Is a Rigol MSO5000 overkill for a hobbyist?

[tautech]

Really ? You really have no clue what I am talking about here ? 

This last post combined with all that SNR crap on the last page?

You're trolling. Pure and simple.

(page bookmarked so I can point people to it in the future whenever 2N3055 rears his head)

Really, you think you know more than a professional EE ?
Take a reality check please !

[2N3055]

Really ? You really have no clue what I am talking about here ? 

This last post combined with all that SNR crap on the last page?

You're trolling. Pure and simple.

You brought up SNR and was wrong.
You keep saying all this allegedly technical terms but have no clue how to explain any of it .
Then when math proves you wrong you start a debate club, do non sequiturs, and character assassinations.

If anybody is troll it is you .  Bunch of unverified data, truisms and when called out you shout foul play.

You are simply anarchist that like to see things burn...

[jonovid]

Yes! as a hobbyist I would try to keep my oscilloscope costs under $400
digital with screen capture, save to USB , two channel or more ,  over 40MHz  self-contained unit.
-a bonus would be a inbuilt signal generator,  over 100MHz
I would avoid a single channel kit of parts. ,  unless you have another oscilloscope to test it.
a two channel 30MHz vintage analog oscilloscope is way better then most kit toy scopes,
I would try to save more for other equipment on the work bench, when just starting out in the hobby .IMO

[2N3055]

Yes! as a hobbyist I would try to keep my oscilloscope costs under $400
digital with screen capture, save to USB , two channel or more ,  over 40MHz  self-contained unit.
-a bonus would be a inbuilt signal generator,  over 100MHz
I would avoid a single channel kit of parts. ,  unless you have another oscilloscope to test it.
a two channel 30MHz vintage analog oscilloscope is way better then most kit toy scopes,
I would try to save more for other equipment on the work bench, when just starting out in the hobby .IMO

Rigol DS 1000Z or Siglent SDS1104X-E are answer for you but no siggen.  Also Micsig ( no statistics,  but very interesting scope, big screen portable)

[Fungus]

You brought up SNR and was wrong.

If the signal becomes more visible then the overall SNR improved.

Anybody who denies that is either a troll or an idiot.

[Fungus]

Really, you think you know more than a professional EE ?
Take a reality check please !

Appeal to authority?

Emperors sometimes wear no clothes.

[tautech]

Really, you think you know more than a professional EE ?
Take a reality check please !

Appeal to authority?

Emperors sometimes wear no clothes.

Oh nice, now you're in denial too !

[Martin72]

Anybody who denies that is either a troll or an idiot.

When something is not correct in the explanations, you can "correct" them in a way more friendly style then this.

[2N3055]

You brought up SNR and was wrong.

If the signal becomes more visible then the overall SNR improved.

Anybody who denies that is either a troll or an idiot.

Again you demonstrate complete ignorance.

[2N3055]

Really, you think you know more than a professional EE ?
Take a reality check please !

Appeal to authority?

Emperors sometimes wear no clothes.

No. This is not an ethical debate. You are incompetent to speak of electronics as demonstrated by your own responses.

[hans]

What is 'overall SNR'? How can you improve SNR? The only way to "improve SNR" is using correlation like effects, E.g. by utilizing that E[ N ]=0 while E[ S ] != 0, or even using matched filters to look for particular patterns (which can be sampled optimally with time synchronization).

For signals that are too weak too measure, the SNR can still be good as it is a ratio. However, self-noise or quantization noise of the scope swamps your signal. But in that case, the only correct terminology is to say the scope destroys the SNR of very weak signals. It doesn't improve it.

You can buy a better scope with better NF, less quantization noise, etc. You can use a preamp to maximize ADC range (less quantization noise). But there is still no such thing as 'improving SNR' in all these circumstances.

Maybe you could say SNR is better in setup A vs B, and that's an improvement, but I got the impression that an amplifier will have a SNR gain, which is simply not possible

[balnazzar]

Once more, I'd ask: why the discussions on the Test Equipment section always have to drift towards personal? It's a waste of your time and won't help people reading these threads in future.

Anyway, I'd like to know your opinion about the 'benchtop vs. usb' debate.
Till now, I thought that it was just a matter of tastes. Some prefer having knobs and buttons and an integrated screen because they carry the instrument around a lot, and don't want the hassle of bringing their laptop with them. Some don't, and like to get the comfort of a 4K, 32" UI and generally more carefully crafted software.

But then various people here say that benchtops and usbs are not equivalent in their usage possibilities.

