Is a Rigol MSO5000 overkill for a hobbyist?

[2N3055]

That is wrong. On all current Siglent scopes (we are discussing those right?) it hardware accelerated and happens in hardware.
As I said, it does get busy. No question there.

In hardware does not mean zero time, but even supposing so it remains the problem of screen space occupation.

And you don't have to use zoom mode at all. You can capture 100ms (on 10ms/div), stop and then use timebase and horizontal same way as on those "other type" scopes. Difference is only how you make initial capture.

Here we are : if I capture 10 times (or more) the optimal horizontal scale to eye watch waveform's detail I lose visibility of the details which lead to the need to stop at right moment.

I do often this kind of verification on the field, i stop manually when i spot something odd on the waveform that has to be represented on the screen with the proper horizontal scale, not compressed like it happens when i set time scale 10 times more (ie).

That's the crucial point, sure not mandatory for everyone, but essential to know before buying.

In which case you are doing exact thing that Nico does and exactly the way he does it. Which means you should probably listen to his advice.
He likes R&S scopes and says they work well for him. Maybe he will be willing to help you in more detail.

[markone]

That is wrong. On all current Siglent scopes (we are discussing those right?) it hardware accelerated and happens in hardware.
As I said, it does get busy. No question there.

In hardware does not mean zero time, but even supposing so it remains the problem of screen space occupation.

And you don't have to use zoom mode at all. You can capture 100ms (on 10ms/div), stop and then use timebase and horizontal same way as on those "other type" scopes. Difference is only how you make initial capture.

Here we are : if I capture 10 times (or more) the optimal horizontal scale to eye watch waveform's detail I lose visibility of the details which lead to the need to stop at right moment.

I do often this kind of verification on the field, i stop manually when i spot something odd on the waveform that has to be represented on the screen with the proper horizontal scale, not compressed like it happens when i set time scale 10 times more (ie).

That's the crucial point, sure not mandatory for everyone, but essential to know before buying.

In which case you are doing exact thing that Nico does and exactly the way he does it. Which means you should probably listen to his advice.
He likes R&S scopes and says they work well for him. Maybe he will be willing to help you in more detail.

Men, this is really funny to say the least ! 

I started to use DSO in this way waaaay before this forum existed, nor that i know in person Nico while I work with many people that make the very same thing without having known by me (or Nico).

About this matter I feel totally aligned with Dave's thinking expressed in his video and I wonder how a technician who works in electronics cannot know this technique or consider it superfluous.

[tautech]

WD, it's a design decision for a good # or reasons and using Zoom and zooming out can exceed scopes that capture outside the display. Some early and current Siglents still work this way but without deep memory there are limits to how much you can zoom out. Pro's and cons whichever way you look at this and neither capture philosophy is right or wrong, just different.

Crippling it certainly is not !

Well 'crippling' was Dave's description and the video was made two years ago. I am just looking for an update on and clarification of the facts which I now appear to have received. Many thanks.

Of that I'm very aware.
The only thing crippled in this matter is Dave's ability to use a tool in a different manner than he's been used to !
Does he call out one of the largest scope manufacturers capture strategy, or the markets leading USB scope manufacturers capture strategy as crippled, NO, he hasn't the understanding to do that.

You are missing a few facts which primarily are the costs to performance of providing a zoom out capture strategy using traditional HW. Design choices based on the HW used drive the end result engineers give us.
Hence the move by some to ASIC's to help to reduce those performance hits especially when deep memory is required.

[nctnico]

You are missing a few facts which primarily are the costs to performance of providing a zoom out capture strategy using traditional HW. Design choices based on the HW used drive the end result engineers give us.

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO. It doesn't depend on hardware capabilities or resources as all; it is purely user interface / appearance. After all, zooming out is no more than changing the width of a zoom window without having the zoom window active on the screen.

[Fungus]

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO.

And it's been made clear to you many times that it does.

There are many events/situations where you can't just zoom out and "recapture but with the data on either side".

Not using all the memory when told to do so is also inexcusable.

