first time buyers oscilloscope analysis paralysis help!!!!!

[Fungus]

From what I can tell, there is no "great, starter scope"  They all have their warts and blemishes.

Yep.

and (b) Expensive ones have warts, too...

I have a DS1104Z and it has done everything I've asked of it thus far.   Since I'm relatively new to their use (maybe 2 years) it has been a fine starter scope and I have nothing bad to say about it. 

Same here, but given the OP's original budget and "audio" needs I'd go for the GW-Instek instead. It's not much more than the Rigol.

My opinion?  Look at them and pick the one that fits your needs and be done with it.

Problem: Nobody knows their "needs".

Some specifications were given in the initial post but later we're told that he's looking for an "experience" similar to when he got his Fluke. Not gonna happen for $350...

I'd say the maximum "experience" will come from the Keysight so that's the one to go for. Maybe even the dark-color-scheme "G" version with wave generator for doing bode plots.

If he can afford a Fluke 87V, he can surely afford the Keysight. Spending more on your oscilloscope than your multimeter doesn't seem unreasonable to me. 

[rstofer]

Cost always seems to be the big issue followed shortly by warranty.  Guys, it doesn't matter!  Neither issue matters! 

Barring infant mortality, of course.  In the case of the older Rigol DS1054Z, this shouldn't be a problem.  I haven't read anything bad about the Siglent offerings either even though they are newer.  In any event, stay away from the bleeding edge and everything will work out fine.

Suppose you spent $1000 on an entry level scope and, somehow beating all odds, it lasted for 5 years.  So, that's $200/year or about $4/week - the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks, I'm told.  We're not talking high finance here!

Look at the bigger picture, in 5 years there will be something with even more magic selling for equivalent money.  If your scope is still working, sell it for some discounted price and use the proceeds to buy the next great scope.  The cost per week will be about the same.

Just figure you're into this deal for $4/week for the rest of your time playing with electronics.  That's just the way it's going to work out.

Here's an idea:  Put a jar on your bench and drop a $5 in every week.  When you need another scope, you'll have the money.  The longer you hold off buying the next scope, the better scope you'll be able to buy.

[bd139]

Excellent advice. 

[Fungus]

Here's an idea:  Put a jar on your bench and drop a $5 in every week.  When you need another scope, you'll have the money.  The longer you hold off buying the next scope, the better scope you'll be able to buy.

What about buying the first one? At that rate it's gonna take a while before you can afford it... 

[Fungus]

I've have decided that asking for scope advise on this forum isn't very helpful lol.

You're absolutely correct, but between:

* The wishy-washy lists of requirements
* The resident Siglent salesmen
* The OPs who always get scared and disappear half way through the thread
* etc.

What's a forum supposed to do? 

[SilverSolder]

In some ways, asking "What's the best scope" is like asking "What's the best car".

Chances are very good that there is more than one answer that you'll end up being very happy with! 

[scatterandfocus]

I've have decided that asking for scope advise on this forum isn't very helpful lol.

You're absolutely correct, but between:

* The wishy-washy lists of requirements
* The resident oscilloscope salesmen
* The OPs who always get scared and disappear half way through the thread
* etc.

What's a forum supposed to do? 

