Understanding Entry Level Scopes? (Limitations & Uses)

[Binaryb3n]

Hello, I'm fairly new to electronics and I've posted in the general section about my proposed list of tools I want to buy. I thought I would start a different thread regarding scopes though, as I have more technical questions about them.

The first reply to the before mentioned thread said I'm probably not going to get far without a scope when it comes to embedded electronic projects, and I would like to focus on getting one anyway - especially for decoding various protocols and debugging circuits. The question I suppose is, how much scope does one need? And how do you work that out?

The default recommendation seems to be the Rigol DS1054Z with the hack to make it 100MHz. Additionally, It was both the suggested scope in the other thread and the one I have been looking at anyway. I've also been looking at the Siglent ones, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot about what I am looking for.

If you were only going to buy one digital scope, would it be the DS1054Z, or would you be looking at a more expensive 2000 series, or even another brand? What sort of projects/debugging would the DS1054Z struggle to be useful for? I.e., what are the limitations in an applicable/relatable sense (what can't I do with a DS1054Z)? As mentioned in the other post, I am seeking to buy tools that I will buy once and use for the next 10-15 years without wanting for much more. It's okay if I don't get to use the full functionality straight away, I would prefer that features I will need within the next 24 months are there when I need them though.

Secondly, it seems like a common suggestion is to buy a second hand analog scope. What features would I be looking for in an analog scope to pair with a newer digital model? And lastly, would it make sense to buy a USB tool like the Digilent Analog Discovery 2 for "extra channels" and the function generator feature?

[nctnico]

Did you use the forum search function (use the word 'review') and read the threads about the various oscilloscopes?

[Binaryb3n]

Well I used Google with the site: parameter, but yes. I didn't really find much about what they can't do though, just that people were overall happy with the DS1054Z, despite a few odd quirks.

As I'm essentially new to the world of electronics, I was hoping someone could help point me in the right direction, or better still, provide some examples of what it can't do, so I can figure out if I will need something more powerful. Ideally, I want to own one digital scope and preferably own it for a while without needing to upgrade.

For example, for anyone that owns a DS1054Z, are there any real world examples of a problem it couldn't debug, or a project you couldn't test and build with it? Obviously it's good for it's price. But what about for outside of it's price. What sort of projects does a more expensive scope "unlock"?

[rstofer]

I've been messing around with electronics for about 60 years.  I built my first oscilloscope when I was around 12 using plans in the ARRL Handbook (I believe).  It wasn't much of a scope but I learned a lot.  Anyway, I've been doing this stuff for a while...

I had an old Dumont scope for a while but it was pretty useless.  I move up to a 10 MHz dual channel Heathkit (which I built) and it was adequate for many years.  When I retired, I treated myself to a Tektronix 485 which I still have.  It is an analog 350 MHz dual channel scope that I picked up off eBay for $200.  It's a great scope and I could get along with my projects using just this scope.  Mostly I work on embedded stuff and, more often than not, FPGA projects.  How do I get along?  Well, I have the project generate very specific trigger signals so the scope is looking at exactly my point of interest.  I don't need to store 2 days worth of samples and search through them, I know exactly what I am looking at.  It's the user, not the tool!

But I never had a digital scope, didn't know if I needed one (and truly, I didn't) but I decided to see what they were all about.  I liked the idea of 4 channels, that was a 'requirement'.  In fact, it was the driving force.  It's easier to work with SPI on a 4 channel scope.  Easier, not compulsory.  So, yes, I bought the DS1054Z KNOWING that it had warts at the margins.  There's a lot to learn about using a digital scope.  I didn't know anything about digital scopes, didn't know if I would even like one after about 60 years with analog scopes but there's no time like the present to learn.

Bottom line:  I like the scope a lot.  My grandson is just starting an EE program in college.  He may get a lot of use out of the scope!

As to the Digilent Analog Discovery:  I have the first version and I use it a lot - particularly on embedded kinds of things but also for messing around with analog circuits (including analog computing).  There's nothing like a 27" scope screen!  Given that the PC has two 27" screens, I have a lot of flexibility about what I display (including the IDE for code).  There'a a lot of electronics that can be done with the AD as long as you can live with its limitations in terms of voltage input.  Since I mostly work on 3.3V and 5V circuits, there is no problem.  Of all the possible USB solutions, I like the AD the most.  Two scope channels, two signal generators, dual power supplies, 16 digital IO (including logic analyzer functions), what's not to like?  I can carry it in my laptop bag and I'm ready to work.  Or play...  I'm retired, I don't work!

