Help me choosing new Oscilloscope

[2N3055]

That's my point, if needed the Rigol can satisfy 8Gsa/s! Others costs more and with less feature (eg Rigol have also Function Generator built in)

8GSa/s on a scope without 50R inputs seems somewhat pointless, but the minimum 2GSa/s (4 channels active) with 350MHz BW does mean that it will be much less likely to have aliasing effects.  I doubt that is a serious issue for you, but that's the only real selling point.  I'm all for more samples, but not at the expense of some of the other things the Rigol does not do as well.

How about HDO1000?

You said you want MSO. DHO1000/4000 are not MSO. Also to add to sampling discussion, these don't sample at 8GS/s either..

[Sighound36]

If ripple noise  is important buy a picoscope of ther HDO1000. The MSO 5000 is a good all rounder, not as quiet but more flexible and powerful.

Otherwise a Lecroy Wavesurfer HD get the best of both with 5Gs/s

[bigfede]

Thanks to all!! Now I'll try to understand where buy it. Apparently the MSO5074 is not stock anywhere.

[BillyO]

Sure, but that's not obligatory. You can have 8Gsa/S when you really need it.

If you really need 8Gsa/S then you would also need better than 350MHz analog BW.  Sure, it's there, but can you really get the benefit?

[bigfede]

Sure, but that's not obligatory. You can have 8Gsa/S when you really need it.

If you really need 8Gsa/S then you would also need better than 350MHz analog BW.  Sure, it's there, but can you really get the benefit?

This is something that I was thinking about. Does it worth?

[bdunham7]

Basically I'm looking for a valid upgrade. Usually 5mV is sufficient on most of my application.

An additional point here on this subject--5mV may seem 'good enough', but when you factor in using 10X or even 100X probes, the front end noise is amplified proportionally. 

[2N3055]

Sure, but that's not obligatory. You can have 8Gsa/S when you really need it.

If you really need 8Gsa/S then you would also need better than 350MHz analog BW.  Sure, it's there, but can you really get the benefit?

This is something that I was thinking about. Does it worth?

Short answer, no.  It gives you no benefit in this case..

[JeremyC]

That's my point, if needed the Rigol can satisfy 8Gsa/s! Others costs more and with less feature (eg Rigol have also Function Generator built in)

8GS/s vs 2GS/s will not matter in described by you cases, but noise level will when you analyze ripples in power supplies.

The 8GS/s (even 4GS/s when 2 channels in use) isn't perfect in the MSO5000 scopes. Check sample rates related link https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-mso5000-artifacts/ .
You can't shutdown sin(x)/x interpolation in the Rigol MSO5000 and HDO 12 bit models, for me it was one of few deal breakers.

If you have the choice order both scopes, compare which is matching your needs and send the looser back to the vendor. I don’t know about Amazon in Italy, but in the US returns are free of charge.

Good luck

[BillyO]

My story.

A few months ago I went thought exactly this exercise.

I was in the market for quite an extensive lab upgrade including 2 scopes.  One was a lower end scope and the Siglent 1004X-E series was the clear winner, but I also wanted something that would be at least a full step above that range.

I had a list of things I wanted in a scope.  Bandwidth was high on the list as was low noise.  But I also had other things I leaned towards.  Personal preferences.  After a brief (maybe 2 weeks) scan of the available scopes I narrowed it down to the Rigol (MSO5000) and the Siglent (SDS2000XP).  The price of the Rigol at the time was a real bonus, but my experience with the Siglent 1104X-E was also a great bonus. So .. to break the tie I printed out the full data sheets from both and went through the specs line by line from MY perspective and marked the sheets up with green for good and orange for nah, then  I went with the one that had the most green.  For me that was the Siglent by quite a big margin.

Getting folks' suggestions is a good exercise, but knuckling under and owning up to your personal needs is paramount in making a good decision.  Spending around $1K on a scope should not be a decision left to anonymous folks on the internet.  Do you own diligence.

[Fungus]

Basically I'm looking for a valid upgrade. Usually 5mV is sufficient on most of my application.

An additional point here on this subject--5mV may seem 'good enough', but when you factor in using 10X or even 100X probes, the front end noise is amplified proportionally.

For the stated use case ("ripple") the probes will be in 1x mode.

[bdunham7]

For the stated use case ("ripple") the probes will be in 1x mode.

If you interpret 'ripple' narrowly to mean only the 50/60/100/120Hz components then maybe.  But if you take the standard method of measuring 'ripple and noise' with a 20MHz BW, then your 3-5MHz 1X probing isn't going to work as well.  On a HF SMPS, I think this will matter.  Even the 20MHz BW seems inadequate to me considering some of the noise I've seen from cheap LED drivers.  In any case, I'm sure my point is generally valid--the way you discover your scope front end is inadequate will most likely be when using 10X or 100X probes.