From a scope noob perspective, part of it for me is that lots of people are saying that X, Y, and Z are absolute requirements, with no reasons given for why.  Show me the usefulness of those features, and I can better decide if they are useful for me personally.  For example, do I need a scope that has decoding features?  After reading/watching for a while on this topic, I don't really need that as a beginner, and I might never need it.  Do I need FFT and lots of other math functions on a scope?  Again, not so much, maybe never.  And on and on.  And that is part of the reason why I ended up starting with an old analog scope.  I don't know what or who many of those features are useful for.  Other reasons were wanting an interface with no menu diving and lag.  No software bugs, hoping that the manufacturer will iron them out eventually (it seems that some manufacturers are quick about this, while others not so much if ever).  And hopefully no tossing the thing in a dumpster in a few years due to a failed component or three, when that time will likely come, especially as a beginner who is more prone to making mistakes.  On the latter point, I look at it the same as any other tool.  Yes, I can go buy a whizz-bang multi-saw with lots of features and attachments, or I can buy something that looks to be well-made, repairable, that fits my actual needs, even if it means buying an older/used tool.  From my perspective, it seems that manufacturers and sellers today are trying very hard to sell the idea that their feature-crammed devices is what I need, without explaining why I might need it and without consideration for what my needs and concerns actually are.  As an example of that, it might be the case that some scope users would much prefer a scope that has adequate bandwidth with a very good interface and smooth display, over a scope that is feature-crammed without much concern for usability.

Before I ended up going for an analog scope, I likely would have went for a very low bandwidth (couple of Mhz) battery powered dso with a builtin function generator that is adequate, if there were one available that isn't a piece of crap.

[Fungus]

In some ways, asking "What's the best scope" is like asking "What's the best car".

Chances are very good that there is more than one answer that you'll end up being very happy with!

Yep. At the end of the day we're arguing over options like leather seats alloy wheels where while ignoring the fact that none of them are going to fit a bale of hay in the back.

(...or sofa, depending on your culture)

A lot of people would go with the option of ordinary seats and spend the extra money on something that really makes a difference in their life (eg. a $100 soldering iron).

If you're really in the "I want leather and alloys" demographic then why skimp? Just check all the option boxes and take the hit. A year from now you'll be enjoying your pretty car and won't even remember how much the seats/wheels cost.

(ie. Get the fancy black "G" version of the Keysight, complete with signal generator to drive your audio amplifiers directly and produce Bode plots)

[scatterandfocus]

In some ways, asking "What's the best scope" is like asking "What's the best car".

Chances are very good that there is more than one answer that you'll end up being very happy with!

Yep. At the end of the day we're arguing over options like leather seats alloy wheels where while ignoring the fact that none of them are going to fit a bale of hay in the back.

(...or sofa, depending on your culture)

A lot of people would go with the option of ordinary seats and spend the extra money on something that really makes a difference in their life (eg. a $100 soldering iron).

If you're really in the "I want leather and alloys" demographic then why skimp? Just check all the option boxes and take the hit. A year from now you'll be enjoying your pretty car and won't even remember how much the seats/wheels cost.

(ie. Get the fancy black "G" version of the Keysight, complete with signal generator to drive your audio amplifiers directly and produce Bode plots)

It seems to be a real issue, the selling of scopes by way of leather seats and alloy wheels while the thing might stumble down the road and go left when turned right.  And no aftermarket parts industry to speak of.  But even more oddly, it seems to be popularly viewed as being acceptable.

[Fungus]

From a scope noob perspective, part of it for me is that lots of people are saying that X, Y, and Z are absolute requirements, with no reasons given for why.

Agree 100%.

As an example of that, it might be the case that some scope users would much prefer a scope that has adequate bandwidth with a very good interface and smooth display, over a scope that is feature-crammed without much concern for usability.

The other problem is that people sell (eg.) the Siglent as 100% better that the Rigol. I disagree.

For example: My Rigol has a row of buttons down the side for turning on measurements, along with little pictures showing what they do. Push a button, measurement appears on screen. That's it.



On the Siglent you go through some button presses and eventually get a popup menu with text names for the measurements. You scroll back and forth through the list with the twisty knob then push the knob to select a measurement.



(Should that be horizontal or vertical movement throught he list when you turn the knob? Neither, it's the wrong paradigm...)

People go on and on about the Rigol's vertical control response but my gut feeling is that I turn measurements on and off nearly as often as I adjust the vertical position.

Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? 

[2N3055]

Any working scope is better than nothing.

Many, many businesses buy Siglents and Rigols. They buy 10 Siglent SDS1104X-E and one Keysight 1GHz 3000 , 4000 or 6000 series... Or they rent high end scopes and only buy lesser ones. Because they can do 80-90% of daily chores.