I probably stand alone with the opinion that this device can put off the purchase of a scope for a very long time.  Try doing network analysis with a scope!  That is a very nice learning tool when it comes to filters.

I don't know what I can't do with a 1054Z so I'm no help.  It does everything I could possibly imagine and a lot of things I will never use.  Is it the end-all, be-all of scopes?  Probably not.  It has limited bandwidth so it doesn't properly display signals with high frequency content but neither does any other scope.  Even my 350 MHz scope is bandwidth limited.  The limitation just turns out to be a lot higher...  That 100 MHz square wave is going to look a lot like a sine wave on a 100 MHz scope.

The measurement features are terrific!  It's just a confidence booster when the scope gives a measurement that matches with what you already know about the signal.  Being able to make detailed waveform analysis is terrific.  Using the cursors to measure time between events is a lot easier than squinting to line the trace with the graticule.  I actually used that feature yesterday to make sure I met the hold time on the chip select signal for SPI.  Very easy to do!  I was showing my grandson how RC servo signals worked - the scope displays the exact width of the servo pulse.  No messing around, the number is right there on the screen!

I'm keeping my DS1054Z.  I could have spent a lot more money but for my needs, this scope is perfect.

[Muxr]

The reason why Rigol DS1054Z is such a commonly recommended beginner scope is because at its price it really has no rival.. when you consider an easy hack that unlocks all the features there is really no scope that offers that much bang per buck at that price point.

The biggest limitation of the Rigol DS1054Z compared to its bigger DS2000 cousin is bandwidth and sampling rate. The DS2000 also has a bigger screen that might play a part in your decision as well if you have issues reading smaller fonts. Rigol DS1054Z however has 4 channels while DS2000 has only 2. DS2000 can also be unlocked/hacked to 300Mhz and it has the twice the sampling rate at 2Gs/s.

Chances are for most hobby projects 100Mhz 1Gs/s is probably sufficient.. but if you need that extra bandwidth and sampling rate than DS2000 is an option.

Once you start looking into $1000+ scopes your options widen greately. At $2k for instance you can score some pretty great used scopes on the 2nd hand market if you're patient and willing to take a chance.

Generally speaking Rigol, Siglent, Owon.. fall in the category of B-brand scopes. While they are all generally well built hardware wise.. the firmware is often riddled with bugs and half implemented features. There is a noticeable and often quite big difference in quality of software between those scopes and the scopes from A-brands like Keysight, LeCroy, Rohde & Schwarz...

I can give you some examples of what I mean. Rigol's DS1054Z is loaded with features.. and while the main timebase function of the scope generally performs well.. the serial decoding is implemented poorly. Instead of decoding the actual signal the decoder only decodes from the screen's frame buffer. So if the signal isn't the best and your scale isn't adjusted for maximum resolution you will get decoding errors. That's just one example.

Generally for serial decoding on a budget, getting a dedicated Logic Analyzer for decoding is the way to go.. Saleae is my favourite option there.. and you can pick up a clone for dirt cheap as well.

Many still recommend the DS1054Z despite the shortcomings like these because it performs well in its main function.. and for the price it's an unbelievable bargain.

I would stay away from the old Analog Scopes. Digital storage scopes offer so many nice features like the ability to do single shot capture, or display a plethora of measurements which makes a DSO is a no brainer. Analog Scopes have their charm and uses but for your first scope DSO is the way to go imo.

[rstofer]

OK, here's a real world problem that the 1054Z can't solve:  Display a 1 GHz carrier with some high frequency modulation.

Every scope has limitations, bandwidth being foremost.  Channels being next, in my view.

Are there limitations to the 1054Z?  Of course!  Will you run into them in your lifetime?  Doubtful...  Think about your context:  You want to work on embedded kinds of things.  Well, you can't probe the core so the only thing you can look at are the pins and not many of those will be running over 60 MHz.  Even the crystal frequency will be well below 100 MHz because there will be a PLL to generate the higher frequency clocks.  Even my FPGA projects toggle pins at around 50 MHz.  It is possible that they might go faster but when they do, I am usually using a logic analyzer.

