The right choice of digital oscilloscope

[Arnen]

Hey.

I would like to ask for the correct selection of the digital oscilloscope. As a student, I was offered an offer from one German company to the oscilloscope Siglent 1202X-E (200 MHz, 2channel) at a price of 350 euros including VAT and transport.
Do you think it's a good choice for the price? Is this the best for the money? Or is it possible to obtain the same/lower price offer from other companies on a better oscilloscope? I would like to use it for my home DIY projects. Which companies provide lower prices for students?


Thank you for your help.

[dcbrown73]

Get mark, get set, GO!

EDIT:  Excuse me Arnen.  My comment isn't directed at you.  It's at what's coming!

[Mortymore]

With VAT and shipping included, seems a good price, and I believe a good scope option also.

https://www.siglent.eu/sds1202x-e.html

EDIT: Just in case I might be misunderstood, the link provided is just for comparison, and to let you know that the €350 are a good price compared to regular market price, as far as I know.

[tautech]

With VAT and shipping included, seems a good price, and I believe a good scope option also.

https://www.siglent.eu/sds1202x-e.html

Reseller like me ! ^^^
Hamburg site:
https://www.siglenteu.com/digital-oscilloscopes/sds1000x-e-series-super-phosphor-oscilloscopes/

Welcome Arnen
Fine choice as a starter DSO and also my best seller.

[rsjsouza]

That is highly dependent on the type of development/use you are giving your oscilloscope.

Many threads around here discuss this similar scenario. I would definitely search for the part number of the oscilloscope (SDS1202X-E). You will find that many opinions about this particular model will converge to it being mainly suitable for analog circuit debugging AND limited digital serial debugging due to the presence of two channels. You will also see other suggestions for four channel oscilloscopes as being more suitable for digital serial debugging while having twice the analog circuit debugging capabilities when compared to the two channel version. You will spin your head around many conversations to land on the fact that the perfect oscilloscope does not exist, your usage will be the most decisive factor in your search and how small is the difference between a two and a four channel oscilloscope, especially when compared to the lifetime of the product.

Other factors are: your first oscilloscope is not the last; oscilloscopes don't lose too much value and can be resold; the more you use your current oscilloscope, the more you will find its limitations and (perhaps) see the need to get something more suitable.

Other keywords: DS1054Z, SDS1104X-E, Rigol, Siglent, FFT,

[2N3055]

That is highly dependent on the type of development/use you are giving your oscilloscope.

Many threads around here discuss this similar scenario. I would definitely search for the part number of the oscilloscope (SDS1202X-E). You will find that many opinions about this particular model will converge to it being mainly suitable for analog circuit debugging AND limited digital serial debugging due to the presence of two channels. You will also see other suggestions for four channel oscilloscopes as being more suitable for digital serial debugging while having twice the analog circuit debugging capabilities when compared to the two channel version. You will spin your head around many conversations to land on the fact that the perfect oscilloscope does not exist, your usage will be the most decisive factor in your search and how small is the difference between a two and a four channel oscilloscope, especially when compared to the lifetime of the product.

Other factors are: your first oscilloscope is not the last; oscilloscopes don't lose too much value and can be resold; the more you use your current oscilloscope, the more you will find its limitations and (perhaps) see the need to get something more suitable.

Other keywords: DS1054Z, SDS1104X-E, Rigol, Siglent, FFT,

Bulls eye! Well said, Rafael.

[uargo]

great oscilloscope, incredible price

[Fungus]

Hey.

I would like to ask for the correct selection of the digital oscilloscope. As a student, I was offered an offer from one German company to the oscilloscope Siglent 1202X-E (200 MHz, 2channel) at a price of 350 euros including VAT and transport.
Do you think it's a good choice for the price?

It's a very cheap price for that model.

Or is it possible to obtain the same/lower price offer from other companies on a better oscilloscope? I would like to use it for my home DIY projects. Which companies provide lower prices for students?

How do you define "better"?

We don't know what you intend to use it for. You don't say what you're studying.

The big problem with that model is that it's only two channels. If you're working with anything digital then you should really get four channels.

[Fungus]

Other keywords: DS1054Z, SDS1104X-E, Rigol, Siglent, FFT,

Why "FFT"?

And why not GW-Instek 1054B?

[rsjsouza]

Other keywords: DS1054Z, SDS1104X-E, Rigol, Siglent, FFT,

Why "FFT"?

And why not GW-Instek 1054B?

FFT: thoroughly mentioned as the main differentiator between the two most popular four channel contenders. Also, an intensive and useful analysis tool for users in analog and educational markets.
GW-Instek 1054B: usually the two other search terms are followed by the mention of this one as well. Not being present in many markets and lacking protocol decoders (apart from an unsupported hack), tends to lag in comparison to the other two. A decent scope nonetheless.

