[sdiy] Oscilloscope on a Budget 200

[MTG]

I'm happy with my Rigol DS1102E. Missed out on the hack though as I 
bought mine before that was figured out.

GB

On 6/3/2016 11:29 AM, sleepy_dog at gmx.de wrote:
>
> One *could* buy the cheapest, 50MHz of the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes:
> 4 channel, simple "analog trace simulation", 1GSa/s (shared),
> and *if* one has no moral qualms about that, find out how to "hack"
> (keygen, easy) it to the 100MHz version with all the bells and whistles:
> extra trigger modes, protocol decoding and what not.
> The Rigol DS1054Z is currently at about 400,- USD.
> Rigol seems to have established themselves as a (the) Chinese quality
> manufacturer of measurement gear. I would not by a long shot equate that
> to all the other Chinese gear out there. Look at the teardowns at YT /
> eevblog.
>
> Steve
>
>
> Am 03.06.2016 um 19:31 schrieb Bruno Afonso:
>> We recently got a MSOX2024A (agilent) and they even included all > possible software add-ons, it was a promo they were running end of >
> last year. I still have to test the MSO part of it but it's >
> feature-packed for an entry level oscilloscope. Everything seemed >
> better compared to the tektronix models. I'm no expert in >
> oscilloscopes but even for my simple electronics work it has a bunch >
> of useful features that our older TDS2024 does not have. > > I asked the
> EEs around here and it basically comes down to what you > know and
> trust. A lot of people like the high end tektronix > oscilloscopes,
> which is not relevant to this discussion. The appeal > of these USB
> oscilloscopes is high but at the end of the day, nothing > beats some
> dials and a built-in screen. But if you're on a budget... > > > > On
> Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:34 AM Richie Burnett >
> <rburnett at richieburnett.co.uk <mailto:rburnett at richieburnett.co.uk>> >
> wrote: > >>> Some of the cheap Chinese copycat models will quite happily
> show >>> you a 20MHz signal as a 1kHz signal if you have the timebase
> set >>> to 100us/div. That really confuses students (>.<) > >> and if it
> doesn’t confuse the user at least she or he loses time >> when ruling
> out artifacts. > > *Exactly*  It ultimately comes down to a question of
> how much your > time is worth?  If you're doing hobby stuff for fun and
> have plenty > of time to learn about aliasing and artefacts then by all
> means get > something cheap and get cracking.  But if you are running a
> business > with products to get out the door and deadlines to meet, (or
> have > very limited hobby time but a bit of spare cash,) then it's worth
>> buying the best that you can afford. > >> I’m not looking for
> something cheap but rather affordable (seeing >> that as an investment).
>> > What do you class as affordable? > >> I remember Tim Stinchcombe
> bringing his TDS 210 to Cambridge, which >> is not a handheld but a lot
> more portable. > > The TDS210 is nice, but quite old now.  You can
> probably pick up > later Tek TDS1000  and TDS2000 series units
> second-hand now, and they > are more capable scopes. > >>> Conversely
> the likes of Agilent and Tektronics either show a nice >>> shaded smudge
> of HF, or filter it out completely, but never >>> undersampled. > >>
> What would you prefer? Filtering? > > I am a fan of HP / Agilent or
> whatever they're calling themselves > this week. > > I've got a DSO6034A
> on my bench which I think is excellent even > though it's nearly ten
> years old now.  It's quite a high spec but I > do a lot of work at MHz
> frequencies, and it is essential to my > livelihood.  Models with less
> channels and less bandwidth will be > cheaper, and can probably even be
> picked up second-hand now too.  (In > the ten years that I've had it,
> I've only encountered one tiny bug in > the firmware, where it very
> occasionally powers up with the 50-ohm > termination enabled on one of
> the channels, and you have to unplug > the probe and reconnect it for
> the termination to switch off!) > > A few years ago I compared Agilent's
> current offerings with Tektronix > in the same price range, and felt
> that Agilent had the edge in three > areas: > > 1. More responsive user
> interface.  The Tek user interface at the > time felt under-powered and
> laggy.  Not so much of a problem for a > newbie finding their way
> around, but frustrating for anyone who knows > their way around a scope
> and makes quick adjustments to controls, if > the display takes a while
> to catch up. > > 2. More features built-in for the price.  The Agilent
> scope had most > maths features like FFT built-in, where they cost extra
> money for the > same features on the equivalent Tek models.  (These days
> even the > cheap Chinese models usually have the maths features
> built-in!) > > 3. Better anti-alias filtering and more intuitive display
> of > "difficult waveforms".  Things like looking for runt pulses or >
> corrupted data that only happens every once in a while. > > These days
> the swing might be back towards Tek or even LeCroy might > have a more
> budget offering? > > -Richie, > >
> _______________________________________________ Synth-diy mailing > list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl > <mailto:Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl> >
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy > > > >
> _______________________________________________ Synth-diy mailing > list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl >
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>