I'd like to know more about that. What can you do with one that you can't do with the other?
And why good usb scopes tend to cost more than benchtop equivalents? I mean, there are no DS1000Z or 1104x-e price equivalents. Not even MSO5000 equivalents. You have to start at SDS2000X Plus equivalents.

[Sighound36]

  IMHO those already exist on this forum. Besides test equipment there are also several tool related sections. Still I disagree with tools needing to be low cost specifically. I'd say 'worth spending money on'.

Nctnico, when I first started out on this EE journey my ability to purchase equipment, I wished for was a long way off my starting wages (lol) of 35 euro's a week back in the day when wheels were square and made of stone.

The ability to make test tools and fixutres then was no where as easy as it is today or the earning potential. So you had to improvise, beg borrow or scrape together ites required to enable you to work on the projects you wish to.

Soldering irons in those days made good thermal lances , so your ability to be 'deft' with them was paramount, now my JBC suite is around 100 light years improved, BUT it costs and my point is that many people staring out on this pathway will not have the funds to obtain the tools & equipment to make life easier and getting it right first time.

A lot of folks reading this thread will be at a loss as to why so many of the usual suspects on the TE threads are having a pop at each other over various forum issues 

I still it would be worthwhile for a beginner’s section here on the EEV blog with helps tip and hints with regard to not just equipment but materials, sources of parts and materials etc.

Yes, I know there are these out there, BUT how about correlating them in a proper format for a beginners section?

These days I'm very fortunate our R&D budget runs well into six figures so our choices are not so restricted, but that doesn't mean we'll drop large sums on the latest test gear. It has to be fit for purpose, run smoothly, absolutely minimal glitches, intuitive GUI and actually deliver the performance it claims, what ever the price point.

So instead of us bitching about where the new R&S 12 bit is really worth the 35K price when you add on the extra's the question was is $800 to much for a hobby scope?

[nctnico]

But then various people here say that benchtops and usbs are not equivalent in their usage possibilities.

I'd like to know more about that. What can you do with one that you can't do with the other?

It is not so much about what you can do but more about the UI. IMHO an oscilloscope is a device that works best with buttons and/or touchscreen. I have used a Picoscope many years ago and quickly got fed-up with needing to move the mouse around and click a whole bunch of drop-downs to change settings and so on.

[Fungus]

What is 'overall SNR'? How can you improve SNR?

You can use a preamp to maximize ADC range (less quantization noise). But there is still no such thing as 'improving SNR' in all these circumstances.

The ADC in the MSO5000 has some amount of noise.

If you preamplify the signal going into the oscilloscope using an amplifier that has less noise than the 'scopes ADC you'll be able to see more signal on screen.

ie. Signal to noise ratio can improve even if noise is added in the preamplifier.

[balnazzar]

But then various people here say that benchtops and usbs are not equivalent in their usage possibilities.

I'd like to know more about that. What can you do with one that you can't do with the other?

It is not so much about what you can do but more about the UI. IMHO an oscilloscope is a device that works best with buttons and/or touchscreen. I have used a Picoscope many years ago and quickly got fed-up with needing to move the mouse around and click a whole bunch of drop-downs to change settings and so on.

Mh, understood.
But I have used in the last few months a lot of benchtops, and among them even ones with a big screen (e.g. the SDS5000) or ones quite fast and with a very well-thought UI (Agilent).
Still, I feel using the AD2 is much more comfortable. A 4K big screen is unbeatable. You just see more things. You adjust the cursors with *much* more precision. You don't have to stay half an hour with you arm always stretched and your back bent. Usb scopes are also fanless. Silent. As years pass, they don't become clogged with dust because they have no fan and are completely closed.
Take these 'good' low cost scopes.. 1104, mso5k, even the 2000x+. The manufacturers could strip them of the screen, the knobs, and the cpu, and make an usb version at almost zero additional cost, selling them for 30-40% less and avoiding leaving the usb scopes market just to Pico, which is the de facto monopolyst.

[2N3055]

But then various people here say that benchtops and usbs are not equivalent in their usage possibilities.

I'd like to know more about that. What can you do with one that you can't do with the other?

It is not so much about what you can do but more about the UI. IMHO an oscilloscope is a device that works best with buttons and/or touchscreen. I have used a Picoscope many years ago and quickly got fed-up with needing to move the mouse around and click a whole bunch of drop-downs to change settings and so on.

And my experience is opposite. It depends on person.

EDIT: typos.. phone typing, sorry..

[2N3055]

What is 'overall SNR'? How can you improve SNR?

You can use a preamp to maximize ADC range (less quantization noise). But there is still no such thing as 'improving SNR' in all these circumstances.

The ADC in the MSO5000 has some amount of noise.

