TDS-1002b Any good? Comments?

[Anthony Fremont]

David L. Jones wrote:

On Feb 28, 11:48 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Looks like Agilent will give you
color for $1100, but Tek wants about $1270 for theirs. If you want
data out of the Agilent that will be more money too. It appears
that the feature set of the Tek is richer than the 3000 series
Agilent, but the Agilent claims 4K "points" vs. 2.5K on the Tek.
Spiffy stuff for sure.

The Goodwill GDS series are sold in the US under the Instek brand:
http://www.instek.com/GDS-806S.htm
US$755 RRP
US$659 on Froogle:
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=gds-806s&btnG=Search+Froogle&lmode=online&scoring=p

125K sample memory is excellent and blows the Tek away. 320x200
display is not excellent these days, same as my old TDS-210, however
the new Tek1002b is no better with it's 1/4 VGA screen.
USB is optional though, but RS232 and PC software is free.
You can get the 100MHz colour model Instek for a similar price to the
Tek1002b 60MHz mono.

For home use those I wouldn't spend the extra on colour, I'd spend it
on bandwidth instead.

Full Goodwill/Instek range is here:
http://www.goodwill.com.tw/product-e.asp?p1sn=4&p2sn=4

Looks like Instek has some new models out now with 1GSa/s to replace the
GDS-800 series. The GDS-2000(all color) series has a USB port in the front
for flash drive and one in the back for printing. Only a 3 year warranty
though, but the price is better than the Tek. It also has a TFT screen
which should look better in bright light if I'm not mistaken. The GDS-2102
is US$1165 ($1295 msrp) for 2-channel/color/100MHz/RS-232/USB
http://www.instek.com/scope.html
http://www.instek.com/GDS-2000.htm

What do you think?

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Anthony Fremont wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
On Feb 28, 11:48 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Looks like Agilent will give you
color for $1100, but Tek wants about $1270 for theirs. If you want
data out of the Agilent that will be more money too. It appears
that the feature set of the Tek is richer than the 3000 series
Agilent, but the Agilent claims 4K "points" vs. 2.5K on the Tek.
Spiffy stuff for sure.

The Goodwill GDS series are sold in the US under the Instek brand:
http://www.instek.com/GDS-806S.htm
US$755 RRP
US$659 on Froogle:
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=gds-806s&btnG=Search+Froogle&lmode=online&scoring=p

125K sample memory is excellent and blows the Tek away. 320x200
display is not excellent these days, same as my old TDS-210, however
the new Tek1002b is no better with it's 1/4 VGA screen.
USB is optional though, but RS232 and PC software is free.
You can get the 100MHz colour model Instek for a similar price to the
Tek1002b 60MHz mono.

For home use those I wouldn't spend the extra on colour, I'd spend it
on bandwidth instead.

Full Goodwill/Instek range is here:
http://www.goodwill.com.tw/product-e.asp?p1sn=4&p2sn=4

Looks like Instek has some new models out now with 1GSa/s to replace
the GDS-800 series. The GDS-2000(all color) series has a USB port in
the front for flash drive and one in the back for printing. Only a 3
year warranty though, but the price is better than the Tek. It also
has a TFT screen which should look better in bright light if I'm not
mistaken. The GDS-2102 is US$1165 ($1295 msrp) for
2-channel/color/100MHz/RS-232/USB http://www.instek.com/scope.html
http://www.instek.com/GDS-2000.htm

What do you think?

Now I'm checking out the Rigol stuff. Looks like the Rigol 1000 series is
about 5-6" deep like the Tek, but has only 400MSa/second, but does have 1M
(yes that's an M) points. They also claim a TFT display. The Rigol 5000
series is about a foot deep (like the Instek) but has 1GSa/second ability.
They don't specify the display type, so I assume that means that it's not
TFT. Looks to have the typical set of features, maybe a bit richer set than
the Tek? The DS1102C (100MHz/2-channel) is catching my fancy right now at
$999. The logic-analyzer (MSO?) version (DS1102CD) would really be nice,
but for the money, I think the Intronix LogicPort might be a better way to
go for that functionality.

Anyone else used a Rigol? Does anyone know if the 5000 series is newer than
the 1000 series? The biggest downside I see to the Rigol right now is
finding a distributor in the US. I only found these places:
http://www.testsolu.com/html/contact.php
http://www.ntecusa.com/sales/dsp_model.cfm?modelID=20795
Same pricing. Anyone dealt with either of them before?

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102 (100MHz/2-channel) or the
Rigol DS1102C.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:X_3Fh.2396$BE2.899@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

Nope, it look like EMI from a switcher or something like that in there. It
was pretty loud and messing up some analog circuitry on a breadboard. The
good old Tektronix 2465 did not do that at all.

