Which oscilloscope for hobbyist?

[gojimmypi]

Hello!

I know I'm not the first to ask "which oscilloscope"... but here's my story:

I’ve been researching a good oscilloscope to buy. My last one was a hand-me-down Tektronix, so massive that it had two handles.  (and you really needed to grab with both hands!)

I have plenty of experience with "real" oscilloscopes, although none with what would be considered modern technology, and certainly no experience with a USB device.

My background is in electronic engineering – at one time industrial process controls and monitoring systems, although professionally these days I’m purely a software engineer.  In my spare time I enjoy learning and experimenting with Raspberry Pi, Arduino, MSP430, Bus Pirate and various other electronic gizmos.

I’m looking for a good hobby-grade oscilloscope, and perhaps even a logic analyzer included or separate. I know that many online comments seem to indicate that USB oscilloscopes should be avoided. But I wonder how many of the authors of those comments are serious professionals with requirements well beyond what I would need?

So here’s what I am looking at (in no particular order):

Link Instruments MSO-19 http://shop1.usbdso.com/MSO-19-MSO-19.htm

Analog Arts SL917 http://www.analogarts.com/selection-guid/oscilloscope-with-arbitrary-waveform-generator-and-logic-analyzer/sl917-100-mhz-oscilloscope-10-mhz-awg-100-mhz-logic-analyzer

QuantAsylum QA101 https://www.quantasylum.com/content/Products/QA101.aspx

BitScope http://www.bitscope.com/product/BS10/

Saleae Logic 8 https://www.saleae.com/

and of course:

Rigol DS1054Z (DS1074Z Plus?) http://www.rigol.com/prodserv/250/

For a “real” oscilloscope, it seems the Rigol is the hands down winner. Also the most expensive of the above list;  Also the most portable.

I'm wiling to pay for a good solution, but I'm fairly certain I don't need a $1000+ setup to use occasionally at home. It also doesn't need to be portable.

For the specifics listed above:

I only recently stumbled upon the Analog Arts; looks cool, but not a lot of other comments found online.

The QuantAsylum I have been looking at for quite some time, but the QA101 still seems to be not yet ready for actual sale.

BitScope. People seem to either love it or hate it.

Saleae. Seems cool. American made.

Any feedback, comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

gojimmypi

[Howardlong]

Of all of those, the DS1054Z in its altered state has to be the overall winner in my book.

The Bitscope is a bitshite mostly down to the software. Hardware's well built though.

The Saleae is over ratd in my opinion, there is very limited triggering capability, and you need the much more expensive pro models for reasonable sample rate.

I don't know about the other models other than a quick glance, but I'd be confident in saying that if you had a DS1054Z and any of the others, the only one that would be sitting on your bench after a week would be the Rigol.

[gojimmypi]

thanks for your comments.

"bitshite" - that's funny; I learned a new term.

is it the annoyance of having to fire up a PC that makes USB 'scopes so unappealing?

could you clarify "altered state" with regards to the DS1054Z ?

[nbritton]

I know that many online comments seem to indicate that USB oscilloscopes should be avoided. But I wonder how many of the authors of those comments are serious professionals with requirements well beyond what I would need?

The root problem with USB devices is that a general purpose desktop environment is very cumbersome with a complex instrument like an oscilloscope. It's awkward and time consuming when compared to simple knobs and buttons. It becomes very tedious to click on hundreds of different things to control your instrument, imagine what it would be like to point, click, select from drop down box, re-point, click, select from drop down box, re-point, click, select from drop down box, etc. hundreds of times and you can begin to get a feel for the problem. The second problem is the lag, on my Analog Discovery it feels like it takes over 100ms from the time I click on something for that action to take effect, it also lags at updating the screen. I love my Analog Discovery, but I wouldn't use it as my main instrument.

So here’s what I am looking at (in no particular order):

Link Instruments MSO-19 http://shop1.usbdso.com/MSO-19-MSO-19.htm

Strong no. It is limited to a single shot sample rate of 200 MSa/s. This will limit you to a usable bandwidth of about 40 MHz (200 MS / 5 = 40 MHz). If you choose to go with a USB instrument make sure it uses USB 3.0 at a minimum.

