<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
One *could* buy the cheapest, 50MHz of the Rigol DS1000Z series
scopes: 4 channel, simple "analog trace simulation", 1GSa/s
(shared),<br>
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.<br>
The Rigol DS1054Z is currently at about 400,- USD.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 03.06.2016 um 19:31 schrieb Bruno Afonso:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> 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
> <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rburnett@richieburnett.co.uk">rburnett@richieburnett.co.uk</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rburnett@richieburnett.co.uk"><mailto:rburnett@richieburnett.co.uk></a>>
> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl">Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl"><mailto:Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl></a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy">http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Synth-diy mailing
> list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl">Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy">http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</a></span><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>