We have some of the current Agilent DC power supplies that are digitally
controlled (wherein you set the regulated voltage/current using an encoder
knob, you can memorize settings, there's a GPIB interface, etc.), and it makes
several highly-visible birdies on a spectrum analyzer. :-( For RF boards I
still use the older HP "all linear" power supplies... which I find nicer to
use in the common case where you don't need to memorize 10 different settings.

---Joel

 

[Joerg]

Joel Kolstad wrote:

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:X_3Fh.2396$BE2.899@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

Nope, it look like EMI from a switcher or something like that in there. It
was pretty loud and messing up some analog circuitry on a breadboard. The
good old Tektronix 2465 did not do that at all.


We have some of the current Agilent DC power supplies that are digitally
controlled (wherein you set the regulated voltage/current using an encoder
knob, you can memorize settings, there's a GPIB interface, etc.), and it makes
several highly-visible birdies on a spectrum analyzer. :-( For RF boards I
still use the older HP "all linear" power supplies... which I find nicer to
use in the common case where you don't need to memorize 10 different settings.

One reason why this client of mine bought those "older" supplies on EBay
as well. They are clean. Monday I almost did the usual, trudging over to
the stationary room to get some C-cells I could solder in series when I
glanced at the lab supply. Ah, it's an old analog one, I don't need to
do the battery spiel here.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:39:02 +0000, John Devereux
<jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:54:45 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

AFAIR Spehro had checked out Atten's stuff. A lot of times the innards
are very similar among several brand names except that the Chinese
originals often come with those bonbon colored buttons.

I still prefer analog scopes. For noise and stuff nothing beats them.
Then only downside are the regular requests to turn the lights off which
doesn't exactly make me very popular at clients. But we find stuff where
digital scopes don't stand a chance. The other downside is that you
almost have to resort to EBay to obtain a really good scope because they
don't make them no more.

My favorite here in the lab: Ye olde 7000 series mainframe. It's like
driving a tank. Love it. Documenting stuff is another matter. The
digital camera results don't look too professional and the old Polaroid
method might not be environmentally sensitive enough these days. Plus I
always found that messy.


Dinasaur! I find that digital scopes are a lot more likely to find
infrequent events, and *save* then for you. Then you set the cursors,
walk down the hall, get your digital camera, and snap the
I-told-you-so masterpiece.

What's all this about a camera? You should be able to do a "screen
print" directly to a PNG graphics file.

It's a lot easier to just snap a pic. Plus, I can add a post-it on the
bezel to document the situation in the same pic. There's nothing worse
than having 10 different pictures and not remembering what they
represent.

John

 

[John Devereux]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:39:02 +0000, John Devereux
jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:54:45 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

AFAIR Spehro had checked out Atten's stuff. A lot of times the innards
are very similar among several brand names except that the Chinese
originals often come with those bonbon colored buttons.

I still prefer analog scopes. For noise and stuff nothing beats them.
Then only downside are the regular requests to turn the lights off which
doesn't exactly make me very popular at clients. But we find stuff where
digital scopes don't stand a chance. The other downside is that you
almost have to resort to EBay to obtain a really good scope because they
don't make them no more.

My favorite here in the lab: Ye olde 7000 series mainframe. It's like
driving a tank. Love it. Documenting stuff is another matter. The
digital camera results don't look too professional and the old Polaroid
method might not be environmentally sensitive enough these days. Plus I
always found that messy.


Dinasaur! I find that digital scopes are a lot more likely to find
infrequent events, and *save* then for you. Then you set the cursors,
walk down the hall, get your digital camera, and snap the
I-told-you-so masterpiece.

What's all this about a camera? You should be able to do a "screen
print" directly to a PNG graphics file.

It's a lot easier to just snap a pic. Plus, I can add a post-it on the
bezel to document the situation in the same pic. There's nothing worse
than having 10 different pictures and not remembering what they
represent.

I suppose this documentation system does then stay compatible with
ye olde aforementioned 7000 series...

--

John Devereux

 

[Steve Sousa]

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:12ub6g3cprnb950@news.supernews.com...

Anthony Fremont wrote:


Anyone else used a Rigol? Does anyone know if the 5000 series is
newer than the 1000 series? The biggest downside I see to the Rigol
right now is finding a distributor in the US. I only found these
places:
http://www.testsolu.com/html/contact.php
http://www.ntecusa.com/sales/dsp_model.cfm?modelID=20795
Same pricing. Anyone dealt with either of them before?

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102 (100MHz/2-channel)
or the Rigol DS1102C.

Have you seen the agilent/rigol Vs Tek review on the tek site? it might
be biased but it's worth a look, you'll be surprised.....


Best Regards

Steve Sousa

 

[Joerg]

John Devereux wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:


On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:39:02 +0000, John Devereux
jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:


John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:


On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:54:45 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


AFAIR Spehro had checked out Atten's stuff. A lot of times the innards
are very similar among several brand names except that the Chinese
originals often come with those bonbon colored buttons.

