Author Topic: Rigol reliability  (Read 13396 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gary350z

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Country: us
Rigol reliability
« on: May 06, 2016, 06:27:56 AM »
I wonder about Rigol reliability.

1. About January 2015 I bought a Rigol DS1052E scope.
It was dead on arrival. (verified by Rigol)
TEquipment replaced it with a new DS1052E. One year later one of the channels failed. Rigol fixed it under warranty.

2. A month later the X1/X10 switch on one of the probes (RP2200) failed intermittently.  Rigol tech support said this was a known problem, and sent me a new probe. The replacement probe had the same problem. Rigol then sent me another new probe. This probe also had the same problem. I gave up on these probes. I know these are cheap probes, but the problem is the switch. It's just a switch, it's not complicated, and should not cause a problem when it's brand new.

3. Later I was interested in getting a better scope, the Rigol DS2102A.
In every online review video I watched, the DS2102A locked up or outright failed during normal operation! It even locked up or failed during Dave's videos.

4. Dave's Rigol power supply had a design problem (which was later fixed) and them failed recently.

All of this, and the many Rigol bugs, does not give me a good feeling.
My Rigol tech support has been excellent. :-+

What does everyone think about this?
 

Offline pxl

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: hu
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2016, 07:00:15 AM »
2. A month later the X1/X10 switch on one of the probes (RP2200) failed intermittently.  Rigol tech support said this was a known problem, and sent me a new probe. The replacement probe had the same problem. Rigol then sent me another new probe. This probe also had the same problem. I gave up on these probes.

"When I started here, all there was was swamp. All the kings said I was daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. "

You gave up too early :)
 
The following users thanked this post: GlowingGhoul, voodoo22

Offline pxl

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • Country: hu
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2016, 07:20:28 AM »
 

Offline Hydrawerk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2250
  • Country: 00
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2016, 07:47:56 AM »

What does everyone think about this?
You get what you pay for. If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
Amazing machines. http://www.youtube.com/user/denha (It is not me...)
 

Offline ECEdesign

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2016, 08:05:53 AM »

My Rigol tech support has been excellent. :-+

What does everyone think about this?

You have had some unlucky gear but from what I read everything was fixed and they were quite responsive to get things right.  For me that is really great.  It is not critical to my business to have zero downtime and cost is an issue so Rigol seems like a great choice for many options.  If I was operating a business where we used test gear to manufacture millions of dollars of equipment then sure it would be dumb to not have top quality gear from someone like Keysight since downtime could cost a ton.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6354
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2016, 02:52:56 PM »
What does everyone think about this?

The forums aren't full of people complaining, so...  I guess you had bad luck :-//

Be happy that you got good support.

If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
Oh, a Keysight fanboi...
 

Offline nanofrog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4411
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2016, 04:42:07 PM »
FWIW, I've only a DS1054Z from them, but I waited to see how things shook out before buying. It's not broken down hardware wise, and it seems I don't have the instability that others have reported  even though my unit's boot firmware is 1.1.12 rather than 1.1.13. Seems I didn't get that particular upgrade right (got the main software installed, but ended up doing that first rather than the boot firmware  |O). Can't roll back to fix it, so it's not the latest.  :-[

I do hope they allow users to roll back the firmware though so I can fix this, as that does bother me a bit.

As per the other issues, there are workarounds, so it's not unusable by any means IME.

Please understand, I'm not an apologist, but I do temper my expectations at $399 for a new oscilloscope (that may change in a few years, given the Asian players in this end of the market  >:D).

For disclosure, mine is unlocked, which increased it's perspective value for what I spent. I've a second hand Tek 2445B (300MHz) that was bought for less (~$280), but it doesn't have the level of features either (I'm really fond of being able to make screen shots vs. having to dig out a camera, tripod, figure out the lighting, then crop the image when I finally get one that's clear & glare-free).
 

Offline MrSlack

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 880
  • Country: gb
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2016, 07:21:45 PM »
This is why I haven't bought a 1054Z yet. Too much software. When I see people discussion which version is less shit, then the product is blacklisted. This comes from the day job which involves wrangling software engineers and software.

