RIGOL DS 1054Z or TEKTRONIX 2440

[JPortici]

Rigol is similar to Tek. imho

Yeah right. Pull the other one.

slow as a tek
comparing the price of the two is also pointless. just like this one: the crappy pc (even for the time) my parents bought in 2003 costed nearly as much as a new macbook

[nctnico]

I would like to read some opinions on which oscilloscope to buy between these two options. I currently own a Tektronix 2465B and a 2467B. There was a sales opportunity for the 2465B and I wanted to buy my first digital oscilloscope. I work with maintenance of audio and video equipment and until today I did not feel the need to use a DSO. I really take into consideration the quality of the Tektronix brand, but I am afraid the 2440 is already far behind in relation to Chinese Rigol. A year ago, I paid for the 2467B almost twice the price of the Rigol DS1054 and I do not regret it, because it was in excellent condition with less than 1000 hours of use, and analyzing a video signal on it is incredible. The 2440 that I am considering buying is a little more expensive than the new Rigol DS1054.

Anxious for your opinions.

If you work with audio & video only and things like protocol decoding aren't important to you then the GW Instek 1000B series (GDS1054B or GDS1104B  for example) is definitely worth a look. The firmware is mature (bug free and it does what it says in the specifications) and features like FFT are useful for real work (looking at harmonic distortion for example). The Tektronix 2440 is probably a nice oscilloscope but I think you'll like the portability and features of a modern DSO quickly.

[ebastler]

Rigol is similar to Tek. imho

Yeah right. Pull the other one.

You quoted that a bit out of context, I think. enry68's statement was

In my lab we have also LeCroy scopes but I prefer the Tek because it is more immediate for the usability. Less menu and more knobs.

Rigol is similar to Tek. imho

which I take to mean that Rigol is closer to Tek (than to LeCroy) regarding the user interface concept: It is meant to feel like a scope, with knobs, rather than a data processing engine.

I think that is a fair statement. However, the line break before the "Rigol is similar to Tek" claim does make it somewhat misleading, suggesting that it is meant in a more general sense -- which I would not subscribe to...

[EEVblog]

Do we really need to go there yet again?

No need But please understand every time I hear "just buy" DS1054Z...

If you've got $400 to spend then "just buy DS1054Z" is perfectly valid. You need to spend $1000+ to get something significantly better. That's the part you seem to be missing.

I concur.
Most people who ask about which scope to buy on here either have no clue about what their real requirements are or will be because, well, they are asking such a question.
Or very rightly they might generally have no idea what their future requirements are.
Advice to simply buy one of the cheapest scope that is 4 channels and hackable to get all sorts of goodies and has decent enough specs for general use, and as a bonus has lots of community support, is quite a reasonable response.

[GasGas]

My question has been clarified, the best option is to go for a modern DSO. Although I have a lot of empathy for "vintage" equipment, it seems to me that in the particular case of old DSOs (2440) their limitations get very stark compared to entry-level DSOs. As I understand it, this is not the case with vintage Hi End analog scope, like the TEK 2465 & 67, perhaps because there are no more products like these these days.

Thanks to everyone who posted their opinions.

[tggzzz]

My question has been clarified, the best option is to go for a modern DSO. Although I have a lot of empathy for "vintage" equipment, it seems to me that in the particular case of old DSOs (2440) their limitations get very stark compared to entry-level DSOs. As I understand it, this is not the case with vintage Hi End analog scope, like the TEK 2465 & 67, perhaps because there are no more products like these these days.

The right conclusion, but for slightly incorrect reasons.

History: compared to the equivalent analogue scopes, early DSOs were boat anchors, nasty to use, had insufficient bandwidth, but could do post-processing. Analogue storage scopes were fast enough, but even nastier to use than DSOs! Hence people preferred faster analogue scopes, and only used digital scopes where their slow single shot captures and post-processing capabilities were important.

Currently: DSOs are at least as good in all respects as analogue scopes but - and it is a big but - there are important use-cases where the purchase price of an analogue scope is significantly lower than that of an equivalent DSO. Those use cases all require recording signals with several hundred MHz bandwidth, especially for digital "signal integrity".

Thus if you are price sensitive, you may need to consider "good" old analogue scopes with >200MHz bandwidth. Such good scopes can also be used for many purposes for which low-end DSOs can be used.

Thus your choice is sound: to retain the good high bandwidth analogue scope (Tek 2465/485), and add the different benefits available in low-end DSOs.

[sandor626]

Rigol is similar to Tek. imho

Yeah right. Pull the other one.

 some oscilloscopes

Keysight Technologies are built by Rigol ?

[theoldwizard1]

Pico dropped prices, currently I see:
PicoScope 2407B 4ch, 64MS memory, $829
PicoScope 2207B MSO 2ch+16ch, 64MS memory, $769

Pico seems to have the automotive world locked up.  A few tweaks to their software and and an online database of good/bad sensor images.

Their prices are still WAY too high.

[Boson]

A few tweaks to their software

What wrong with Pico software please describe? I have Analog Discovery 2 - 14bit - very nice. Software ok. But need much more MHz sometime.

[JPortici]

you have the SDK for making your own application to control the pico so some automotive people make their own.
Nothing particulary wrong with the standard app

[AndyP]

I went for the Micsig TO1104, 100MHz, 4 channel, battery powered tablet scope and I've been pretty pleased with it, similar spec to the Rigol (1GS convertor spilt over 1, 2 or 4 channels), it does have an OK FFT, though it would be handy if it listed the magnitude of the peaks instead of using the cursor to measure. Price was a little under $450, so same ballpark as 50MHz Rigol. I've found it great, though some prefer Rigol other the GW. A few reviews around on the forum.