I still prefer analog scopes. For noise and stuff nothing beats them.
Then only downside are the regular requests to turn the lights off which
doesn't exactly make me very popular at clients. But we find stuff where
digital scopes don't stand a chance. The other downside is that you
almost have to resort to EBay to obtain a really good scope because they
don't make them no more.

My favorite here in the lab: Ye olde 7000 series mainframe. It's like
driving a tank. Love it. Documenting stuff is another matter. The
digital camera results don't look too professional and the old Polaroid
method might not be environmentally sensitive enough these days. Plus I
always found that messy.


Dinasaur! I find that digital scopes are a lot more likely to find
infrequent events, and *save* then for you. Then you set the cursors,
walk down the hall, get your digital camera, and snap the
I-told-you-so masterpiece.

What's all this about a camera? You should be able to do a "screen
print" directly to a PNG graphics file.

It's a lot easier to just snap a pic. Plus, I can add a post-it on the
bezel to document the situation in the same pic. There's nothing worse
than having 10 different pictures and not remembering what they
represent.


I suppose this documentation system does then stay compatible with
ye olde aforementioned 7000 series...

The 7000 series are mighty fine scopes. Some day when I have time and
find an old Polaroid enclosure I might build a digital camera setup that
you could simply hinge onto the screen bezel. Somehow those kinds of
pictures are more lively than the bland computer plots. Just like real
picture in a real movie versus that animated stuff that the kids watch.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:46 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

John Devereux wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:


On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:39:02 +0000, John Devereux
jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:


John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:


On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:54:45 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


AFAIR Spehro had checked out Atten's stuff. A lot of times the innards
are very similar among several brand names except that the Chinese
originals often come with those bonbon colored buttons.

I still prefer analog scopes. For noise and stuff nothing beats them.
Then only downside are the regular requests to turn the lights off which
doesn't exactly make me very popular at clients. But we find stuff where
digital scopes don't stand a chance. The other downside is that you
almost have to resort to EBay to obtain a really good scope because they
don't make them no more.

My favorite here in the lab: Ye olde 7000 series mainframe. It's like
driving a tank. Love it. Documenting stuff is another matter. The
digital camera results don't look too professional and the old Polaroid
method might not be environmentally sensitive enough these days. Plus I
always found that messy.


Dinasaur! I find that digital scopes are a lot more likely to find
infrequent events, and *save* then for you. Then you set the cursors,
walk down the hall, get your digital camera, and snap the
I-told-you-so masterpiece.

What's all this about a camera? You should be able to do a "screen
print" directly to a PNG graphics file.

It's a lot easier to just snap a pic. Plus, I can add a post-it on the
bezel to document the situation in the same pic. There's nothing worse
than having 10 different pictures and not remembering what they
represent.


I suppose this documentation system does then stay compatible with
ye olde aforementioned 7000 series...


The 7000 series are mighty fine scopes. Some day when I have time and
find an old Polaroid enclosure I might build a digital camera setup that
you could simply hinge onto the screen bezel. Somehow those kinds of
pictures are more lively than the bland computer plots. Just like real
picture in a real movie versus that animated stuff that the kids watch.

The Tek TPS2024 200 MHz digital scope is stunning. All four channels,
and the external trigger, are individually electrically isolated. And
battery power is standard, even more overkill. And it's a beautiful
ergonomic design.

Imagine clipping your probe ground lead onto a bus that's 200 volts
off ground, and looking at millivolt signals relative to that.


John

 

[David L. Jones]

On Mar 1, 1:04 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Anthony Fremont wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
On Feb 28, 11:48 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Looks like Agilent will give you
color for $1100, but Tek wants about $1270 for theirs. If you want
data out of the Agilent that will be more money too. It appears
that the feature set of the Tek is richer than the 3000 series
Agilent, but the Agilent claims 4K "points" vs. 2.5K on the Tek.
Spiffy stuff for sure.

The Goodwill GDS series are sold in the US under the Instek brand:
http://www.instek.com/GDS-806S.htm
US$755 RRP
US$659 on Froogle:
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=gds-806s&btnG=Search+Froogle&lmod...

125K sample memory is excellent and blows the Tek away. 320x200
display is not excellent these days, same as my old TDS-210, however
the new Tek1002b is no better with it's 1/4 VGA screen.
USB is optional though, but RS232 and PC software is free.
You can get the 100MHz colour model Instek for a similar price to the
Tek1002b 60MHz mono.

For home use those I wouldn't spend the extra on colour, I'd spend it
on bandwidth instead.