If you preamplify the signal going into the oscilloscope using an amplifier that has less noise than the 'scopes ADC you'll be able to see more signal on screen.

ie. Signal to noise ratio can improve even if noise is added in the preamplifier.

Against my better judgment but anyways:
What is SNR ?
SNR of what?

[balnazzar]

And my experience is opposite.it depends o person.

True, but that's exactly the point. For some people, a USB scope is more natural & comfortable to operate and work with. Say it's a minority of all people, 20-30% just to shoot a random number.
That still leaves the USB scope market underpopulated and with plenty of room to compete...

[Fungus]

Against my better judgment but anyways:
What is SNR ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio

SNR of what?

The SNR of a trace on an oscilloscope screen.

Imagine you have an oscilloscope with 3mV of noise in its ADC. You obviously can't use it to see a 1mV signal, the signal will be completely buried in the noise.

But... if I amplify the 1mV signal to 100mV before it goes into the oscilloscope then the oscilloscope's ADC noise becomes almost irrelevant. I'll be able to see the signal with no problems at all.

Even if the amplifier adds 20mV of noise of its own then it's still a win - you'll have almost a 5:1 SNR on screen, the signal will be easily visible.

[jasonRF]

I ended up with a picoscope 2204a (so was my first signal generator, too) and had enough leftover to also buy my first temperature-controlled soldering iron (fixed-temperature Weller) that was orders of magnitude better than the crappy iron I had been using.   I learned so much with that scope, had many hours of enjoyment, and made some projects that I still use frequently.   

"Hobby" today usually includes Arduinos, etc., and a Picoscope 2204a can't even show the out put of an Arduino pin going at full speed.

I will be the first to agree that the 2204a is not a good choice for everyone.  Mine has a 25 MHz (-3 dB) bandwidth, which could show an 8 MHz clock but it wouldn't look very square!  But for me it was a better choice than doubling my budget to get a Rigol bench scope, then having no budget to buy parts for projects for a long time (and of course having to stick with my crappy soldering iron).   That was the point I was trying to make.

I do realize this is part of the eevblog dogma, along with the belief that a usb scope can never (!) be a substitute for a bench scope.  But for people with fewer resources, or those of us with other priorities for our finances, the party line sometimes makes zero sense.

I upgraded my scope this summer, because I am spending many more hours on electronics and wanted at least 100 MHz bandwidth.   I went with a 2-channel usb scope.   Why?  Because of the high cost of 4-channel models

From what I can see, USB 'scopes have poor bang:buck.

(and something is wrong when you have to think twice about buying 4 channels these days - it's such an advantage...)

The other downside of USB 'scopes is that they're USB - you're forced to work alongside a PC. Even a FNIRSI has a big advantage in this respect. Would you want to own a PC-only multimeter?

For some capabilities the USB scope does indeed have poor bang-per-buck compared to bench scopes, while for other things they can be better.  For example, if my budget had me looking at the FNIRSI and the like, then I would seriously consider the Multicomp Pro MP720019 US.  It is a re-branded version of the Owon vds3102 usb scope (2ch, 8-bit, 100 MHz, 1 GS/s, 5 mV/div, 10 MSample memory) that Newark has been selling for $167 delivered for at least a handful of months.   Yes, the software is bare-bones, but compared to the FNIRSI it has far better sensitivity, sample rate, memory depth, and bandwidth.  I am especially wary (possibly unfairly so) about the FNIRSI after watching the TechCornerTvElectronics youtube video that compares it to a Hantek and an Owon.  The voltage measurements were so far off at times that I am not convinced it is even a usable instrument; hopefully new firmware has fixed that.   Or, if I really wanted a benchtop scope, would probably look at Owons or re-branded Owons (Hanmatek, Kiprim).  As far as I know these are actual 100 MHz, 1 GS/s scopes.  I have seen the Kiprim for $152-189 on amazon, and I would add $22 for the Amazon 3-year warranty that includes free shipping.  The Hanmatek is much better known and sells for $189-$199.  The FNIRSI is $184 right now. 

But sure, you can take the FNIRSI wherever you want and get some measurements without a computer.  The need for a computer for a USB scope will be a dealbreaker for some people and applications.  No argument here.  For me it is a feature - my eyes are not so great so having a large screen is wonderful.

In any case, my point was that my particular case is an example of what 2N3055 was discussing in more general terms in his post. 

And the real reason I mostly considered usb for my upgraded scope is that I am very sensitive to noise (wear earplugs on planes, rake my yard the slow manual way instead of use my leafblower, etc.) and the affordable 4-channel deep-memory scopes all have fans that I would most likely hate.  If I ever need 4 channels for digital stuff I will probably get a logic analyzer, and use my scope to check signal integrity 2-channels at a time.  But I can cross that bridge when it happens. 

