Help with Oscilloscope purchase decision.

[Tomer]

Hi, I am new here so hello to everyone.
I am a student and learning electronics, I am working on audio applications such as Compressors, EQ's, PreAmps.

I need your help with an Oscilloscope purchase decision.
My 2 top candidates will be the Rigol "1054Z" and the KeySignt "EDUX1002A", the price difference between them is small.
The Rigol gives 4 channels (I don't see that i will need more than 2)
The Rigol can be "Hacked" easily for more features and bandwidth (Again, I don't need 100Mhz)

Are there any other factors that i am missing? what is your suggestion?
Or maybe a completely different candidate?

Thanks a lot for your help
Tom.
 

[james_s]

You might find the FFT function useful for audio work of that nature, it may be worth looking into whether the scopes you are looking for have that and if they do, whether it works well enough to be useful.

[Fungus]

You might want to look at the Analog Discovery instead. It's a great little device for learning electronics and has a high resolution ADC which gives really good FFTs (much better than those two 'scopes).

You can also program it to output frequency sweeps and do really nice Bode plots - very handy for audio work.

It's also half the price. 

[JPortici]

based on your requirements i'd say that
- you don't need high bandwidth (also less bandwidth < > less noise)
- you'd rather need more resolution 10,12,16 bit
- you'd probably need more than two channels. for example, compressor: input, output, control.
- you may need decodes

basically for resolution, i second the analog discovery

[Fungus]

PS: Here's Dave's video:



nb. That's the old version. We now have the Analog Discovery 2.

[nctnico]

I'd also look at the GW Instek GDS-1054B. Pricewise in the same ballpark but it has 1Mpts FFT and input filtering. Input filtering is very useful to get rid of HF noise in a signal. For audio work the analog discovery also seems nice but you'll always need a PC and (AFAIK) the input ranges are limited.

[tautech]

Hi, I am new here so hello to everyone.
I am a student and learning electronics, I am working on audio applications such as Compressors, EQ's, PreAmps.

I need your help with an Oscilloscope purchase decision.
My 2 top candidates will be the Rigol "1054Z" and the KeySignt "EDUX1002A", the price difference between them is small.
The Rigol gives 4 channels (I don't see that i will need more than 2)
The Rigol can be "Hacked" easily for more features and bandwidth (Again, I don't need 100Mhz)

Are there any other factors that i am missing? what is your suggestion?
Or maybe a completely different candidate?

Thanks a lot for your help
Tom.

Welcome to the forum.

There's a lot of choices in the market presently and more to come.
An updated version of the Siglent SDS1000X series is just a few weeks away, the SDS1202X-E.
Pricing indications I have are very favourable against any existing model in the marketplace.
There's mot much info out about it yet but our Dave has a prototype and is quite impressed with it.
Have a hunt for X-E within the forum for bits and pieces that Dave has said of it.

Mentions:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-siglent-sds1000x-e-oscilloscope-based-on-xilinx-zynq-7000-soc-architecture/

[thanasisk]

In general you either get bandwidth (benchtop oscilloscopes) or resolution bits (pc-based) - (within a reasonable price range that is!).

Even for audio work you might need high(er) BW such as 100 MHz - for example if you want to study op-amp behaviour/oscillation.

Some oscilloscopes reduce the sample rate to increase the equivalent resolution bits (e.g. R&S HMO1212 - it can go to 16 bits).

And resolution bits should be considered together with sensitivity and front-end noise, which might matter I guess if you mess around with small-scale signals (Microphone level is -60 dBV / 1mVrms to -40 dBV / 10 mVrms ).. This is where things get complicated because there is not much information in a single place to make an informed decision.

Other points:
- Adequate FFT >=128kpts would be nice (with a decent update rate of course!). See Dave's FFT comparison video. I also think the Zynq-based oscilloscopes (GW-Instek models and the new Siglent - and the Red Pitaya devboard) are also very competent in this area.

[GlowingGhoul]

Get the Keysight. It's the smoothest functioning option of those presented, and you want your tools to be as invisible as possible, not an impediment to overcome.

[kcbrown]

If you can, you might want to wait for the new Siglent to come out and for people to review it.  It looks like it may well be a good contender.  It'll only have two channels, and that might prove limiting, or it might not be, depending on your needs.  It'll be a 200MHz scope, however, and that might put its price beyond what you're willing to pay after considering the competition and your bandwidth requirements.

If you don't need any sort of decoding, then the Instek GDS-1054 actually looks quite good, particularly for your uses (I'm presuming that 50MHz is more than sufficient for your needs), and especially because it has 4 channels.  If you don't need 4 channels, you can get the 100MHz 2 channel model for $30 more (I'm going by the tequipment.net prices).