Analog Arts SL917 http://www.analogarts.com/selection-guid/oscilloscope-with-arbitrary-waveform-generator-and-logic-analyzer/sl917-100-mhz-oscilloscope-10-mhz-awg-100-mhz-logic-analyzer

Strong no, limited to a single shot sample rate of 100 MSa/s. Disregard bandwidth, single shot sample rate is king when it comes to digital oscilloscopes. For every MHz bandwidth you need preferably a minimum of five times the sample rate to faithfully reproduce a waveform. i.e. 100 MHz bandwidth requires 500 MSa/s. The more samples you have the better, for instance, I bought a 4 GSa/s (4000 MSa/s) scope. You need extra sampling to prevent aliasing.

QuantAsylum QA101 https://www.quantasylum.com/content/Products/QA101.aspx

Strong no. Again, the problem is it's limited to 200 MSa/s. You would need a USB 3.0 interface to get higher sampling rates.

BitScope http://www.bitscope.com/product/BS10/

Strong no. Yet again, the problem is it's limited to 100 MSa/s. Without the sample rate to support it, the 100 MHz bandwidth rating they claim is essentially a lie. Nyquist requires an absolute minimum of 200 MSa/s with a sin(x)/x interpolation algorithm to reproduce a 100 MHz signal, anything less and you will be aliasing. I can not over stress how important it is that you have a high single shot sample rate. sub-sampling/equivalent time sampling are NOT the same thing as single shot/continuous sampling.

Saleae Logic 8 https://www.saleae.com/

It would make a mediocre logic analyzer, but as an oscilloscope it's pure crap. The analog side is limited to 10 MSa/s! Hell no. As an LA, you would need the Pro version to get good results.

and of course:

Rigol DS1054Z (DS1074Z Plus?) http://www.rigol.com/prodserv/250/

This is the only product you've listed that has an acceptable sample rate. If these are your only choices the Rigol is the clear winner.

For a “real” oscilloscope, it seems the Rigol is the hands down winner. Also the most expensive of the above list;  Also the most portable.

I'm wiling to pay for a good solution, but I'm fairly certain I don't need a $1000+ setup to use occasionally at home. It also doesn't need to be portable.

About a month ago I was in the same boat you are in, and yesterday I ended up plopping down $2594 for a Rigol MSO4014. This was the minimum that I felt was necessary to do this hobby justice. I evaluated the Rigol MSO/DS1000Z and honestly I thought it felt like a toy, but it may work for your needs. I also evaluated the Rigol MSO/DS2000 and this would have been perfect, if only it had 4 channels. I don't think you want to spend what I did, so what I would recommend for you is the Rigol MSO2072A, right now this scope is selling for $929.25 over at www.tequipment.net with a special 25% off code. PM me and I can send you the code. If you don't have a signal generator the MSO2072A-S might be a better option for you. I highly recommend the Rigol's because that is what the community knows, everyone flocked around them because nearly all of them are hackable to higher bandwidths. For instance, the MSO4014 that I bought can be hacked to 500 MHz, on a western made Keysight 500 MHz would cost you $14k, so the Rigols offer extremely good value for the money... exactly what a hobbyist wants.

The following Rigol models are all 25% off right now at tequitment:

DS1074Z-S
DS1102D
DS2072A-S
DS2102A-S
DS2202A
DS2202A-S
DS2302A-S
DS4012
DS4034
DS4054
DS6062
MSO2072A
MSO2072A-S
MSO2101A
MSO2102A
MSO2302A
MSO2302A-S
MSO4014

[FlyingHacker]

Stick with a CRT and get a Tek 2232 Dso. Wonderful scope.

If need bells and whistles, and scopes that wipe your a$$ then maybe the Rigol. Otherwise I would stick with an old school scope.

[CustomEngineerer]

Stick with a CRT and get a Tek 2232 Dso. Wonderful scope.

If need bells and whistles, and scopes that wipe your a$$ then maybe the Rigol. Otherwise I would stick with an old school scope.

I've got a Rigol and I've never been able to get it to wipe my ass, though the probe hooks are wonderful for picking dingleberries. Any idea how much Rigol sells the wiper upgrade for? If the Rigol rep would have mentioned that I would have definitely preferred to have that option over the AWG.

I have plenty of experience with "real" oscilloscopes, although none with what would be considered modern technology, and certainly no experience with a USB device.