Full Goodwill/Instek range is here:
http://www.goodwill.com.tw/product-e.asp?p1sn=4&p2sn=4

Looks like Instek has some new models out now with 1GSa/s to replace
the GDS-800 series. The GDS-2000(all color) series has a USB port in
the front for flash drive and one in the back for printing. Only a 3
year warranty though, but the price is better than the Tek. It also
has a TFT screen which should look better in bright light if I'm not
mistaken. The GDS-2102 is US$1165 ($1295 msrp) for
2-channel/color/100MHz/RS-232/USBhttp://www.instek.com/scope.html
http://www.instek.com/GDS-2000.htm

What do you think?

Now I'm checking out the Rigol stuff. Looks like the Rigol 1000 series is
about 5-6" deep like the Tek, but has only 400MSa/second, but does have 1M
(yes that's an M) points. They also claim a TFT display. The Rigol 5000
series is about a foot deep (like the Instek) but has 1GSa/second ability.
They don't specify the display type, so I assume that means that it's not
TFT. Looks to have the typical set of features, maybe a bit richer set than
the Tek? The DS1102C (100MHz/2-channel) is catching my fancy right now at
$999. The logic-analyzer (MSO?) version (DS1102CD) would really be nice,
but for the money, I think the Intronix LogicPort might be a better way to
go for that functionality.

Anyone else used a Rigol? Does anyone know if the 5000 series is newer than
the 1000 series?

The 1000 mixed signal series is the newer series. The 5000 was their
first offering.
As mentioned in another post I have a Rigol 5102 in the lab, and
whilst I haven't used it much, it is not a bad scope. It has some very
nice features like digital filtering and masking, but you can't dump
the screen to USB key, but I think you can on the newer 1000 series?

The biggest downside I see to the Rigol right now is
finding a distributor in the US. I only found these places:http://www.testsolu.com/html/contact.phphttp://www.ntecusa.com/sales/dsp_model.cfm?modelID=20795
Same pricing. Anyone dealt with either of them before?

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102 (100MHz/2-channel) or the
Rigol DS1102C.

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough (just).

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped on
by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

Dave

 

[Anthony Fremont]

Steve Sousa wrote:

"Anthony Fremont" <spam-not@nowhere.com> wrote in message

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102 (100MHz/2-channel)
or the Rigol DS1102C.

Have you seen the agilent/rigol Vs Tek review on the tek site? it
might be biased but it's worth a look, you'll be surprised.....

Lemme see, a $3000 4 channel Tek compared with a $2000 2 channel Agilent
(that's really a $1000 Rigol in disguise), yep completely "fair and
balanced" on that count. ;-) I didn't notice Tek pointing out how the
Agilent can do almost twice the number of automatic calculations. ;-)

Examining the disclaimers, I'm of the opinion that some of their "facts" may
have been changed in later Agilent/Rigol firmware releases. Granted the Tek
has its advantages too. For example the Tek has an on-screen clock. That's
gotta help John keep his post-it photographs in order. (;-) Seriously, I'm
sure the Tek is a fine scope, it's just too rich for my blood.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

David L. Jones wrote:

On Mar 1, 1:04 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:

Now I'm checking out the Rigol stuff. Looks like the Rigol 1000
series is
about 5-6" deep like the Tek, but has only 400MSa/second, but does
have 1M (yes that's an M) points. They also claim a TFT display.
The Rigol 5000
series is about a foot deep (like the Instek) but has 1GSa/second
ability.
They don't specify the display type, so I assume that means that
it's not
TFT. Looks to have the typical set of features, maybe a bit richer
set than
the Tek? The DS1102C (100MHz/2-channel) is catching my fancy right
now at $999. The logic-analyzer (MSO?) version (DS1102CD) would
really be nice,
but for the money, I think the Intronix LogicPort might be a better
way to
go for that functionality.

Anyone else used a Rigol? Does anyone know if the 5000 series is
newer than
the 1000 series?

The 1000 mixed signal series is the newer series. The 5000 was their
first offering.

Ok, after I did some more looking I figured it out. I didn't figure they
would double the size of the case on a later model.

As mentioned in another post I have a Rigol 5102 in the lab, and
whilst I haven't used it much, it is not a bad scope. It has some very
nice features like digital filtering and masking, but you can't dump
the screen to USB key, but I think you can on the newer 1000 series?

It is my understanding that yes, you can dump to a memory stick plugged into
the front. There is a port in the back for a printer as well. What scope
do you primarily use?

The biggest downside I see to the Rigol right now is
finding a distributor in the US. I only found these
places:http://www.testsolu.com/html/contact.phphttp://www.ntecusa.com/sales/dsp_model.cfm?modelID=20795
Same pricing. Anyone dealt with either of them before?

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102
(100MHz/2-channel) or the
Rigol DS1102C.

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough (just).

I kinda wish it had a higher sample rate, but most of what I do is so far
removed from the upper bandwidth of the scope that I really don't think it
should be an issue. Since I've never used a DSO before, I don't have much
"feel" for all these numbers and their significance. I'm figuring it out
though. The comparisons on the TEK site are interesting and
informative, even if they might be tilting things just a wee bit.