Besides, you can always consider the 1054Z as a beginner tool.  Use it for a few years, sell it for some discounted price and move up.  You can get a lot of use out of a 100 MHz scope.  But, really, if you can afford one of the high dollar Keysights, why not?  Here's one:

http://www.newark.com/keysight-technologies/msox3104t/oscilloscope-20-ch-1ghz-5gsps/dp/93X6316?CMP=KNC-GUSA-GEN-SHOPPING-NEW-KEYSIGHT-TECHNOLOGIES&ad=81605889141&gclid=CLfmjZfsr84CFRSPfgodY7sKpA

A mere $15,000 and you're good to go!  And don't think for a moment that the 1054Z is anywhere near as capable.  But it's also 1/40th the price!

The 1054Z is an 'entry level' scope.  That means it is a good 'first' scope, probably not the 'last' scope.  Clearly, it would be out of place in a very high tech lab unless it was the designated 'beater' scope.  But it certainly meets my needs!

[Kilrah]

As to the Digilent Analog Discovery:  I have the first version and I use it a lot - particularly on embedded kinds of things but also for messing around with analog circuits (including analog computing).  There's nothing like a 27" scope screen!  Given that the PC has two 27" screens, I have a lot of flexibility about what I display (including the IDE for code).  There'a a lot of electronics that can be done with the AD as long as you can live with its limitations in terms of voltage input.  Since I mostly work on 3.3V and 5V circuits, there is no problem.  Of all the possible USB solutions, I like the AD the most.  Two scope channels, two signal generators, dual power supplies, 16 digital IO (including logic analyzer functions), what's not to like?  I can carry it in my laptop bag and I'm ready to work.  Or play...  I'm retired, I don't work!

I probably stand alone with the opinion that this device can put off the purchase of a scope for a very long time.  Try doing network analysis with a scope!  That is a very nice learning tool when it comes to filters.

I've just bought an AD2 for the versatility/convenience/small package as well, and it's an incredible little device. I'd love to justify a nice 4CH MSO because I want but to be fair the AD2 can really do anything I need it for these days (MCU work, R/C signals, digital protocol debugging, some basic FPGA stuff). I never really needed the 60MHz bandwidth of my previous digital scope in many years, so I'm not worried about being short with the AD2's 30MHz... or at least not often enough to really say I need a 100MHz+ scope right now.
There's that saying that something that can do everything always ends up doing none of them well, but in this case the level of all the things it offers is really good enough for most things.
And the compactness means that even if I needed / could buy a nice expensive scope in the future the AD would still be the one that gets carried along for mobile use unless there's a real good reason to take the big one.

Another cool thing to consider with the AD2 is that its 2 scope channels are differential, and a common use for more than 2 channels on a scope is using them for differential measurements - so as long as you can stay within the voltage limitations the AD2 can actually do things that would usually require a 4-CH scope.

[nctnico]

As mentioned in the other post, I am seeking to buy tools that I will buy once and use for the next 10-15 years without wanting for much more. It's okay if I don't get to use the full functionality straight away, I would prefer that features I will need within the next 24 months are there when I need them though.

Technology is moving too fast for test equipment like a scope to be useful for 10 years or more. I think you can group the various brands as following though:

1) Hantek, Owon, Rigol, Siglent (and rebadges): low cost but beware of bugs, useless features (like 1kpts FFT) or even missing features.
2) GW Instek, Hameg: mature feature rich products but still good value for money and may be a good alternative for more expensive A-brands
3) Keysight, Lecroy, Tektronix, R&S, Yokogawa: very mature products but expensive when it comes to value for money unless there is no alternative from group 2

At the end of the day any DSO will show a signal but the (big) differences are in the advanced features like measurements, LAN connectivity, remote programmability, math, decoding, triggering, FFT. Do not be fooled by extremely long memory or insanely high waveform update rates. Long memory needs lots of processing power which many scopes simply don't have. High waveform update rates over 1000 waveforms/s don't really make an oscilloscope better or easier to use. Still choosing the right oscilloscope is though. If you are into microcontrollers having decoding for UART, SPI and I2C is a must have to solve problems which can be either in the analog or digital domain. Digital channels (MSO) may be a nice feature but those are also easely covered by an external (USB) logic analyser. There is also a trend for integrated waveform generators but usually these are more expensive than a seperate function generator and IMHO a seperate function generator is just easier to control.

[zapta]

The first reply to the before mentioned thread said I'm probably not going to get far without a scope when it comes to embedded electronic projects, and I would like to focus on getting one anyway - especially for decoding various protocols and debugging circuits. The question I suppose is, how much scope does one need? And how do you work that out?

