Choosing between entry-level 12-bit DSOs

[tautech]

Yeah well you'd be surprised how many instruments are in our 200kg shipments these days @~1.25m³ I can comfortably get all in a 5 door SUV.

A small portion of a dozen or so are going to EMEX for next week's show, along with tables, big screen and a mini PC and assorted other bits and bobs.
https://www.emex.co.nz/

Won't include a 10.6kg SDS7000A DSO unfortunately. 


Last EMEX pic attached

[tggzzz]

First & foremost, [an oscilloscope] is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".

Precisely. Not a difficult concept, really!

[2N3055]

First & foremost, [an oscilloscope] is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".

Precisely. Not a difficult concept, really!

Let's take as an example excellent Tek 485. It has 8mm/div graticule 8x10 grid.
Which makes for an whooping 64x80 mm of active screen size.

In attachment (roughly) sized overlay of 485 screen over SDS800xHD (a tiny 2.5kg scope with 7" screen), and over SDS1000/2000/3000xHD with 10" screen.

Not to mention that on a digital scope you NEED to have data on screen. What is your V/div for CH1? Probe att? Timebase and time delay ?...
On CRT scope you had HUGE front panel with MINISCULE screen and for settings you could look at physical buttons/knobs.
On digital scope you need to have that data on screen.
And since the screen is so much bigger you lose nothing compared to old analog scope.

Some people think feel smart for being able to do the things the hard way.
Some people kinda like to have lots of additional information right there on the screen in the plain sight.
Everybody have their own definition of fun. Or what is a waste of time.

CRT scopes do still have some advantages in certain niches (like scope art) but claiming that they are better because they have small stupid screens with no data whatsoever (except unexplained squigle and a graticule) and claiming that is advantage is very questionable statement......

[tggzzz]

Let's take as an example excellent Tek 485. It has 8mm/div graticule 8x10 grid.
Which makes for an whooping 64x80 mm of active screen size.

In attachment (roughly) sized overlay of 485 screen over SDS800xHD (a tiny 2.5kg scope with 7" screen), and over SDS1000/2000/3000xHD with 10" screen.

You do understand the distinction between size and resolution - don't you?

Apple understood the distinction, and ensured the original Macintosh embodied the distinction quite clearly: smaller than a contemporary IBM PC screen, but looked better.

Then, of course, there are the more nebulous concepts of clarity, readability, and usability.

[2N3055]

Let's take as an example excellent Tek 485. It has 8mm/div graticule 8x10 grid.
Which makes for an whooping 64x80 mm of active screen size.

In attachment (roughly) sized overlay of 485 screen over SDS800xHD (a tiny 2.5kg scope with 7" screen), and over SDS1000/2000/3000xHD with 10" screen.

You do understand the distinction between size and resolution - don't you?

Apple understood the distinction, and ensured the original Macintosh embodied the distinction quite clearly: smaller than a contemporary IBM PC screen, but looked better.

Then, of course, there are the more nebulous concepts of clarity, readability, and usability.

I do understand the difference.

I also understand when someone violently changes the subject because they are proven wrong, and God forbid they admit it..

[mawyatt]

Having used just about every analog scope Tektronix offered (starting using Tek scopes well over half a century ago), and a few unique scopes that we created based upon the Tek mainframes for specialized cases, the modern DSO/MSO we've experienced far outweigh any of those old analog Tek offerings.

Recall having to use the Polaroid cameras for capturing screen traces, using the scope vertical output to an HP Spectrum Analyzer for Frequency Domain work, separate instruments for Bode Analysis FRA, the size, weight and portability and so on. The only area I recall the old analog Tek scopes had a significant advantage was their trigger performance in specialized cases. Being a true "analog trigger" it had advantages the DSO/MSO lack considering these are usually after the ADC conversion, however the DSO/MSO have trigger options that no analog scope can compete with.

Comparing an Analog Scope to a modern DSO/MSO is like comparing old film Cameras to modern Digital Cameras!!

As much I we don't like stating such, being and old analog type, the digital revolution has pretty much relegated the older analog instruments, such as VOM (Simpsons, Triplett), function generators and scopes to museums. Same goes for communications, most everything is digital.

Best, 

[BillyO]

.. older analog instruments, such as VOM (Simpsons, Triplett)

There are still use cases for these that digital has yet to touch and may never touch.  It remains to be seen.

[tggzzz]

Having used just about every analog scope Tektronix offered (starting using Tek scopes well over half a century ago), and a few unique scopes that we created based upon the Tek mainframes for specialized cases, the modern DSO/MSO we've experienced far outweigh any of those old analog Tek offerings.

Recall having to use the Polaroid cameras for capturing screen traces, using the scope vertical output to an HP Spectrum Analyzer for Frequency Domain work, separate instruments for Bode Analysis FRA, the size, weight and portability and so on. The only area I recall the old analog Tek scopes had a significant advantage was their trigger performance in specialized cases. Being a true "analog trigger" it had advantages the DSO/MSO lack considering these are usually after the ADC conversion, however the DSO/MSO have trigger options that no analog scope can compete with.