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped on
by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

It might already be spent. ;-) Have you seen the Intronix LogicPort
analyzer, it looks way cool with built in datastream decoding for SPI, I2C,
serial ASCII and "more". 34 channels, should be more than enough for my
needs.

The Rigol DS1102CD (note the 'D' on the end) has a 16 port logic analyzer.
They want $500 for the option though. :-( The Intronix is less expensive
and more functional (excepting that you could set up complex triggers with
the analyzer built into the scope) Or do you think it would be wiser to go
with the integrated analyzer.
http://www.pctestinstruments.com/

There, I'm all set:

DMM: Extech MM-560
Oscilloscope: Rigol DS1102C
Logic Analyzer: Intronix LogicPort

Now all I need is about $1600 to pay for it all. Paypal donations accepted
;-)

 

[David L. Jones]

On Mar 1, 1:59 pm, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:04 am, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:
Now I'm checking out the Rigol stuff. Looks like the Rigol 1000
series is
about 5-6" deep like the Tek, but has only 400MSa/second, but does
have 1M (yes that's an M) points. They also claim a TFT display.
The Rigol 5000
series is about a foot deep (like the Instek) but has 1GSa/second
ability.
They don't specify the display type, so I assume that means that
it's not
TFT. Looks to have the typical set of features, maybe a bit richer
set than
the Tek? The DS1102C (100MHz/2-channel) is catching my fancy right
now at $999. The logic-analyzer (MSO?) version (DS1102CD) would
really be nice,
but for the money, I think the Intronix LogicPort might be a better
way to
go for that functionality.

Anyone else used a Rigol? Does anyone know if the 5000 series is
newer than
the 1000 series?

The 1000 mixed signal series is the newer series. The 5000 was their
first offering.

Ok, after I did some more looking I figured it out. I didn't figure they
would double the size of the case on a later model.

As mentioned in another post I have a Rigol 5102 in the lab, and
whilst I haven't used it much, it is not a bad scope. It has some very
nice features like digital filtering and masking, but you can't dump
the screen to USB key, but I think you can on the newer 1000 series?

It is my understanding that yes, you can dump to a memory stick plugged into
the front. There is a port in the back for a printer as well. What scope
do you primarily use?

My primary scope is an Agilent MSO6032A (mixed signal 300MHz), with an
older model Agilent 54621D mixed signal scope as the secondary. The
Rigol brings up the rear as a cheapie throw around scope. Had a Tek
3000 series as well, but it was lost in transit.

The biggest downside I see to the Rigol right now is
finding a distributor in the US. I only found these
places:http://www.testsolu.com/html/contact.phphttp://www.ntecusa.com/sales/...
Same pricing. Anyone dealt with either of them before?

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102
(100MHz/2-channel) or the
Rigol DS1102C.

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough (just).

I kinda wish it had a higher sample rate, but most of what I do is so far
removed from the upper bandwidth of the scope that I really don't think it
should be an issue. Since I've never used a DSO before, I don't have much
"feel" for all these numbers and their significance. I'm figuring it out
though. The comparisons on the TEK site are interesting and
informative, even if they might be tilting things just a wee bit.

Ideally you want the sample rate to be at least 10 times the
bandwidth, so you can get some half-decent waveform resolution at the
bandwidth limit. So for a 100MHz scope you want 1GS/s.
400MS/s for a 100MHz scope is still ok, at least you won't be aliasing
and you'll have a couple of points of detail at the full bandwidth.
But I'd rate the Rigol as only having a 40Mhz single shot bandwidth in
this case, compared with the 100MHz single shot bandwidth on a 1GS/s
unit. But this a reasonable trade-off when you get the massive extra
sample memory.

The GDS-800 series Goodwills are only 100MS/s for 100MHz bandwidth
which is next to useless, you'd have to use interleaved (repetitive)
sampling for anything over 20MHz or so.

The only other thing you need to know is that memory depth is just as
important as sample rate!
I do not know how I ever survived without a deep memory scope.

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped on
by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

It might already be spent. ;-) Have you seen the Intronix LogicPort
analyzer, it looks way cool with built in datastream decoding for SPI, I2C,
serial ASCII and "more". 34 channels, should be more than enough for my
needs.

The Rigol DS1102CD (note the 'D' on the end) has a 16 port logic analyzer.
They want $500 for the option though. :-( The Intronix is less expensive
and more functional (excepting that you could set up complex triggers with
the analyzer built into the scope) Or do you think it would be wiser to go
with the integrated analyzer.http://www.pctestinstruments.com/

I'm pro-mixed signal scopes, they are just so versatile, and you don't
need a PC to run it. But for home use a PC based logic analyser might
be a good compromise, there are at least half a dozen good USB logic
analysers on the market. Whichever one you get, make sure it has an
external trigger input/output so you can connected it to the scope.