[CosteC]

Thanks to all!! Now I'll try to understand where buy it. Apparently the MSO5074 is not stock anywhere.

It is available here: https://ndn.com.pl/en/digital-oscilloscopes/4397-oscyloskop-cyfrowy-rigol-mso5074-70mhz-4ch-seria-mso5000.html it is official distributor for Poland, shall answer emails in English.

What you miss in DS1054Z? Maybe this way it will be easier to find something suitable.
MSO5000 is rather noisy, but has superb sampling. Still 8 GSps does not seem needed for 10 MHz signals. Even 2 GSps at 4 signals is bit overkill.
MSO5000 is far nicer to operate with large touch screen or mouse connected, but this is available with many more non-basic scopes.

[bigfede]

Well I'm thinking to shift to a HDO series instead of MSO, and buying separately a signal generator.

[CosteC]

Well I'm thinking to shift to a HDO series instead of MSO, and buying separately a signal generator.

MSO5000 signal generator has very low output range: 5 Vpp in Hi-Z mode, this is very little, too little to drive 3.3 V logic correctly. FY6800, FY6900 generators have better amplitude resolution! There is also whole topic of modulations. Bode ability is however nice feature.
So I think decision to get real signal generator is a wise one.

[smallfreak]

I hope you allow me to add my questions to this thread as I'm essentially in the ever same "don't know what to buy" situation that drives the veterans nuts in EVERY forum...   

I lost my previous scope due to a flooding in my basement where the item was stored in a shelf that time. The device was soaked in muddy waters and "dead" afterwards. It was a trusty "all analog" device. Not the top notch finest premium selection, but definitely well beyond entry level. The good thing is, that the insurance agreed to pay for a "suitable replacement". Whereas "suitable" might be arguable, but we agreed that this does not mean the cheapest possible solution to get up to the former nominal specs of the broken one but rather "a current available device from a reputable but not premium brand at a comparable model level".

That brings me in the lucky situation to shop for a scope in the 1k to 1.5k price range that will be usable for "all kind of amateur electronic interest".

I have no ambitions to design satellite communication stuff and I certainly will not have to "tune" my 24bit audio interface at any time. So neither ultra high resolution nor microvolt noise floor nor gigahertz performance is necessary. Since I just use it for my own, a perfectly streamlined user interface is not the primary selection criteria, as long as it does not hamper the overall function. But then, I AM a male and thus not immune to the "Gear Acquisition Syndrome". 

I DID read a lot the previous weeks, watched the relevant(?) videos and tried to keep up with the thousands of posts here that pick apart each and every miniscule specification and usability quirks - which turned out quite difficult. I settled with the following "knowledge" so far:

• The smallest available entry-level model of each brand easily outperforms my old scope hands down and if I had to pay a new one from my own money I certainly would pick that one. But I certainly don't miss the opportunity to invest the budget as fully as possible.
• The Rigols and Siglents are both capable and real-world-usable with a big happy user base for both with the usual concurrency amongst their fans.
• ... and so may other that have not grasped my attention due to the mass of posts that focus on just these brands
• Quite some model lines do just differ in what my license allows me to get from the same hardware. That makes it interesting to rather invest the money in features that are hardware bound and handle the licensing stuff with help from the board 
• digital channels might not be as superfluous (= totally out of reach for a hobbyist) as they might have been some years ago. After all, soldering your own digital devices is again as popular today as it has been back in the 1980th, just with much smaller parts and higher frequencies. 
  So even if it might turn out that I cannot convince the insurance company that the digital probes are "part of the device", it is still an option to add them on my own budget. But if I take a model without that option, I simply lose this possibility and changing my mind later would be much more costly.

What I did not figure out are such things:

While Rigol seems to have more need for bugfixing the software, and it seemingly does this rather slowly, this might still be an option to get a great scope in the end, as long as they DO fix their problems and not declare the device EOL quickly and urge the customers to upgrade to the 2024 model instead "where all is just great". Do they? Have they done in the past? In the old time, things just worked out of the box (or just went back immediately) and kept doing until they really needed some repair. Nowadays all things seem to need permanent and frequent "updates" just to keep them running or ironing out software problems that made it into the release version. I as a hobbyist would accept some release cycles to marture the device as trade in for good overall specifications at a bargain price.

This could nudge me to get an "MSO5074" (+ logic adapter), as I might be able to get that paid fully.

