Is a Rigol MSO5000 overkill for a hobbyist?

[2N3055]

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.

I know Wikipedia has an article. I wasn't asking for myself. I asked if you read on the topic and understood it..

Little hint:
Amplifying a signal to bring it into range of instrument input is veritable practice and used all the time.
And providing a signal has limited dynamic range itself AND that signal itself has good SNR, you can use preamp with very good results.
Meaning, you can measure 100uV 1kHz sinusoidal signal with stable amplitude that has no additional nose from environment and has very low intrinsic noise (good luck with that tough). Then you use very low noise preamp (that is BW limited to achieve needed gain with little noise) and amplify it. In which case if everything is ideal (and at 100uV level nothing is ideal) you will get good representation  on screen. Problem is that this presume good knowledge of what we are looking at. A customized preamp with tailored input impedance too.
True is that we use scope to investigate signals to gain this understanding. If scope shows nothing in the grass how do we know what are we looking for? What happens when we want to look at detail at 200uV level on a signal that has 20mV peaks in it? Can we use preamp then? No, because of overdrive. That is why I said preamp use is possible (and I already wrote about this it but was ignored) for some specific uses. But it is not a replacement/fix  for noisy scope. It is more a specific scenario, in which lower noise scope would still have same advantage...

[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..

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.

You really didn't understand? They have to write the software. It is more advanced than software on those embedded scopes. What do you mean transfer? Steal from somebody? You think few menus are the extent of scope software? All the effort is in the background you don't see, signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes.... There is also an API that works really well.

[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.

You really didn't understand? They have to write the software. It is more advanced than software on those embedded scopes. What do you mean transfer? Steal from somebody? You think few menus are the extent of scope software? All the effort is in the background you don't see, signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes.... There is also an API that works really well.

To answer your first question, no, I'm not understanding.

I'm not talking about just the UI ("a few menus"). I am talking about the rest of it also ("signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes...").

They already did that, didn't they? Yes, otherwise that benchtop scope wouldn't work. Maybe you are talking about porting all of that on x86?

I don't think it would be so overwhelmingly onerous to port the software they already have written on other archs, but suppose it is.

Would you tell me what would be the problem for (as a random example) Siglent to take the 1104x-e, remove the screen and the knobs, enclose it in a smaller shell, leave all the rest untouched, without writing even a single line of new code and say:

"It's identical to the benchtop model. Just access it via LAN/web or via usb with EasyScopeX".

I really hope I managed to make myself clear this time.

[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..

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.

You really didn't understand? They have to write the software. It is more advanced than software on those embedded scopes. What do you mean transfer? Steal from somebody? You think few menus are the extent of scope software? All the effort is in the background you don't see, signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes.... There is also an API that works really well.

To answer your first question, no, I'm not understanding.

I'm not talking about just the UI ("a few menus"). I am talking about the rest of it also ("signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes...").

They already did that, didn't they? Yes, otherwise that benchtop scope wouldn't work. Maybe you are talking about porting all of that on x86?

I don't think it would be so overwhelmingly onerous to port the software they already have written on other archs, but suppose it is.

Would you tell me what would be the problem for (as a random example) Siglent to take the 1104x-e, remove the screen and the knobs, enclose it in a smaller shell, leave all the rest untouched, without writing even a single line of new codeand say:

"It's identical to the benchtop model. Just access it via LAN/web or via usb with EasyScopeX".

I really hope I managed to make myself clear this time.

Who is "them"? Every manufacturer has to do it for themselves from the scratch. Picotech does not make desktop scopes, only USB ones. And desktop embedded scope hardware and software has different architecture to an USB one.. You can't port it like that.

There is porting being done, in a limited fashion, where ARM embedded scope is ported to x86 or vice versa. Then it is basically same architecture but different application processor.