My background is in electronic engineering – at one time industrial process controls and monitoring systems, although professionally these days I’m purely a software engineer.  In my spare time I enjoy learning and experimenting with Raspberry Pi, Arduino, MSP430, Bus Pirate and various other electronic gizmos.

I’m looking for a good hobby-grade oscilloscope, and perhaps even a logic analyzer included or separate. I know that many online comments seem to indicate that USB oscilloscopes should be avoided. But I wonder how many of the authors of those comments are serious professionals with requirements well beyond what I would need?

It really depends what you are wanting to do with it. I think a little more details about what exactly you are wanting it to do would help people make a suggestion. In addition to asking I would also suggest looking through a couple of other threads on this subject to really get as much info as you can before you decide to spend your money.

I know at least a couple of the usb scope manufacturers (for sure picoscope) have demo's of the software that comes with their instrument that you can download for free to get a feel of what using it would be like. The quality of the software has always been one of the biggest complaints I've heard about the usb scopes/LAs. After trying a couple software demos is when I decided that I really wasn't interested in a usb scope.

Also, if you do end up deciding to get a USB scope, getting one with USB3 is a good idea, but when I was researching them around a year ago most of the ones that had 3 charged a premium for it and some didn't even take advantage of it.

edit: The usb logic analyzers seem to get recommended more than the usb scopes. I've very rarely seen someone actually recommend getting a usb scope on this forum.

[TheSteve]

I'm not a big Rigol fan but several friends who wanted a scope for hobby purposes have bought the Rigol DS1054z, done the free 30 second mod to up the bandwidth to 100 MHz and add the advanced features and all are very happy. I have one as well and an very impressed for the price. You'll even get a discount for being an eevblog member if you buy from tequipment.net
There are many choices but for the price point it's going to be very tough to beat the 1054

[nowlan]

Stay safe with the herd. The rigol is best bang for buck.
4 channels lets you deal with SPI bus, since you seem to be into digital/microcontrollers.

The problem with USB devices is driver support if you upgrade your OS etc.

[EEVblog]

I don't know about the other models other than a quick glance, but I'd be confident in saying that if you had a DS1054Z and any of the others, the only one that would be sitting on your bench after a week would be the Rigol.

Yep, I'd bet that way too.

[gojimmypi]

First, thanks for all the great responses, particularly since I'm not the first to ask the "which oscilloscope" question. 

Stick with a CRT and get a Tek 2232 Dso. Wonderful scope.

yes, the scope I used at work a bunch of years ago was a Tek and the 2232 looks like a similarly priced one  as compared to the Rigol (but used?), and wow... 15 years old. surely things have evolved since then, and the Rigol has twice the number of inputs. Still, hard to go wrong with a Tek, eh?

http://www.tek.com/datasheet/2232-digital-and-analog-oscillscope

The root problem with USB devices is that a general purpose desktop environment is very cumbersome with a complex instrument like an oscilloscope. It's awkward and time consuming when compared to simple knobs and buttons. It becomes very tedious to click on hundreds of different things to control your instrument, imagine what it would be like to point, click, select from drop down box, re-point, click, select from drop down box, re-point, click, select from drop down box, etc. hundreds of times and you can begin to get a feel for the problem.

yes, that's exactly the explanation I was looking for. Dave's video clearly demonstrates the cumbersome interface. That's the kind of thing one never really understands until experiencing it first hand (or seeing someone else). Thanks for the comment.
 

The second problem is the lag, on my Analog Discovery it feels like it takes over 100ms from the time I click on something for that action to take effect, it also lags at updating the screen. I love my Analog Discovery, but I wouldn't use it as my main instrument.

I am so glad you mentioned this! I was looking at the Analog Discovery device some time ago, and had forgotten about it. Dave has an awesome video on this:
https://youtu.be/Aymumu3mYl8

I thought it was cool when reading online, but after watching Dave's video, I think I'm sold on this!

what I would recommend for you is the Rigol MSO2072A, right now this scope is selling for $929.25 over at www.tequipment.net with a special 25% off code.

Thanks for this suggestion. After your comment, I looked very seriously at one of the higher-end Rigols. I'm not sure I want to spend that much, not to mention Dave has a compelling argument to not get the MSO:
https://youtu.be/MC9_4mpqVgU

If you don't have a signal generator the MSO2072A-S might be a better option for you.