Now all I need is about $1600 to pay for it all. Paypal donations accepted

Does the wife know about this?

Dave

 

[Anthony Fremont]

David L. Jones wrote:

On Mar 1, 1:59 pm, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:

It is my understanding that yes, you can dump to a memory stick
plugged into the front. There is a port in the back for a printer
as well. What scope do you primarily use?

My primary scope is an Agilent MSO6032A (mixed signal 300MHz), with an

OMG, is that ever sweet! No wonder you don't mess with Rigol much.

older model Agilent 54621D mixed signal scope as the secondary. The
Rigol brings up the rear as a cheapie throw around scope. Had a Tek
3000 series as well, but it was lost in transit.

Lost in transit...hmm...

The biggest downside I see to the Rigol right now is
finding a distributor in the US. I only found these
places:http://www.testsolu.com/html/contact.phphttp://www.ntecusa.com/sales/...
Same pricing. Anyone dealt with either of them before?

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102
(100MHz/2-channel) or the
Rigol DS1102C.

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough
(just).

I kinda wish it had a higher sample rate, but most of what I do is
so far removed from the upper bandwidth of the scope that I really
don't think it should be an issue. Since I've never used a DSO
before, I don't have much "feel" for all these numbers and their
significance. I'm figuring it out though. The comparisons on
the TEK site are interesting and informative, even if they might be
tilting things just a wee bit.

Ideally you want the sample rate to be at least 10 times the
bandwidth, so you can get some half-decent waveform resolution at the
bandwidth limit. So for a 100MHz scope you want 1GS/s.

That sounds like a reasonable rule of thumb.

400MS/s for a 100MHz scope is still ok, at least you won't be aliasing
and you'll have a couple of points of detail at the full bandwidth.
But I'd rate the Rigol as only having a 40Mhz single shot bandwidth in
this case, compared with the 100MHz single shot bandwidth on a 1GS/s
unit. But this a reasonable trade-off when you get the massive extra
sample memory.

Sounds like you really go for the deep memory. I assume the scope captures
even when it's not triggering so that you can go back and look at the events
preceding the trigger. Is that right?

The GDS-800 series Goodwills are only 100MS/s for 100MHz bandwidth
which is next to useless, you'd have to use interleaved (repetitive)
sampling for anything over 20MHz or so.

They have some new scopes that do 1GS/s that are replacing the 8xx scopes.
Still _only_ 25K points though.
http://www.instek.com/GDS-2000.htm

The only other thing you need to know is that memory depth is just as
important as sample rate!
I do not know how I ever survived without a deep memory scope.

Yep, you like the big memory. ;-)

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped
on by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

It might already be spent. ;-) Have you seen the Intronix LogicPort
analyzer, it looks way cool with built in datastream decoding for
SPI, I2C, serial ASCII and "more". 34 channels, should be more than
enough for my needs.

The Rigol DS1102CD (note the 'D' on the end) has a 16 port logic
analyzer. They want $500 for the option though. :-( The Intronix
is less expensive and more functional (excepting that you could set
up complex triggers with the analyzer built into the scope) Or do
you think it would be wiser to go with the integrated
analyzer.http://www.pctestinstruments.com/

I'm pro-mixed signal scopes, they are just so versatile, and you don't
need a PC to run it. But for home use a PC based logic analyser might
be a good compromise, there are at least half a dozen good USB logic
analysers on the market. Whichever one you get, make sure it has an
external trigger input/output so you can connected it to the scope.

I can't find anything stating that the LogicPort has a trigger out. It
samples real fast, so maybe they think you don't need a scope with it. It
doesn't have a real deep buffer (2K x 34 pins), but should be fine for most
things I can think of doing with it. I can't imagine needing 34 pins.

Now all I need is about $1600 to pay for it all. Paypal donations
accepted

Does the wife know about this?

Shhh she doesn't do USENET. ;-)

 

[doug]

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough (just).

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped on
by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

Dave

I am curious about why the deep memory is so important to you. This
comes up because I have only had a very small number of times where
more than the 2k or so on the Tek would have made a difffernce. I do
fpga design, general digital design, rf design, if design and low
noise low frequency work. I cannot remember ever being unhappy that
I did not have a meg of channel memory.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Mar 1, 4:43 pm, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:

David L. Jones wrote:
On Mar 1, 1:59 pm, "Anthony Fremont" <spam-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
It is my understanding that yes, you can dump to a memory stick
plugged into the front. There is a port in the back for a printer
as well. What scope do you primarily use?

My primary scope is an Agilent MSO6032A (mixed signal 300MHz), with an

OMG, is that ever sweet! No wonder you don't mess with Rigol much.

older model Agilent 54621D mixed signal scope as the secondary. The
Rigol brings up the rear as a cheapie throw around scope. Had a Tek
3000 series as well, but it was lost in transit.

Lost in transit...hmm...