It is same thing as a bookkeeper person making a living on a i3 computer with 4 GB RAM, while spoiled 15 year old brats are demanding i9 12000 USD computers because their latest games don't have enough FPS... It's the hobbyists that are inventing problems where there aren't any. In business it's simple. It either works or it doesn't. Nobody in their right mind wants to spend more money when less will do the job.

It's the hobbyists that can afford (if they are wealthy enough) to be snobbish about brands, or "user experience". In real life companies, you come to work, boss hands you the toolbox and tells you "there is a problem there.. Go fix it and let me know when you're done."  If they have to choose between 10 adequate scopes so every engineer has one,  or 3 excellent scopes that engineers will have to wait in line to use, guess what's the answer... Only largest companies have premium instruments, all others economize about that...

As I said, to each its own, tool for the job.

Everybody like bashing Chinese scopes. But if you went to Keysight, until few years ago, and you asked them what would they suggest as excellent fully featured ENTRY level scope they would tell you that is exactly why they made 3000 series. They consider 3000 series to be higher low end, advanced entry level scope. That is their marketing strategy.2000 series was deliberately crippled and really basic.
Until Rigol and Siglent came out with their offering, there weren't real entry level scopes. Not really. It was noname toys, or severely crippled name scopes but still sold for several thousands of USD. And it was practically duopoly, HP, Tek and some Hamegs (R&S wasn't big player until few years ago), some LeCroys (no entry level models either to speak of). Maybe Yokogawa here and there. And they all cost too much. There were no Renaults, Fiats, Dacias of scopes. Only Mercedes and Porsche with their very expensive and their slightly less expensive cars the they called "economy", but they were still 5x times more expensive that Fiat with same basic specs. Fiat didn't have leather seats and fancy upholstery. But it drove millions of people to work, to vacation and changed their lives for the better. This is the market that Rigol and Siglent are targeting.

Let's get back to the topic.

It is actually simple:

- You decide how much money you can spend. That includes both "I have this much cash in my hand", or if you plan to get a loan to finance this purchase. Fix the hard sum that you are willing to pay.
- Take a piece of paper and write down what projects you plan to work on.That defines what signals you will encounter.
- On scope you need various triggers so you can catch what you looking for. For noisy analog signal find scope that has good trigger stability. If you look at digital signals, look for specialized triggers to look for crap on digital signals..
- On scope you need enough analog bandwidth so that your signal reaches A/D converter with least amount of distortion. If you look at digital signals, find out what edge rise times you will encounter and search for scopes by criteria which scope has fast enough rise time, not the frequency of signal.
- On scope you need sampling speed that is adequate for analog bandwidth it has. Keysight recommends 5x analog bandwidth to make sure no aliasing happens. Sometimes you can be OK with less than that.
- If you capture long sequences but need to keep high frequency data in that capture, longer the memory the better.
- If you want to correlate lots of signals at the same time you need enough channels. Some people will be fine with 2 (for instance: general troubleshooting, servicing) some will want 8 (for instance: power analysis)..
- If you want to correlate analog and digital you need mixed signal capability. Make sure digital channels are fast enough for digital signal you're looking at.
- If you want to decode some protocols, make sure they are supported.
- If you plan to decode a lot, plan to either get separate logic analyser/decoder. Decoding thousands of messages is job for 24" screen and PC. Decoding on scopes is nice as a quick view for troubleshooting, and really useful because you already have it all connected and you only enable decoding..
- Buy scope for those specific purposes and no more. Don't think "I will give more money but will buy once and have it all, now and 20 years from now on". You will pay too much for stuff you will never use. Buy for today and spend as little as you can and save money to buy scope with more features later if you will need it.
- With money you have, buy scope that fulfills most of your list. If there are compromises to be made, you have to decide what is more important. Do you want bigger touch screen or more sensitive input channels (500uV/div as opposed to 4mV/DIV), can it be PC USB scope with huge 512 MS memory and lots of decodes, or you want "real"scope with buttons, very fast U/I and would be happy with only 1MS of memory.
- You will NOT find SINGLE scope that does ALL you want(need). Not for any money. I have four of them, each one bought for specific capability/purpose. All of them were bought separately, when there was a  project that required that capability and not a moment sooner. Project paid for them and I moved on and kept the equipment. If I realize I didn't use something for a year, I make a note of it, and if it really doesn't get used, off it goes.. I can buy something else with that dead money...