The 1045Z will serve you well for many years. For protocol debugging you may want to get a logic analyzer (e.g. a Saleae or a clone).  If you have spare money you can look for a nicer scope (better user experience, no fan noise, more reputable vendor, etc) but functionality wise it should be just fine.

Focus on your projects, rather than on the equipment. It's a common trap for young and old players.

[Binaryb3n]

Thanks for helping me wrap my head around it all everyone. So to clarify:

• A DS1054Z will last me for several years at least most likely
• I could possibly spend $2k+ or so for a more feature filled scope, but by the time I make use of all the features, the same money may end up buying a better scope because of how fast technology moves? And a DS1054Z will do what I need in the mean time.
• It would make sense to grab an AD2 and/or Saleae to pair with a DS1054Z (still cheaper than a more expensive scope and a good combination of features)

How accurate is this?

If I am getting me head around it, then I will probably end up buying a DS1054Z and an AD2 and/or Saleae. If it ends up being a "beater" in the future as someone called it, and I can get a better scope in the future than what the same money would buy today, I expect that the DS1054Z will still represent good value.

Looking at prices, it seems I could easily spend as much money on a scope as I want to spend on setting up an entire workbench. I guess this only makes sense if it has every tool needed, but I don't think it does. So thanks for convincing me not to get a multi thousand dollar scope (yet).

What sort of things generate a signal greater than 100MHz (mainly out of curiousity the most part now) that I might want to measure? Anything from working with amps or motors? (Audio and robotics projects) Again, if I don't need it then that really is good news! Just want to be sure.

I would stay away from the old Analog Scopes. Digital storage scopes offer so many nice features like the ability to do single shot capture, or display a plethora of measurements which makes a DSO is a no brainer. Analog Scopes have their charm and uses but for your first scope DSO is the way to go imo.

Out of interest, would you recommend an analog scope as a good complementary scope to a (relatively) cheap DSO? If so, what should I be looking for in an analog scope and what sort of budget would I be looking at? Or at this point - would it just better to spend the combined money on a slightly better DSO like the DS2000 series?

[Wuerstchenhund]

Out of interest, would you recommend an analog scope as a good complementary scope to a (relatively) cheap DSO?

Would you think horse and buggy is a good complementary to a modern car? 

There's no point in getting an analog scope if you have a half-decent DSO, unless you're into antiques or get one for free or a few bucks as a curiosity item.

Or at this point - would it just better to spend the combined money on a slightly better DSO like the DS2000 series?

Hardly. Get a starter scope like the mentioned Rigol DS1054z (although I'd rather get a GW Instek GDS-1054B which is in the same price range as a more mature alternative, though), and later down the road when you find yourself having outgrown you scope then you might want to start a look at a more advanced big brand scope anyways.

[Muxr]

• A DS1054Z will last me for several years at least most likely
• I could possibly spend $2k+ or so for a more feature filled scope, but by the time I make use of all the features, the same money may end up buying a better scope because of how fast technology moves? And a DS1054Z will do what I need in the mean time.
• It would make sense to grab an AD2 and/or Saleae to pair with a DS1054Z (still cheaper than a more expensive scope and a good combination of features)

A scope can last you more than just a couple of years.. it depends on how fast you outgrow it really. It's not uncommon to see people who are happily using 20+ year old scopes. The main function of a scope, the ability to see signals on a given time base will never get outdated. Where you might outgrow it is perhaps some features you might find handy or the bandwidth needed to measure some specific thing you're working on beyond your current scope's capability.

What sort of things generate a signal greater than 100MHz (mainly out of curiousity the most part now) that I might want to measure? Anything from working with amps or motors? (Audio and robotics projects) Again, if I don't need it then that really is good news! Just want to be sure.

High speed buses or communication gear can require high bandwidth to measure. Of if you're looking at really fast instrumentation analog circuits, physics research etc... But chances are a few thousand dollar scope may still not be able to measure those things either, some require $10k+ dollar scopes or more (the cost ramps up really quickly). And those specialized high bandwidth scopes are generally not well suited to your day to day use anyways. They can be slow to boot, and can have very sensitive channels you really have to know how to use effectively without damaging them.

Audio stuff can be accomplished with a 20Mhz scope.. DS1054Z will be more than sufficient for robotics and motors.

Out of interest, would you recommend an analog scope as a good complementary scope to a (relatively) cheap DSO? If so, what should I be looking for in an analog scope and what sort of budget would I be looking at? Or at this point - would it just better to spend the combined money on a slightly better DSO like the DS2000 series?

