Osciloscope recommendation

[nctnico]

@blueskull: you forgot the TBS2000 series has no protocol decoding which (IMHO) is mandatory for modern electronics education.

[tautech]

There's no way you can recommend replacement of a Agilent InfiniiVision with a MSO1000Z series IF you've read this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/

Vendors coming here to trash their competitors is a disgusting practice. tautech, please stop it.

And where did I do that ? 

This thread has as part of its title: recommendation


Yes, I offered a link to an old thread (that I've no participation in) that identifies a worrying problem in what seems to be everybody's favourite DSO. 
That this thread can be overlooked or dismissed when its content has been offered by a very experienced and technically knowledgeable member and whatsmore been confirmed by another member with similar standing.
So somebody prove it wrong and update the thread with proof. 

Some might say it's an old thread, so be it, but show me and the forum members where this core fault has been fixed if in fact it has been ? 

The rest of the membership that are blindly following the rest all need take note that not all instruments are all they're cracked up to be.

zapta
You don't know the half of my position, I have manufacturers regularly courting me to represent them, including Rigol.


Edit
Highlights added.

[Fungus]

Yes, I offered a link to an old thread (that I've no participation in)

Are you getting desperate for bad things to say about Rigols after the latest firmware squished your favorite bugs?

[zapta]

So somebody prove it wrong and update the thread with proof. 

Prove what wrong? That you cherry pick and emphasize negative information about the leading competitor of the brand you represent?

Of course it's wrong.

[Fungus]

Edit
Highlights added.

Sad. 

[rstofer]

Yes, I offered a link to an old thread (that I've no participation in) that identifies a worrying problem in what seems to be everybody's favourite DSO. 
That this thread can be overlooked or dismissed when its content has been offered by a very experienced and technically knowledgeable member and whatsmore been confirmed by another member with similar standing.
So somebody prove it wrong and update the thread with proof. 

Some might say it's an old thread, so be it, but show me and the forum members where this core fault has been fixed if in fact it has been ? 

The rest of the membership that are blindly following the rest all need take note that not all instruments are all they're cracked up to be.

It would be fair to say that no comments in the referenced thread have any relationship to the current state of affairs following the most recent firmware upgrade.  That thread started at least 3 revs ago and is hardly representative of the situation today.  At this point, the comments are just plain wrong!

Some people bitch about the slow response to the UI.  That may be a valid remark but it isn't necessarily a concern.  Clearly the controls don't respond as well as those of an analog scope but it all works out in the end.  Spin the knob fast and things move faster.  Measurement issues have been resolved.  The spelling error persists.

The truly interesting part of that thread is the folks who HATE their DS1054Z yet refuse to sell it off to buy something perceived as a better scope.  Nope!  They're going to hang onto it so they have something to bitch about.  They'll keep the $800 savings while bashing their own scope.  They know full well that it will cost them 3 times as much money to get an equivalent scope.

That thread and the Yaigol thread need to be pared back and brought up to date.

Nobody has said that the DS1054Z is the be-all, end-all of scopes.  Clearly, it isn't!  But for less than $1200, it's going to be tough to find something better (better = identical bandwidth and features (hacked)).  No question that there are scopes in the $2k and up range that are markedly better.  Whether a hobbyist needs to spend that much money is up to them to decide.

In my little corner of the electronics sandbox, the 1054 is adequate.  When that is no longer the case, I will upgrade.

[Karel]

Except that, in the case of the DS1054Z, every single known bug, other than the spelling error, has been corrected.  Every single one!  And you know it!

That's not true, there's still a (serious) bug open which is reported and confirmed by Rigol in februari 2016:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg862373/#msg862373

Despite that, the DS1054Z is still the best option for hobbyists with a low budget.

[Karel]

There's no way you can recommend replacement of a Agilent InfiniiVision with a MSO1000Z series IF you've read this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/

Vendors coming here to trash their competitors is a disgusting practice. tautech, please stop it.

And where did I do that ? 

