I wasn't going to comment because my only experience with HanTek was on one of their old USB oscilloscopes. My experience was very poor and I hoped they had gotten better over the years, especially with their non-USB scopes, in which case I would not want to weight them down with an obsolete negative review. Unfortunately, based on the other reviews here, it looks like their tradition of poor software engineering has continued to the present day, and therefore I feel obliged to share my negative experience once more, if only as an example of just how bad things can get.
The HanTek software was a nightmare. I think I spent more time debugging the scope than using it. The software required Windows XP at a time when Windows 7 had already been replaced by Windows 8. The version of the HanTek software that came on a disk with the scope didn't even work with the latest service pack of Windows XP. The HanTek software downloaded from the web was broken for a different reason: it had been linked against debug DLLs and packaged with release DLLs, so you had to separately install visual studio if you wanted to use it. Of course, none of this was documented, you just had to know what the relevant dynamic linker error messages meant and how to fix them. The latest Visual Studio didn't work but a Visual Studio version from about a year before the timestamp on the exe did work. Once I managed to open the scope software, it crashed regularly, one of the channels had an inexplicable 50mV 10MHz tone on it, I never got the trigger to work reliably, and the FFT sometimes got stuck in the enabled state. With hindsight, I notice more problems: the controls were poorly planned and the wfm/s and memory depth were miserable.
Comparing a HanTek to another scope on the key specifications of bandwidth, sample rate, and number of channels is a mistake because there is another key specification that usually goes without saying: "the scope works, more or less." Even for value brands like Rigol, Siglent, and GW Instek, the answer is a resounding "yes," but for HanTek I would not count on it. Plus there are a bunch of lesser-known specifications that HanTek economizes on -- see my experience with wfm/s and memory depth.
Here's how I would make the decision if I were in your shoes: I would look up the Siglent (and Rigol and GW Instek, but if I only bothered to look up one I would look up Siglent) available for the amount I spent on the HanTek. The HanTek would have better "key specifications," but I would challenge myself to name a real project that I planned on doing that would be viable with the HanTek but not with the Siglent. If I could name such a project, I might decide to give HanTek another chance. If not, I would buy the Siglent.
If the basic software is buggy, there is a 100% chance it will affect you and a very good chance it will make you very miserable. If you buy a lower bandwidth scope, there is a very good chance you will never need and never notice the missing bandwidth. If you do wind up needing the bandwidth, you will know straight away, and you will know exactly what to do: borrow or buy a higher bandwidth scope. In any case, you won't be miserable.
Whatever you decide, best of luck! The oscilloscope you have always beats the oscilloscope you don't have!
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