[nctnico]

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO.

And it's been made clear to you many times that it does.

No, it doesn't. You can still select a shorter memory length or use auto mode to increase capture rate if necessary. Being able to zoom out (set a hard/fixed acquisition memory length) only adds flexibility. It does not take any feature away and/or reduce any performance metric. Anyone claiming otherwise does not understand how the memory management of a DSO actually works.

[2N3055]

That is wrong. On all current Siglent scopes (we are discussing those right?) it hardware accelerated and happens in hardware.
As I said, it does get busy. No question there.

In hardware does not mean zero time, but even supposing so it remains the problem of screen space occupation.

And you don't have to use zoom mode at all. You can capture 100ms (on 10ms/div), stop and then use timebase and horizontal same way as on those "other type" scopes. Difference is only how you make initial capture.

Here we are : if I capture 10 times (or more) the optimal horizontal scale to eye watch waveform's detail I lose visibility of the details which lead to the need to stop at right moment.

I do often this kind of verification on the field, i stop manually when i spot something odd on the waveform that has to be represented on the screen with the proper horizontal scale, not compressed like it happens when i set time scale 10 times more (ie).

That's the crucial point, sure not mandatory for everyone, but essential to know before buying.

In which case you are doing exact thing that Nico does and exactly the way he does it. Which means you should probably listen to his advice.
He likes R&S scopes and says they work well for him. Maybe he will be willing to help you in more detail.

Men, this is really funny to say the least ! 

I started to use DSO in this way waaaay before this forum existed, nor that i know in person Nico while I work with many people that make the very same thing without having known by me (or Nico).

About this matter I feel totally aligned with Dave's thinking expressed in his video and I wonder how a technician who works in electronics cannot know this technique or consider it superfluous.

And it made sense 20 years ago with 4" screens. We all know about it. We choose not to do it because there are more user friendly ways nowadays. But each person chooses for themselves for its specific circumstances..

[tautech]

For those that need a refresher:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/
Some facts are still valid others changed as equipment always does along with the way we use it.

[WaveyDipole]

This conversation started as a question regarding the Rigol MSO5074 and was meant to focus on that scope. For that reason I didn't comment on, although I noted, some of the points made about the Siglent scopes early on in the thread. However, the recent Black Friday deal on the SDS2104X Plus had me wondering whether it might be worthwhile to stretch my budget bit. If I were going to do so, this warranted a more in-depth consideration of the scope and so after some fact finding and resulting questions, I ended up bringing the SDS2104X Plus into the conversation. However, I am almost regretting having done so! Still, doing so has provided me with an opportunity to learn a bit more.

I have even been looking at the manual, and can see why the term 'Zoom' actually means something different on the SDS2104X Plus to what might be considered the conventional meaning of viewing data either side of that displayed on the screen. I am, however, still struggling with the concept of History on the Siglent and what its purpose is? It seems that this since this records a history of captured frames, it ought to display the data that is before or after the current frame, hence something akin to a conventional 'zoom' in effect, but I am not sure? I do find it difficult to accept that the reason why the conventional form of 'zoom' and auto memory depth selection were omitted was for performance reasons of because one might run out of memory buffer space. I also find it incomprehensible that Siglent could not implement a conventional auto and manual memory depth control, utilizing up to the full 200Mpt memory depth when history is turned off. It has been done on other scopes and clearly can be done even if only to provide the user with a choice of how they want to operate. Omitting this feature therefore seems to have the appearance of a philosophical/conceptual rather than engineering design decision. That being said, maybe there are engineering or hardware considerations that have influenced the design. Trying to filter out the facts has not been easy, but regardless of who is right and who is wrong, or the advantages and disadvantages, it is what it is and one has to figure out whether one will be happy with learning to work in a different way to what one previously might have been used to. I have no objection to learning new ways of doing things and possibly this issue has been exaggerated, but this has certainly given me pause for thought. I only wish I could see it in actual operation in some online demo. I did actually look for one that might show and explain this aspect but so far haven't found one.