[balnazzar]

To discuss the topic further, and if one wants to remove the general purpose process from the scope (and not only the screen and the knobs), if I'm not misunderstanding you, the problem in your opinion would be porting the software from the scope to the computer.

That is, you are arguing that transferring signal analysis, deconding, etc etc, to the computer would be too much effort. That is, porting from ARM to x86 (here I'm supposing that the scope has a general purpose arm processor like the one you find in your phone). Now I'm not an expert of that but I think that the difficulties in writing DSP software for scopes lies in the algorithms. Porting these algos to another arch would be just a matter of patience, UNLESS they have been written super low level in some kind of assembly language, which I doubt.

[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.

You really didn't understand? They have to write the software. It is more advanced than software on those embedded scopes. What do you mean transfer? Steal from somebody? You think few menus are the extent of scope software? All the effort is in the background you don't see, signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes.... There is also an API that works really well.

To answer your first question, no, I'm not understanding.

I'm not talking about just the UI ("a few menus"). I am talking about the rest of it also ("signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes...").

They already did that, didn't they? Yes, otherwise that benchtop scope wouldn't work. Maybe you are talking about porting all of that on x86?

I don't think it would be so overwhelmingly onerous to port the software they already have written on other archs, but suppose it is.

Would you tell me what would be the problem for (as a random example) Siglent to take the 1104x-e, remove the screen and the knobs, enclose it in a smaller shell, leave all the rest untouched, without writing even a single line of new codeand say:

"It's identical to the benchtop model. Just access it via LAN/web or via usb with EasyScopeX".

I really hope I managed to make myself clear this time.

Who is "them"? Every manufacturer has to do it for themselves from the scratch. Picotech does not make desktop scopes, only USB ones. And desktop embedded scope hardware and software has different architecture to an USB one.. You can't port it like that.

There is porting being done, in a limited fashion, where ARM embedded scope is ported to x86 or vice versa. Then it is basically same architecture but different application processor.

You seem to have ingnored my example. The whole point of that example was to say they *already* have all it requires. The have web access. They have usb-operating software.

Porting on x86 and removing the general purpose CPU from the scope is another thing... I discussed it on my follow-up post, but if they want to make such a product *today* by leaving the CPU on the scope, they already have what's needed.

Who are they? Everyone, from siglent and rigol up to tektronix. All of them have web access and usb-operation software.

[2N3055]

To discuss the topic further, and if one wants to remove the general purpose process from the scope (and not only the screen and the knobs), if I'm not misunderstanding you, the problem in your opinion would be porting the software from the scope to the computer.

That is, you are arguing that transferring signal analysis, deconding, etc etc, to the computer would be too much effort. That is, porting from ARM to x86 (here I'm supposing that the scope has a general purpose arm processor like the one you find in your phone). Now I'm not an expert of that but I think that the difficulties in writing DSP software for scopes lies in the algorithms. Porting these algos to another arch would be just a matter of patience, UNLESS they have been written super low level in some kind of assembly language, which I doubt.

NO not that. USB scope has different layout/philosophy/architecture to an embedded one. Parts are combined differently, different things happen at different places. Different type of product. Like I said, If you take a destktop scope, you can use one based on ARM and redesign that motherboard part to use x86 (gross oversimplification , but conceptually speaking) and then you could recompile/ port C code for general processor and do that with some normal effort, and even achieve code sharing long term with propper practice.
But you cannot port to USB scope architecture and back like that.

[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..

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.

You really didn't understand? They have to write the software. It is more advanced than software on those embedded scopes. What do you mean transfer? Steal from somebody? You think few menus are the extent of scope software? All the effort is in the background you don't see, signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes.... There is also an API that works really well.

To answer your first question, no, I'm not understanding.

I'm not talking about just the UI ("a few menus"). I am talking about the rest of it also ("signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes...").

They already did that, didn't they? Yes, otherwise that benchtop scope wouldn't work. Maybe you are talking about porting all of that on x86?

