Instek scopes--more bang for the buck than Rigol

I recently picked up an Instek GDS2204E scope. I’ve got to say, it’s really nice. These scopes take Value/Dollar crown away from Rigol.

If we are considering new scopes for the lab, it would be a mistake to buy Rigol without checking these out first.

For a basic scope with serial protocol, the GDS2074E is about the same price as the DS1054z upgraded with serial triggering and serial decode options, except it offers

  • higher bandwidth (70 MHz vs 50 MHz)
  • higher sample rate with multiple channels active (1GSPS with 1 or 2 channels, 500 MSPS with 4 channels, compared with 1GSPS on 1 channel, 500 MSPS 2 channels, 250 MSPS 4 channels on the Rigol)
  • similar larger memory depth / channel
  • MUCH better serial decode, with the decodes operating on waveform in memory rather than the displayed waveform. This gives better accuracy and more reliable decoding when changing horiz scale. You can search for a symbol in a long sequence with the Instek, not the Rigol.
  • more serial decode protocols, including CAN and LIN.
  • better FFT

For basic $400 scopes, the GDS1054B has similar specs to the Rigol, but a better UI, with 4 vertical knob pairs for 4 channels, instead of the multiplexed knob for the Rigol. Easier to understand and use.

If one were to buy the cheapest Rigol and hack it for higher BW and serial decodes, then it may be a somewhat better value than the 1054B, but still only has one vertical knob, and the specs and decodes are still inferior to the 2074E

I strongly suggest we take a look at the Instek before buying any more scopes. I would be happy to loan mine to the Electronics lab for a while, to allow folks to check it out.

Dave

2 Likes

Would you be willing to bring it in for a show 'n tell, and perhaps some side-by-side comparison with the Rigol?

I’m personally in the market for a new scope, so it is very interesting to me!

1 Like

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/

I will try to bring it by tonight, and am happy to leave it there for a couple of weeks for people to play with.

BTW, I do think the Rigol 1054z is a very nifty scope for the money, and for those who can only spend $400 and prefer a more compact scope with 1 vertical knob for all channels, it would be the scope of choice.

Ok, cool! I’ll be there, and we have the monthly member meeting, so there will be plenty of passer-bys.

If you’d like to leave it for evaluation, please contact @artg_dms to arrange the “temporary loan” paperwork. I’d recommend that it be chained to on of the tables with a laptop security cable, much like what has been done this week with other equipment, so that it doesn’t walk off with someone. :slight_smile:

Quite the thorough review, thanks.

@artg_dms

Has already ordered two more Rigols which should be here next week. While this Instek may be a better scope, there is a lot to be said for having the same tool on all of the benches (can anyone say three differenty lasers which all work differently). The scope is fine for the vast majority of uses, and is the right price for equipping multiple benches at the space. In the future one higher specification scope (which we may already own) would likely be a good addition, but for purposes of classes and general use, it is better to have only one set of controls to deal with, IMO.

BTW, he has also ordered the serial analyzer module for all three of the scopes.

That’s unfortunate. The Rigol serial decodes are not very good at all. I actually bought one, but had to send it back because the serial decode was useless. With so much interest in embedded processors and i2c / spi perhipherals, it’s nice to have this in the scope.

The Rigol with serial decode and trigger is not actually cheaper than the much better Instek.

I don’t think the value of consistency outweighs the value of a better scope for the same price. Once you know how to use a scope, it’s neither hard, risky, or dangerous to use another without any special instruction. And the knob-per-channel interface is easier to learn and understand for a beginner.

I suggest evaluating the Instek. If there is an option to return the Rigol, then consider it.

I would likely agree if we didn’t already own a Rigol. Having different scopes on every bench would be a real problem for most of our members and would be a hassle for teachers. But we can likely return the serial keys (maybe) if they are as you say, but I have never seen anyone else report them as bad as you say.

That said the virtual bench has full logic analyser functionality so that is already available.

I would also hate to see us fall into the software trap of ‘the next version is better.’ The Rigol is a good basic scope and that is what we need on the benches. It would be nice to have a higher end scope on the shelf for the 1% of the time someone needs something more, and that is the plan after we have equiped the benches with the basics needed.

The Rigol is a nice basic scope if you are limited to $400, but when you are talking about spending >$1000 on a couple of scopes, I disagree that having one already is sufficient reason to buy another, when there is a substantially better value proposition available.

We are not talking about high end scopes here. These are all entry level scopes, and serial decoding is actually a common application for hobbyists. Why not get the best option for the money?

I assert that having more than 1 kind of scope is not a big issue, even for classes and learning hobbyists. There’s just not that much to them.

I think it’s worth letting members get their hands on the Instek as well as the Rigol.

The weakness I encountered with the Rigol was that it was unable to identify or follow a specific token in a serial stream, when I had a chunk of the stream on screen at once. When I zoomed in the decode worked, but zooming out, it did got lost. That made it hard to, for example, examine timing between symbols, or symbols and actions. Pretty much, you can decode or trigger only on waveforms that you can see and decode with your eyes, which is very limited usefulness.

A quick search shows an example of what I’m talking about:

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1074z-i2c-decode-event-table-only-shows-one-packet/

I brought the scope to the electronics lab last night. It will be there for a couple of weeks, if anyone wants to check it out.

I quit using scopes to mess with digital data a long time ago!

https://www.saleae.com/

1 Like

The virtual bench in the lab as a sixteen channel logic analyzer No experience with it, so I don’t know if it has protocol analysis built in, but it is programmable (via Lab View), so it is something a member can add for themselves. In fact with all of its automatable functions a member could develop a complete test setup (provide waveforms, voltages, digital i/o, etc…) and monitor the logic outputs analog outputs etc…

If implemented well, serial triggering and decode in the scope can be extremely useful.

I like this one: Intronix Logiport 34-channel analyzer. We bought one for the Electronics Lab, but I haven’t seen it since the move. Perhaps someone has seen it?

But sometimes a mixed signal scope is the best, or a 4-channel scope with 1 or 2 free analog channels.

Well we came across some of the probes from it. Neither myself (joined after the move) or Art has ever seen the logic analyzer, but at least the probes are still around… :frowning:

This is essentially what the Virtual Bench provides, a two channel 100 MHz scope with a 16 channel logic analyzer. And it adds programmability to boot. It will be interesting to see how much this functionality gets used.

Agreed, mixed signal capabilty is a big benefit. The Saleae models have basic analog capability. I’m not sure of the BW, but it’s great when your data doesn’t make sense… you can just peek at the analog trace and see a bus conflict or something.

Basically what I’m saying is that I’d rather have a good logic analyzer with basic analog than a good oscilloscope with basic logic analyzer functions. The logic analyzer actually spends way more time on my desk anyway and is much smaller.