Since there really is no comparable alternative other than the MSO5074 in this price range, the choice seems to boil down to the MSO5074 with its noisy front end, slightly darker screen, less polished UI and unclear channel lights but with a familiar way of working, or stretching the budget a bit to the SDS2000X Plus, which is generally considered to be the better scope, but learn new ways of working and accept that it comes with bandwidth limited probes at this price point. In addition, it appears that the only available and viable LA probe for the Siglent is the official probe that currently comes as part of the bundle deal. Regardless of how good a deal that bundle might be at the moment, the fact is, that by comparison, the Rigol comes with the LA and Sig Gen functions already enabled. Although their 'official' LA probe is expensive, there is a viable and affordable third party alternative.

While I have been seriously considering the SDS2104X Plus for the last couple of days, I feel the pendulum beginning to swing back towards the MSO5074...

[nctnico]

While I have been seriously considering the SDS2104X Plus for the last couple of days, I feel the pendulum beginning to swing back towards the MSO5074...

The best way by far is to prepare some tests relevant to the kind of work you do and simply try both. There is no amount of reading reviews, forum posts or watching videos that equals to getting some hands-on experience yourself.

[Martin72]

Hi,

I also find it incomprehensible that Siglent could not implement a conventional auto and manual memory depth control

Me I´ve owned both scopes, so I know what I´m talking about and musn´t repeat something what I´ve heard like a parrot.
First the sentence I´ve quoted.
There is somekind of manual memory selection on the sds2k+ avaible.
But it goes in other direction, e.g. when the timebase allows the full memory, you can decrease it - That is something I´ve used to get it "faster".
This is functional at lower timebases, at higher ones the auto memory management takes more and more control about it.
On the rigol MSO5000, you can set the memory manually and the setting will stay on every timebase you use.
But the default, the recommended setting is AUTO...Guess why....
Me I always use the auto setting on both scopes.
When I want to see "more" informations on the screen I use lower timebase, when I want to see detailed informations, I use zoom or shorter timebase.
Doing this way I musn´t make up my mind if I could get all memory at any timebase.
Actually I got the "new" Siglent HD scope which allows full control of its memory, when it´s interesting I can do some tasks on it, just tell me what to do.

[markone]

While I have been seriously considering the SDS2104X Plus for the last couple of days, I feel the pendulum beginning to swing back towards the MSO5074...

The best path would be to rent both instruments a couple of days and decide after having played a bit.

I'm too considering the SDS2104x plus but the memory management kills some of my user cases especially with LA operation, on the other side the MSO5000's UI  bored me with its "laggyness"  and odd menu organization (i use it a couple of day by week) and i struggle to think it as my next personal DSO.

But i'm also considering to drop the DSO's LA  in favor to an external device, so i put on order a DSlogic plus to evaluate this solution, if it works as expected, the DSO choice will be easier.

[balnazzar]

You are missing a few facts which primarily are the costs to performance of providing a zoom out capture strategy using traditional HW. Design choices based on the HW used drive the end result engineers give us.

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO. It doesn't depend on hardware capabilities or resources as all; it is purely user interface / appearance. After all, zooming out is no more than changing the width of a zoom window without having the zoom window active on the screen.

If so, it's a really a bad design choice by those who choose not to implement zoom out properly. But then I really doubt people would be so dumb. It's reasonable to think that zooming out poses problems in its hardware or software actual implementation.

[balnazzar]

But i'm also considering to drop the DSO's LA  in favor to an external device, so i put on order a DSlogic plus to evaluate this solution, if it works as expected, the DSO choice will be easier.

I think it boils down to how much you value MSO integration. If you are content with externally triggering a saleae clone or digital discovery, you can spare some money and be less conditioned in the choice of your next scope. 

[nctnico]

You are missing a few facts which primarily are the costs to performance of providing a zoom out capture strategy using traditional HW. Design choices based on the HW used drive the end result engineers give us.

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO. It doesn't depend on hardware capabilities or resources as all; it is purely user interface / appearance. After all, zooming out is no more than changing the width of a zoom window without having the zoom window active on the screen.