Pay attention I didn't mention any brands. Choice of that will change daily.
I have an eclectic mix of Rigol, Siglent, Keysight, Picoscope, Hameg, SignalHound, Micsig, Zeroplus, Maynuo, Brymen, Metrix,Fluke , Genrad, UNI-T, etc..


Like our friend BD139 epicly said,  "run your shit Ferengy style" :-)
Dump your money into projects, not fancy instruments that will be not used. Or buy beer and steak, that is awesome too..

Or just admit, "Oh no, I don't do electronics, mind you.. I simply collect fancy instruments. I like how they glow...". That's fine too.

[TK]

+1 to what 2N3055 posted

[nctnico]

On the Siglent you go through some button presses and eventually get a popup menu with text names for the measurements. You scroll back and forth through the list with the twisty knob then push the knob to select a measurement.

(Attachment Link)

(Should that be horizontal or vertical movement throught he list when you turn the knob? Neither, it's the wrong paradigm...)

People go on and on about the Rigol's vertical control response but my gut feeling is that I turn measurements on and off nearly as often as I adjust the vertical position.

Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? 

Both are slow. The GW Instek GDS1054B wins this contest hands down because it has the best from both: a fast CPU under the hood like the Siglent and two rows of buttons which make setting it up quick like the Rigol.

@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments which barely (or not) fit the bill isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.

[bd139]

Or just admit, "Oh no, I don't do electronics, mind you.. I simply collect fancy instruments. I like how they glow...". That's fine too.

Yes. Also a compromise tip if you have that magical "time" stuff available and this is a hobby. Collect cheap and old fancy instruments that are broken for pocket money, fix them, nod approvingly at them and enjoy the glow, then sell the buggers for much latinum having added the value of "actually works now". Benefits: cultural enrichment, acquisition of extensive debugging and technical knowledge and profit which can be used to buy nicer new instruments.

I'm running net zero expenditure on everything so far. This has the advantage that no one can complain about spending all that money on test gear 

[bd139]

@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments which barely (or not) fit the bill isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.

There's the trifecta of time, cost and features to consider there. Features cost money. Time costs money. Money costs time. Features cost money.

The most successful businesses I have worked for understand the problem domain they are working on deeply enough to be able to compose something to solve a problem quickly rather than rely on a vendor to have an off the shelf solution. The dead time when you're waiting for vendor response and PO process kills a lot of products dead. The biggest one I worked on was a defence project which was rather late and only a couple of hundred million quid over budget. Some of this was actually due to Xilinx's sales team apparently although I wasn't on that side of things.

Also McGuyver got out of a lot of sticky situations without having to call up Keysight and get a scope to debug the bomb's protocol.

I work in the software sector now where all the tools are expensive and made of boiled dog shit. Much fun.

[2N3055]

@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.

I didn't forget it, it was kinda included in "buy instrument to be fit for the purpose", but I wasn't really clear about that and thank you for pointing that out.

But also as a counterpoint to you, I must make a remark that I heard that argument many, many times, but it didn't hold truth all the time.
Buying more potent instrument doesn't always bring gain in productivity, because people have to use in way that is beneficial.
Many times, if it does enhance productivity, it has to be proven that it makes economic sense.

It is also self fulfilling prophecy. Where those businesses successful because they didn't economize on T&M equipment, or simply, because they were successful, they had enough money that they decided to spend a lot on T&M equipment because they can ?