You do it all over the place. It's pathetic.

[tautech]

There's no way you can recommend replacement of a Agilent InfiniiVision with a MSO1000Z series IF you've read this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-weird-signal-level-problem/

Vendors coming here to trash their competitors is a disgusting practice. tautech, please stop it.

And where did I do that ? 

You do it all over the place. It's pathetic.

Front up and prove rf-loop, Marmad and me wrong. 

[zapta]

Front up and prove rf-loop, Marmad and me wrong. 

Come on tautech, you pop up in every T&M thread and shill for your brand. 

Compare that with the more respectful vendors here such as the Keysight guy.

[rstofer]

Except that, in the case of the DS1054Z, every single known bug, other than the spelling error, has been corrected.  Every single one!  And you know it!

That's not true, there's still a (serious) bug open which is reported and confirmed by Rigol in februari 2016:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/msg862373/#msg862373

Despite that, the DS1054Z is still the best option for hobbyists with a low budget.

Are you talking about the problem of a user's own download code producing a phase shift which can't be duplicated when the code is written in a different manner by someone else?
Has this 'bug' been confirmed with known good code and the most recent update?  A lot can happen in the firmware world in 6 months!

If this 'bug' was described in 1" letters on the web page, would I care?  What percentage of hobbyists actually automate measurements?  How many even plug in the network cable?  If the scope didn't have any remote capability at all, would most hobbyists even care?

[Dave92F1]

My advice: At < 100 MHz, buy the Rigol. At the higher end of the market (> 300 MHz), buy Keysight.

I've had a Rigol DS2072A on my workbench for a couple of years now, after having many oscilloscopes before it.

It's the first scope in 20 years that I've come to trust enough to move my ancient Tek 2230 off the workbench and into storage.

Rigol has become the "nobody every got fired for buying IBM" brand of Chinese scopes. Below 200 MHz bandwidth, anyway.

I'd say the Rigol is 95% as good as the low-end Keysight scopes. And it costs 1/3 of the price.

At < 100 MHz, unless cost is no object, or you're doing some super-critical measurements that will result in people dropping dead if you make a tiny mistake, get the Rigol.

(And if your measurements are that super-critical, get both and make dammed sure they show exactly the same thing - or know why.)

[kverti]

hello, maybe someone will recommend me too. I have an entry level Tektronix, but would like to have an advanced model to enrich my lab functionality. Since I decided to base my lab on robust old Agilent instruments, here is what I choose from (budget is around $4K):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-MSO8064A-Oscilloscope-600-MHz-4-Channel-Agilent-MSO8064A-/172243350897?hash=item281a80f571
this one seems advanced enough to me, but based on a PC board and HDD, and the last thing I can trust is an HDD... 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-MSOX3052A-Oscilloscope-2-16-ch-500-MHz-Agilent-MSOX3052A-/182245265204?hash=item2a6eaa0f34&_ga=1.152454584.0bcea377cc691dfb27f9a85ef53455de

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-MSO6054A-Oscilloscope-500-MHz-4-16-Ch-Agilent-MSO6054A-/182170916362?hash=item2a6a3b960a&_ga=1.152454584.0bcea377cc691dfb27f9a85ef53455de

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-DSO6034A-Oscilloscope-4-channel-300-MHz-Agilent-DSO6034A-/172349087261?hash=item2820ce5e1d&_ga=1.110430596.0bcea377cc691dfb27f9a85ef53455de
or maybe this one will be pretty enough for non-specific tasks? Is it significantly better than a new model from Tektronix with 50 MHz 1GS/s ?

Thanks in advance!

[tggzzz]

Compare that with the more respectful vendors here such as the Keysight guy.

HP always had a very strong corporate ethos that trashing competing products was Never Done. It is good to see that lives on in Keysight.