If so, it's a really a bad design choice by those who choose not to implement zoom out properly. But then I really doubt people would be so dumb. It's reasonable to think that zooming out poses problems in its hardware or software actual implementation.

People are that dumb. Don't forget Siglent is relatively new to the oscilloscope market so there are a lot of things they still need to figure out and improve. Zooming out is something they overlooked and/or some of their advisors gave them bad advise. Again, all the functionality needed to support zooming out is already there.

[Someone]

You are missing a few facts which primarily are the costs to performance of providing a zoom out capture strategy using traditional HW. Design choices based on the HW used drive the end result engineers give us.

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO. It doesn't depend on hardware capabilities or resources as all; it is purely user interface / appearance. After all, zooming out is no more than changing the width of a zoom window without having the zoom window active on the screen.

If so, it's a really a bad design choice by those who choose not to implement zoom out properly. But then I really doubt people would be so dumb. It's reasonable to think that zooming out poses problems in its hardware or software actual implementation.

"properly" is this entire silly argument, I think a scope that overflows the visible window as a normal/routine operation is silly and a downside, others disagree (and post endless noisy misleading posts on this forum about it as quoted above). What is properly? that depends on what you are trying to do! All the choices have downsides, that might be a problem in certain situations.

Both methods have downsides, neither are universal. It is a general question of how should a scope select the memory depth and sample rate, two things that can be orthogonal to the horizontal timebase but aren't fully independent on any scope (that I am aware of).

[tautech]

You are missing a few facts which primarily are the costs to performance of providing a zoom out capture strategy using traditional HW. Design choices based on the HW used drive the end result engineers give us.

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO. It doesn't depend on hardware capabilities or resources as all; it is purely user interface / appearance. After all, zooming out is no more than changing the width of a zoom window without having the zoom window active on the screen.

If so, it's a really a bad design choice by those who choose not to implement zoom out properly. But then I really doubt people would be so dumb. It's reasonable to think that zooming out poses problems in its hardware or software actual implementation.

People are that dumb. Don't forget Siglent is relatively new to the oscilloscope market so there are a lot of things they still need to figure out and improve. Zooming out is something they overlooked and/or some of their advisors gave them bad advise. Again, all the functionality needed to support zooming out is already there.

Garbage, Siglent have made DSO's that zoom out for years and recently has added it to later product lines as just another feature, one that's nice but there are performance penalties to be paid for using it.

[2N3055]

People are that dumb. Don't forget Siglent is relatively new to the oscilloscope market so there are a lot of things they still need to figure out and improve. Zooming out is something they overlooked and/or some of their advisors gave them bad advise. Again, all the functionality needed to support zooming out is already there.

And there we are...

[markone]

You are missing a few facts which primarily are the costs to performance of providing a zoom out capture strategy using traditional HW. Design choices based on the HW used drive the end result engineers give us.

Nonsense. It has been made clear to you many times already that being able to zoom out or not, has zero impact on the performance of any DSO. It doesn't depend on hardware capabilities or resources as all; it is purely user interface / appearance. After all, zooming out is no more than changing the width of a zoom window without having the zoom window active on the screen.

If so, it's a really a bad design choice by those who choose not to implement zoom out properly. But then I really doubt people would be so dumb. It's reasonable to think that zooming out poses problems in its hardware or software actual implementation.

"properly" is this entire silly argument, I think a scope that overflows the visible window as a normal/routine operation is silly and a downside, others disagree (and post endless noisy misleading posts on this forum about it as quoted above). What is properly? that depends on what you are trying to do! All the choices have downsides, that might be a problem in certain situations.

Both methods have downsides, neither are universal. It is a general question of how should a scope select the memory depth and sample rate, two things that can be orthogonal to the horizontal timebase but aren't fully independent on any scope (that I am aware of).

Again ...  Rigol with memory set to Auto operates exactly like the Siglent, in addition RIGOL allows you to select a fixed value and make use of the whole amount. 

