Recommend budget oscilloscope Please

[Aldo22]

unless it's because the fake claims it can do 120 MHz . The chinese are shooting their own feet doing that. Should they say it's a 20 MHz oscilloscope, perception could be different.

Apparently there are different views on what "bandwidth" means.
I made a number of screenshots here (click to enlarge) so that everyone can judge for themselves.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-2ch-pocket-dsosg-sigpeak-dso2512g/msg4783148/#msg4783148

To a layman like me, it actually looks like what I would expect, considering the simple signal generator.
A reasonably clear square up to approx. 10Mhz, a small difference to the sine wave up to 40Mhz and a frequency and amplitude measurement up to approx. 120Mhz.
I think it should be good enough for a project in the 100KHz range.
But I like to learn.

I mean it's $80 including shipping.
Even if you hate it, you won't lose sleep over this "investment".

[tautech]

I thought the SDS1104X-U was just a SDS 1104X-E with some features removed to reach some price point.  I'm only going to buy one DSO and saving $100 but losing features doesn't seem like a good way to go - for me...

The X-E is in an entirely different class being a 200 MHz design whereas X-U is just 100 MHz and as such a single 1 GSa/s ADC is sufficient for its 4 channels however the 4ch X-E has dual ADC's each with 14 Mpts memory support which if adding all the other X-E features puts it in an entirely different class.
We sell both yet the somewhat dearer X-E sells 3 or 4 to 1 against the X-U.

A table with the 4ch X-E vs X-U differences prepared by member rf-loop is attached.

[wasedadoc]

tatel missed that getting an analog scope shipped to you is playing roulette. Many sellers do not appreciate just how fragile a CRT is and do not pack the scope appropriately.

[radiolistener]

You don't necessarily need a Porsche for driving school. 

Siglent scope is not a Posche car analogy, Siglent is like entry level cheap car for everyday usage.
Porsche analogy is a brand like oscilloscope from Lecroy or Keysight which cost is more than 100000 USD

And ZEEWEII DSO2512G is a bicycle with square wheels and a kerosene engine. It is nice toy to play with it, but it is not suitable for a real job

Here is how "Porsche" oscilloscope looks like


The main issue of ZEEWEII is that it doesn't have proper anti-alias filter and RF frontend, this is why I suggest to not buy it. Especially if you're novice and don't understand all pit falls of that toy. Not because it is cheap, but because it confuse it's user, has false specification and has too many pit falls which leads to a wrong understand oscilloscope for those who don't have experience with normal oscilloscope.

[alm]

tatel missed that getting an analog scope shipped to you is playing roulette. Many sellers do not appreciate just how fragile a CRT is and do not pack the scope appropriately.

Funny how this only became an issue recently, and not back when the military and service engineers and techs were dragging these scopes anywhere. Some analog scopes were even designed specifically they were small enough to under the seat without any padding. Somehow the analog scopes Dave bought, some from the US, also all arrived with the CRT intact.

Sure, shipping damage happens, and some sellers are idiots. But comparing it to roulette where you're pretty much guaranteed to lose money on the long run is ridiculous. When shipping damage occurs, I've heard about many more damaged knobs (which are more easily replaceable) than CRTs.

[radiolistener]

Funny how this only became an issue recently, and not back when the military and service engineers and techs were dragging these scopes anywhere. Some analog scopes were even designed specifically they were small enough to under the seat without any padding. Somehow the analog scopes Dave bought, some from the US, also all arrived with the CRT intact.

My first analog oscilloscope was C1-73:


It was even smaller than my current Siglent SDS1102 (it was thinner), but it was really a little bit heavier in mass than Siglent, because it was made from metal

It's current price is just about 30-40 USD

[Aldo22]

And ZEEWEII DSO2512G is a bicycle with square wheels and a kerosene engine. It is nice toy to play with it, but it is not suitable for a real job

Yes, it's a toy. Why not?
It is simply the cheapest 2 channel toy-oscilloscope on the market afaics and I like to play with it.
It's perfectly clear that is nowhere near a "professional" tool.
But I can do useful things with it.
For example sorting out NE5532 china fakes with poor slew rates (green).
I would not be able to see and measure that without a (toy-) oscilloscope, right?

Sometimes a bike is better than walking. 

P.S. I like your C1-73!

[tggzzz]

tatel missed that getting an analog scope shipped to you is playing roulette. Many sellers do not appreciate just how fragile a CRT is and do not pack the scope appropriately.

Funny how this only became an issue recently, and not back when the military and service engineers and techs were dragging these scopes anywhere. Some analog scopes were even designed specifically they were small enough to under the seat without any padding. Somehow the analog scopes Dave bought, some from the US, also all arrived with the CRT intact.

In the early 80s I twice took a 465 on a plane[1] as checked baggage - with zero packing around it. They did put it in a plastic crate before putting it on the conveyor belt.

[1] I later discovered the destination was a war zone!

[tatel]

You don't necessarily need a Porsche for driving school. 

Siglent scope is not a Posche car analogy, Siglent is like entry level cheap car for everyday usage.
Porsche analogy is a brand like oscilloscope from Lecroy or Keysight which cost is more than 100000 USD

And ZEEWEII DSO2512G is a bicycle with square wheels and a kerosene engine. It is nice toy to play with it, but it is not suitable for a real job

Here is how "Porsche" oscilloscope looks like


The main issue of ZEEWEII is that it doesn't have proper anti-alias filter and RF frontend, this is why I suggest to not buy it. Especially if you're novice and don't understand all pit falls of that toy. Not because it is cheap, but because it confuse it's user, has false specification and has too many pit falls which leads to a wrong understand oscilloscope for those who don't have experience with normal oscilloscope.

Well, I would agree, DSO2512 is a bicycle. A cheap classical one powered by animal traction, without any engine. So what? It can, quite probably, do what OP wants, which isn't a real job, but an aficionado's contraption never to be marketed (and, sorry to say, it probably will not make the bats flee from their habitat). About it not having a proper antialiasing filter/RF frontend, I would also agree, even not owning the device, just because to be so cheap, I guess many corners have to be cut. But I'm not so sure about having aliasing or RF problems at the frequencies that project will have to manage. It will probably be the same with any arduino-ish project a hobbyst would probably take on for some time from the beginning. If that hypotetical guy progress at the same pace than me, that means years.

I indeed found that my upgraded GDS1054B and my €40 Zeeweii DSO154 show remarkably similar things when I look at, say, ripple/noise on a cheap SMPS PSU or at a TP-Link router UART communication. Yet GDS1054B is now well above €500 delivered. I however don't really trust DSO154 at all above 10 MHz and wouldn't trust DSO2512 above 20 MHz, just because it sounds to good to be true. I would need some corroboration before trusting them so much.

But to say that any beginner must start by buying an oscilloscope worth €500, sounds to me a little bit overkill. Like saying one has to use two chemical anchors to hang a painting in  the living room wall. I would use the cheapest plastic one instead and  reserve the real good ones to tie the rope I will be hanging on while descending an 80-meter cave pit with rotten rock in the walls. True, my first oscilloscope is one of these entry level cheap cars. But I have a weak spot for quality tools, that perhaps not everybody has. That said, I found the cheap DSO154 is better to learn the basics, just because it's simpler, and I'm not afraid to wreck it. If some day it gives me a result I can't neither understand or correlate with the "good" oscilloscope, I'll probably ask here. Then you old gurus will say to me "That's aliasing, you idiot greenhorn" and I will learn one more thing.

And now... OMG! I tought DG811 was fancyful design...  but looking at that Porsche-like Keysight... it really looks like a vegetable basket! It would look fine in hands of a peasant with the beret screwed to the eyebrows in the way to Tudela food market! 