The "SDS2104x Plus" in contrast seems to compet nicely on features, with a better(?) UI but might turn out that I have to add the logic adapter on my own, which likely would not happen at all, as long as I have no urgent need, which might turn out as "never". I had none in the past and I just skipped all projects that would have needed one.

But then, why pick an MSO at all and not one of the DHO1000 models that do fall into the proposed budget too. No MSO, but otherwise fine specs. This is where things start to get complicated again. Trade digital inputs (that I probably not really need) against vertical resolution (that I probably not really need either)? My crystal ball is quite dusty and does not show any future need that could help me deciding.

Ever had the problem to spend other peoples money for a "maximum solution" you don't even know?  Splitting the budget into a cheaper scope plus a fancy new SMD soldering station is not part of the insurance contract...

Well, certainly a first-world problem.

I'm open for thoughts.

[Fungus]

If the choice is between "Rigol+logic probes" or "Siglent without" then you're on your own. Nobody else knows how likely you are to need the logic stuff.

If you choose the new Rigol HDO1000 it should be for the hi-def screen and awesome user interface. Again, it depends on how much you value that sort of thing.

Bottom line: Don't obsess over the bullet-points and technicalities, it will get you nowhere. None are perfect, all are good value for money, all will be amazing compared to what you had before.

Ever had the problem to spend other peoples money for a "maximum solution" you don't even know?  Splitting the budget into a cheaper scope plus a fancy new SMD soldering station is not part of the insurance contract...

Simple answer: Spend as much as possible!

Seems to me like the choices are:
* Logic probes/not
* Next-gen UI/not
* Siglent

Pick your priority.

[2N3055]

If the choice is between "Rigol+logic probes" or "Siglent without" then you're on your own. Nobody else knows how likely you are to need the logic stuff.

If you choose the new Rigol HDO1000 it should be for the hi-def screen and awesome user interface. Again, it depends on how much you value that sort of thing.

Bottom line: Don't obsess over the bullet-points and technicalities, it will get you nowhere. None are perfect, all are good value for money, all will be amazing compared to what you had before.

Ever had the problem to spend other peoples money for a "maximum solution" you don't even know?  Splitting the budget into a cheaper scope plus a fancy new SMD soldering station is not part of the insurance contract...

Simple answer: Spend as much as possible!

Seems to me like the choices are:
* Logic probes/not
* Next-gen UI/not
* Siglent

Pick your priority.

Siglent is next gen GUI with touch screen too. Just different graphic representation. Mac vs Windows type of thing, not Mac vs DOS...
New Rigol GUI is more "graphic-y" and that might have appeal to some. Matter of taste. It looks nice, agree..

New HDO1000 is still very new.. Some stuff is not there yet. It will take time before is mature.. Decent hardware, but still work in progress, more like advanced beta stage...Not a problem long term I presume, but if you need something right now maybe not best solution..

At this point SDS2000X+ is "just works" and "bang for the buck" in it's price range. MSO5000 is a bit cheaper, worse in some regards but good in some other..
HDO1000/4000 is very new and I would wait at least 6 more months to give Rigol time to do it right...

[tautech]

smallfreak, an interesting dilemma. 

A # of points to add from general knowledge gained here are a little from my crystal ball. 

There is a DIY thread here for LA/MSO probes for the Siglent SDS2kX Plus. It's straightforward to make.
If considering LA/MSO, Rigol HDO1000 does not provide it but after reading again it seems you know that.

From the crystal ball, SDS1000X HD is only a few weeks away if you can wait for it and it will support LA/MSO albeit with a external active module where at this time no DIY is possible.
Recent thread on this series is easy to find and has some more info.
Sorry we can't indicate cost yet. 

[Martin72]

That brings me in the lucky situation to shop for a scope in the 1k to 1.5k price range

As mentioned before, there are only a few in that range.
The "old" good known ones, rigol MSO5000 and siglent SDS2000X+ and then the new ones, Rigol DHO1000 and the (currently not avaible) SDS1000X HD.
In my opnion, the two last mentioned got only one (in case of the rigol DHO vs rigol MSO two*) advantage and that´s the 12bit resolution.
Otherwise, you have to keep in mind that the two are slimmed-down versions of their bigger brothers(2000X HD and DHO4000).
So the first decision would be 12 or 8bit...
If the last "wins", there are two models waiting for you(in the pricerange).
Rigol MSO5000 and Siglent SDS2000X+.
I had both...
Personally I would prefer the SDS2000X+ for several reasons I can tell when it´s interesting.
Otherwise a short list of pro/cons based on "hard facts".
Rigol MSO 5000:
+ Max. 8GSa/s
+ 2-Ch AWG
+ HDMI output
+ 4 mathchannels
+ Math: digital filters
- 9" display, slightly dim
- No clear structutured UI
- No 50Ohm inputs
- Noisy frontend
- Still are little bit buggy (but not a kind of showstopping)
- Released 2018, EOL unknown
- Hackable, but after every new firmware update it needs to behacked again
- 350Mhz bandwith max (official)