This was another great suggestion. The signal generator I have (one-of-a-kind, that I custom built years ago and packed away in the garage), is probably not a great piece of equipment in today's world. So I looked really hard at the Rigol's with the built in signal generator and/or the MSO feature.

Dave made a really good point about how 16 channel logic analyzers today are not needed as much as a couple of decades ago (like when I was getting my degree; the only place I've ever used a logic analyzer was in school); As Dave pointed out: Not a lot of equipment designed these days is full of separate, discrete chips... do I really need that many channels? so I'm thinking the 3 or 4 channels on the Rigol should do for most occasions, and the Analog Discovery for occasional tinkering with more channels.

So in the end, I'm thinking the awesome-price Rigol DS1054Z as my go-to scope, plus the Analog Discovery device for the occasional signal generation and logic analyzer. What do you think?

[usagi]

i've done the cheapy scope thing before, they are all too compromised and usability blows.

finally got a rigol DS1054Z and never looked back.

[Muxr]

Yeah it's not even close really. Rigol's DS1054z changes the game at that price point. 1Gs/s 4ch scope at less than $400 is a steal.

[mtdoc]

So in the end, I'm thinking the awesome-price Rigol DS1054Z as my go-to scope, plus the Analog Discovery device for the occasional signal generation and logic analyzer. What do you think?

That's a great combination for a budget hobbyist lab.

[nbritton]

The Analog Discovery is a steal if you can get it at the academic pricing. For students they throw in a $65 Analog Parts Kit for free, and for $10 they will also bundle a copy of MultiSim Student Edition. That's $384 worth of gear for $169.

You don't need to be enrolled in a class to get the academic pricing, all you need is an academic email address... what Digilent told me verbatim is: "If there is no specific class requiring this purchase, you can just put "none" in the academic verification field that asks for it."

[nbritton]

For 99% of the time, a 100MHz scope (hacked Rigol 1054Z) and a simple logic analyzer such as Analog Discovery will work just fine.

The truth is you might be able to get by with 100 MHz, but the problem is your measurements won't be accurate. You have to remember that a bandwidth specification is measured to -3dB, so by the time you get to 100 MHz your signal amplitude is already 30% off. Another thing you need to remember is that a square wave is the infinite fourier series summation of the fundamental frequency and all of its odd harmonics, so this means to accurately display a square wave on your screen, from a pragmatic standpoint, you need to capture at least the 3rd, 5th, and 7th harmonics. Furthermore, you'll be aliasing harmonics above the sampling rate, which could possibly give you a false impression. Thus in theory a 100 MHz scope is only accurate up to about 10 MHz on square waves.

[Fungus]

I know that many online comments seem to indicate that USB oscilloscopes should be avoided.

They are correct.

Main reasons:
a) A mouse is the wrong interface for an oscilloscope (how many musicians play on-screen instruments with a mouse?)
b) Requiring a PC always on your workbench is a pain in the ass
c) The supplied software will be awful. Good software costs a lot of money to write, cost-cutting 'scopes don't have it.

You can get them with good software and that don't cut corners with the electronics, but... they cost more than a DS1054Z and you're still stuck with point (a).

Saleae. Seems cool. American made.

And ... useless as an oscilloscope. It doesn't even have a real time view mode to see what you're looking at.

Rigol DS1054Z (DS1074Z Plus?) http://www.rigol.com/prodserv/250/

Winner!

PS: Ignore the "A scope is useless without at least 1GHz bandwith!" and "analogue scopes were good enough for my father, they're good enough for you!" crowd.

So in the end, I'm thinking the awesome-price Rigol DS1054Z as my go-to scope, plus the Analog Discovery device for the occasional signal generation and logic analyzer. What do you think?

Analog Discovery is a great gadget for experimenting and learning stuff.

[CustomEngineerer]

what I would recommend for you is the Rigol MSO2072A, right now this scope is selling for $929.25 over at www.tequipment.net with a special 25% off code.

Thanks for this suggestion. After your comment, I looked very seriously at one of the higher-end Rigols. I'm not sure I want to spend that much, not to mention Dave has a compelling argument to not get the MSO:

If you don't have a signal generator the MSO2072A-S might be a better option for you.