So now having more options is a silly downside where having less is a feature ?

Come guys, your speeches are getting ridiculous, marketing is a thing, technical speech is another one an this is a technical forum.

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

[Someone]

Again ...  Rigol with memory set to Auto operates exactly like the Siglent, in addition RIGOL allows you to select a fixed value and make use of the whole amount.

So now having more options is a silly downside where having less is a feature?

Yes, having more choice is good. But when you unpick the arguments "for" zoom-out as a workflow it relies on many simultaneous conditions which are not routine/normal/everyday. Do please read that thread linked above, as it covers the entire thing fairly comprehensively rather than going back to unproductive arguing about out of context one liners (pretty much blows up the same every time).... saying there is no downside is rather inflammatory given the history here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-zoom-out-quirk/

Back on the Rigol 5000 to keep this thread on track, it lets you do either, choices! great. The zoom mode does not allow adjusting the relative split of the two sides but is a pretty good fixed/default size:

[2N3055]

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

You are free to use the tools as you like and to like whatever tools you like. You, Nico, Joe and Jane. More power to you!

Argument is not about fact that anybody says that having one option less is much better than having one option more.

It revolves around argument that scopes that cannot be made to capture outside designated timebase windows (as set by user, who set that exact timebase for some reason) are not worth buying. Because that is apparently most important feature scope can have and scope is useless without it.

Argument is also about fact that it is constantly being pushed upon us that this is exclusive "defect" of Siglent (it is not), that it "defect" (it is not, it is valid architectural decision), and that it is "Stupidity" that is reason Siglent does it that way.

All those statements are wrong and some are offensive.

I just saw an post from Someone who nicely summed it up and I also suggest to read that topic.
And yes please let's people discuss MSO5000 in a topic about MSO5000.

[skander36]

... its noisy front end, slightly darker screen, less polished UI and unclear channel lights ...

There's been 3 years of using Rigol 5074.
From this list, I will retain only "noisy front end", as a real problem, but only at very lower signals (1-20mV). Most signal we visualize in digital electronics will be higher in amplitude.
Screen brightness even is less bright than Siglent, is more than enough when working with it. I didn't feel the need of a more bright screen.
Less polished UI, well ..., for me this is the reason why i don't buy Siglent scopes. I don't like their UI ... . I've had Siglent SDS1202X-E, I dont liked his UI.
But I will add 8 Gs from Rigol vs 2 Gs from Siglent.

[2N3055]

... its noisy front end, slightly darker screen, less polished UI and unclear channel lights ...

There's been 3 years of using Rigol 5074.
From this list, I will retain only "noisy front end", as a real problem, but only at very lower signals (1-20mV). Most signal we visualize in digital electronics will be higher in amplitude.
Screen brightness even is less bright than Siglent, is more than enough when working with it. I didn't feel the need of a more bright screen.
Less polished UI, well ..., for me this is the reason why i don't buy Siglent scopes. I don't like their UI ... . I've had Siglent SDS1202X-E, I dont liked his UI.
But I will add 8 Gs from Rigol vs 2 Gs from Siglent.

Thank you for a good post!
I would add that I find all "non touchscreen" scopes awkward to use. And that is not a statement of manufacturers doing a bad job most of the time, but fact that "classic" scope user interface is not best fit for complexity of these devices. There are just too many things inside, and "computer like" interface better handles that complexity.
I wonder what would you think of new Siglent touchscreen interface (that is equally different to the one on SDS1000X-E as the MSO5000 is). I find it quite logical to use.

[skander36]

Without using it I can't say much about new interface, but the reason is a subjective one. I'm sure under influence of SDS1202.
Clearly is not from a usability perpective. I'm convinced that Siglent did a good job, but visualy it is not appealing to me.
 

[markone]

Please correct me if i'm wrong.

You are free to use the tools as you like and to like whatever tools you like. You, Nico, Joe and Jane. More power to you!

I would add David, in first place, and many thousands of techs that know their job, what i got here is that sales men are far to understand the matter.