(As I used to say, "the real Hewlett-Packard is alive and well, but is called AgilentKeysight")

[tggzzz]

I have an entry level Tektronix, but would like to have a mature model to enrich my lab functionality

If you are after a mature scope, many people would recommend a Tek 2465B, but I rather like the Tek 485. (Sorry, couldn't resist  )

More usefully, you need to specify what your current scope can't do and/or what you need the next scope to do. It is usually best to state the problem you are trying to solve (i.e. the measurement), not your solution (i.e. the equipment).

[kverti]

I have an entry level Tektronix, but would like to have a mature model to enrich my lab functionality

If you are after a mature scope, many people would recommend a Tek 2465B, but I rather like the Tek 485. (Sorry, couldn't resist  )

More usefully, you need to specify what your current scope can't do and/or what you need the next scope to do. It is usually best to state the problem you are trying to solve (i.e. the measurement), not your solution (i.e. the equipment).

haha, in my vision mature means "advanced, feature-rich, stable" etc. That's what I really mean, sorry if it was not clear 

As for the purpose, we have no specific tasks for it, and even if we have work for a $20K scope, we cannot afford it, and will have to borrow one. Still I'd like to have an ADVANCED  scope in the lab for which our budget is about $4K. Anyway I believe that an advanced scope can handle entry level work better than an entry level scope, am I right? I'm sure some people who have these models I mentioned above read this topic and can share their experience, and this will be very much appreciated   

[tggzzz]

I have an entry level Tektronix, but would like to have a mature model to enrich my lab functionality

If you are after a mature scope, many people would recommend a Tek 2465B, but I rather like the Tek 485. (Sorry, couldn't resist  )

More usefully, you need to specify what your current scope can't do and/or what you need the next scope to do. It is usually best to state the problem you are trying to solve (i.e. the measurement), not your solution (i.e. the equipment).

haha, in my vision mature means "advanced, feature-rich, stable" etc. That's what I really mean, sorry if it was not clear 

As for the purpose, we have no specific tasks for it, and even if we have work for a $20K scope, we cannot afford it, and will have to borrow one. Still I'd like to have an ADVANCED  scope in the lab for which our budget is about $4K. Anyway I believe that an advanced scope can handle entry level work better than an entry level scope, am I right? I'm sure some people who have these models I mentioned above read this topic and can share their experience, and this will be very much appreciated 

Well, if you don't know what you want nor why, then it doesn't much matter what you buy.

"Advanced" in what sense? Bigger screen, better display, more channels, higher bandwidth, better interconnectivity, better remote control, more flexible triggering, better analogue post-processing, better protocol post-processing, more sensitive, more portable, lower power, battery powered, more rugged, water resistant, higher voltage, and those are just the attributes I can think of instantly.

[rstofer]

hello, maybe someone will recommend me too. I have an entry level Tektronix, but would like to have an advanced model to enrich my lab functionality. Since I decided to base my lab on robust old Agilent instruments, here is what I choose from (budget is around $4K):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-MSO8064A-Oscilloscope-600-MHz-4-Channel-Agilent-MSO8064A-/172243350897?hash=item281a80f571
this one seems advanced enough to me, but based on a PC board and HDD, and the last thing I can trust is an HDD... 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-MSOX3052A-Oscilloscope-2-16-ch-500-MHz-Agilent-MSOX3052A-/182245265204?hash=item2a6eaa0f34&_ga=1.152454584.0bcea377cc691dfb27f9a85ef53455de

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-MSO6054A-Oscilloscope-500-MHz-4-16-Ch-Agilent-MSO6054A-/182170916362?hash=item2a6a3b960a&_ga=1.152454584.0bcea377cc691dfb27f9a85ef53455de

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keysight-Used-DSO6034A-Oscilloscope-4-channel-300-MHz-Agilent-DSO6034A-/172349087261?hash=item2820ce5e1d&_ga=1.110430596.0bcea377cc691dfb27f9a85ef53455de
or maybe this one will be pretty enough for non-specific tasks? Is it significantly better than a new model from Tektronix with 50 MHz 1GS/s ?

Thanks in advance!