I wouldn't really. They can be fun to use and can still be useful, but chances are since you're just starting out.. there is plenty of other gear I would get in a new lab over a 30 year old analog scope.

Things that come to mind:

- Soldering station and a Hot air rework station

- Signal generator

- Microscope

- Power Supply

- DC load

- LCR meter

- 2-3 multimeters (maybe a clamp ampmeter)

Various other mechanical tools and accessories like an ESD mat. And most importantly components. Components for your prototyping can be expensive and you need to budget for them too.

Start with essentials and as you gain experience and branch out to a field you like you can figure out what more specialized gear you need.

[Muxr]

Hardly. Get a starter scope like the mentioned Rigol DS1054z (although I'd rather get a GW Instek GDS-1054B which is in the same price range as a more mature alternative, though), and later down the road when you find yourself having outgrown you scope then you might want to start a look at a more advanced big brand scope anyways.

Yeah GW Instek GDS-1054B looks pretty appealing. Don't think there is a hack for it, is there? But yeah even at the $800 it might be worth it over the old standby DS1054z. Bigger screen, faster operation, usable FFT and better decoding.

[Berni]

You can hardly go wrong with a DS1054Z.

Thing is there is no such thing as a jack of all trades scope. You can find a really expensive scope that might be a close but not quite get there. For example looking at keysights layout of scopes. There are the x2000 to x6000 scopes that all have a pretty similar feature set, but go up in performance as they get more expensive, but none of them does things like eye diagrams, PCIe decode, USB 3.0 compliance tests etc. To get the high end features you need to go for the 9000, 90000, S-series etc scopes. But these scopes are windows PC based so they have longer boot times, no built in wave gen, really slow update rates of like 1000 updates (versus 1 milion on the x3000 due to its ASIC rendering)

That rigol will do pretty much 99% of things a hobbyist wants to do with it. Perhaps its main limitation is the 100MHz bandwidth, but that only really becomes a issue when dealing with high speed digital (this does not include arduinos).

If you find many years down the road that its not cutting it anymore just buy another better scope. At that point you will know in what area is it not cutting it for your specific needs so you can buy the scope with the features you really do need, as well as in 5 or 10 years there will be even better scopes on the market for a even lower price. Also if you do get a better scope, do hold on to the rigol as its small size,light weight and quick boot time is useful when you just simply need a scope somewhere to check if a clock signal is there or something.

[zapta]

I would highly recommend start designing and building projects now, even if you don't have all the possible equipment. As you go you will see what you need and what you don't, and you will also figure out if this is something you really want to do on the long run.  You don't want to end up with a pile of fancy equipment that was never used while you move to your next hobby. Equipment is the mean, not the goal.

[Berni]

I would highly recommend start designing and building projects now, even if you don't have all the possible equipment. As you go you will see what you need and what you don't, and you will also figure out if this is something you really want to do on the long run.  You don't want to end up with a pile of fancy equipment that was never used while you move to your next hobby. Equipment is the mean, not the goal.

Wise words

I been working with electronics for years without any scope.

[nctnico]

I would highly recommend start designing and building projects now, even if you don't have all the possible equipment. As you go you will see what you need and what you don't, and you will also figure out if this is something you really want to do on the long run.  You don't want to end up with a pile of fancy equipment that was never used while you move to your next hobby. Equipment is the mean, not the goal.

This isn't bad advice but it never hurts to try a piece of equipment and see if it is useful. Buying used equipment is a great way to learn about equipment; if it doesn't suit you you can always sell it again without much loss.

[Assafl]

I have been doing electronics since I was 11 years old, and have gotten along fine without a scope (teaches you a lot about how to build a circuit to figure out if the signal you "assume" is there is "indeed" there...). But my guess is that if the prices of scopes back then were anywhere as low as they are now, I would have saved up and purchased one (with help of parents and grandparents in combination with a b-day gift).   

As for choosing a scope - as usual the case with digital electronics is whether one goes with an older device (more mature firmware - but development ceased due to nearing EOL) or going with the newer equipment, learning to live with the evanescing bugs - and seeing the value increase as newer firmware gets released.

I opted for the Rigol for home lab use and love it - and unlike many here who have not used what is called "a real scope" - I've used Tektronix and HP and Anritsu for 20 years.