Playing necromancer with a few old analogue scopes seems to have a better outcome as a non-professional. If you're a professional or rely on the thing, I'd snag a new Tek or Keysight unit.

As for scope camera; I use my phone. It's just there in my hand already.
 
The following users thanked this post: GlowingGhoul

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: gb
  • Occasionally active on the forum, available via PM
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2016, 08:16:46 PM »
This is why I haven't bought a 1054Z yet. Too much software.

Hardly. It's more a case of lack of proper software development and QC processes. All which cost money, but people want 'cheap' so obviously corners are cut. As someone else said, you get what you pay for.

Software doesn't have to be shit, you know?

Quote
Playing necromancer with a few old analogue scopes seems to have a better outcome as a non-professional.

Not really, unless you want to forego pretty much all of the advances in scopes made in the last three decades, as well as a wide range of basic features like storage, measurements or persistence that can be found in any DSO these days.

Quote
If you're a professional or rely on the thing, I'd snag a new Tek or Keysight unit.

Good luck with Tek, you'll very likely find out why these days Tek is pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel amongst the big brands, with outdated scope models that are slow like wading through molasses, like to lock up when they are under load and in some cases tend to crash.

These days if you want a good reliable scopes you buy Keysight, LeCroy and R&S.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 08:18:36 PM by Wuerstchenhund »
Brexit n - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.
 

Offline MrSlack

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 880
  • Country: gb
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2016, 08:33:27 PM »
Hardly. It's more a case of lack of proper software development and QC processes. All which cost money, but people want 'cheap' so obviously corners are cut. As someone else said, you get what you pay for.

Software doesn't have to be shit, you know?

Yes it mostly does at the moment. It's not about cost, but about process and tooling, neither of which cost solves which is something people seem to avoid. We've had at least a couple of hundred years of engineering development yet the software development industry is very new. People are still playing with methodologies and technology with virtually no established non-volatile best practices. I've run several large software projects ranging from tightly process controlled military to financial and there is nothing on the table that doesn't produce a turd at some level. It's a log curve on cost vs quality at the moment.

Not really, unless you want to forego pretty much all of the advances in scopes made in the last three decades, as well as a wide range of basic features like storage, measurements or persistence that can be found in any DSO these days.

Applying the Pareto principle, 80% is good enough. For the average person the investment for the remaining 20% might not have the return they expect.

Good luck with Tek, you'll very likely find out why these days Tek is pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel amongst the big brands, with outdated scope models that are slow like wading through molasses, like to lock up when they are under load and in some cases tend to crash.

These days if you want a good reliable scopes you buy Keysight, LeCroy and R&S.

Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product. If the product doesn't work, the invoice doesn't get paid.
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: gb
  • Occasionally active on the forum, available via PM
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2016, 08:52:14 PM »
Hardly. It's more a case of lack of proper software development and QC processes. All which cost money, but people want 'cheap' so obviously corners are cut. As someone else said, you get what you pay for.

Software doesn't have to be shit, you know?

Yes it mostly does at the moment. It's not about cost, but about process and tooling, neither of which cost solves which is something people seem to avoid. We've had at least a couple of hundred years of engineering development yet the software development industry is very new.

No, software doesn't have to be shit, and there are enough examples where it isn't.

And software isn't new, really, in fact the idea of programming is quite old (>100yrs), and commercial software development has been a thing at least since the '60s. Also, pretty much every quality control and manufacturing process has originated this side of 1900.

Quote
People are still playing with methodologies and technology with virtually no established non-volatile best practices. I've run several large software projects ranging from tightly process controlled military to financial and there is nothing on the table that doesn't produce a turd at some level. It's a log curve on cost vs quality at the moment.

That sounds truly horrible.

Places I work with seem to do software development pretty well, as well as they do hardware. They use well established concepts and processes to keep quality under control, and that includes testing. At the end there will be a certain amount of minor bugs in the product (bug-free software is an illusion anyways) but if the end result were something even close to a 'turd' then heads would roll, literally, the first one being the person responsible for managing the project.