Comparing an Analog Scope to a modern DSO/MSO is like comparing old film Cameras to modern Digital Cameras!!

As much I we don't like stating such, being and old analog type, the digital revolution has pretty much relegated the older analog instruments, such as VOM (Simpsons, Triplett), function generators and scopes to museums. Same goes for communications, most everything is digital.

As someone using scopes since the 70s and digitising scopes since the 80s, I tend to agree. But I would modulate those statements:

• digitising scopes >25 years ago all had significant disadvantages
• 10 years ago decent digitising scopes (i.e. not Rigol/Siglent/etc) were pretty good, but also pretty expensive
• current digitising scopes are good (providing their firmware works), but complex[1]
• analogue scopes can still be used and still be useful. Any scope is better than none

Analogue meters are still better where it is necessary to rapidly notice and assess changes, and or to spot outliers at a glance.

[1] that's based on the astounding progress in ADCs/DACs since the 80s; it is more impressive and revolutionary than the steady smaller-faster-cheaper steps of processors/memory

[Fungus]

First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".

Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."

[tggzzz]

First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".

Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."

Speaking as someone with an 8 digit DVD and 14 (IIRC) digit frequency counter, that's usually sufficient. A scopes' USP is the shape of the waveform.

[Fungus]

Speaking as someone with an 8 digit DVD and 14 (IIRC) digit frequency counter, that's usually sufficient. A scopes' USP is the shape of the waveform.

Are you saying you NEVER use measurements on your oscilloscope?

I don't have a separate frequency counter so I find it handy to have that ability.

[tggzzz]

Speaking as someone with an 8 digit DVD and 14 (IIRC) digit frequency counter, that's usually sufficient. A scopes' USP is the shape of the waveform.

Are you saying you NEVER use measurements on your oscilloscope?

I don't have a separate frequency counter so I find it handy to have that ability.

I responded to your specific point. Here it is again, for reference: "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."

You change to a different specific point.

I did have an analogue scope[1] which measured time/frequency to (IIRC) 9 digits. It wasn't useful, so I sold it. I've had various analogue scopes which measure voltage to 3.5 digits, and still have one to sell.

If you are observing voltages on any scope, you should understand all the parts of the Y specification before assessing the valid number of digits in a voltage measurement.

I very rarely need scope measurements to 3 digits, but do occasionally use the cursors to sanity check my mental measurements.

OTOH I frequently use my scope to check signal integrity, i.e. monotonic transitions, tolerable overshoot, and similar. Even 1 digit is sufficient for that!

[1] Tek 2465CTS.

[nctnico]

The (older, high-end) Lecroy scope I have is better at measuring phase offsets between two signals compared to any time-interval counter you can buy for the same amount of money. And it can do an awfull lot of signal analysis functions. Like measuring min / max / average period and showing the difference as a math trace. Super handy to measure subtile phase jumps in a signal.

[Martin72]

I've given up wondering why our 30-year-old Lecroy 9XXXs still have and can do more than some current DSOs costing up to €5,000.
It's in the same league as the question of why it was possible to fly to the moon in 1969 with technology that is so incredibly inferior to today's €200 smartphone.
(I know, I know...but it serves to dramatize)

[tggzzz]

The (older, high-end) Lecroy scope I have is better at measuring phase offsets between two signals compared to any time-interval counter you can buy for the same amount of money. And it can do an awfull lot of signal analysis functions. Like measuring min / max / average period and showing the difference as a math trace. Super handy to measure subtile phase jumps in a signal.

I wonder if it is better than an HP/Agilent 53310 modulation domain analyser. Or, more realistically, what can one do that the other can't.

One day I might get around to thinking about why HPAK stopped making them. First port of call will be modern sampling frequency counters.

Surprisingly the MDA can also measure risetimes well under 500ps. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hpagilent-53310a-modulation-domain-analyser-frequency-time-interval-analyser/msg3194292/#msg3194292

[tggzzz]

I've given up wondering why our 30-year-old Lecroy 9XXXs still have and can do more than some current DSOs costing up to €5,000.
It's in the same league as the question of why it was possible to fly to the moon in 1969 with technology that is so incredibly inferior to today's €200 smartphone.
(I know, I know...but it serves to dramatize)

Sometimes it is beneficial to counter the ignorance of youngsters and any marketing assertion that "it is new therefore it is better". Sometimes people's lazy preconceptions need a kick up the backside.

[Cyclotron]

I've lurked long enough.

I finally purchased my first scope (I don't count the 40-dollar single-channel toy I bought a year or two ago).

I chose to go with the Siglent SDS824X HD. It's overkill for my hobbies, but I look forward to exploring and learning with it.
Most of the time, it will be lab shelf decorations as I do my real-life job in network technology.

Now, I've got to decide on a proper bench dmm. 
You folks can get pretty deep and fairly heated. But I'd like to let everyone know I appreciate your passion and wealth of knowledge!