So perhaps I fall into the camp that thinks all T&M is crap and all measurements (meaning traceable to a physical unit) must be done with utmost concentration and care and the Rigol neither helps - nor detracts - in that respect. If you want to be able to say *with confidence* "500mV RMS input to the amp" - you have to learn how to use T&M equipment - what it measures and how it measures it - so you won't make a mistake - and the Rigol is no different from an HP or a Tek or Anritsu or B&K.

Confidence is at the base of the argument between scope likers and haters - but as many lab rats or metrologists will say - it not "the equipment" - but the ability to "use it correctly". What does this mean? Obviously - it means that one cannot make an 8.5 digit DMM measurement without an 8.5 digit DMM - but also that most people cannot make a 8.5 digit DMM measurement even if they had a calibrated 8.5 digit DMM (for many reasons, noise, cable losses, temperature drifts, etc.) - Period. It takes experience and a through understanding of what you are trying to achieve. 

I think the peanut gallery is 100% wrong in associating price with confidence: As an example - Dave says (and I applaud him for saying so) get two cheaper DMMs rather than one expensive one so you can gain confidence in your readings: always compare - to see one didn't drift off.

[Fungus]

Thanks for helping me wrap my head around it all everyone. So to clarify:

• A DS1054Z will last me for several years at least most likely
• I could possibly spend $2k+ or so for a more feature filled scope, but by the time I make use of all the features, the same money may end up buying a better scope because of how fast technology moves? And a DS1054Z will do what I need in the mean time.
• It would make sense to grab an AD2 and/or Saleae to pair with a DS1054Z (still cheaper than a more expensive scope and a good combination of features)

How accurate is this?

 

would you recommend an analog scope as a good complementary scope to a (relatively) cheap DSO?

No. Forget about analog scopes. Everything said about them two years ago no longer applies.

Plus: You mention "embedded electronics". That implies microcontrollers and that means digital.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I opted for the Rigol for home lab use and love it - and unlike many here who have not used what is called "a real scope" - I've used Tektronix and HP and Anritsu for 20 years.

Interesting, since Anritsu doesn't even make oscilloscopes (they have BERT scopes for optical signals, which are something different) 

Besides, there are lots of members on this forum who use "real oscilloscopes" (whatever that means) pretty much daily. Not everyone here is a hobbyist.

[Fungus]

So perhaps I fall into the camp that thinks all T&M is crap and all measurements (meaning traceable to a physical unit) must be done with utmost concentration and care and the Rigol neither helps - nor detracts - in that respect.

Yep. The numbers on screen are meaningless unless the probe is connected properly and all the impedances, etc., taken into account.

99% of what a 'scope is normally used for is looking at the shape of waves on screen. Bandwidth is the only parameter that counts for that and the cheapo Rigol has more bandwidth then just about anything below $1000 or so.

Really that should be the end of the argument, right there. Everything else is secondary.

(except maybe number of channels and memory depth, but the Rigol wins there as well...)

Dave says (and I applaud him for saying so) get two cheaper DMMs rather than one expensive one so you can gain confidence in your readings: always compare - to see one didn't drift off.

Agree 100%, two $5 showing the exact same reading gives almost the same confidence as a single Fluke 87V.

If an RMS reading is critically important then double-check it using a true RMS multimeter, not by spending more money on the 'scope.

[tautech]

Bandwidth is the only parameter that counts for that and the cheapo Rigol has more bandwidth then just about anything below $1000 or so.

http://siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

[Fungus]

Bandwidth is the only parameter that counts for that and the cheapo Rigol has more bandwidth then just about anything below $1000 or so.

http://siglentamerica.com/pdxx.aspx?id=4688&T=2&tid=1

So... about twice the price for more bandwidth.

(and serial decoders, etc., are extra).

[rf-loop]

(

- it not "the equipment" - but the ability to "use it correctly".

What does this mean? Obviously - it means that one cannot make an 8.5 digit DMM measurement without an 8.5 digit DMM - but also that most people cannot make a 8.5 digit DMM measurement even if they had a calibrated 8.5 digit DMM (for many reasons, noise, cable losses, temperature drifts, etc.) - Period. 

)^2

[nctnico]

99% of what a 'scope is normally used for is looking at the shape of waves on screen. Bandwidth is the only parameter that counts for that and the cheapo Rigol has more bandwidth then just about anything below $1000 or so.

Really that should be the end of the argument, right there. Everything else is secondary.

In that case: you can buy used 500MHz to 1GHz DSOs (Tektronix TDS500 or TDS700 series for example) oscilloscopes for less than $1000.