This was another great suggestion. The signal generator I have (one-of-a-kind, that I custom built years ago and packed away in the garage), is probably not a great piece of equipment in today's world. So I looked really hard at the Rigol's with the built in signal generator and/or the MSO feature.

The general consensus seems to be avoiding the higher end Rigol gear (specifically DS4000 & DS6000). I don't have experience with them so can't say for sure, but they seem to be consider a buggy toy for the money you have to spend on them. The DS1000Z & DS2000A series scopes seem to be so popular is because they are decent hardware (for the price), easily hackable, and cheap. While the DS1000Z & DS2000A are just as buggy as the DS4000 ($2300 - $6500) & DS6000 ($5900 - $9600) because don't cost near as much, $300 - $1000 the bugs don't seem to be as big of a deal.

I also wouldn't recommend getting the Rigol builtin signal generator unless you don't have the space for a standalone unit. I bought the DS2072A-S with the builtin signal generator and have regretted not putting the extra $300 it cost towards a decent standalone AWG. The interface is clunky to use while also trying use the oscilloscope to measure a signal. The specs aren't that great, it doesn't do sweeps and its annoying to have to plug into the generator connectors on the back of the scope. While it is probably better than an older home built generator, considering what you can get for around the same price it just isn't worth it except for very specific use cases (no bench space, need all-in-one portable unit, probably a few others). Don't get me wrong, I really do enjoy the DS2072A scope, just not the builtin signal generator.

Edited to remove link to Dave's MSO video

[nbritton]

I've used both 1Gsps 100MHz owon sds7102 and 1Gsps 100MHz owon vds3102 for years, and they have no problems probing 20MHz SPI data bus at all.

Right, because most of the time digital is only concerned with the signal being high or low, any low bandwidth scope can do that. However, to really see exactly what your circuit is doing you need a higher bandwidth scope.

[tautech]

I also wouldn't recommend getting the Rigol builtin signal generator unless you don't have the space for a standalone unit. I bought the DS2072A-S with the builtin signal generator and have regretted not putting the extra $300 it cost towards a decent standalone AWG. The interface is clunky to use while also trying use the oscilloscope to measure a signal. The specs aren't that great, it doesn't do sweeps and its annoying to have to plug into the generator connectors on the back of the scope. While it is probably better than an older home built generator, considering what you can get for around the same price it just isn't worth it except for very specific use cases (no bench space, need all-in-one portable unit, probably a few others). Don't get me wrong, I really do enjoy the DS2072A scope, just not the builtin signal generator.

Would you have a different view if the AWG BNC was on the front panel?

[nbritton]

The general consensus seems to be avoiding the higher end Rigol gear (specifically DS4000 & DS6000). I don't have experience with them so can't say for sure, but they seem to be consider a buggy toy for the money you have to spend on them. The DS1000Z & DS2000A series scopes seem to be so popular is because they are decent hardware (for the price), easily hackable, and cheap. While the DS1000Z & DS2000A are just as buggy as the DS4000 ($2300 - $6500) & DS6000 ($5900 - $9600) because don't cost near as much, $300 - $1000 the bugs don't seem to be as big of a deal.

I agree with that. It's not that the higher end Rigols are worse, it's just that people pay more for them so they expect more from them. I myself am worried that my new DS4000 won't meet my expectations, because for me $2594 is a lot of money. The annuitization for this scope is $22 a month for the next ten years, so for that price it better deliver.

I also wouldn't recommend getting the Rigol builtin signal generator unless you don't have the space for a standalone unit. I bought the DS2072A-S with the builtin signal generator and have regretted not putting the extra $300 it cost towards a decent standalone AWG. The interface is clunky to use while also trying use the oscilloscope to measure a signal. The specs aren't that great, it doesn't do sweeps and its annoying to have to plug into the generator connectors on the back of the scope. While it is probably better than an older home built generator, considering what you can get for around the same price it just isn't worth it except for very specific use cases (no bench space, need all-in-one portable unit, probably a few others). Don't get me wrong, I really do enjoy the DS2072A scope, just not the builtin signal generator.