Bad software is as unacceptable as bad hardware. Again, this isn't the '80s, software development isn't new, and has been done for decades without necessarily producing 'turds'

Sounds like you might want to have a serious look at the processes, training and available skill level in your projects.

Quote
Not really, unless you want to forego pretty much all of the advances in scopes made in the last three decades, as well as a wide range of basic features like storage, measurements or persistence that can be found in any DSO these days.

Applying the Pareto principle, 80% is good enough. For the average person the investment for the remaining 20% might not have the return they expect.

Just that in regard of analog scopes we're talking about 20% (at best) what you get and 80% what you miss. It's the equivalent of measuring voltage with a light bulb instead of a DVM.

In addition, there's the simple fact that keeping a museum piece (which is what most analog scopes are today) alive can be pretty challenging, and requires a second (working) scope when the primary one fails.

Unless you get the analog banger for free or very little money (say $50) then it's pretty much money flushed down the drain. Even Dave (who I think is a more traditional engineer) has stated he wouldn't recommend beginners to get an analog scope any more.

Quote
Good luck with Tek, you'll very likely find out why these days Tek is pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel amongst the big brands, with outdated scope models that are slow like wading through molasses, like to lock up when they are under load and in some cases tend to crash.

These days if you want a good reliable scopes you buy Keysight, LeCroy and R&S.

Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product.

Well, bad luck then that Tek support has taken a nose dive as well.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 09:05:55 PM by Wuerstchenhund »
Brexit n - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.
 

Offline nugglix

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Country: de
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2016, 08:56:16 PM »
Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product. If the product doesn't work, the invoice doesn't get paid.

I think the support is not only important for companies.
I bought a new scope because I went nuts on the Rigol MSO2102... whacky encoders,
suddely stops to acquire new wave forms (not locked, just doesn't show new wave forms
anymore, clear button helps, so it's not the trigger), and other sh...

I spend the hobby budget of this year (a good part of next year) for the new scope.
Went for a R&S HMO3054... a little over the top, I know.

-- Lesson learned: better don't buy anything when you're pissed ;)

So I think the whole package is just in a completely different league.
Sure, on paper the features of the Rigol are looking superb, but the reality shows
that you have to fight the machine more then you can "just use" it.

So, shoe count 3 (pairs) oscilloscope count 3 -- but this is for another thread :)

Cheers -- and don't buy too cheap!
 

Offline MrSlack

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 880
  • Country: gb
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2016, 09:15:40 PM »
Pretty much every quality control and manufacturing process has originated this side of 1900. On the other hand, programming and its concepts aren't that new, either, actually they already  existed (as theoretical constructs) long before the first computers were made.

Problem comes is that theoretically everything works fine. When you start throwing up skyscrapers involving hundreds if not thousands of people and building on the foundations and parts and ideas of other people, some of which who had only immediate market interest at heart, things don't always work out. Just like when you look at a big chunk of high school physics; it falls apart on a microscopic scale.

Where I work software development works as well as it does for hardware, we use well established concepts and processes to keep quality under control, and that includes testing. At the end there will be a certain amount of minor bugs in the product (bug-free software is an illusion anyways) but if the end result were something even close to a 'turd' then heads would roll, literally, the first one being the person responsible for managing the project.

Bad software is as unacceptable as bad hardware.

Definitely. However I suspect that the scale may be somewhat different here. We're talking 5-10 MLoC enterprise behemoths spread across thousands of cores with several tens of terabytes of online data and tens of thousands of concurrent users. This is a big error amplifier.

In addition, there's the simple fact that keeping a museum piece (which is what most analog scopes are today) alive can be pretty challenging, and requires a second (working) scope when the primary one fails.

Unless you get the analog banger for free or very little money (say $50) then it's pretty much money flushed down the drain. Even Dave (who I think is a more traditional engineer) has stated he wouldn't recommend beginners to get an analog scope any more.

I don't doubt that for a moment - they do occasionally poke you in the eye and indeed I have a couple of parts mules. I haven't paid much for my scopes. I think about £50 for three 465B's so far and about 10 hours' investment of time in total over 3 years.