[Fungus]

FFT: thoroughly mentioned as the main differentiator between the two most popular four channel contenders.

Yea, but a lot of people never need/use it. eg. Me.

GW-Instek 1054B: usually the two other search terms are followed by the mention of this one as well. Not being present in many markets cand lacking protocol decoders (apart from an unsupported hack)

Is there such a thing as a "supported hack"?

[rsjsouza]

GW-Instek 1054B: usually the two other search terms are followed by the mention of this one as well. Not being present in many markets cand lacking protocol decoders (apart from an unsupported hack)

Is there such a thing as a "supported hack"?

What I meant was: when the manufacturer explicitly offers the upgrade as a paid option, there is reason to believe they tested/validated the functionality with the HW platform. In the particular case of GDS-1000B series from GW Instek, they don't offer this at all. This could configure itself as a completely untested hack, thus the risk is higher of damaging and/or having a lesser product if the feature is important to you.

All in all, the search terms are completely arbitrary but tied to the gist of discussions around according to my experience.

[nctnico]

GW-Instek 1054B: usually the two other search terms are followed by the mention of this one as well. Not being present in many markets cand lacking protocol decoders (apart from an unsupported hack)

Is there such a thing as a "supported hack"?

What I meant was: when the manufacturer explicitly offers the upgrade as a paid option, there is reason to believe they tested/validated the functionality with the HW platform. In the particular case of GDS-1000B series from GW Instek, they don't offer this at all. This could configure itself as a completely untested hack, thus the risk is higher of damaging and/or having a lesser product if the feature is important to you.

That is a bit of an overstatement. The decoding in the GDS-1000B series is a pure software feature. GW Instek basically uses the same firmware on a broad range of oscilloscopes. Depending on the model some features are enabled / disabled.

[Fungus]

That is a bit of an overstatement. The decoding in the GDS-1000B series is a pure software feature. GW Instek basically uses the same firmware on a broad range of oscilloscopes. Depending on the model some features are enabled / disabled.

The first sales brochures for the GDS-1000B mentioned serial decoding (see line 9 on page 2 of this) so I'm guessing it was marketing that pulled this feature, not engineering.

[2N3055]

FFT: thoroughly mentioned as the main differentiator between the two most popular four channel contenders.

Yea, but a lot of people never need/use it. eg. Me.

You should. It is very useful to find signals that you're not able to see just by looking at the waveform. That is why RF people's primary tool is spectrum analyser not oscilloscope. 1% harmonic distortion is not visible on a sine-wave on a scope, but clearly visible in FFT...
Same goes with looking at noise on power bus etc etc... Figuring out whether interference is random noise or some periodic signal being injected from somewhere goes a long way in finding a problem.

[rsjsouza]

That is a bit of an overstatement. The decoding in the GDS-1000B series is a pure software feature. GW Instek basically uses the same firmware on a broad range of oscilloscopes. Depending on the model some features are enabled / disabled.

The first sales brochures for the GDS-1000B mentioned serial decoding (see line 9 on page 2 of this) so I'm guessing it was marketing that pulled this feature, not engineering.

We can only speculate, but I guess this was a leftover for an untested feature.

In embedded, anything can happen and rarely something is a "pure software feature". I have seen threads go haywire and cause a race condition that caused "at least" a freeze, requiring a system restart. I am pretty sure you all have seen this as well.

All in all, this is not to discount the GDS as an option, but I personally find it too risky to advertise it as a valid feature for a new user or a cash strapped one.

[2N3055]

That is a bit of an overstatement. The decoding in the GDS-1000B series is a pure software feature. GW Instek basically uses the same firmware on a broad range of oscilloscopes. Depending on the model some features are enabled / disabled.

The first sales brochures for the GDS-1000B mentioned serial decoding (see line 9 on page 2 of this) so I'm guessing it was marketing that pulled this feature, not engineering.

We can only speculate, but I guess this was a leftover for an untested feature.

In embedded, anything can happen and rarely something is a "pure software feature". I have seen threads go haywire and cause a race condition that caused "at least" a freeze, requiring a system restart. I am pretty sure you all have seen this as well.

All in all, this is not to discount the GDS as an option, but I personally find it too risky to advertise it as a valid feature for a new user or a cash strapped one.

I agree. GDS 1000B is clearly superior scope to Rigol DS1000Z, but it is not compared to SDS1104X-E. And Siglent comes with everything unlocked (100MHz, all decodes and triggers, and has FRA capability) out of the box. For an average person that is reason enough. You just buy it and it simply works and all fully legal.. That means something too.

