaller so more space is left for the traces.
using the same physical space, so the resulting line is exact that thin/thick (depending on manufacturer,
model type, sample rate, depth, DSO technology, etc) as on the other.
QuoteI disagree. How about multiple traces?Yes, and the potential of the Hantek MSO with up to 16 "logic analyzer" channels. (I think "digital channels" is a more accurate name.)
But I say potential because I'm still waiting for Hantek to provide firmware in which the LA actually works. :-BROKE
BTW see, how the Siglent, LeCroy and BK Precision scopes are similar.
Note the abraded ADCs. Funny. But a nice scope anyway.
Note the abraded ADCs. Funny.
I don't see the point in buying any DSO with 10k pt of memory (like the Tek TDS3012B). All the scopes you've used, including the great old 54622A have *way* more memory.It's all trade-offs. The 54622A had a lousy 200 MS/s sampling rate which HP optimistically specced for 50 MHz single shot bandwidth. That was the trade-off at that time. HP chose long memory and lousy sampling rates, Tek chose lousy memory and decent sampling rates. Both suck based on specs for today's standards. Many modern sub-$500 alternatives will lack intensity-graded displays. An advantage of the Tek scopes from this era was that they used the acquisition memory for measurements, not the pixels on the screen as many modern scopes do. They also had a decent waveform update rate (in low memory mode) before Agilent made it a marketing issue. 10 kpts is low for today's standards, but how much memory does that Tek 465 analog scope that's still fine for many applications have? In my opinion 10 kpts was usable, since it gave you about 20 screens worth of data without interpolation.
I suspect the reason they remove the IC markings is because they are using them out of spec. Buy them cheap, self certify at a higher clock speed and rub the markings off so no-one can see what you did.Maybe, but it still doesn't make sense. Apparently, it didn't occur to them to ask about custom printing. (Hint: at a cent or two per chip, sometimes it is worth of letting others think that you have resources to do custom chips. ;) )
Rigol's 1052 is just not a candidate for me (noisy, small screen and no single shot), but I am surprised that the Owon comes out more popular than the Siglent. Considering there are significantly more complains about the Owons and Siglent is a relative trusted major OEM, why is this the case? Is it mainly because the Owon has 10 MSample wheras the Siglent only has 2MSample?
(I thought of the DS2072 many times, but I really don't have the need and I really could use that $600-$700 difference on something else.)
Is there no automatic grammar checker on this forum?
- Will the Owon 7102 give me a reasonably correct format of a 150MHz wave? (heard here that its bw can go up to 170MHz)No. If the bandwidth goes up to 170 MHz, then this means that the amplitude is at most -3 dB (-30%) down at 170 MHz. So a 170 MHz 1 Vrms sine wave will appear as a 170 MHz 0.7 Vrms sine wave on the screen. This is for sinusoidal signals. You can tell that there is a signal at this frequency, and its amplitude within say +/- 50%, but that's it.
The rigol ds1074z (4 channels) is a good choice too imho, or wait by the new releases of owon 4 channels.
I had a play with the new Rigol 1000Z scope, and it seems pretty good. Awesome bang-per-buck for a 4 channel scope. Incredible what you can get for the price these days.
I really want a review of it, so I can see if the 1 vertical knob for 4 channels actually works out.The rigol ds1074z (4 channels) is a good choice too imho, or wait by the new releases of owon 4 channels.
I had a play with the new Rigol 1000Z scope, and it seems pretty good. Awesome bang-per-buck for a 4 channel scope. Incredible what you can get for the price these days.
I really want a review of it, so I can see if the 1 vertical knob for 4 channels actually works out.
Well the shared knobs are good if you want a small and compact scope. BTW LeCroy and Hameg also use shared knobs at most models... Well, I rather do not like it. But the DS1000Z-S series is a good value for money, I think.Exactly 1000Z series is EXCELLENT value for money.
Well the shared knobs are good if you want a small and compact scope.
It was even that way for the two channel DS1052E, now the 1000Z has 4 channels. Saperate knobs on that?, pretty much impossible.
The DS1074B/DS1104B/DS1204B (why do people refer to these as 1000Z?)
Shared knobs are pretty much mandatory for a small scope like this. It was even that way for the two channel DS1052E, now the 1000Z has 4 channels.But they could made it better. I hate how it's done on my DS1052E. There is no good indication which channel is selected. Only the tiny channel symbol on the screen. They should use bi-color leds on the channel button and highlight the selected one with a different color.
[..] Otherwise, get a Siglent. Solid FW, decent build, god features, etc...
[..] Otherwise, get a Siglent. Solid FW, decent build, god features, etc...
Which button does that? I wouldn't mind one or two of those ;)
The claim of 150k wfrms/s is real. It's not a typo as stated by some people.
But a bigger question might be: if the Uni-T actually does 150k wfrm/s - how is it getting the extra captured information to the display? 120Hz is the upper end of refreshing an LCD, so DSOs with higher waveform capture rates generally use a Z-buffer and intensity-graded display in order to convey the extra waveforms captured between refreshes.Jup - that's what I'm asking myself, too.
The Unit-T has no intensity-graded display - so, for example, if it's capturing 150k waveforms per second and refreshing the LCD 100 times per second, what is happening to the 1500 waveforms it captures between refreshes? Are all 1500 waveforms being combined into a single, uniformly-colored waveform for display?