Of course, the Keysight is going to be the most responsive in terms of its user interface (it's been described as behaving as if the controls are directly wired to the screen), but it's potentially the most limited for the price, particularly in the memory department (100K points for the 50 MHz educational version, compared with 10M points for the Instek).  If your decoding needs are limited to i2c and UART (assuming you need or want any decoding at all), then the educational model might suit your needs just fine, though the decoding is an optional extra from the looks of it (and I've no idea how much it'll cost).

At this point, there are a number of good options for rather good prices if 50 MHz will suit your needs.   Looks like it's a good time to be in the market for an entry-level scope.

[tautech]

If you can, you might want to wait for the new Siglent to come out and for people to review it.  It looks like it may well be a good contender.  It'll only have two channels, and that might prove limiting, or it might not be, depending on your needs.  It'll be a 200MHz scope, however, and that might put its price beyond what you're willing to pay after considering the competition and your bandwidth requirements.

You may want to rethink that last sentence in the next few weeks. 

[kcbrown]

If you can, you might want to wait for the new Siglent to come out and for people to review it.  It looks like it may well be a good contender.  It'll only have two channels, and that might prove limiting, or it might not be, depending on your needs.  It'll be a 200MHz scope, however, and that might put its price beyond what you're willing to pay after considering the competition and your bandwidth requirements.

You may want to rethink that last sentence in the next few weeks. 

Looking forward to it!   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tomer]

Hi Everyone and thank you for so many good replies. it is hard for a beginner to decide, trying to make the best choice possible.

From the replies, i understand the following:
1) It will be a good idea to go with 4 channels. 2 channels might won't be enough for audio applications.
2) Sometimes i might need a Bandwidth higher than 50Mhz.
3) FFT will be an important factor.

Notes:
- Analog Discovery - looks really nice, but i would like to have full size scope. (and other hardware such as Signal generator).
- Waiting for the new Siglent - I am a newbie, but from reading and watching around the web i learned that Siglent products release with half baked software and it takes time until the software mature.

Question:
How to Determent the FFT feature in a scope. what data in the spec should i be looking for ?

Thank again for all your help!
Tom

[Fungus]

Question:
How to Determent the FFT feature in a scope. what data in the spec should i be looking for ?

The single biggest factor is number of bits in the ADC. This is where the Analog Discovery really shines.

Secondly, memory/window size. More is good.

[Electro Fan]

Kind of late to this thread and have been away from EEVblog for a while so just getting caught back up on scopes.  I'm a pretty happy Rigol MSO2072 hobby user but I'm not wedded to any make or model.

If you were thinking about a birthday gift for a 2nd year college EE student, which of the entry scopes might be preferred among the Rigol 1054Z, the EDUX1002A, the GW Instek GDS-1054B, the impending Siglent, or perhaps some other model.  It would be nice to stay at $400 or lower but if there's a reason to spend somewhat more it's worth considering.  FWIW, the student already has an Analog Discovery 2.

The goal is not to solve every EE problem with this scope but to provide a good first experience with a personal scope (I'm pretty sure the university has better gear in the labs - maybe Agilent 2k/3k models).  My theory is that more hands-on time might lead to more/faster/better learning, and some fun.  I know it's a somewhat open-ended and subjective question but any thoughts/recommendations are welcome. 

Thanks

[Electro Fan]

Just saw this "Logic Analyzer Comparison" regarding scopes vs. Digilent AD, LAs, etc.  Might be interesting for beginners, new users, or others.



- Checkout the other videos by tomtektest, lots of interesting videos....

[james_s]

Kind of late to this thread and have been away from EEVblog for a while so just getting caught back up on scopes.  I'm a pretty happy Rigol MSO2072 hobby user but I'm not wedded to any make or model.

If you were thinking about a birthday gift for a 2nd year college EE student, which of the entry scopes might be preferred among the Rigol 1054Z, the EDUX1002A, the GW Instek GDS-1054B, the impending Siglent, or perhaps some other model.  It would be nice to stay at $400 or lower but if there's a reason to spend somewhat more it's worth considering.  FWIW, the student already has an Analog Discovery 2.

The goal is not to solve every EE problem with this scope but to provide a good first experience with a personal scope (I'm pretty sure the university has better gear in the labs - maybe Agilent 2k/3k models).  My theory is that more hands-on time might lead to more/faster/better learning, and some fun.  I know it's a somewhat open-ended and subjective question but any thoughts/recommendations are welcome. 

Thanks

The Rigol seems to be really well liked around here, and it's compact for a standalone instrument, possibly an important consideration to a college student. You probably won't go too wrong with any of the ~$400 DSOs as long as you don't get some no-name brand that nobody has heard of. None of them are stellar instruments but none of them seem to be turds either. It's really pretty amazing what you can get brand new for 400 bucks these days.