I don't think it would be so overwhelmingly onerous to port the software they already have written on other archs, but suppose it is.

Would you tell me what would be the problem for (as a random example) Siglent to take the 1104x-e, remove the screen and the knobs, enclose it in a smaller shell, leave all the rest untouched, without writing even a single line of new codeand say:

"It's identical to the benchtop model. Just access it via LAN/web or via usb with EasyScopeX".

I really hope I managed to make myself clear this time.

Who is "them"? Every manufacturer has to do it for themselves from the scratch. Picotech does not make desktop scopes, only USB ones. And desktop embedded scope hardware and software has different architecture to an USB one.. You can't port it like that.

There is porting being done, in a limited fashion, where ARM embedded scope is ported to x86 or vice versa. Then it is basically same architecture but different application processor.

You seem to have ingnored my example. The whole point of that example was to say they *already* have all it requires. The have web access. They have usb-operating software.

Porting on x86 and removing the general purpose CPU from the scope is another thing... I discussed it on my follow-up post, but if they want to make such a product *today* by leaving the CPU on the scope, they already have what's needed.

Who are they? Everyone, from siglent and rigol up to tektronix. All of them have web access and usb-operation software.

Headless scopes already exist for testing purposes.

What is USB operation software? what do you mean by that?

[balnazzar]

To discuss the topic further, and if one wants to remove the general purpose process from the scope (and not only the screen and the knobs), if I'm not misunderstanding you, the problem in your opinion would be porting the software from the scope to the computer.

That is, you are arguing that transferring signal analysis, deconding, etc etc, to the computer would be too much effort. That is, porting from ARM to x86 (here I'm supposing that the scope has a general purpose arm processor like the one you find in your phone). Now I'm not an expert of that but I think that the difficulties in writing DSP software for scopes lies in the algorithms. Porting these algos to another arch would be just a matter of patience, UNLESS they have been written super low level in some kind of assembly language, which I doubt.

NO not that. USB scope has different layout/philosophy/architecture to an embedded one. Parts are combined differently, different things happen at different places. Different type of product. Like I said, If you take a destktop scope, you can use one based on ARM and redesign that motherboard part to use x86 (gross oversimplification , but conceptually speaking) and then you could recompile/ port C code for general processor and do that with some normal effort, and even achieve code sharing long term with propper practice.
But you cannot port to USB scope architecture and back like that.

Ok, I didn't know that stuff, thanks for pointing it out. I learned something new.

But allow me to say that I now have a clearer idea about why all the discussions have to drift to conflict in this outfit.

You are inherently aggressive, as it's customary with balcanic people. Don't take me wrong, probably you aren't even aware of that. You are knowledgeable and you want to provide good advice.
But nonetheless you behave aggressively. Some people (Fungus, Nico, etc...) are disturbed by that, and feel obliged to rebuke. An so the conversation enters in a spiral of stones threw at each other unitil exhaustion.

Please reflect upon that. You can't address people like they are a bunch of idiots. Sometimes one just doesn't know some things (otherwise he wouldn't come here asking stuff...).

[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.

You really didn't understand? They have to write the software. It is more advanced than software on those embedded scopes. What do you mean transfer? Steal from somebody? You think few menus are the extent of scope software? All the effort is in the background you don't see, signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes.... There is also an API that works really well.

To answer your first question, no, I'm not understanding.

I'm not talking about just the UI ("a few menus"). I am talking about the rest of it also ("signal analysis, measurements, 25+ decodes...").

They already did that, didn't they? Yes, otherwise that benchtop scope wouldn't work. Maybe you are talking about porting all of that on x86?

I don't think it would be so overwhelmingly onerous to port the software they already have written on other archs, but suppose it is.

Would you tell me what would be the problem for (as a random example) Siglent to take the 1104x-e, remove the screen and the knobs, enclose it in a smaller shell, leave all the rest untouched, without writing even a single line of new codeand say:

"It's identical to the benchtop model. Just access it via LAN/web or via usb with EasyScopeX".

