Choosing an Instek Scope

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
C

chip_mk

Member
Joined 2005
#1
I’ve done many DIY electronic in the past, most of it an audio projects. Digital multi-meter was the only instrument I used. Now I consider buying an Oscilloscope and need advice to choose between two affordable Instek models available on the local market.

The first is a digital 50MHz scope GDS-1052. It’s cheaper, lighter and more compact. But it’s digital.

The other is an analog 50MHz scope GOS-6051. It’s more sensitive and has other advantages attributed to analog scopes. On the downside it’s about 50% higher price, weights more than double and is bulkier.

What shall I chose? Is the “digital toy” sufficient for the needs of advanced DIY or analog is a must?
 
#2
The GDS-1052 has only 4k Memory Length per Channel...this is a limitation.
Study up on DSO especially this feature.
DSO are very useful with USB connection enabling capture of waveforms.
The inbuilt math functions are very useful also.

Dan.
 
#3
Max Headroom said:
The GDS-1052 has only 4k Memory Length per Channel...this is a limitation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice Dan. So in your opinion 1052U is generally suitable for the intended use? I’m trying to understand what’s the practical meaning of this 4k limitation? Does it mean there is no way to capture continuous sequence >4k samples, and can this limitation be somehow mitigated by external storage (e.g. a thumbdrive in the front USB port)?
 
#4
More memory length allows recording/capturing of a longer period signal, and then zoom and scroll at higher effective horizontal resolution.
This capture function is the beauty of DSO's.
Analog scope does give finer display vertical resolution, and is essential for some work.
For most audio work, the DSO is a better choice.
Storage of waveform screenshots, measurement cursors, and math functions are icing on the cake.
The Rigol 1052E scope is very popular, and hackable to increase bandwidth to 100MHz and to perform hi res spectrum analysis.
EE blog has information.

What are the prices of the GW scopes you mention ?.

Dan.
 
#9
Max Headroom said:
More memory length allows recording/capturing of a longer period signal, and then zoom and scroll at higher effective horizontal resolution.
This capture function is the beauty of DSO's.
Analog scope does give finer display vertical resolution, and is essential for some work.
For most audio work, the DSO is a better choice.
Storage of waveform screenshots, measurement cursors, and math functions are icing on the cake.
The Rigol 1052E scope is very popular, and hackable to increase bandwidth to 100MHz and to perform hi res spectrum analysis.
EE blog has information.

What are the prices of the GW scopes you mention ?.

Dan.
Click to expand...

In general the Rigol DS1054Z has replaced the DS1052E for all but by far the most budget constrained. It is 10x the scope the DS1052E is and it is ALSO fully hackable.

What you get with both:
  • 100Mhz (after hacking)
  • 1GS/s



What you gain with the DS1054Z over the DS1052E:
  • 4 channels instead of 2
  • Larger Higher resolution display (7" 800x400 versus 5.7" 320x240)
  • Analog-like digital phosphor display
  • 30,000 waveforms per second update rate versus 2000 waveforms per second (this reduced blind time dramatically)
  • 24MPts (after hacking) of memory versus 1Mpt
  • Serial decoding of RS232, SPI and I2C (after hacking)
  • Extensive additional trigger types including triggerin on decode (after hacking). Honestly there are so many ways to trigger it's difficult to discuss them all.

As you can see, for not MUCH more money you gain a HUGE amount of capabilities in your scope. Just the 4 channels and the digital phosphor display are enough to justify the upgrade.
 
#11
PedroDaGr8 said:
waveforms per second update rate
Click to expand...

As long no one can hack and gain benefits from this parameter, the better Oscilloscopes are not in danger. 😀

Even the tweaks about making an oscilloscope to operate in higher bandwidth, they are pointless to budget range.
True challenge in 2015 is pulses and not plain sine waves, this translate that you need fast CPU and memory plus reliable engineers as product designers.

RIGOL asking too much as price tag, by not having invest at product support as others did.
In the last five years, they did not improve at all, neither assist any one about offering a single spare part to him.
Today GW Instek is the only one who has spare parts, but even so when some one buying EOL equipment, he does that by his own responsibility.
 
Last edited:
#13
Max Headroom said:
my experience is pre digital though.
Click to expand...

I have no such experience, but since 2013 they decide to lead in the market of medium priced professional grade Oscilloscopes.
They kicked Agilent which wanted three times more for their X3000, when their X2000 was nothing amazing.

GDS2000A series has so much performance which will never feel as not enough even at the hardest benchmark, this is pulsing power supply at 200 KHz.
While this seems as low frequency because pulses has no stability, the Oscilloscope it must be that fast to review or measure 100 or more pulses at the same time, and even to record and the ones who are described a ghost signals or glitches.

This requiring tremendous CPU power power, and similes to PC multitasking.
Capturing pulses by this latest gear is like fishing in the sea by having 80000 hooks in a single line of rope.
There is no chance to fail at getting a fish if there is one.
 
Last edited:
#18
Forget the Rigol 1052E, the 1054Z has superseded it. I'll second gazzagazza's advice.

I own a DS1074Z-S and I like it very much. Some measurements I posted in another thread managed to impress people with more experience than I.

Basically, the DS1000Z-series are all the same scope (though -S models have the optional hardware installed for the 2 channel arbitrary waveform generator). The "lesser" models are software-crippled to lower bandwidth, but they are quite easy to hack to a full options DS1104Z including the 100 MHz bandwidth.

The quality and the hackability is why the DS1054Z is so immensely popular (and the money, of course).
 
#19
AndrewT said:
What about scope probes?
100MHz?
or faster, or slower?
10x only, or 1X+10X switchable, or both?
Click to expand...

Scope probes bandwidth is of interest of people doing RF work.
FM Radio & TV transmitters.

1X+10X switchable is common base today, and only voltage limits will lead some one like me, so to get an 100X probe.

There is many relative topics here.
Bench-top Oscilloscope

Generally speaking the smartest think when buying probes is them to have spare parts about replacing their fragile tip.
My GDS-2102A came with quality probes from PINTEK Taiwan, those have spare parts.
Then shopped an X100 also by PINTEK, and shopped also one PINTEK spare parts kit for oscilloscope probe rebuild / repair.
Now I feel truly happy and safe for the future.
 
#20
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom