EEVblog #793 - Rohde & Schwarz HMO1002 Oscilloscope Hands-On

[Groucho2005]

I do not like that small 640×480 6.5 inch screen. I prefer the 800×480 8.5 inch wide screen of my DSOX2002A.

You have to consider that the menu on the DSOX2002A is static (as far as I know). On the Hameg, it can be hidden. Furthermore, the Hameg has 12 (instead of 10 on the DSOX2002A) horizontal divisions which I really like.
I'd be curious to measure the actual area for traces (not the whole screen) on both and compare.
Here's the HMO722: 12 x 8 div, 124 x 84 mm

[Hydrawerk]

the menu on the DSOX2002A is static

Yes, that is a disadvantage. But you still have more LCD space, although it is not used for waveforms.

[Groucho2005]

the menu on the DSOX2002A is static

Yes, that is a disadvantage. But you still have more LCD space, although it is not used for waveforms.

I'm still curious how big the area on the DSOX2002A is...

[SilverSolder]

I'm surprised that oscilloscopes are not being somewhat displaced by "headless" scopes that could connect to a PC or smartphone, at least for hobby use.  I guess the cost of making a dedicated device is not much higher, and you have the benefit of a dedicated device that's not subject to the whims of Microsoft, Apple, et al...

[Wuerstchenhund]

I'm surprised that oscilloscopes are not being somewhat displaced by "headless" scopes that could connect to a PC or smartphone, at least for hobby use.

A compact box with physical controls for at least the primary functions is usually much more convenient than having a full blown PC on the bench (and smartphones as scope, really?).

USB scopes exist, but the cheap ones suck and the better ones are made for industrial applications and are pretty expensive (much more so than a standalone scope with the same core specs).

...and you have the benefit of a dedicated device that's not subject to the whims of Microsoft, Apple, et al...

Not really, considering that many scopes like the Keysight DSOX are running Windows CE.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I'd be curious to measure the actual area for traces (not the whole screen) on both and compare.
Here's the HMO722: 12 x 8 div, 124 x 84 mm

The DSOX2k/3k has an 8.5" screen with (if I remember right) a waveform area of roughly 148mm x 89mm, which is some 30% more than for your HMO. Considering that both displays are pretty small by any standard that isn't exctly a massive difference. Plus the HMO gets more waveform information on the screen due to its wider grid.

[larry42]

IIRC the LED intensity can be lowered (INTENS/PERSIS, LED brightness Low)
I have the HMO15xx - a previous generation.

The front-end noise is very low, lower than the DSOX3xxx series, and the FFT implementation is the best I've ever seen, with bin size and scrolling control, amplitude averagine (in FFT) and a good way of moving the cursors (remember to push the Select and Time/Div buttons in FFT mode for additional functionality).

I'm able to measure down to -115dBm with input terminated in 50Ohm.  (TB: 20ms/div, 4Msps, FFT: 64k, 50kHz span), so for <1MHz work this scope rivals a spectrum analyzer for simple work (of course DR is limited to ca. 45dB, but for seeing week signals it's great ).

The Hameg support are quick to answer my snarky complaints regarding lack of good SCPI documentation - and they finally updated their manual.

You can get the full 2Msample data out in about 25s with a python script (1Msample takes 13s) over the USB port (using a standard VCP driver).

The megazoom ASIC in the DSOX series is much more powerful, but R&S/Hameg give a lot more functionality right out of the box, a lower front-end noise, better FFT control. The options are well-priced compared to the competition.

[Fungus]

I'm surprised that oscilloscopes are not being somewhat displaced by "headless" scopes that could connect to a PC or smartphone, at least for hobby use.

There's plenty of people trying but in reality it doesn't work out.

I guess the cost of making a dedicated device is not much higher, and you have the benefit of a dedicated device that's not subject to the whims of Microsoft, Apple, et al...

TFT screens are cheap. The expensive part is the A/D converters, the analog front end, the probes, the power supply, etc.

[larry42]

Lets stop the headless scope discussion in this thread - (because it's way off topic for the HMO1002).
I want to hear more feedback on this HMO series, because this is an interesting alternative to Rigol, Singlent etc at the lower end.

[Groucho2005]

I'd be curious to measure the actual area for traces (not the whole screen) on both and compare.
Here's the HMO722: 12 x 8 div, 124 x 84 mm

The DSOX2k/3k has an 8.5" screen with (if I remember right) a waveform area of roughly 148mm x 89mm, which is some 30% more than for your HMO.

With this ratio and 10 x 8 divisions, the grid divisions cannot be square but must be a rather stretched rectangle. Not my cup of tea.