I really hope I managed to make myself clear this time.

Who is "them"? Every manufacturer has to do it for themselves from the scratch. Picotech does not make desktop scopes, only USB ones. And desktop embedded scope hardware and software has different architecture to an USB one.. You can't port it like that.

There is porting being done, in a limited fashion, where ARM embedded scope is ported to x86 or vice versa. Then it is basically same architecture but different application processor.

You seem to have ingnored my example. The whole point of that example was to say they *already* have all it requires. The have web access. They have usb-operating software.

Porting on x86 and removing the general purpose CPU from the scope is another thing... I discussed it on my follow-up post, but if they want to make such a product *today* by leaving the CPU on the scope, they already have what's needed.

Who are they? Everyone, from siglent and rigol up to tektronix. All of them have web access and usb-operation software.

Headless scopes already exist for testing purposes.

What is USB operation software? what do you mean by that?

EasyScopeX in the case of Siglent.

[balnazzar]

Even my Owon 167 eur 40 Mhz scopemeter can be usb-operated.. All the functions are available on the PC.

[2N3055]

But nonetheless you behave aggressively. Some people (Fungus, Nico, etc...) are disturbed by that, and feel obliged to rebuke. An so the conversation enters in a spiral of stones threw at each other unitil exhaustion.

Honestly....

[balnazzar]

But nonetheless you behave aggressively. Some people (Fungus, Nico, etc...) are disturbed by that, and feel obliged to rebuke. An so the conversation enters in a spiral of stones threw at each other unitil exhaustion.

Honestly....

??

You mean it's not that? It's that, at least in part.

[jasonRF]

I apologize for derailing this thread into usb scope debates.   I was attempting to provide an example to illustrate the more general point made by 2n3055: universal “minimum” or “overkill” thresholds do not make sense given the diversity of readers on these forums.  In my case the commonly accepted minimum scope would have been overkill, and I was better served by a usb scope that cost 1/3 as much.  But for the OP it seems like the MSO5000 is not overkill. 

Cheers!

Jason

[nctnico]

  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'.

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?

Another thing to consider is how much you spend at one time. The little amounts can add up. I have several k euro worth of swim and cycling gear. Except for the bicycle none are really big ticket items. So $800 may look like much for a one-time purchase but it likely isn't much to spend on a hobby. I know I keep repeating myself ad nauseam but aren't we all working to make money to spend on fun things to do 

[balnazzar]

I know I keep repeating myself ad nauseam but aren't we all working to make money to spend on fun things to do 

Absolutely true.

[nctnico]

Even my Owon 167 eur 40 Mhz scopemeter can be usb-operated.. All the functions are available on the PC.

That is a good point. Nowadays many benchtop oscilloscopes have good web interfaces which allows them to be used remotely (even from the other side of the world through a VPN tunnel).

[balnazzar]

Even my Owon 167 eur 40 Mhz scopemeter can be usb-operated.. All the functions are available on the PC.

That is a good point. Nowadays many benchtop oscilloscopes have good web interfaces which allows them to be used remotely (even from the other side of the world through a VPN tunnel).

Not only lan/web access. I mean, web access is a very useful thing to have (like you said, you can access the scope over the internet), but very low end scopes don't have a lan port.
Nonetheless, you can operate them with a computer and a cable using a software that connects to the scope just via usb. Even the nefarious Hantek I owned previously had it (but lacked the lan port).
In the case of the 1104xe, it has both the web operability and the usb operability (I believe the MSO5K, other than these two methods, can also be operated like a desktop computer, via mouse and hdmi video output, which is a nice addition).

[Sighound36]

There was I thinking  that having an afternoon cup of tea while using my picoscope to look at an interesting side aspect of improving  the rail noise on a d2A converter for my brother. Wow didn't realise that offering a point of view on is 800usd to much for a beginners test scope could start a second rate university debating team's discourse over European fragile political eco-social landscape overtones how fickle is me?