[radiolistener]

I indeed found that my upgraded GDS1054B and my €40 Zeeweii DSO154 show remarkably similar things

you're needs to compare it with low end entry point Siglent SDS1000X-E series. As I said before, all what is cheaper doesn't worth attention. Not because they are cheaper, but because they are build on very outdated hardware with limited specifications and have lack of features. And this is why they are cheaper than entry point low end oscilloscopes - they just don't cost their money despite the fact that they are cheaper.

[bdunham7]

Can anyone help me choose a budget priced oscilloscope for a beginner available online .

The problem is your location--your options are sparser and more expensive.  In the US, at a $500 price point the answer currently is the Siglent SDS1104X-E, although there are other options that would work as well.  Check your available suppliers for Siglent, Rigol and GW Instek products and see what you can get near your budget.  These are all 'digital' by the way, analog CROs will be many decades old and probably not what you want or need, unless you find some super-bargain somewhere.

[tatel]

you're needs to compare it with low end entry point Siglent SDS1000X-E series. As I said before, all what is cheaper doesn't worth attention. Not because they are cheaper, but because they are build on very outdated hardware with limited specifications and have lack of features. And this is why they are cheaper than entry point low end oscilloscopes - they just don't cost their money despite the fact that they are cheaper.

Well, to me that means nobody could have learned anything before 200 MHz oscilloscopes existed. Are you sure about that? Anyway, I think we could agree in that we disagree. Have a fine day.

[rstofer]

My first scope was a DIY project from the ARRL Handbook circa 1958;  I don't recall the bandwidth but it wasn't much.  Next up was a war surplus Dumont dual channel of unknown bandwidth and for many years I used a 10 MHz Heathkit.  This was during the early years of 8080 and Z80 processors.  It was adequate for building complex stuff like a 8" FDD controller.

I finally rewarded myself with the Tek 485 when I retired back in '03 and the DS1054Z a few years ago.

You can go a long way with a low bandwidth scope.  Sometimes you need to be creative about the trigger signal, maybe to the point of using additional logic to generate the trigger.  An example might be the Start condition on I2C.

Given financial resources, of course I am going to recommend one of the entry level scopes but if the money isn't available, almost anything is better than nothing.  It can likely be sold later.

[doru.cazan]

I am a beginner. I struggled with the same question for many months. I bought SDS1104X-E even if it was too much for my budget. Used all the help on this forum to "access" higher bandwidth capabilities of the scope. It was useful many times in way I did not thought will need when I bought it (e.g. i2c debug). I am using it rarely but when I need it, it really helps so I do not regret the effort at all.
This is what worked well for me but there are many variables so I am not sure if this will cover your needs.

[Aldo22]

I however don't really trust DSO154 at all above 10 MHz and wouldn't trust DSO2512 above 20 MHz, just because it sounds to good to be true. I would need some corroboration before trusting them so much.

Yes, I think part of the debate here about the DSO2512 comes from different expectations and demands on such a cheap device.
I'm totally satisfied if the DSO2512 can show a crisp square wave up to 5MHz.
The range from 40 Mhz on is imo to be considered more as a frequency counter anyway.
I don't expect any more details about the waveform here. But I can tune my FM radio test-transmitter with its help, so it kind of works.

I'm still convinced it would be powerful enough for the bat project.

That said, the DSO2512 has different bandwidths depending on the mode:

2 channel/standard mode: ~48MHz
2 channel/OC mode: ~60MHz
1 channel/standard mode: ~96MHz
1 channel/OC mode: ~120MHz

There is one more advantage of such a small device:
If you don't have a separate "laboratory" but work on the kitchen table, for example, it quickly disappears into the drawer when you have to spread out the pizza dough. 
You hardly find handhelds second-hand.
So $80 is OK for that.

[radiolistener]

I'm totally satisfied if the DSO2512 can show a crisp square wave up to 5MHz.