[Pitrsek]

Hi,
for your audio stuff, no scope can touch a decent sound card. So for audio FFT, THD plots, eq transfer functions and other stuff, buy a decent sound card + make yourself nice front end(levels control,protection,etc.). Two completely different tools. You are buying scope to see the "fast" stuff. If you can wait, I'd wait for X-E Siglent. Once it's out you can decide weather its good enough or you'll by EDUX. Hopefully there will be some more progress on EDUX hacking as well. For me Rigol is not an option due to user interface - it's lagy. I had 2072 for a test, it drove me nuts  . 1062 was absolutely ok in this regard, dunno why they messed new ones up....

I'm shopping for a new scope for my home workshop - waiting for X-E. Then I'll decide.

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

We've had really good feedback on the 1000 X-Series FFT capabilities, I think it's one of the places it shines compared to other cheap scopes I've used.

[snoopy]

Is the Keysight like the Rigol and only does protocol analysis on the display contents rather than what's in the capture memory ? I find this an annoying limitation of the Rigol and limits it somewhat !!

[fonograph]

Siglent 1000 x-e    have lowest noise front end of the three,1 million bin fft,big memory a no hacking required,it comes at 200mhz with decode and segmented memory straight out of box,for 425 eur its best.The rigol have crap front end and keysight have worst of the worst no name chinese capacitors in psu,but keysight software is superior to rigol/siglent,lot less bugs.

[chrisalbertson]

You might end up with multiple scopes.   Buy the entry level DSO.  The Rigol 1054z that you were looking at is not bad but also for audio you could use more bits and lower sampling rate.   Do you already have a studio grade USB audio interface?  My USB interface does 96K samples per second at 24 bits per sample on two channels it has about a 100db dynamic range.  These are pretty standard specs for an audio interface from companies like Focusrite or MOTU.  I can use this to drive a software scope on my iMac.  I can run a useful FFT and display multiple scope screens on a 27" LCD screen.   But I do need to keep the Rigol scope as my audio interface is limited to audio frequency

I the software in the link below.  Look at the screen shots.  No readably priced DSO oscilloscope can draw images like this: http://www.faberacoustical.com/apps/mac/electroacoustics_toolbox/

Having both is good.   But I also own a 1980's vintage Tektronix analog scope.  You can find these now for under $100.   Actually with an analog scope and the PC software scope you'd be set.  Unless you need to look at digital stuff

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

Is the Keysight like the Rigol and only does protocol analysis on the display contents rather than what's in the capture memory ? I find this an annoying limitation of the Rigol and limits it somewhat !!

Yes, the InfiniiVision Oscilloscopes do decoding on the display data. A scope that does decode on the entire trace will generally take a hit to update rate and possibly even UI responsiveness.

[rsjsouza]

Is the Keysight like the Rigol and only does protocol analysis on the display contents rather than what's in the capture memory ? I find this an annoying limitation of the Rigol and limits it somewhat !!

Yes, the InfiniiVision Oscilloscopes do decoding on the display data. A scope that does decode on the entire trace will generally take a hit to update rate and possibly even UI responsiveness.

That is something I never quite understood from the critics detracting the brands that decode only what is displayed, as my understanding is similar to Daniel's, especially for the multi-MB storage scopes. Also, how useful it is to show decoded data while displaying "real-time" waveforms? I usually gather a specific stream of data and perform post-analysis by navigating on the scope memory. If a frame is outside of the displayed area, I simply use the horizontal delay to frame it more appropriately and get the decoded data - well, one improvement would be if the decoder actually decoded, say, twice or four times the size of the display size, so you wouldn't have invalid data in the edges of the displayed area.

BTW, I am genuinely curious (I may not be thinking about other usage scenarios). 

(edited for clarification)

[nctnico]

Is the Keysight like the Rigol and only does protocol analysis on the display contents rather than what's in the capture memory ? I find this an annoying limitation of the Rigol and limits it somewhat !!

Yes, the InfiniiVision Oscilloscopes do decoding on the display data. A scope that does decode on the entire trace will generally take a hit to update rate and possibly even UI responsiveness.

I think you better rephrase that because a scope which decodes only what is on screen is rather useless because you can't zoom in on the bits very easely. The decode will dissapear once the start of the message is outside the display area. From my own experience with an Agilent DSO7000 the decoding fills a seperate memory during an acquisition cycle. This means you have to have decoding enabled & setup properly before doing an acquisition and you can't change the decode settings for an existing acquisition. DSOs which do decoding on the actual waveform data are more flexible in this regard.