Rigol DSO2302A or DHO1072?

[Fotom]

Hello,

I am new on this board and not yet pretty familiar with all the input here... 

But I have a question:

At the moment I have a MicSig SATO1004 for testing purposes on automotive issues. But for another project I would prefer a desk mount "regular" scope. That makes things easier and I have enough space to put a scope next to all the stuff on my bench.

I have now an offer for a Rigol DSO2302A and for a DHO1072. I now am a little bit puzzled about which one I should take. Maybe at the end of the day it better should be none of them and better a MSO...

The advantages of the DSO2302A:

- higher bandwidth
- 1ns slew rate

The advantages of the DHO1072:

- bigger size of monitor
- bigger size of memory (the 100M option is included)
- newer model

Both have 2GSa/s, 2 channels and 12 Bit ADC (which I prefer).

Besides he DHO is 120 Euro cheaper and if I need more bandwidth it is upgradeable.

Which one would you take?

Best regards and many thanks for your thoughts!

[Martin72]

Hi and welcome to the forum..

Both have 2GSa/s, 2 channels and 12 Bit ADC (which I prefer).

No, the DS2302 have 8 bit resolution, 12 bit in high resolution mode, the DHO1072 is a true 12 bit scope.
Besides the bandwidth, there are hardly any points that still speak for such an older scope model.
In the bare data comparison, it is inferior to the DHO in almost all points, if it is only about the two, I would clearly advise the DHO.
However, 2 channels might not be enough for you at some point, I would consider that.
If it is not only about the two, I would consider the (hopefully soon to be released) SDS1000X-HD model (also "real" 12bit).
It doesn't have the higher screen resolution as the DHO and also no hdmi output, but should have "out of the box" the less buggy software/UI, as well as the better FFT function, bodeplot possibility (missing from the DHO).
So, between DS2302A and DHO1072, clearly the DHO.
If something else comes into question, possibly think about the SDS1000X-HD, which unfortunately is not yet on the market.

[thm_w]

"I have now an offer"

Why not say what this offer is.

[Martin72]

Maybe a used one - So I thought first as I´ve read his post.
But it´s still avaible:

https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rigol-DS2302A.html

[Fotom]

Ah, I am sorry. The price is no secret.

Around 850 for the DSO2302A and 750 for the DHO1072.

Actually I found another MSO2302A for 879. What would be the advantages there.

And are you sure it is 8 Bit instead of 12 Bit? The specs say 12...

The MSO is maybe more attractive. I want to check the CAN bus operations on a bench- setup with several ECUs.

[nctnico]

Run away from the Rigol DSO2000 / MSO2000. Old junk with unfinished firmware.
Run away from Rigol in general while you are at it. The worst mistake you can make is thinking that the low price gets you a functional tool.

[Martin72]

Nico with his directly kind...

And are you sure it is 8 Bit instead of 12 Bit? The specs say 12...

After a DS1054Z I had a DS2072, so yes, I´m sure.
BTW, specs...look at the pic below.

[thm_w]

DSO2000 is fine for hobby use, not "unfinished", I had one back in the day and was completely usable for everday tasks (2012).
However, I sold it many years ago for ~$300 so it makes no sense to pay $800 for it now.

Anyway. OP, what are you going to be using it for on the bench? analog, digital? what speeds?

[Fotom]

Ok, I see. That is another reason for the new DHO1072. I think the 2 vs. 4 channel question might be more interesting.

I want to control several ECU on CAN (max speed 500kB/s) and LIN for functional tests. Maybe there will be FlexRay come to it as well. Not sure about the specs there, but 70MHz should be fine.

Well, the Rigol are maybe as old as the Siglent in the same price range. The benefit of them is the digital phosphor display. But I could not see the advantage there.

As you see I am open for anything. Sure, a Rohde & Schwarz would be fine as well but unfortunately unaffordable. It is for hobby in this case but I do not want to spend money for nothing. Literally spoken.

[Fotom]

Nico with his directly kind...

And are you sure it is 8 Bit instead of 12 Bit? The specs say 12...

After a DS1054Z I had a DS2072, so yes, I´m sure.
BTW, specs...look at the pic below.

The Rigol page says 12 Bit when more than 5 micro Volts, 8 below 2.

[thm_w]

I want to control several ECU on CAN (max speed 500kB/s) and LIN for functional tests. Maybe there will be FlexRay come to it as well. Not sure about the specs there, but 70MHz should be fine.

You probably want a dedicated logic analyzer instead, or in addition to. Sigrok software supports CAN, LIN, and flexray, and will be more convenient to use than a small scope (IMO). https://sigrok.org/wiki/Protocol_decoders

But what are you controlling them with, test software on the PC side? Are you looking at signal integrity or decoding and recording transmissions?

[Fotom]

I will "simulate" a complete car and besides that I can go for the single ECU for flashing and coding. For that I have DTS Monaco and Vediamo for older stuff.

The MSO should decode LIN and CAN at least as far as I have read the specs. That would be interesting when there are more than 2 ECUs on the desk involved. The DHO comes with LIN and CAN decoding as well.