Siglent SDS2000X+:
+ 10" display, bright and clear
+ Well structured UI
+ 50 Ohms inputs
+ Matured software in general
+ Low noise frontend
+ Hackable and hacks persisting after firmware update
+ Max bandwith up to 500Mhz
- 1-ch AWG with rudimentary functions (but with 50Mhz instead 25Mhz the rigol have)
- 2 Mathchannels
- No video output
- No digital filters in math
- 2GSa/s max

*) The new rigol DHO got a way, way more better UI than the MSO5000 have.

[smallfreak]

Thank you all for your help. I tried to read all the necessary folowups about the "SDS1000X HD" that might come "soon". Comparing the chinese prices with the European listed prices makes me think that they are at the same level. A simple currency conversion do show a difference of a few bucks only. So I would expect a target price around 900€.

Logic and AWG uses the same external components as the SDS2000X-E series. Doing a rough calculation on that, a "full hardware, no license" pack might settle at 1500€, almost identical with the "SDS2104X Plus" in the same "full hardware no license" configuration. They would differ in

	SDS2104X Plus	SDS1074X HD
BW	100	70
BW max	500	200
Bit	8	12
Samples	2G	1G
AWG	50MHz	25MHz

Whereas I'm not sure why anyone would like to buy the external AWG-Option-kit for 234€ when the SDG1032X is just 50 bucks more with WAY better specs.

The MSO5074 is at the same price level, excelling only in the proposed 8G sampling that might have a marginal advantage at the max 350MHz on a single channel.

So far the upcoming SDS1000 HD paired with an SDG1032X instead of the "standard" SAG1021I option seems to be a great package for everything up to 200MHz, if the hidden features can get unlocked cheaply. 

[tautech]

smallfreak, you presume SDS1074X HD will come to the west when I'm reasonably sure it won't.

Here where I think out loud:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-hd-coming/msg4789955/#msg4789955
I've compared pricing against the US website SDS2352X-E which in Euro is 729 way less than your 900 Euro.

Certainly your pairing with a SDG1032X is the way to go and it's good to see a prospective buyer knowing the significant benefits of a 2ch standalone AWG vs an inbuilt or USB power module. 
However something many overlook is SAG1021I is an isolated output AWG and while having basic specs isolation OTOH can be very useful in many applications.

Soon is soon in my book and I can't reveal the intended 1kX HD release date although it's around mid year. 

[smallfreak]

smallfreak, you presume SDS1074X HD will come to the west when I'm reasonably sure it won't.
...
I've compared pricing against the US website SDS2352X-E which in Euro is 729 way less than your 900 Euro.

If it's going to get cheaper, I see no problem :-)

If the lowest Euro model turns out to be the "SDS1104X HD between $849 and 999", then it's essentially the same calculation. I just would start at a higher base bandwidth. Reading the discussions, the hardware is assumed to be identical and "software upgradable options" are still the same. So in the end I glimpse at the minimum specs for financing and the maximum specs for usability.

Mid year could pose a problem with the insurance, as they might want close the case when I miss to claim my bill in time. I will talk with the agent after Easter Holidays. Eventually this helps decide between "higher maximum bandwidth" and "higher maximum resolution".

However something many overlook is SAG1021I is an isolated output AWG and while having basic specs isolation OTOH can be very useful in many applications.

Good point. I did miss this. I learned about the advantages of isolated equipment some 40 years ago, when I stuck my soldering iron into the wrong place in a running TV, I was going to repair. It did survive and in the end I could fix the problem (thanks to my very first and very basic scope), but I had to take a break to get my hands calm again and the board had a bad scar. 

Teenagers tend to do silly things at times.

[Performa01]

The MSO5074 is at the same price level, excelling only in the proposed 8G sampling that might have a marginal advantage at the max 350MHz on a single channel.

This is not correct. Signal detail at higher frequencies depends on the input bandwidth, nothing else. So it is a frontend feature only. The sample rate on the other hand has to be twice the max. input frequency in order to satisfy Nyquist.

An ideal acquisition system with ideal AA (anti-aliasing) filter at the input and sin(x)/x (reconstruction) filter at the output would require barely more than twice the input bandwidth as the sample rate. Anything less would not work anymore, but also anything more would be just redundant data, using up additional sample memory without any benefit.