I totally agree with this, the built-in signal generator is mediocre at best when compared to stand alone AWGs. You would be better off taking the money you would spend for a -S model and putting that, plus a little extra money, towards a Siglent SDG2042X. It pains me to say that because I don't like Siglent gear on a matter of principle because they produce really shitty software, but in terms of price/performance I think the SDG2000X is going to be the new benchmark to beat.

[nbritton]

The entire test apparatus was set based on an Analog Discovery and through hole resistors, no EMI care was taken at all.

The Analog Discovery is not a 5 MHz scope, the reality is its frond end is capable of upwards of 50 MHz @ -3dB. In practice though its 125 MSa/s sampling rate limits it's usable bandwidth to 25 MHz. It basically says this in page 16 of its technical reference manual:

For both scales and both channels, the 0.5dB bandwidth is 10MHz (5MHz@0.1dB).
You can see from the plots, that this circuit exceeded the requirements for 5MHz of bandwidth, and the -3dB point is more than 20MHz. However, since many students who will be using the Analog Discovery don’t understand the concept of “-3dB” is the “bandwidth” of an instrument, and that a 1V input signal with -3dB applied will measure 0.707V, it was felt from a marketing standpoint to specify the bandwidth of the analog inputs as less than -0.5dB as the “bandwidth”. This ensures that when connecting a 10MHz signal on a traditional instrument (with much higher bandwidth), and the Analog Discovery, the measurements will be very similar, and lead to less confusion.

https://www.digilentinc.com/Data/Products/ANALOG-DISCOVERY/Discovery_TRM_RevB_1.pdf

[CustomEngineerer]

I also wouldn't recommend getting the Rigol builtin signal generator unless you don't have the space for a standalone unit. I bought the DS2072A-S with the builtin signal generator and have regretted not putting the extra $300 it cost towards a decent standalone AWG. The interface is clunky to use while also trying use the oscilloscope to measure a signal. The specs aren't that great, it doesn't do sweeps and its annoying to have to plug into the generator connectors on the back of the scope. While it is probably better than an older home built generator, considering what you can get for around the same price it just isn't worth it except for very specific use cases (no bench space, need all-in-one portable unit, probably a few others). Don't get me wrong, I really do enjoy the DS2072A scope, just not the builtin signal generator.

Would you have a different view if the AWG BNC was on the front panel?

No, its an annoyance having the connectors on the back but I have worked around it. My biggest problem with the builtin is that for around the same price I could have gotten a decent bench AWG, followed closely by how annoying it is to try and adjust the generated signal while also trying to capture the signal. I also have needed a sweep function a couple of times recently that pretty much all the bench units around that price seem to have. I have been looking at standalone AWG's recently mainly because of this and have come pretty close to pulling the trigger on one a couple of times. Honestly if Rigol just added a sweep signal (linear and logarithmic) I probably wouldn't be looking for a standalone for now (still wouldn't crazy about the builtin, but would probably be good enough for what I need). Though not even sure if thats something that could be done in a firmware upgrade anyways, so not like I am expecting it.

[CustomEngineerer]

The general consensus seems to be avoiding the higher end Rigol gear (specifically DS4000 & DS6000). I don't have experience with them so can't say for sure, but they seem to be consider a buggy toy for the money you have to spend on them. The DS1000Z & DS2000A series scopes seem to be so popular is because they are decent hardware (for the price), easily hackable, and cheap. While the DS1000Z & DS2000A are just as buggy as the DS4000 ($2300 - $6500) & DS6000 ($5900 - $9600) because don't cost near as much, $300 - $1000 the bugs don't seem to be as big of a deal.

I agree with that. It's not that the higher end Rigols are worse, it's just that people pay more for them so they expect more from them. I myself am worried that my new DS4000 won't meet my expectations, because for me $2594 is a lot of money. The annuitization for this scope is $22 a month for the next ten years, so for that price it better fucking deliver.

Agreed. When I was looking at the DS2072A, I really tried my best to justify the cost of the DS4000 because I really wanted the 4 channels. Kind of funny, the main thing that kept me from doing it was the extra $300 for the extra 2 channels. Then I go and end up spending the extra $300 for the sig gen in the DS2072A-S. This was a little before the DS1000Z's came out or I probably would have gone that route, but I am glad that I got the 2072.