The biggest downside I see to the Rigol right now is
finding a distributor in the US. I only found these
places:http://www.testsolu.com/html/contact.phphttp://www.ntecusa.com/sales/...
Same pricing. Anyone dealt with either of them before?

Looks like it's coming down to the Instek GDS-2102
(100MHz/2-channel) or the
Rigol DS1102C.

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough
(just).

I kinda wish it had a higher sample rate, but most of what I do is
so far removed from the upper bandwidth of the scope that I really
don't think it should be an issue. Since I've never used a DSO
before, I don't have much "feel" for all these numbers and their
significance. I'm figuring it out though. The comparisons on
the TEK site are interesting and informative, even if they might be
tilting things just a wee bit.

Ideally you want the sample rate to be at least 10 times the
bandwidth, so you can get some half-decent waveform resolution at the
bandwidth limit. So for a 100MHz scope you want 1GS/s.

That sounds like a reasonable rule of thumb.

400MS/s for a 100MHz scope is still ok, at least you won't be aliasing
and you'll have a couple of points of detail at the full bandwidth.
But I'd rate the Rigol as only having a 40Mhz single shot bandwidth in
this case, compared with the 100MHz single shot bandwidth on a 1GS/s
unit. But this a reasonable trade-off when you get the massive extra
sample memory.

Sounds like you really go for the deep memory. I assume the scope captures
even when it's not triggering so that you can go back and look at the events
preceding the trigger. Is that right?

Correct.
All DSO's will default to having the trigger point at half way in the
buffer, so you get 50% pre-trigger info and 50% post-trigger info. But
you can set it to 100% pre or post data, or anywhere in between.

The GDS-800 series Goodwills are only 100MS/s for 100MHz bandwidth
which is next to useless, you'd have to use interleaved (repetitive)
sampling for anything over 20MHz or so.

They have some new scopes that do 1GS/s that are replacing the 8xx scopes.
Still _only_ 25K points though.http://www.instek.com/GDS-2000.htm

25K points is still very very useful.

The only other thing you need to know is that memory depth is just as
important as sample rate!
I do not know how I ever survived without a deep memory scope.

Yep, you like the big memory. ;-)

You will too one day, trust me!

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped
on by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

It might already be spent. ;-) Have you seen the Intronix LogicPort
analyzer, it looks way cool with built in datastream decoding for
SPI, I2C, serial ASCII and "more". 34 channels, should be more than
enough for my needs.

The Rigol DS1102CD (note the 'D' on the end) has a 16 port logic
analyzer. They want $500 for the option though. :-( The Intronix
is less expensive and more functional (excepting that you could set
up complex triggers with the analyzer built into the scope) Or do
you think it would be wiser to go with the integrated
analyzer.http://www.pctestinstruments.com/

I'm pro-mixed signal scopes, they are just so versatile, and you don't
need a PC to run it. But for home use a PC based logic analyser might
be a good compromise, there are at least half a dozen good USB logic
analysers on the market. Whichever one you get, make sure it has an
external trigger input/output so you can connected it to the scope.

I can't find anything stating that the LogicPort has a trigger out. It
samples real fast, so maybe they think you don't need a scope with it. It
doesn't have a real deep buffer (2K x 34 pins), but should be fine for most
things I can think of doing with it. I can't imagine needing 34 pins.

The 2K memory is pretty aweful these days, most USB analysers have a
lot more - shop around.
Deep memory is particually important for digital design.

Now all I need is about $1600 to pay for it all. Paypal donations
accepted

Does the wife know about this?

Shhh she doesn't do USENET. ;-)

Or know about that secret PayPal account huh? ;-)

Dave

 

[David L. Jones]

On Mar 1, 7:52 pm, doug <doug@doug> wrote:

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough (just).

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped on
by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

Dave

I am curious about why the deep memory is so important to you. This
comes up because I have only had a very small number of times where
more than the 2k or so on the Tek would have made a difffernce. I do
fpga design, general digital design, rf design, if design and low
noise low frequency work. I cannot remember ever being unhappy that
I did not have a meg of channel memory.

It's not just me, it's almost anyone who uses a DSO, hence the trend
to larger memories in even the cheapest of DSO's.

I can't believe you have never needed more than 2K of memory in
digital design, that is one area where a large memory is essential,
but it you've never had it then you just won't know, you make do with
what you've got.

With a scope with only 2K of memory you can only get say 10 cycles on
screen and zoom in to see detail (200 points) in each cycle. With a
large memory you can turn the timebase right down and capture 5000
cycles yet still zoom in with the same resolution on any cycle. So you
can for instance see low frequency modulation on a signal, and then
zoom in to see any high frequency glitches in any one of the thousands
of cycles.

In digital design a large buffer lets you capture massive amounts of
data and zoom in with full detail on say any byte in a 1000 character
serial data stream.