[nctnico]

The (older, high-end) Lecroy scope I have is better at measuring phase offsets between two signals compared to any time-interval counter you can buy for the same amount of money. And it can do an awfull lot of signal analysis functions. Like measuring min / max / average period and showing the difference as a math trace. Super handy to measure subtile phase jumps in a signal.

I wonder if it is better than an HP/Agilent 53310 modulation domain analyser. Or, more realistically, what can one do that the other can't.

The 53310A specification says 125ps RMS resolution for time interval so no. And averaging doesn't always improve the result when the signals under test have very little noise in them. The Lecroy scope can resolve low tens of picoseconds.

[vk6zgo]

First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".

Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."

My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
I have no argument with showing measurements, but  I do have with Rigol's standard UI, with its very dominant slabs of colour, mismatched fonts, & so on.
Siglent's display is much less "in your face"!

A disclaimer, here---I don't have either DSO brand, or any DSO for that matter, as with the current exchange rate, they are out of my budget.
For "one bright, shining moment" back in the early/mid 2000s, the $A was at better than parity with the mighty greenback, so earlier versions of Rigol, etc DSOs really were cheap.
Sadly, that time is long past, with those old models costing more on eBay secondhand than their new price back then,
Even oldsters like the Tek TDS 210/220 are being offered for around $A400.

When "well heeled Noobs" pose questions in the beginner's section & post screenshots from their "all singing, all dancing" DSOs, those of us who don't  own exactly the same device, so they can "play along at home" have perforce, to "count squares".

I have found that the Rigol, Hantek, etc screenshots are much harder to navigate than the Siglent ones.

[tautech]

First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".

Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."

My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
I have no argument with showing measurements, but  I do have with Rigol's standard UI, with its very dominant slabs of colour, mismatched fonts, & so on.
Siglent's display is much less "in your face"!

A disclaimer, here---I don't have either DSO brand, or any DSO for that matter, as with the current exchange rate, they are out of my budget.
For "one bright, shining moment" back in the early/mid 2000s, the $A was at better than parity with the mighty greenback, so earlier versions of Rigol, etc DSOs really were cheap.
Sadly, that time is long past, with those old models costing more on eBay secondhand than their new price back then,
Even oldsters like the Tek TDS 210/220 are being offered for around $A400.

When "well heeled Noobs" pose questions in the beginner's section & post screenshots from their "all singing, all dancing" DSOs, those of us who don't  own exactly the same device, so they can "play along at home" have perforce, to "count squares".

I have found that the Rigol, Hantek, etc screenshots are much harder to navigate than the Siglent ones.

Is this a hint to bring one over next time we visit our Larry Major in Perth ?
Maybe we can finally get to have a good old yarn.

[tggzzz]

I've lurked long enough.

I finally purchased my first scope (I don't count the 40-dollar single-channel toy I bought a year or two ago).

Excellent. Have fun, safely

[tggzzz]

The 53310A specification says 125ps RMS resolution for time interval so no. And averaging doesn't always improve the result when the signals under test have very little noise in them. The Lecroy scope can resolve low tens of picoseconds.

The Tek 465 CTT option resolves 1fs in 10ns, with timebase error of 10ppm +5ppm/year 

[tggzzz]

...

...

My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
...

That's the second time in this thread that fungus has snipped so much from the conversations that his reply has distorted the point someone was making. Having to go back and re-insert the context wastes everybody's time and attention.

In order to avoid making strawman arguments, it is usually necessary to quote the context. Anybody that doesn't like quoting the context might prefer stackexchange or edaboard. However conversations there are boring and limited to "which button do I press to flaim the splurgle".

Yes, it is possible to quote too much context; as with everything in life, judgement and good taste are helpful.

[Aldo22]

I have found that the Rigol, Hantek, etc screenshots are much harder to navigate than the Siglent ones.

Aren't you confusing something here?
The Hantek (DSO2000) display really has nothing to do with the Rigol DHO800/900. (Not meant to be judgmental, just a fact).
It is very simple and straightforward and leaves plenty of room for the signal.
It's certainly not that rich and nice, but I can't see what you don't understand about it.
H: Time base; D: Horizontal trigger time; T: Vert. trigger offset; BW: Bandwidth limitation
G: Signal Generator

[Fungus]

First & foremost, it is a device for looking at waveforms, not reading numbers off a screen filled with clunky "graphics" just because they are "trendy".

Yeah, it's much better to count the squares manually and say things like, "Three and a bit volts, 600-odd Hertz..."

My comment was directly referring to mrisco's posting about the "full screen" mod for the Rigol.
I have no argument with showing measurements, but  I do have with Rigol's standard UI, with its very dominant slabs of colour, mismatched fonts, & so on.
Siglent's display is much less "in your face"!

That's easy to say from random screenshot viewing but in reality you won't notice it after a day or so.

Same goes for the "smaller working area" on the Rigol. It's easy to sit in an armchair saying "more is better!" but the difference in practice is very small. I don't recall ever thinking "Damn, if only it had one more square!!!"

What does count is speed of navigation, depth of menu dives, etc. The things you do most often should be very easy/fast and the Rigol gets a high score for that.