I also wouldn't recommend getting the Rigol builtin signal generator unless you don't have the space for a standalone unit. I bought the DS2072A-S with the builtin signal generator and have regretted not putting the extra $300 it cost towards a decent standalone AWG. The interface is clunky to use while also trying use the oscilloscope to measure a signal. The specs aren't that great, it doesn't do sweeps and its annoying to have to plug into the generator connectors on the back of the scope. While it is probably better than an older home built generator, considering what you can get for around the same price it just isn't worth it except for very specific use cases (no bench space, need all-in-one portable unit, probably a few others). Don't get me wrong, I really do enjoy the DS2072A scope, just not the builtin signal generator.

I totally agree with this, the built-in signal generator is mediocre at best when compared to stand alone AWGs. You would be better off taking the money you would spend for a -S model and putting that, plus a little extra money, towards a Siglent SDG2042X. It pains me to say that because I don't like Siglent gear on a matter of principle because they produce really shitty software, but in terms of price/performance I think the SDG2000X is going to be the new benchmark to beat.

I feel the same way as long as Siglent doesn't totally screw up the firmware (which seems to be a fairly good possibility that they will).

[nbritton]

The entire test apparatus was set based on an Analog Discovery and through hole resistors, no EMI care was taken at all.

The Analog Discovery is not a 5 MHz scope, the reality is its frond end is capable of upwards of 50 MHz @ -3dB. In practice though its 125 MSa/s sampling rate limits it's usable bandwidth to 25 MHz. It basically says this in page 16 of its technical reference manual:

For both scales and both channels, the 0.5dB bandwidth is 10MHz (5MHz@0.1dB).
You can see from the plots, that this circuit exceeded the requirements for 5MHz of bandwidth, and the -3dB point is more than 20MHz. However, since many students who will be using the Analog Discovery don’t understand the concept of “-3dB” is the “bandwidth” of an instrument, and that a 1V input signal with -3dB applied will measure 0.707V, it was felt from a marketing standpoint to specify the bandwidth of the analog inputs as less than -0.5dB as the “bandwidth”. This ensures that when connecting a 10MHz signal on a traditional instrument (with much higher bandwidth), and the Analog Discovery, the measurements will be very similar, and lead to less confusion.

https://www.digilentinc.com/Data/Products/ANALOG-DISCOVERY/Discovery_TRM_RevB_1.pdf

So I tested OWON VDS3102L with absolute shittiest front end, let's scale up the frequency, 20MHz square wave at 100MHZ BW, 1Gsps. Still, no signal integrity care at all.

Duty cycle is 40% because Analog Discovery won't do 50% at 20MHz. BTW, to decrease system BW, I used a non branded 60MHz passive x10 probe.

Added: Colin, the chip whisperer guy, made a video on a 350MHz PicoScope measuring 1GHz at 5Gsps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIj8W1_xG-s.

That square wave looks piss poor in my opinion. The edges are all rounded because at 20 MHz the OWON, or the Analog Discovery, isn't able to fully display/capture the 7th harmonic. Do a 3 MHz signal from the Analog Discovery and measure it on you best scope.

[Howardlong]

So in the end, I'm thinking the awesome-price Rigol DS1054Z as my go-to scope, plus the Analog Discovery device for the occasional signal generation and logic analyzer. What do you think?

That's a great combination for a budget hobbyist lab.

Totally agreed. While the AD has its limitations, it is a sound piece of test gear in its own right and will cover off your AWG requirement and most LA requirements you might have. The limitation of the LA is mostly down to limited memory and to a lesser extent it only has basic triggering options and the sample rate is limited to 100MSa/s, which may or may not be a problem depending on what you're doing. For the vast majority of hobby stuff, I'd say it's not going to be a problem. The software's pretty good too, nice and responsive and reasonably intuitive.

If you're unable to make the academic pricing, for some reason Microchip Direct has had it priced less than most other outlets in the past, currently $219 vs $279.

Regarding the AWG on the DS1000Z-S, as an AWG for my purposes it ain't half bad, but having the connectors on the back as well as having to battle through the scope menus to get at it isn't perfect. If I used an AWG every day it would drive my nuts. You can do sweeping of sorts setting a channel on FM while modulating it with a triangle but it's not a perfect solution. I ran pigtails from the back to avoid having to access the rear of the scope all the time. I found that it's a compromise at the end of the day, but mostly about usability than functionality.