For instance, last week I was debugging a GPS NMEA simulator design,
and I had to capture several entire NMEA data strings (about 30
characters of RS232 data each) and be able to analyse each bit.
Totally impossible with a scope with only 2KB of memory.

Another example from just today, I have been tracking down a digital
bug in a third party product that only occurs once every few days or
so at best. Data packets get sent once every ms, with a 2MHz data
clock, and I want to be able to capture many of these packets, yet I
also want to see fine detail in any one of those packets, and I only
get ONE shot at it every couple of days. No problem on the large
memory scope, simply set it to a slow timebase, it triggers capturing
a large amount of packets and then I can spend hours post analysing
every packet in detail.

Everyone in the company (and another company who shares our space)
comes to borrow my scope all the time because the big memory is just
so useful.

Once you have the capability you will never want to go back.

Dave

 

[Tony Williams]

In article <12uctqk96g14v21@corp.supernews.com>,
doug <doug@doug> wrote:

I am curious about why the deep memory is so important to you.
This comes up because I have only had a very small number of
times where more than the 2k or so on the Tek would have made a
difffernce. I do fpga design, general digital design, rf design,
if design and low noise low frequency work. I cannot remember
ever being unhappy that I did not have a meg of channel memory.

I have a TDS 1012 and find it a little inconvenient
not being able to scroll along (say) an ARINC429
32-bit comms transmission at a reasonable resolution
on each bit.

--
Tony Williams.

 

[bungalow_steve@yahoo.com]

On Mar 1, 3:52 am, doug <doug@doug> wrote:

No contest, the 1M sample memory (512K/channel) of the Rigol wins
hands down. The lower 400MS/s sample rate is still high enough (just).

The Instek beats the Tek with it's 25K memory, but both get crapped on
by the Rigol.
You can do sooooo much more with that extra memory, you won't ever
regret it.

Dave

I am curious about why the deep memory is so important to you. This
comes up because I have only had a very small number of times where
more than the 2k or so on the Tek would have made a difffernce. I do
fpga design, general digital design, rf design, if design and low
noise low frequency work. I cannot remember ever being unhappy that
I did not have a meg of channel memory.

I use the 2K Teks but we have the 20 Meg Lecroy models at work at our
EMI testing area, the Lecroy's are almost to the point where you don't
need a trigger anymore, just press the single shot button and zoom in.
Probably once or twice a year I really need the 20 Meg, mainly to
capture independent glitches that occur over a long time period or
capturing a serial bus data. Otherwise, I really don't need the
Lecroy but they are a huge productivity improvement and a joy to use.

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:46 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


John Devereux wrote:


John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:



On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:39:02 +0000, John Devereux
jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:



John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:



On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 20:54:45 GMT, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:



AFAIR Spehro had checked out Atten's stuff. A lot of times the innards
are very similar among several brand names except that the Chinese
originals often come with those bonbon colored buttons.

I still prefer analog scopes. For noise and stuff nothing beats them.
Then only downside are the regular requests to turn the lights off which
doesn't exactly make me very popular at clients. But we find stuff where
digital scopes don't stand a chance. The other downside is that you
almost have to resort to EBay to obtain a really good scope because they
don't make them no more.

My favorite here in the lab: Ye olde 7000 series mainframe. It's like
driving a tank. Love it. Documenting stuff is another matter. The
digital camera results don't look too professional and the old Polaroid
method might not be environmentally sensitive enough these days. Plus I
always found that messy.


Dinasaur! I find that digital scopes are a lot more likely to find
infrequent events, and *save* then for you. Then you set the cursors,
walk down the hall, get your digital camera, and snap the
I-told-you-so masterpiece.

What's all this about a camera? You should be able to do a "screen
print" directly to a PNG graphics file.

It's a lot easier to just snap a pic. Plus, I can add a post-it on the
bezel to document the situation in the same pic. There's nothing worse
than having 10 different pictures and not remembering what they
represent.


I suppose this documentation system does then stay compatible with
ye olde aforementioned 7000 series...


The 7000 series are mighty fine scopes. Some day when I have time and
find an old Polaroid enclosure I might build a digital camera setup that
you could simply hinge onto the screen bezel. Somehow those kinds of
pictures are more lively than the bland computer plots. Just like real
picture in a real movie versus that animated stuff that the kids watch.


The Tek TPS2024 200 MHz digital scope is stunning. All four channels,
and the external trigger, are individually electrically isolated. And
battery power is standard, even more overkill. And it's a beautiful
ergonomic design.

Imagine clipping your probe ground lead onto a bus that's 200 volts
off ground, and looking at millivolt signals relative to that.

That's really nice. No more probe cables getting hot and letting of that
plastics stench. AFAIR they are around $3k, sounds like a pretty good value.

I have nothing against digital scopes as long as their true sample rate
is high enough. And as long as they don't spew EMI around, which many of
them unfortunately do.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com