Sometimes companies, knowing that engineers are funny that way and like that stuff, buy fancy equipment to promote working environment as being high tech and consider it a perk to employee, like free coffee and such.. You know, like: "I work for this great company, we have all the best toys.."
Management strategies are funny sometimes.

But you are absolutely  right:  If buying something more expensive will help you make more money, or make more free time for you (most precious resource we have) than by all mean get that, not the cheapest stuff.  But make sure that investment will be returned, one way or another.

[bd139]

From a scope noob perspective, part of it for me is that lots of people are saying that X, Y, and Z are absolute requirements, with no reasons given for why.

Agree 100%.

As an example of that, it might be the case that some scope users would much prefer a scope that has adequate bandwidth with a very good interface and smooth display, over a scope that is feature-crammed without much concern for usability.

The other problem is that people sell (eg.) the Siglent as 100% better that the Rigol. I disagree.

For example: My Rigol has a row of buttons down the side for turning on measurements, along with little pictures showing what they do. Push a button, measurement appears on screen. That's it.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ]

On the Siglent you go through some button presses and eventually get a popup menu with text names for the measurements. You scroll back and forth through the list with the twisty knob then push the knob to select a measurement.

[ Attachment Invalid Or Does Not Exist ]

(Should that be horizontal or vertical movement throught he list when you turn the knob? Neither, it's the wrong paradigm...)

People go on and on about the Rigol's vertical control response but my gut feeling is that I turn measurements on and off nearly as often as I adjust the vertical position.

Question: Which of the two has the "slow" user interface? 

Thanks for that one. That's pretty horrid.

Honestly the biggest feature I use on the digital scopes is the auto measurements because I'm a lazy bastard. I can derive as much value from an analogue box if I put the effort in as nearly all measurements are approximations and quite good enough to work out if the ball of poo you threw together in LTspice is doing what you hoped it will do in real life.

The other day I solved a problem on a 20MHz Hameg because my DS1054 wouldn't bloody trigger (turned out to be a self cal issue)

[tautech]

+1 to what 2N3055 posted

+2

You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently.

This also.
Some instruments have optional features that at purchase might never be considered as necessary or even required however as skills/needs grow at some later date they can be added.
Then the choice becomes more complex, will those features be required at some later time or just having them in an instrument make it more valuable if you decide to upgrade it.

On this premise there are those that choose to spend a little more initially so to be covered for later needs.
Each and every buyers situation is different.

[2N3055]

@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments which barely (or not) fit the bill isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.

There's the trifecta of time, cost and features to consider there. Features cost money. Time costs money. Money costs time. Features cost money.

This ! And one more:  money cost money.... :-)

To be honest, like you said, most of the time, time is wasted on trying to understand problem domain, not because my scope doesn't twiddle buttons fast enough...
It's more like, you grab a screen of crap and than look at that and the datasheet, and then screen, and then datasheet, and then specification... And then you think of something else, twiddle this twiddle that, capture again something else, than again look at that for few minutes....
If instrument has ready made analysis for something that I don't have to write myself, that is time saving.
But if analysis package costs 3000€ and I can spend 2 days and write something myself I go to client and ask if they want to save two days for 3000€ more cost. If it's so time critical, they have to pay if it is only for their benefit. Or they wait 2 days..
If it is something I use all the time, and for my benefit, than I will make a decision either to finance it myself, or write analysis in my own time...
I jolt down few numbers in Excel, calculate and make a decision. Simple as that.

[bd139]

Also as is typical with software these days, you spend that 3000€ and still have no idea what the problem is 

[nctnico]

@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.

I didn't forget it, it was kinda included in "buy instrument to be fit for the purpose", but I wasn't really clear about that and thank you for pointing that out.

But also as a counterpoint to you, I must make a remark that I heard that argument many, many times, but it didn't hold truth all the time.

