Hantek DSO5202P ?
- Thread starter riverrat373
- Start date
Does anyone here have any experience with this scope? 200mhz for $329.00!
While I agree that it is cheap, you are sacrificing a LOT for that 200MHz.
- Hantek quality is VERY subpar. Not as bad as Owon, but really low quality.
- This instrument has a crazy short memory depth (only 40K samples, compared to Rigol which has 24M Samples).
- Limited triggering options
- Only 2 channels
- No intensity grading (which gives the digital scope analog like performance)
- No decoding
The Rigol DS1054Z costs a bit more but you get WAY more performance for the dollar (excluding bandwidth) than you do from this scope. The DS1054Z can be easily hacked with a simple generated license code to give you a VERY powerful 100Mhz scope for around $400. I can go into a huge range of features that the Rigol has and this hantek lacks if need be, but most are covered in the bullet points above. If you NEED the 200MHz bandwidth (instead of the 100Mhz bandwidth of a hacked DS1054Z) then there is no alternative at this price point.
As an aside, if you have your heart set on Hantek:
Hantek - Tekway - DSO hack - get 200MHz bw for free - Page 1
Apparently you can hack some of the lower models to get the 200MHz bandwidth.
I have never owned a scope before.I am willing to consider any brand as long as it isn't too bad! Ergonomics is not important to me but resolution is because I'm getting up in years and my vision isn't as good as it used to be! Ease of use would be a plus in any scope that I buy.
I plan to primarily use a scope for restoring vintage audio gear, building a few tube amps, speakers and possibly dabble with chip amps. I might get into some digital electronics and that's why I want a digital scope. (besides the fact that I don't have room for a boatanchor analog one!) Or I may end up losing interest after awhile! As far as hacking a scope, I don't feel comfortable getting something I didn't pay for.
I know that everyone has their favorite brands of equipment and I'm the same way but I want feedback from people who actually own, or have owned, the stuff I'm considering. I have looked at the Rigol DS1054Z and I think it's a great scope but it's probably more than I will ever need. I really would like to stay under $350.00 if at all possible.
I have never owned a scope before.I am willing to consider any brand as long as it isn't too bad! Ergonomics is not important to me but resolution is because I'm getting up in years and my vision isn't as good as it used to be! Ease of use would be a plus in any scope that I buy.
I plan to primarily use a scope for restoring vintage audio gear, building a few tube amps, speakers and possibly dabble with chip amps. I might get into some digital electronics and that's why I want a digital scope. (besides the fact that I don't have room for a boatanchor analog one!) Or I may end up losing interest after awhile! As far as hacking a scope, I don't feel comfortable getting something I didn't pay for.
I know that everyone has their favorite brands of equipment and I'm the same way but I want feedback from people who actually own, or have owned, the stuff I'm considering. I have looked at the Rigol DS1054Z and I think it's a great scope but it's probably more than I will ever need. I really would like to stay under $350.00 if at all possible.
I can understand not wanting to hack. That is a moral decision, some say that because the ability is in there already, they are just unlocking it. Others view it as akin to piracy. I respect your opinion on that.
Even without hacking, the 50Mhz is more than you will need for repairing audio stuff. The biggest issues I see with this Hantek is that it is so limited in features for the price you are paying. It is older technology, the biggest thing it is lacking is the intensity graded display. This is a HUGE help when using a digital scope.
In general, for budget scopes the quality goes Siglent-->Rigol-->Hantek-->Owon
Siglent and Rigol are close in quality, with Rigol having a bit better performance/$ (and Siglent having a few more bugs but fixing them more rapidly) and Hantek/Owon are close together in quality.
This thread here compares various models of oscilloscopes. It might pick you out and help you in your search.
Digital Oscilloscope Chart - Page 1
Although I have already downloaded the chart you recommended, thanks! The only problem with stats is that they don't tell you about any bugs in the firmware or software!
Although I have already downloaded the chart you recommended, thanks! The only problem with stats is that they don't tell you about any bugs in the firmware or software!
