New Rigol DS1054Z oscilloscope

[bitseeker]

I finally updated my scope. Didn't sanitize, just installed the update, let it warm up, then recalibrated. All is well.

[Daque]

Remote control software? Dave said in his review the Rigol lab software sucked but better had been written by the community.  Anyone have a link or  name for it?

[frozenfrogz]

Hello Daque,

do you mean the name of software provided by Rigol?
Check out the DS1000Z download section at the bottom of the page.

There is also a LAN screen capture, DSRemote on Github, Rigol Bildschirmkopie, Hackaday article on Linux controlling Rigol DS and some more info on the Rigol site.

Regards,
Frederik

[Daque]

Thank you, I meant the non Rigol (and superior) software.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[technogeeky]

Remote control software? Dave said in his review the Rigol lab software sucked but better had been written by the community.  Anyone have a link or  name for it?

That review is many years old now. Many of the other software options didn't exist, and the Rigol software has surely evolved somewhat.

[frozenfrogz]

There is also another Hackaday article on FFT analysis via VISA in Python. The article is two years old, however it should have enough pointers for setting everything up and going from there in case you want to dive into pyDSA.

[Chumanista]

Quick question: is there a way to limit the sample rate for CSV export? It takes incredibly long as-is.

[TD-Linux]

Speaking of remote control, I've been having great luck with controlling the scope over ethernet via the VXI-11 interface, using the python3-vxi11 module. The documentation and feature coverage of the scope is surprisingly complete.

One oddity is when dumping raw BYTE waveforms, the samples are prepended with 11 bytes of '#900000xxxx' garbage and 1 byte of '\n'. I'm not sure if this is the scope's fault or the Python library I'm using, but easy to fix.

The scope also has a telnet-style SCPI interface on port 5555, for quick testing of the commands (vxi-11 exposes SCPI commands over Sun RPC instead).

[NorthGuy]

One oddity is when dumping raw BYTE waveforms, the samples are prepended with 11 bytes of '#900000xxxx' garbage and 1 byte of '\n'. I'm not sure if this is the scope's fault or the Python library I'm using, but easy to fix.

"9" is the number of the digits that follow - that is  "00000xxxx" is 9 digits. "00000xxxx" is the number of bytes returned by the command.

[zbyr]

Quick question: is there a way to limit the sample rate for CSV export? It takes incredibly long as-is.

Limit memory size, or use PC software like this one (i recommend it, it dump whole memory in few seconds.) https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/rigol-feat-higher-bitfloat-accuracy-general-purpose-deep-mem-fft-sw/

[AudioNoob]

Considering the various DSOs for around $300 (Rigol 1054 / Siglent SDS1072 / Hantek dso4072-5102), is Rigol a good choice for audio applications? Would you call it the best choice?
Is the FFT function usable for assessing THD of less than, say, 0.5%? I know it's no spectrum analyzer, but still.

[tautech]

Considering the various DSOs for around $300 (Rigol 1054 / Siglent SDS1072 / Hantek dso4072-5102), is Rigol a good choice for audio applications? Would you call it the best choice?
Is the FFT function usable for assessing THD of less than, say, 0.5%? I know it's no spectrum analyzer, but still.

Welcome to the forum.

Consider adding SDS1202X-E to your list. Bit dearer than a 1072 @ $379 but 200 MHz and excellent FFT.

[AudioNoob]

Welcome to the forum.

Consider adding SDS1202X-E to your list. Bit dearer than a 1072 @ $379 but 200 MHz and excellent FFT.

Thank you!
I certainly don't need high bandwidth (or do I just not realize that I need it?), but excellent FFT is definitely a selling point. So, will FFT actually be useful for seeing small (inaudible) distortions of audio signals?

[tautech]

Welcome to the forum.

Consider adding SDS1202X-E to your list. Bit dearer than a 1072 @ $379 but 200 MHz and excellent FFT.

Thank you!
I certainly don't need high bandwidth (or do I just not realize that I need it?), but excellent FFT is definitely a selling point. So, will FFT actually be useful for seeing small (inaudible) distortions of audio signals?

It will be better than the others on your list due to its 1 Mpts FFT.
Some screenshots:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-siglent-sds1000x-e-oscilloscope-based-on-xilinx-zynq-7000-soc-architecture/msg1192654/#msg1192654

[ebastler]

Welcome to the forum.

Consider adding SDS1202X-E to your list. Bit dearer than a 1072 @ $379 but 200 MHz and excellent FFT.

Thank you!
I certainly don't need high bandwidth (or do I just not realize that I need it?), but excellent FFT is definitely a selling point. So, will FFT actually be useful for seeing small (inaudible) distortions of audio signals?

The Siglent's FFT will give better spectral resolution -- but it is still a scope with an 8-bit ADC only. In my view, none of the entry-level scopes are suitable for audio work which requires the analysis of signal to noise, harmonic distortion etc. at high dynamic range.