The scope with the largest screen (MSOX3052A) would be nice but I prefer 4 channels. That particular scope ships from Malaysia.  Is that better for you?
The other 3 scopes ship from California.

I don't have any experience with any of those scopes but I like the idea of the larger screen, particularly for an MSO, I want 4 channels, MSO is optional (to me) and higher bandwidth is always better.  I certainly wouldn't be interested in a 50 MHz <anything>.  Almost every uC is running faster than that.  If I had the money, I would love to have one of the advanced Keysights.  Alas, all I want to spend for a hobby is just enough to buy the Rigol DS1054Z.  For commercial use where money is available, I would like to look through Keysight's offerings.  Those are some great scopes.  All of these are highly discounted scopes, backed by the factory and should be excellent in the lab.

[nctnico]

For $4k you have a huge choice on Ebay from A-brands like HP/Agilent/Keysight, Tektronix, Lecroy, Yokogawa, Iwatsu and R&S.
For $4k I think an Agilent DSO7000 series is within reach as well. Big screen, 128kpts FFT (albeit slow) and hackable to enable MSO and decoding options.

Still the first thing to do is to get the priorities sorted:
- 4 channels (mandatory IMHO)
- Bandwidth?
- Screen size/resolution (>640x480)
- Digital channels (MSO) ?
- Memory depth?
- Features like peak-detect (not on all Lecroy models) and math functions
- USB storage
- Network connection?

[mos6502]

Stay away from USB-only scopes.

Why? What's wrong with a Picoscope?

[nctnico]

Stay away from USB-only scopes.

Why? What's wrong with a Picoscope?

A lot. I've used one in the past and they are tedious to use due to the lack of knobs and needing to go into menus instead. You also have to watch the input range. The not so cheap Picoscope I used had a maximum input voltage of only +/-5V. Another nuisance was that it used 1-2-5 full scale ranges which is crap because to look at a 5Vpp signal you'd need to select 10V. There is a reason a normal scope has 1-2-5V/division ranges so you get 8-16-40 full scale ranges which match nicely for displaying the most common voltages you'll find in circuits.

[RoGeorge]

- Because USB-only scopes are not oscilloscopes. They are DAQs (Data Acquisitions boards).
An oscilloscope is a standalone lab instrument, with knobs, buttons and a screen. I mean real, physical items, and not just drawings on a tablet's touch screen.

- Never used a Picoscope, so I don't know what is wrong with it.

[mos6502]

Hmm, you must've used an older one. The ones that are currently available on the website are all +/-20V, with 100V maximum input. Not great compared to a bench scope, but good enough for 99% of the stuff. You can get cheap 20:1 attenuators for higher voltage use.

I don't see the problem with the user interface. Dragging a trace with the mouse is just as fast if not faster than turning a rotary knob. And doing stuff like changing trigger options is way more tedious on a normal scope. Unless you're using one of the high end Windows based scopes where you can attach a mouse and where the user interface is just a Windows program.

One big advantage is that doing screenshots, waveform captures, etc. is much faster as you already have everything on your PC. Not to mention decoded serial data. Also, you can directly access the scope data from other apps, like MATLAB, using the SDK.

What I like about the Picoscope is the no-bullshit software policy. Same software for all models, no paid options to unlock and quite a number of serial decoders. Also, there's a Linux version available. Even better, they have a Debian repository.

The reason I was asking is because I'm about to pull the trigger on a 2204A ... 130 Eurobucks (including probes) is a decent price.

[mos6502]

- Because USB-only scopes are not oscilloscopes. They are DAQs (Data Acquisitions boards).
An oscilloscope is a standalone lab instrument, with knobs, buttons and a screen. I mean real, physical items, and not just drawings on a tablet's touch screen.

Huh. What if you glue the Picoscope to a Laptop then? 

[Fungus]

The reason I was asking is because I'm about to pull the trigger on a 2204A ... 130 Eurobucks (including probes) is a decent price.

10MHz, 2 channel?   

Dragging a trace with the mouse is just as fast if not faster than turning a rotary knob.

No it isn't.