But besides that I had several situations when it would have been great to have a scope to check if there was something bad on the bus in the car as well without needing a decoding capability but simply "signal ok or not".

[nctnico]

For your purpose I'd definitely get a 4 channel scope. But how about using the MicSig on your desk? The MicSig scopes work fine on a desk as well. Unfortunately MSO functions on the lower cost scopes you are looking at (check the reviews & comments from people actually owning those scopes) are not that good so getting an external logic analyser might be a better idea.

[Fotom]

Yes, the 4 channels would be better, you are right and that was what I thought already.

What other scopes would you prefer instead of Rigol?

[nctnico]

Yes, the 4 channels would be better, you are right and that was what I thought already.

What other scopes would you prefer instead of Rigol?

Ones that work as expected. At the lower end: GW Instek or Micsig. At the higher end: Keysight, R&S, Tektronix and Yokogawa. But keep in mind I make a living from using an oscilloscope.

[adam4521]

In the market today you do need to consider the HD oscilloscopes that are around the corner from Siglent and Rigol. They are popular brands for good reason. Risking some kickback here, I'll stick my neck out and say that Rigol emphasise novel design and feature count (maybe overreaching themselves sometimes) while Siglent appear to have a magic touch for low noise design and max-ing performance (bandwidth, FFT, Bode plot etc) in cost effective hardware. Rigol have a strange habit of keeping older designs in production forever, which has led to a bizarre overlap of features and prices, as you have discovered. Both of these brands have very high % second hand resale value so you don't take much risk if in the end you want to move to something else. I'm not sure what is like in your region, but in the UK GW Instek are over-priced, their products are available rebadged as RS Pro but not super-competitive. The differentiated product qualities and user experience of Keysight, R&S highly respected but Keysight have made it clear they are not doing hobbyist market any more (they hiked 'entry level' prices up by c. 25%, just to be sure), and bandwidth and other upgrades tend to be super expensive if you have to add them later. Tektronix still have an affordable entry range in the TBS series, but it has no memory or feature enhancements at all -- don't expect to find decoders there.

[Martin72]

but in the UK GW Instek are over-priced

Not only in the UK.
The price/performance/feature ratio is simply poor and most models are also rather old-fashioned.
I recently had a look at the GWInstek portfolio and came to this conclusion.
About Keysight, Lecroy (Nico had forgotten to mention), Tektronix we need not talk as hobbyists.
If these brands offer something in our price range, then you might as well go for the "original" and help yourself to the China man.
Or, what they offer for "little money", for the money I get somewhere else incomparably more and better.
R&S takes a special role here.
But even they have nothing "cheap" to offer.
No, in the range up to 1000€/$, and I assume this for the topic creator, there is no way around the two top dogs Rigol and Siglent.
Then he wants to have 12Bit, only Rigol remains at the moment, because the "small" Siglent 1000 HD is not yet on the market.

[nctnico]

but in the UK GW Instek are over-priced

Not only in the UK.
The price/performance/feature ratio is simply poor and most models are also rather old-fashioned.
I recently had a look at the GWInstek portfolio and came to this conclusion.

Until you actually start using one, you'll find out their oscilloscopes are very nice & efficient to use. A lot of thought went into making the user interface efficient and clear. And no surprises with features that don't work or are not quite right. The same goes for the Tektronix TBS2000 series. Once you use one, you'll quickly appreciate how well they work.

The biggest mistake to make is to select an instrument based on the longest list with features and forget about quality of implementation. A feature you never need is worth nothing while a user interface that keeps getting in the way of your work is a nuisance forever.

So when selecting an oscilloscope with a limited budget, it is very important to have a clear list with requirements and buy the one which is most suitable. Nothing more and nothing less. Even better: create list with tests and test whether the oscilloscope (or any piece of equipment) you ordered meets your requirements. This helps to understand the instrument and return it when it turns out to be a dud.

The perfect oscilloscope does not exist. At the moment I own 5 oscilloscopes (from cheap to very expensive) and every one of them can do something special the others can't.

BTW: I specifically left Lecroy out because their scopes are more geared towards analog signal analysis and thus are less usefull for general purpose digital / analog debugging work.

[tautech]

BTW: I specifically left Lecroy out because their scopes are more geared towards analog signal analysis and thus are less usefull for general purpose digital / analog debugging work.

Garbage. 
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/wavesurfer-3000z-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso3000-series-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso2000-series-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso1000-series-oscilloscopes

However LeCroy pricing vs OEM is another matter.

[nctnico]

BTW: I specifically left Lecroy out because their scopes are more geared towards analog signal analysis and thus are less usefull for general purpose digital / analog debugging work.

Garbage. 
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/wavesurfer-3000z-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso3000-series-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso2000-series-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso1000-series-oscilloscopes

However LeCroy pricing vs OEM is another matter.

None of those are real Lecroy scopes! Lecroy always has been rebadging other brands (like Iwatsu as well) to fill in the gaps in their lineup; especially at the lower end. And you known that very well.

[NE666]

I want to control several ECU on CAN (max speed 500kB/s) and LIN for functional tests. Maybe there will be FlexRay come to it as well. Not sure about the specs there, but 70MHz should be fine.