A sound card with suitable PC software is the better choice in my opinion. It will give you 24 bit dynamic range, of course at much lower sampling rates (96 or 192 kHz), but more than adequate for audio work. All affordable, consumer-grade sound cards are AC coupled (i.e. they do not "see" the DC component of your signal), but that should not be a limitation in most audio projects.

[Gary.M]

Google QuantAsylum QA401. It may be what you want.

Sent from my x600 using Tapatalk

[Fungus]

Considering the various DSOs for around $300 (Rigol 1054 / Siglent SDS1072 / Hantek dso4072-5102), is Rigol a good choice for audio applications? Would you call it the best choice?
Is the FFT function usable for assessing THD of less than, say, 0.5%? I know it's no spectrum analyzer, but still.

I'm gonna say "no".

If Audio/FFT is your main application the I don't think any entry level 'scope will do. They all use 8-bit ADCs and that simply isn't enough, no matter how long the buffer is.

Almost any 96kHz PC sound card will be better for audio analysis. You can also look at the Analog Discovery which is a little programmable gadget with a decent ADC (14 bits) and it can also generate waveforms for frequency sweeps and bode plots (not that a sound card can't do that, but you're asking in EEVBLOG so we look at more 'engineer' solutions to problems).

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/analog-disovery-as-audio-analyzer/

[AudioNoob]

none of the entry-level scopes are suitable for audio work which requires the analysis of signal to noise, harmonic distortion etc. at high dynamic range.

Thank you, that's exactly what I needed to know. Then I will try to get Rightmark Audio Analyzer software working (I even happen to have the great - and highly regarded - EMU 0404 USB interface which is quite suitable as a reference DAC/ADC).
FFT aside, is there a significant difference between the DSOs in question as far as audio applications go?

[JPortici]

none is good.

-8 bit digitizer
- too much noise (a side effect of having a very high bandwidth

an audio interface, or a dc coupled audio interface, and a software suite is probably the best choice before ending up spending multi thousand dollars on audio analyzers

[AudioNoob]

none is good.

-8 bit digitizer
- too much noise (a side effect of having a very high bandwidth

an audio interface, or a dc coupled audio interface, and a software suite is probably the best choice before ending up spending multi thousand dollars on audio analyzers

Gotcha. Looks like you just saved me upwards of $300. I wanted to have a standalone device with its own screen and controls rather than being tethered to a laptop, but if the several hundred dollar scopes aren't even good then it's just waste of money.

[Fungus]

FFT aside, is there a significant difference between the DSOs in question as far as audio applications go?

A common thing for amplifier work is to use two channels in "differential" mode, ie. you show the difference between two wires, not the difference between the wire and oscilloscope ground.

Four channels on your oscilloscope means you can look at stereo differential signals without constantly swapping the probes around.

Apart from that... no not really. They all show wiggly lines on screen.

[ebastler]

FFT aside, is there a significant difference between the DSOs in question as far as audio applications go?

I don't think so. All are fundamentally limited by 8-bit ADCs. The Siglent may have slightly less input noise than the Rigol, but even a perfect, noise-less 8 bit input would not cut it for audio work.

(All these scopes have an averaging or "high-resolution" mode which improves the signal/noise a bit, but does not get you to where you need to be. Some of them might also offer other post-processing filters, which may have benefits here and there; but again they do not get you around the 8 bit limitation.)

Keysight has recently launched a new scope model with a built-in Bode plot functionality, but that's outside of your price range. And any PC (sound-card based) audio lab software should offer that as well.

[JPortici]

none is good.

-8 bit digitizer
- too much noise (a side effect of having a very high bandwidth

an audio interface, or a dc coupled audio interface, and a software suite is probably the best choice before ending up spending multi thousand dollars on audio analyzers

Gotcha. Looks like you just saved me upwards of $300. I wanted to have a standalone device with its own screen and controls rather than being tethered to a laptop, but if the several hundred dollar scopes aren't even good then it's just waste of money.

an used ipad perhaps

[Fungus]

Gotcha. Looks like you just saved me upwards of $300. I wanted to have a standalone device with its own screen and controls rather than being tethered to a laptop, but if the several hundred dollar scopes aren't even good then it's just waste of money.

an used ipad perhaps

Assuming there's an "app" for that. 

(maybe it's an excuse to buy a Windows-based tablet, which is a 10000x better choice than iPad if you want to get some work done)

[AudioNoob]

(maybe it's an excuse to buy a Windows-based tablet, which is a 10000x better choice than iPad if you want to get some work done)

That's a great idea! I do have an x86 (Intel Atom) Windows 10 tablet at work, and I already tried installing the drivers for my USB audio interface there and connecting the thing - everything works. I was considering buying such a tablet as a fan-less alternative to a laptop for listening to music in headphones (fan noise sucks even when it's really quiet), and now you're pointing out that the same device can be used for signal analysis using the same audio interface. A thing to consider indeed.