All oscilloscopes have bugs, Agilent has the least but you pay through the nose for it. The DSO1000B series from Agilent excluded because that is actually the DS1000E series from Rigol, just rebadged. This is how Rigol got into making quality oscilloscopes, Agilent basically taught them how (even more so with Siglent/LeCroy). After that, is Tektronix, same price premium, then R&S. After these, you are looking at either Siglent (LeCroy's low end) or Rigol. Both have been around a while and are relatively stable platforms. There are bugs but they are very rare and usually require very specific combinations of settings to activate them. The Siglent X-series are newer and have very active bug fixing going on from what I have seen. Rigol being the most popular has the bugs researched more or less ad nauseum. After that you have Hantek followed by Owon, which tend ot have the most bugs, which are seldom fixed. If you see an oscilloscope with another company name on it (like Uni-T) there is a 99.99% chance it is just a rebadged one of these.
Last edited:
Good luck with it, keep us posted on how you like it.Well, I pulled the trigger and bought the 200mhz Hantek DSO5202P oscilloscope because Circuit Specialists is running a special on them for $299.00 with free shipping. For that price I have to try it!
I cancelled the Hantek and am re-thinking what scope to buy. I have got it down to 2 scopes now, the Rigol DS1054Z and the GW Instek GDS-1054B. The Instek is a little cheaper but what I really like about it is the 50,000 waveforms per second as opposed to Rigol's 30,000, plus separate controls for each channel.
I cancelled the Hantek and am re-thinking what scope to buy. I have got it down to 2 scopes now, the Rigol DS1054Z and the GW Instek GDS-1054B. The Instek is a little cheaper but what I really like about it is the 50,000 waveforms per second as opposed to Rigol's 30,000, plus separate controls for each channel.
I didn't realize that they had dropped the price of the GDS-1054B that far. If I remember correctly, the device was priced higher than the DS1054Z which it was released. It has a few drawbacks but a few benefits compared to the DS1054Z.
The two major areas that the GW shines are (and they are important):
- Waveform Capture rate which is a very nice 50,000wf/sec
- FFT using 1MPt. (this is VERY good, the Rigol is 10k and most other scopes are 1k). Both are toys at FFT but the GW does a markedly better job of it.
Where it lacks (some are important some are not):
- Intensity gradient performance is VERY coarse and lack luster. It looks kinda half assed compared to the Rigol. It feels very previous generation.
- Memory depth, the Rigol has 12MPt base depth versus the 1MPt of the GW
- Protocol Decoding - from what I have seen the GW doesn't even try to do this. If you work on digital stuff, this is a huge oversight.
- A bit higher noise floor.
- Size: The Rigol is dramatically smaller in size (which is why it doesn't have individual channel controls). Just looking at both, realize that the scopes have the SAME screen size. That should give you an idea of the dramatic difference in scale.
- I read in a few places the GW lacks a trigger out. This means you can't trigger other devices (like a logic analyzer or another scope off of the same trigger)
Last edited:
Instek is showing the GDS-1054B as having 10m per channel and 1m fft
The wording was bad about the FFT. I meant that the GW has 1Mpt FFT, while Rigol DS1054Z has 10k pt fft (and other companies and models have only 1k pt FFT).
And you are correct on the 10Mpt/chanel memory depth, I'm not sure why the page I looked at said 1Mpt/channel standard. I would edit my post to fix this but it is too late. The other points are still correct.
How important is a trigger out?
Depends on the situation, but for me not very much. Sometimes you want to trigger a multimeter, a spectrum analyzer or another instrument off of a trigger condition on a scope. Some people use it also to tag team multiple oscilloscopes, giving a large number of channels at the same time. It is also one of the few ways to validate if waveform update rates are inflated or not. That being said, for MY uses its not a lot, not sure about your uses.
The Rigol has a MUCH better triggering suite, but honestly both are good for most hobbyists. The biggest glaring flaws are in the GW are the sub-optimal intensity grading (very grainy) and the lack of any sort of protocol decoding. The biggest benefits of the GWS-1054B are the higher waveform capture rate and the better performing FFT.
If you don't envision yourself doing ANY digital work, then the protocol decoding is not an issue. The intensity grading is but it is up to you on what that is worth. As always, it is a variety of trade offs and trying to decide what is right for you. For most, the GW Instek model gets overlooked due to its lack of ability to be hacked but since you aren't interested in that, the GW Instek is not a bad model.
I purchased a Rigol DS1054Z yesterday from Tequipment.Net. I'm excited to start using it!
Gret to hear, pretty much EVERY person I know that has one loves it!