However for the majority of people, owning a 2016 Mercedes E class (Keysight) isn't an option or at least isn't a sensible one, and a 2016 Kia (Rigol) will be in the garage once a year with electrical problems leaving you nothing to do other than wait around but a 2002 Ford Fiesta (random shitty analogue) gets them around with a bit of smoke coming out but that's not a problem because you're a two car family and you can pick another one up for pocket change if the engine falls out.

Oh and you don't need a laptop, ODB2 cable, thousands of odd shaped tools to fix the Fiesta.

Well, bad luck then that Tek support has taken a nose dive as well.

Tek added to shitlist then :)
 

Online wraper

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 5700
  • Country: lv
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2016, 09:29:01 PM »
What does everyone think about this?
About the same experience except warranty support here completely sucks.
 

Online madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3482
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;-)
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2016, 09:44:45 PM »
Fair points although for most companies the rationale for spending cash on a brand item is to get support, not for the product. If the product doesn't work, the invoice doesn't get paid.

The OP has got proper support for his DS1052E by the seller and Rigol, just saying. Some years ago I reported an annoying firmware bug for a good brand scope. The manufacturer confirmed the bug but declined to fix it, because the scope was in the process of being phased out (that's what they've told me). And sellers still had that model in stock. So much for trust in brands.
 

Online madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3482
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;-)
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2016, 06:16:50 AM »
And another example of poor support, or how Keysight deals with a 3 years old bug (starts at about 22:03):


 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2803
  • Country: gb
  • Occasionally active on the forum, available via PM
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2016, 08:18:26 PM »
Bad software is as unacceptable as bad hardware.

Definitely. However I suspect that the scale may be somewhat different here. We're talking 5-10 MLoC enterprise behemoths spread across thousands of cores with several tens of terabytes of online data and tens of thousands of concurrent users. This is a big error amplifier.

Ouch! Yes, I can see that the risk of ending with crap is certainly some magnitudes higher in such a scenario (what was it, each LOC doubles the potential number of bugs?).

But for something more mundane as oscilloscope firmware there's really no excuse for coming up with a product that is full of bugs. Projects of such sizes are well controllable, if the right processes are in place that is.

Quote
In addition, there's the simple fact that keeping a museum piece (which is what most analog scopes are today) alive can be pretty challenging, and requires a second (working) scope when the primary one fails.

Unless you get the analog banger for free or very little money (say $50) then it's pretty much money flushed down the drain. Even Dave (who I think is a more traditional engineer) has stated he wouldn't recommend beginners to get an analog scope any more.

I don't doubt that for a moment - they do occasionally poke you in the eye and indeed I have a couple of parts mules. I haven't paid much for my scopes. I think about £50 for three 465B's so far and about 10 hours' investment of time in total over 3 years.

That's not bad, and if you know what you're getting into, why not? But the last bit (knowing what you're getting into) is often the problem.

Quote
However for the majority of people, owning a 2016 Mercedes E class (Keysight) isn't an option or at least isn't a sensible one, and a 2016 Kia (Rigol) will be in the garage once a year with electrical problems leaving you nothing to do other than wait around but a 2002 Ford Fiesta (random shitty analogue) gets them around with a bit of smoke coming out but that's not a problem because you're a two car family and you can pick another one up for pocket change if the engine falls out.

Leaving out that I don't think the car analogy fits (and the analog scopes is more like a Ford Model T than a Ford Fiasko), you forget that there's still the option to buy a younger 2nd hand big brand scope instead, i.e. Agilent, LeCroy, R&S (I don't include Tek here not just because their DSOs are generally poor but even very old Tek gear seems to fetch ridiculous prices). There are lots of options for almost all budget sizes. For example, I've seen fully functional LeCroy LC584 go for as low as £600, and that's a 4ch 1GHz 8GSa/s scope with a ton of advanced measurement and analysis functionality.

Quote
Oh and you don't need a laptop, ODB2 cable, thousands of odd shaped tools to fix the Fiesta.