If you're working predominantly in the digital domain, another consideration for you might be the Rigol MSO5000.  Not 12-bit but perfectly useable and very well suited to digital.  All versions have 16 digital channels (although you'll need the additional LA cable, which is not inexpensive, unless you purchase a clone on eBay) and the 4 (analogue) channel version seems to have a number of offers around at this time, including all protocol decodes "free" (including FlexRay).  Easily hackable to 350Mhz bandwidth.  Nice 9" screen.

You may benefit from (probably will *need*, at some point) a standalone LA/protocol analyser too but that goes for any MSO of any brand.  An MSO is not a LA, in exactly the same way that a LA isn't an MSO.

Or, if time is on your side, you could perhaps consider the new Rigol DHO900 series, which "has the best of both worlds", in that it has digital (MSO) capability plus 4 16-bit analogue channels.  Pricing could be very competitive but it's not on general sale in Europe yet and the jury is thus out on it.  There is suggestion that Dave may carry a review of it (or the DHO800) in the coming days.  In my view, the 7" screen is a bit questionable for an MSO but the form-factor is closer to your MicSig.  The biggest issue may be that it looks as if you won't see a shipment until well into October, if not later, so it is also vapourware (like the 2000X HD) at this time for all practical purposes.
 

[tautech]

BTW: I specifically left Lecroy out because their scopes are more geared towards analog signal analysis and thus are less usefull for general purpose digital / analog debugging work.

Garbage. 
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/wavesurfer-3000z-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso3000-series-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso2000-series-oscilloscopes
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/t3dso1000-series-oscilloscopes

However LeCroy pricing vs OEM is another matter.

None of those are real Lecroy scopes!

You mean like some HPAK scopes were Rigols ?

Lecroy always has been rebadging other brands (like Iwatsu as well) to fill in the gaps in their lineup; especially at the lower end. And you known that very well.

I do.
However I won't go making generalizations without qualification as you have.

15 years back I looked hard at a GW Instek and thought they were overpriced and nearly brought a Uni-t instead  but instead opted for a Tek TDS2000B a vastly better DSO than either ...... at that time.

However these days the last in the above list of LeCroy's DSO's would blow its socks off and my SDS1104X-E has certainly lasted longer than that Tek.

so it is also vapourware (like the 2000X HD) at this time for all practical purposes.

Error ^
https://www.siglenteu.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds2000x-hd-digital-storage-oscilloscope/

My SDS1204X HD is not a figment of imagination.
https://www.siglent.com/products-overview/sds1000x-hd/

[NE666]

However these days the last in the above list of LeCroy's DSO's would blow its socks off and my SDS1104X-E has certainly lasted longer than that Tek.

so it is also vapourware (like the 2000X HD) at this time for all practical purposes.

Error ^
https://www.siglenteu.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds2000x-hd-digital-storage-oscilloscope/

My SDS1204X HD is not a figment of imagination.
https://www.siglent.com/products-overview/sds1000x-hd/

With apologies, indeed my unintended error.  I wrote 2000X HD but was thinking 1000X HD, which speculation so far has placed within approximately the same price range as the scopes in the OP's original question.

[Fotom]

I thank you all for your interesting different points of view and all the very useful input to think about.

I do understand the point of usability. The GW Instek and R&S scopes are slightly different in the front end, compared to the "usual all in one scopes". But they all come down to the main "Auto" button which I will use in 99% of all test scenarios. But why not, it was invented and I pay for it, so it should work for me...

The bandwidth is maybe not the big point. All ECUs work with around 12V DC. The need for bus traffic is the nut breaker, but with around 500kB on CAN and the need of minimum 2 channels to compare the signal integrity the need is not so high. Not sure what speed LIN has but much less than CAN. FlexRay could get interesting, too, and should be much faster. But the MicSig has that capability and with 4 channels and 100MHz it is ok for that I guess. On my test- bench it should work as well.

So the need for an ultra accurate scope might not be in my main focus. But why not looking for wide bandwidths and fast sampling rate?

I use every equipment (tools or other gear) by reading the manual first. Ok, a hammer is maybe clear to use. But in this particular case the MicSig disappointed. The comedians at MicSig have changed ground and calibration signal and the owners manual showed a picture where there is vice versa. When calibrating the first time the scope showed a lot of interesting things but no 1kHz calibration signal. So, even the expensive gear is equivalent to the cheap stuff... at the end I think it is sometimes learning by doing. And I know: A fool with a tool is still a fool...

I would rather prefer R&S, but that would be way too much money spend in a testing device that I would use only for 15% of its possibilities, especially its accuracy. So why not looking for something cheaper? But I do not want to buy old stuff if I can get newer and better gear for the same money or even less. I would not hesitate to invest more money, but the question is: What for and what will it be used?

The use of a tool sometimes comes up when it is available. But if someone has other opinions I am still open minded.

[nctnico]

Maybe you should rephrase the question: what capabilities are you looking for that the MicSig oscilloscope you have doesn't provide? From experience I know this kind of question (in general)  can be a very though one to find a clear answer for especially if you want to spend your money wisely.