Of course, the (digital) reconstruction filter can only be near ideal because of the limited time interval it is processing. But in practice, we get quite decent reconstruction results with sample rates about 2.5 times the highest frequency component of the input signal.

Up to now, 1 GSa/s would be the correct sample rate for a 350 MHz bandwidth DSO. Anything above that is just a waste of memory.

Unfortunately, we cannot have a strict bandwidth limit in our scope frontends; effective AA-filters aren't going to happen for a number of reasons. Everything we can get in the real world, which does not distort the input signal in an unacceptable way, is fairly ineffective – especially close to the corner frequency.

That means, that a high amount of oversampling gives us the opportunity to apply a benign (e.g. Bessel) AA-filter, which is totally ineffective in the proximity of its corner frequency, but will be sufficiently effective at an adequate distance, hence at the Nyquist frequency of a heavily oversampled signal. On top of that, we can use digital filtering to support the suppression of aliased signals appearing in the region between analog input bandwidth and Nyquist. All in all, we simply trade aliasing protection for memory.

So far the upcoming SDS1000 HD paired with an SDG1032X instead of the "standard" SAG1021I option seems to be a great package for everything up to 200MHz, if the hidden features can get unlocked cheaply. 

Absolutely.

If you ever want a MSO and think about getting this by adding the SLA1016, then you should be aware that this isn't a great solution. It still remains some separate piece of hardware, attached to the scope via a data link with limited speed. The integrated digital channels of the SDS2000X Plus and any higher series are considerably better.

[tggzzz]

The MSO5074 is at the same price level, excelling only in the proposed 8G sampling that might have a marginal advantage at the max 350MHz on a single channel.

This is not correct. Signal detail at higher frequencies depends on the input bandwidth, nothing else. So it is a frontend feature only.

Yes.

The sample rate on the other hand has to be twice the max. input frequency in order to satisfy Nyquist.

No. Or rather the sample rate has to be at least twice the bandwidth of the signal to satisfy Nyquist[1].

I have a 1972 portable scope (which can be stored underwater!) which takes one sample every 75µs (i.e. 13kS/s), and has a bandwidth of >5GHz; it measures risetimes of <0.14ns.

Back in the 80s I used a top-of-the-range HP 1GHz scope, which sampled at 25MS/s.

Nowadays you can see that principle in action in various scopes with modes called various things like Equivalent Time Sampling, and in the mixer of every SDR dongle (multiGHz inputs sampled at ~10MS/s).

[1] Standard interview question... You have an audio signal transmitted on a 10MHz carrier. What is the minimum sampling rate you can use?

[2N3055]

The MSO5074 is at the same price level, excelling only in the proposed 8G sampling that might have a marginal advantage at the max 350MHz on a single channel.

This is not correct. Signal detail at higher frequencies depends on the input bandwidth, nothing else. So it is a frontend feature only.

Yes.

The sample rate on the other hand has to be twice the max. input frequency in order to satisfy Nyquist.

No. Or rather the sample rate has to be at least twice the bandwidth of the signal to satisfy Nyquist[1].

I have a 1972 portable scope (which can be stored underwater!) which takes one sample every 75µs (i.e. 13kS/s), and has a bandwidth of >5GHz; it measures risetimes of <0.14ns.

Back in the 80s I used a top-of-the-range HP 1GHz scope, which sampled at 25MS/s.

Nowadays you can see that principle in action in various scopes with modes called various things like Equivalent Time Sampling, and in the mixer of every SDR dongle (multiGHz inputs sampled at ~10MS/s).

[1] Standard interview question... You have an audio signal transmitted on a 10MHz carrier. What is the minimum sampling rate you can use?

Again with that.
Nobody cares for repetitive sampling scopes. We are talking about real time samplings scopes.

And you are wrong: repetitive sampling scopes EFFECTIVE sample rate is defined by 1/t of sampling aperture time and fine resolution timing of taking sample in regards to trigger timing.
Fact that it takes samples sparsely is of no influence to Nyquist.

Real time sampling is same: effective sampling rate is based on effective sampling aperture length, but we can (because technology allows it) take every single sample consecutively in real time. Instead of doing it from thousands of separate trigger events like with repetitively sampling scopes. .

There is a reason nobody cares about repetitive sampling scopes anymore (outside special applications). They are useless for any signal that is not strictly repetitive and autocorrelated..

On your interview question, answer is more than 20 something MS/s. Because you didn't specify you want to down convert RF and extract audio you need to satisfy Nyquist to grab full data...

We are talking about oscilloscopes here, not radio receivers or software radio.... Stop confusing people with ortogonal information...