To Bill
There are a number of "hobby level" oscilloscopes on the market today. Each comes with a bunch of "best thing since sliced bread" reviews. And there are some videos showing how flawed they are when put to practical use.
@yukon-rose I asked Bill the same question in a PM some time ago and took his recommendation at the time. You need to add price into your decision. I will cross my fingers and hope Bill still makes the same recommendation today as he did over a year ago.
First computer 1959. Retired from my own computer company 2004.
Hardware - Expert in 1401, 360, fairly knowledge in PC plus numerous MPU's & MCU's
Major Languages - Machine language, 360 Macro Assembler, Intel Assembler, PL/I and PL1, Pascal, Basic, C plus numerous job control and scripting languages.
My personal scorecard is now 1 PC hardware fix (circa 1982), 1 open source fix (at age 82), and 2 zero day bugs in a major OS.
Gary,
I also fretted over buying an oscilloscope for many months. I recently bought a Rigol DS1102Z-E (100MHz, 2-chnl) for my tinkering with Arduino, Raspberry Pi Pico, and some other simple circuits. So far, I'm very happy with the purchase (I've had it about three weeks now). I’m hoping this will fit my future needs. The only real question I have is whether I’m going to wish I’d gone for a 4-channel scope. The scope claims to be “everything you’ll ever need”, has good reviews on Amazon (if you can believe them), and came at a somewhat reasonable price for me, “just” being a hobbyist. FWIW, I don’t think you can go wrong with one of the simpler Rigol or Siglent scopes.
Regards, Lee
@yukon-rose I got the DHO802. It is only 70MHZ, BUT 12 bit 2 chan. The extra resolution is a big deal. If you are so inclined, you can hack the scope to give it at least 100MHZ plus lot's of other goodies, but it does void the warranty and is even illegal. Many do, but not my thing.
First computer 1959. Retired from my own computer company 2004.
Hardware - Expert in 1401, 360, fairly knowledge in PC plus numerous MPU's & MCU's
Major Languages - Machine language, 360 Macro Assembler, Intel Assembler, PL/I and PL1, Pascal, Basic, C plus numerous job control and scripting languages.
My personal scorecard is now 1 PC hardware fix (circa 1982), 1 open source fix (at age 82), and 2 zero day bugs in a major OS.
Hi @lee-g (& Ron @zander, @yukon-rose),
Re: I’m going to wish I’d gone for a 4-channel scope
Please accept my apologies if I am telling you something you already know, but in my experience, many people with limited (1 or 2-channel scope) experience, tend to ignore the 'third' socket, often labelled Ext or Trigger, assuming it doesn't do anything useful.
The neglected 3rd socket syndrome is probably assisted by scope manufacturers never providing more than two decent probes, typically with something like a 3rd lead with crocodile clips, that are bigger than entire chips, if you are 'really lucky'. And in the past, even moderately capable (say 10Mhz) probes have been extortionately expensive. I note that 'reasonable' (60-100MHz claim) probes are now available for a very few US Dollars each through AliExpress.
-----
Admittedly, most scopes cannot display the signal connected to the Ext socket, but for actually getting the display to show what you want to see, it can sometimes be invaluable. This is especially true when you have a circuit which (say) responds to an input 'pulse' (where 'pulse' is basically anything the scope input can recognise as a useful timing event), and you can then use the 'normal Y channel(s) to display what happens to the resulting signal at different points in the circuit, at around that moment in time.
--------
I don't know anything about the particular model you have chosen, but in the past, the external/trigger input on scopes has been provided with more 'tricks' for extracting the all important 'trigger event' than the Y channels, although the data processing now available may change this view.
I also have other reservations about at least some of the cheaper 4 channel scopes, including the screen being rather small to actually see 4 traces.
I also notice at least some of the cheaper scopes, including mine, have only has 1 A/D converter. So if the top sampling rate is 1G Samp/sec, that is only in 1 channel mode ... in 2 channel mode it falls to 500M Samp/sec, and if it had 4 channels, it would be 250MSamp/sec in 4 channel mode. Remember a sample is effectively a dot on the screen, and to display a single cycle of a Sine Wave with any real 'clarity', you need about 8-10 dots, so in 4 channel mode, it is going to start to struggle to accurately display a sine wave at frequencies much above 25 MHz. (The wave shape may look ok, as the display software will join up the dots, but it may not be the actual waveform shape.)
For your scope, I looked for the model number you quoted, and found a page showing a scope with 2 channel + Ext sockets, as expected.
Further clicking to show the 'Specification' included
Analogue channel:
1 GSa/s (single-channel),
500 MSa/s (dual-channel), 250 MSa/s (three/four-channel)
So I assume that the Spec page covers its 4 channel sister model as well, and the sampling rate follows the same model as I just described.
Of course, there will be some applications in which 4 channels is 'ideal', but I suspect they are rarer than you think. In most cases, in terms of 'trace per buck', I suspect you have made the right choice.
In the past, I have struggled to remember what traces at different points in a circuit look like, and used tricks including pencil sketches and Polaroid photos to build up a picture. However, with my scope, I can just plug in a USB stick, and record them, then display them on a large computer screen 'side by side'. I presume your scope can do likewise.
Just a few random thoughts which I hope you find helpful.
Best wishes and happy hardware bug hunting, Dave
@davee My scope does have 2 chan plus Ext on the front. I had a good conversation about 4 Chan vs 2 Chan and was convinced 2 Chan is plenty, so far I have only used 1. The 12 bit resolution is far more useful and practical because most of the time your trace will not be aligned to a grid point, so having those extra bits is quite useful.
I also have USB, HDMI, LAN connections and a few more goodies. Even if I was magically 50 years younger, I still wouldn't live long enough to use all it's features.
First computer 1959. Retired from my own computer company 2004.
Hardware - Expert in 1401, 360, fairly knowledge in PC plus numerous MPU's & MCU's
Major Languages - Machine language, 360 Macro Assembler, Intel Assembler, PL/I and PL1, Pascal, Basic, C plus numerous job control and scripting languages.
My personal scorecard is now 1 PC hardware fix (circa 1982), 1 open source fix (at age 82), and 2 zero day bugs in a major OS.