 Humm... think yourselves lucky, look at the shower of shite we having running our country (or not as the case maybe lol)

Do I think usb scopes have a place?  yes I do, use what you feel comfortable with touch screen Web interface,  Maui studio remote working etc.

This is an electronics forum chaps play fair

[trampas]

One feature I want in Oscope is hands free operation.  I have thought about doing this with some Python and MSO5000. 

By hands free I mean I want to use voice commands like "Single Shot", "Hold", "Autoset", "Zoom in", "Zoom out", "Reset Trigger", etc.  Wording and functionality might change but I think you get the idea.

There is nothing worse than probing something using microscope and trying to stop scope, autoset scope.  The worse is when scope probe slips as you try to one handed hold the probe and ground and blow up a chip.

[2N3055]

One feature I want in Oscope is hands free operation.  I have thought about doing this with some Python and MSO5000. 

By hands free I mean I want to use voice commands like "Single Shot", "Hold", "Autoset", "Zoom in", "Zoom out", "Reset Trigger", etc.  Wording and functionality might change but I think you get the idea.

There is nothing worse than probing something using microscope and trying to stop scope, autoset scope.  The worse is when scope probe slips as you try to one handed hold the probe and ground and blow up a chip.

Agilent made that many years ago.. didn't take.
Just recently someone made a separate voice to SCPI translator with external SBC. Sorry don't have a link ready but quick search will find it, I'm sure..

[Simon]

Is it time to lock this one?

[balnazzar]

One feature I want in Oscope is hands free operation.  I have thought about doing this with some Python and MSO5000. 

By hands free I mean I want to use voice commands like "Single Shot", "Hold", "Autoset", "Zoom in", "Zoom out", "Reset Trigger", etc.  Wording and functionality might change but I think you get the idea.

There is nothing worse than probing something using microscope and trying to stop scope, autoset scope.  The worse is when scope probe slips as you try to one handed hold the probe and ground and blow up a chip.

It's a good idea, I think it's doable with any scope that supports SCPI (and python is OK for translating voice into SCPI commands).

[balnazzar]

Is it time to lock this one?

That may be a good idea, but note, moderator, that virtually *all* the threads in the test equipment section start normally but soon become a fight between the usual people (with one side starting such fights a lot more often, as you may observe). The OPs generally flee away, not to be seen ever again.

Other than that, it seems it's forbidden to say "I'd buy this rather that this other brand, because I like/don't like...". You immediately get censored and accused of being an idiot.

Finally, I steered the tail of this very thread toward politics, and for that I apologize. But only after reading pages and pages of useless fight.

[skander36]

In connection with that, I saw a comment on another thread that mentioned that one can get a $5 amplifier gizmo that can allow one to work around very low amplitude signals by amplifying them to a range that the scope can better handle. Unfortunately the comment didn't go into any further detail. Doers anyone know what this might have been talking about and what would I need to look for?

Also, since such an amplifier would be inserted into the signal path. wouldn't have an impact on the usable bandwidth of the channel it is connected to? Might it also affect the signal in other ways that one should be aware of? For example, would a $5 gizmo have a sufficiently low noise characteristic to make a difference?

@WaveyDipole - About a preamplifier, I found that a good one (linear from 10 Hz to 500 MHz for ex.) is expensive and not justifiable for this scope. A 5$ one can be found working from few MHz low limit, so you will miss audio range. I have tested one labeled as working from 30 MHz to 4 GHz. See attached photos.
The setup was : AWG 2ch - Sinus 8 MHz 2mVpp and scope Ch1 - signal from AWG through cheap amp., and  Ch2 direct signal from AWG .
Photo 1 - normal aquisition
Photo 2 - aquisition with max memory (100 MB for two channels)
Photo 3 - aquisition using average mode
Photo 4 - signals without preamp