[nctnico]

That is a bit of an overstatement. The decoding in the GDS-1000B series is a pure software feature. GW Instek basically uses the same firmware on a broad range of oscilloscopes. Depending on the model some features are enabled / disabled.

The first sales brochures for the GDS-1000B mentioned serial decoding (see line 9 on page 2 of this) so I'm guessing it was marketing that pulled this feature, not engineering.

We can only speculate, but I guess this was a leftover for an untested feature.

No. There is one firmware for an entire range of scopes. It is not an untested feature. It was probably left out in order not to eat too much away from the more expensive models with a bigger display OR make the device more simple for the educational market. I'm 100% sure decoding works just fine on the GDS-1054B.

[rsjsouza]

That is a bit of an overstatement. The decoding in the GDS-1000B series is a pure software feature. GW Instek basically uses the same firmware on a broad range of oscilloscopes. Depending on the model some features are enabled / disabled.

The first sales brochures for the GDS-1000B mentioned serial decoding (see line 9 on page 2 of this) so I'm guessing it was marketing that pulled this feature, not engineering.

We can only speculate, but I guess this was a leftover for an untested feature.

No. There is one firmware for an entire range of scopes. It is not an untested feature. It was probably left out in order not to eat too much away from the more expensive models with a bigger display OR make the device more simple for the educational market. I'm 100% sure decoding works just fine on the GDS-1054B.

The fact there is one firmware for an entire range of different platforms tells nothing new about reliability in running on the GDS1000 platform. Unless you work at Instek or is privy to internal information regarding versions and tests done on the GDS1000, you can't tell with 100% certainty. Oh well... As I said before, we can only speculate.

[Fungus]

I agree. GDS 1000B is clearly superior scope to Rigol DS1000Z, but it is not compared to SDS1104X-E.

I would dispute that final part. The user interface of the GDS 1000B is clearly much faster/nicer to use than the Siglent. Separate channel controls, proper push-button for menu selections, much smoother UI response overall.

[Fungus]

No. There is one firmware for an entire range of scopes. It is not an untested feature. It was probably left out in order not to eat too much away from the more expensive models with a bigger display OR make the device more simple for the educational market. I'm 100% sure decoding works just fine on the GDS-1054B.

The fact there is one firmware for an entire range of different platforms tells nothing new about reliability in running on the GDS1000 platform. Unless you work at Instek or is privy to internal information regarding versions and tests done on the GDS1000, you can't tell with 100% certainty. Oh well... As I said before, we can only speculate.

You know there's people out there that use it on a daily basis, right?

[2N3055]

I agree. GDS 1000B is clearly superior scope to Rigol DS1000Z, but it is not compared to SDS1104X-E.

I would dispute that final part. The user interface of the GDS 1000B is clearly much faster/nicer to use than the Siglent. Separate channel controls, proper push-button for menu selections, much smoother UI response overall.

No,  that is just your subjective opinion. I use and tried different scopes with both individual controls per channel and common single one and couldn't care less. Once you learn the movements, they become automatic.. I don't even miss buttons much on Pico that has no buttons at all.. But that's me, I generally simply learn how is something used instead of expecting for everything to be made how ( I think) "it should be".. 
I understand you see things differently.

[tautech]

2 weeks ago Fungus was pushing the 54Z that also has has a multiplexed vertical control like the X-E Siglents, last week it was Keysight, this week GW Instek so what will it be next week ? ? 

[maginnovision]

Maybe he likes to play devils advocate so people get different opinions. Personally I think people get too hung up on interface for new users. No matter what they'll have to learn it so might as well recommend what's more and more common(shared controls). If the best seemingly best choice for the user has independent controls then that's fine too.

[nctnico]

That is a bit of an overstatement. The decoding in the GDS-1000B series is a pure software feature. GW Instek basically uses the same firmware on a broad range of oscilloscopes. Depending on the model some features are enabled / disabled.

The first sales brochures for the GDS-1000B mentioned serial decoding (see line 9 on page 2 of this) so I'm guessing it was marketing that pulled this feature, not engineering.

We can only speculate, but I guess this was a leftover for an untested feature.

No. There is one firmware for an entire range of scopes. It is not an untested feature. It was probably left out in order not to eat too much away from the more expensive models with a bigger display OR make the device more simple for the educational market. I'm 100% sure decoding works just fine on the GDS-1054B.

The fact there is one firmware for an entire range of different platforms tells nothing new about reliability in running on the GDS1000 platform.

And all these scopes run on the same hardware platform too.  Do your homework before making assumptions. You are  trying to grasp straws which aren't there.