Cheers!

jason

[Fungus]

That still leaves the USB scope market underpopulated and with plenty of room to compete...

They don't seem to be "competing" very well with bench 'scopes in terms of bandwidth/number of channels per $$$ though.

They have a lot less hardware inside them (no screen, no application processor, no internal file system, no networking, no USB stick connector, no HDMI output, no knobs, much simpler case/chassis) so what's the excuse?

[2N3055]

That still leaves the USB scope market underpopulated and with plenty of room to compete...

They don't seem to be "competing" very well with bench 'scopes in terms of bandwidth/number of channels per $$$ though.

They have a lot less hardware inside them (no screen, no application processor, no internal file system, no networking, no USB stick connector, no HDMI output, no knobs, much simpler case/chassis) so what's the excuse?

This was also explained numerous times: hardware BOM is minor part of development cost. Picoscope software has some features that you need to pay 5 digits to get otherwise..

Also since last time I wrote about this Pico added 3 new protocol decodes.. For free.
Actually, since I bought my PS3406D MSO few years ago it gained 6-7 protocol decodes, Deep measure etc...

I bought fully loaded Keysight MSOX3104T with full bundle. They added 1 new protocol after. And I have to buy it at retail price now.

Like it was said if you only need basic CRT replacement, you just buy cheapest scope that works and you're golden.

Using phrase price/performance implies performing a function i.e. usage of features. If features are never used than you don't need them.

[balnazzar]

That still leaves the USB scope market underpopulated and with plenty of room to compete...

They don't seem to be "competing" very well with bench 'scopes in terms of bandwidth/number of channels per $$$ though.

They have a lot less hardware inside them (no screen, no application processor, no internal file system, no networking, no USB stick connector, no HDMI output, no knobs, much simpler case/chassis) so what's the excuse?

This was also explained numerous times: hardware BOM is minor part of development cost. Picoscope software has some features that you need to pay 5 digits to get otherwise..

You could just take the standard benchtop scope UI and transfer it as it is. It's what they do with LAN/browser access or, in the case of the MSO5K, providing hdmi output and mouse operability.

I mean, it's not that if you make a benchtop scope you are free from the obligation of writing the software.

[trampas]

I worked my way through college as an auto mechanic.  I use to get asked if someone should buy snap on tools or harbor freight.  I came to realize that this was not a question about the tools.

The reality is that the person did not know what they were looking for in the tool.  They had no clue what was a good tool or a bad one.   I personally did this once.  I brought a fluke multimeter for $5 at a yard sale.  Did not think much of it, never heard of fluke.  I saved up money and brought a protech multimeter for like $300 and gave away my fluke. I cursed so much the protech was junk, slow response, etc.   Yes it measured voltage and such but was not the fluke.  I had a great multimeter(tool)  before I knew what a good multimeter(tool) was, as such I could not appreciate it.

So when people ask me about the tools, I tell them that if they do not know what they want in the tool, buy the cheap tool and use it to figure out what you want/need in a tool.  The money for the cheap tool is money spent on the education.  When you look at this way a cheap scope is a great education.

I personally have many scopes purchased over the years and each one gave me a good education.  The MSO5074 I got in August was/is a great education in that I need to look at noise specs and bit depth on my next scope.  Yes the scope is functional, yes I can work around both problems.  It will not be the last scope I buy, heck might buy new one before end of the year.  That is $800 taught me what to look for in my next scope and was worth every penny.  So now I can sell used and buy better reducing the cost of my education.

Buying the perfect scope is not possible, just like buying a quality tool from Harbor Freight.  However you might be able to get something done with the tool, and learn what you want in your next tool, which is really all we can ask for with anything we buy. 

So when you need a scope, buy the best your budget will allow if you are going to use it more than once.   If you are not sure you will use more than once, buy the cheapest to get the job done.   If you know you need 16bit and world class noise floor, then the cheap scope is not what you need.  If you don't know what bit depth, sampling rate, bandwidth, noise floor are then a cheap scope is what you need for the education. 

Buy the tool to solve the problem today,  expense it to that problem.  Then keep using the tool to solve future problems until you need a better tool to solve the problem at hand.   This is the way it has been and will always be in engineering.  If you over think your tool purchase you will stall progress waiting on the perfect tool that will never exist.  If you are not buying new tools you are not pushing the boundaries of technology or knowledge and you will be bored.   It is just a tool, if you are lucky it will not be your last one.