It is also self fulfilling prophecy. Where those businesses successful because they didn't economize on T&M equipment, or simply, because they were successful, they had enough money that they decided to spend a lot on T&M equipment because they can ?

No, those companies (or at least the people leading them) had the insight that good tools do a better job. One of the primary problems of designing circuits and/or working with electronics in general is that you can't see electricity. You need instruments to measure voltage and current versus time. The better the insight you can get on the misbehaviour of a circuit the quicker you'll be able to make a circuit work.

[2N3055]

@2N3055: You are forgetting one thing though. An instrument with lots of features often enables you to do things more quickly / efficiently. Buying make-do instruments isn't doing businesses any good long term. The most succesfull businesses I have worked for didn't economize on the test equipment.

I didn't forget it, it was kinda included in "buy instrument to be fit for the purpose", but I wasn't really clear about that and thank you for pointing that out.

But also as a counterpoint to you, I must make a remark that I heard that argument many, many times, but it didn't hold truth all the time.

It is also self fulfilling prophecy. Where those businesses successful because they didn't economize on T&M equipment, or simply, because they were successful, they had enough money that they decided to spend a lot on T&M equipment because they can ?

No, those companies (or at least the people leading them) had the insight that good tools do a better job. One of the primary problems of designing circuits and/or working with electronics in general is that you can't see electricity. You need instruments to measure voltage and current versus time. The better the insight you can get on the misbehaviour of a circuit the quicker you'll be able to make a circuit work.

I wasn't saying you are wrong per se, but that I'we seen both.
But it all drills down to types of projects, and complexity. More complexity and more advanced technology, more you start to depend on specialized and high end instruments and solutions.

[scatterandfocus]

Looking back at njkmonty's original post, what features do you think he needs for his requirements?  Not *maybe this, maybe that*, just in case later *maybe this, maybe that*.   According to njkmonty's actual requirements, which features do you think he needs?

It sounds to me that 2-channels, any bandwidth would be fine.  Around $350 seems to be the max that he wants to spend.  One point worth considering is that he wants to work on valve amps (high voltage).  And the cost of some sort of suitable low frequency function generator, or maybe just a simple oscillator circuit, should be considered.  He also wants a nice to use gui/display.  Do any of the lower cost scopes include a good enough builtin function generator?  Does one or more of those have any real advantage over other's in the same price range in terms of gui/display?

after asking questions, reading , watching , reading some more, I thought i had come to a decision.
Rigol Ds1054z
or
Siglent SDS1202X-E

i really dont think i will need a 4 probe model , however good UI
nice big crisp screen, fast response as possible for that price.

But i really also only envisage doing basic stuff,
 measure power supply regulation
biasing bbd chips in effects pedals
biasing clocks in effects pedals
working on valve amps

no real digital requirements come to mind

i dont really want to spend much more than the above , and prefer to buy a reputable brand.
is there a different model within these brands that ticks my boxes?
or do all of these scopes have all this extra stuff i probably wont use? 

i dont want to buy a second hand analogue

just need someone to push me over the edge?

sorry for the gazilianth scope question!

[scatterandfocus]

This thread reminds me of going to a local department store some years ago (remember those?) to find a microwave after mine kicked the bucket.  Ever tried to get an out of warranty microwave repaired?  Any way, I'm standing in the aisle looking at the whole range of microwaves, at this and that price, with this and that features.  An hour and a half later, I left the store and put my frozen dinner in the oven.   

Moral of the story, I didn't need any of the crap being displayed in the product info for those things.  I just needed a hot dinner.  Sometimes things are simpler than they are made out to be.

[nctnico]

Nahhh the problem is going to a store. Usually when I go to a store I go back empty handed too because stores don't have much choice (which seems to get lesser and lesser). Better stop going to stores and order online. Some stores don't even want to sell these days. Last time I wanted to buy a monitor there was nobody at the cash register so I left the monitor at the cash register and went home (and ordered the same one online when I got home).