The problem with it is that it shows some waveform which you cannot believe, because it can show you false waveform, false frequency, etc. Do you realize that? I think no, the same other novice don't realize that he cannot believe to a thing which is shown on this toy. And this is why I don't recommend to buy it.

[jonovid]

Hantek. its a lunchbox design type case with its own color screen, 3 pin plug AC powered ,probe-test signal generator
, its digital , has 2 channels  good for up to 100MHz, can save screenshots to USB & its cheap.
the downside- your be disliked by some for buying a cheap generic brand.

[Aldo22]

The problem with it is that it shows some waveform which you cannot believe, because it can show you false waveform, false frequency, etc. Do you realize that? I think no, the same other novice don't realize that he cannot believe to a thing which is shown on this toy. And this is why I don't recommend to buy it.

Thanks! I am not going to develop a nuclear plant with it. 
We have a saying in German: "Wer misst, misst Mist" (Whoever measures, measures crap).
This can happen at any level, not just with the oscilloscope.
I'm relatively relaxed when it comes to my hobby projects.

But thanks for your warning!

[rstofer]

When you talk about high frequencies and fast rise times, even a 100 MHz scope is limiting.  At best it will display the 9th harmonic off a 10 MHz sine wave whereas the square wave itself consists of all the odd harmonics from 10 MHz up to infinity.  A lowly 10 MHz square wave contains harmonics well beyond the capability of a 100 MHz scope. 

Don't expect to see a very good representation of a 100 MHz square wave on a 100 MHz scope.  It will usually look like a pretty nice sine wave because the higher harmonics are beyond the capability of the scope.

https://www.prosoundtraining.com/2010/03/13/square-waves-and-dc-content

[tatel]

The problem with it is that it shows some waveform which you cannot believe, because it can show you false waveform, false frequency, etc. Do you realize that? I think no, the same other novice don't realize that he cannot believe to a thing which is shown on this toy. And this is why I don't recommend to buy it.

Well I checked my DSO154, which is even more of a toy than DSO2512, using my Rigol DG811 to output a 5 Vpp square waveform at different frequencies. I have to say the comptentible toy measured frequency spot on in all cases, just because the frequency measured by the toy was the very same frequency set at the AWG. Since I was outputting a square wave and seeing a square wave on toy's screen, I think what I was seeing wasn't a false waveform, either. It became a pure sinusoidal waverform at 10 MHz.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-toy()-scope-dso154pro-1ch-claimed-40mss/msg4580608/#msg4580608

So, no false frequency measurement or waveform, I would say. However, the p-p value was 5,83Vpp at 10 MHz, which isn't good but also not that bad and, BTW, is the main reason I don't trust this thing above 10 MHz. But, even being a novice, I'm pretty sure it can manage a 30 KHz project more than good enough

Of course, fungus, knowing better than me, got better results. And, of course, he couldn't resist and had to adarra jotzea tautech. You know, those family things. I'm sure you can guess how. Not that I agree with so much zirika. However, since you also look like a Siglent guy, perhaps you should check your blood pressure before looking at that thread. After that you can lecture me about how ignorant I am and how anything less that a Siglent AWG  isn't worth the hassle, which surely invalidates any results we dirty noobs could get, and I will take it gladly.

But the main part will be when you post the evidence supporting your assertions about those concrete Zeeweii toyscopes. That's the scientific method after all, it isn't?

[tggzzz]

When you talk about high frequencies and fast rise times, even a 100 MHz scope is limiting.  At best it will display the 9th harmonic off a 10 MHz sine wave whereas the square wave itself consists of all the odd harmonics from 10 MHz up to infinity.  A lowly 10 MHz square wave contains harmonics well beyond the capability of a 100 MHz scope. 

As an illustration of why using harmonics (a frequency domain concept) is unhelpful to the point of being misleading with a time domain instrument, consider this...

A 100MHz scope will usefully display the 10⁸th harmonic of a 1Hz digital signal. If that seems wrong, add in the constraint that it is 10ns wide. For an empirical demonstration, see https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/digital-signal-integrity-and-bandwidth-signals-risetime-is-important-period-is-irrelevant/

[Juan]

Ok what I am learning is , I don't have enough money yet to buy what will be useful over more time .
I was wrong about analog and now see a digital is the way to go .
I don't want to keep upgrading all the time and have to learn a new oscilloscope too often it would drive me nuts and I am a slow learner . The two brands that stand out is Siglent and Rigol which is good to know but I need about $3000 .
I only want to cry once . Thanks for the advice and education not that I understood it all but some useful info filtered through to the brain . I will battle along for another year without one and keep learning about the Siglent SDS2354X Plus 350 Mhz . because they show their prices and their advertising is way easier to follow than Rigol who seem to hide prices and it's  unclear what accessories come as standard . Rigol is very badly presented like they say 70 to 200 mhz ? Does that mean it wont measure below 70 mhz ?  Leaning towards  Siglent .

[rstofer]

But the manufacturers don't state rise time in the promotional literature nor on the unit's front panel.  You and I both know the industry links the two concepts together with a simple constant of 0.35.  That is, Bandwidth * Rise Time = 0.35.  They invent rise time and sell bandwidth.

While the concept of Rise Time carries the most information, it is the least usable for discussions when talking about scopes because they are ALL labeled in Bandwidth.  In most cases, that Bandwidth number can be converted to Rise Time by dividing 0.35 by the Bandwidth.

For the 100 MHz scope, the rise time should be 3.5 ns.

https://www.tek.com/en/support/faqs/how-bandwidth-related-rise-time-oscilloscopes

In the discussion, we also assume that the square wave is symmetric with respect to on and off times.  I have no idea what the series would look like for a signal with 10% on time.  I would have to rethink stuff I learned more than 50 years ago and I'm not sure I understood it even then.

[rstofer]

Rigol is very badly presented like they say 70 to 200 mhz ? Does that mean it wont measure below 70 mhz ?  Leaning towards  Siglent .

When you see a range like that, it is describing different devices in a FAMILY of scopes.  You can buy a 70 MHz version, probably a 100 MHz version or a 200 MHz version.

The DS1054Z, for example is a 50 MHz scope but it can be unlocked to become a 100 MHz scope with no internal changes.  Rigol sells both variants but most people around here buy the 50 MHz version and unlock it.  That's exactly what Rigol does.  They designed the feature into the scope to minimize production costs.

Clearly, scopes work down to DC (0 Hz).

[tatel]

No. You could buy Siglent 2104X+ and hack it to 350 Mhz for free, quite easily. But that would be probably overkill. That performance is almost professional and many people here will never need that much.

Also, all oscilloscopes are more or less the same. It would be like getting a new car. Once you are able to drive a car, it's easy to drive another, somewhat different car.

Same way, you can get Siglent 1104X-E and hack it to 200 Mhz, which would be more than enough to do your project and probably all you'll need for all your hobbyst life. I was thinking the sameway you think now two years ago. I wanted to cry only once. I would have bought the entry-level siglent and never considered 2104X+, should  1104X-E have a good-working MSO option. Same for almost any oscilloscope series. Hardware is the same in all series' model's, additional capabilities are just a matter of activating options already in the software.

Only enterprises that don't want problems and educational institutions don't hack their oscilloscopes.

Please consider that an oscilloscope isn't all you'll need if you really want to get into electronics. For me, once I realized that even SDS2104X+ isn't enough to work at the highest level, going with an ever cheaper scope than the entry-level Siglent allowed me to buy quite a bunch of necessary or convenient thing with a budget about €1500.

That said, in your actual situation, entry-level siglent SDS1104X-E will probably get you the most bang-for-the-buck, and will be enough for quite a few years to come. But only you can decide about where you want to aim and how big your budget is.

Boas noites