But other than for the Fiesta, parts for that analog scopes haven't been made for more than a decade (and there aren't many 3rd parties making parts), and the proprietary ICs in some of these scopes are usually unobtainium, which is a problem as often they are also the parts that tend to fail.
Brexit n - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.
 

Offline Hydrawerk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2250
  • Country: 00
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2016, 04:05:08 AM »
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
Oh, a Keysight fanboi...
That was just an example. I am not a Keysight fanboy. For good performance and reliability for an affordable price you might consider GW Instek.
Amazing machines. http://www.youtube.com/user/denha (It is not me...)
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6354
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2016, 04:47:09 AM »
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
Oh, a Keysight fanboi...
That was just an example. I am not a Keysight fanboy. For good performance and reliability for an affordable price you might consider GW Instek.
I just wonder why you'd even name particular brands, "You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" would have done the trick.

(and I'm sure I can find threads on here dedicated to Keysight and GW Instek problems if I bother to look for them).
 

Offline theirishscion

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2016, 07:15:12 AM »
I just wonder why you'd even name particular brands, "You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" would have done the trick.

(and I'm sure I can find threads on here dedicated to Keysight and GW Instek problems if I bother to look for them).

"You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" is exactly it. You can expect all you like, you can rage, rage, against the dying of the light if it helps you feel better. But it's not going to magically make your hacked DS1054z industrial grade. (well, in a certain sense it already is industrial grade, I'll guarantee you they're being used all over China in industrial production settings. When we say industrial grade here, I think we mostly mean R&D grade, which is a very different thing)

What amazes me is how close to being industrial grade it actually is. Having worked with production industrial equipment in my former life (mostly in the context of building it and developing control software for it) I can assure you that industrial grade gear frequently falls quite far short of a what lot of EEVBlog denizens would seem to consider "industrial grade". You will of course get substantially better support if you pay $2000 for your 100mhz scope. The relative bang-per-buck of a hacked Rigol compared to the the incumbents offerings as of ~3 years ago (before they realized that competition was truly nipping at their heels) is, well, it's just silly. The incumbents are getting cheaper, better value, and frantically trying to hold onto some bottom end market share, but I promise you there's real fear in the boardroom. This is how giants fall.

There are many many threads on DS1054z bugs because Rigol have sold a metric ass-tonne of DS1054z. There are a LOT of them in the wild, and a lot of very invested eyeballs looking for bugs. Yet for some reason most folks (not all) who own a DS1054z seem to LOVE them, best I can tell. And when the time comes to get a 300MHz scope, who do you think they're going to consider first? When they start their first job after university, who are they going to recommend looking at first to their boss?

As for bugs in other scopes, I don't see nearly as many bug threads, and I believe that's mostly because they haven't sold nearly so many of them, or perhaps they have sold as many, but the people who're buying them aren't active on the forum. But bug threads there are.

Rather than moaning the there are still bugs in the firmware, a far more productive thing for the community to do would be to amass a really well documented and reproducible bug list and then politely and respectfully keep reminding Rigol NA about it until they get fixed. The forum has clout, we would all just need to pull in the same direction to wield it.
 
The following users thanked this post: madires, Fungus, julian1

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12228
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2016, 07:25:35 AM »
I just wonder why you'd even name particular brands, "You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" would have done the trick.

(and I'm sure I can find threads on here dedicated to Keysight and GW Instek problems if I bother to look for them).

"You can't expect 'industrial' for $400" is exactly it. You can expect all you like, you can rage, rage, against the dying of the light if it helps you feel better. But it's not going to magically make your hacked DS1054z industrial grade. (well, in a certain sense it already is industrial grade, I'll guarantee you they're being used all over China in industrial production settings.
In China you'll find mostly Tektronix and maybe Keysight. I got a few oscilloscope screendumps from China and much to my surprise whey where using Tektronix scopes.
Quote
Rather than moaning the there are still bugs in the firmware, a far more productive thing for the community to do would be to amass a really well documented and reproducible bug list and then politely and respectfully keep reminding Rigol NA about it until they get fixed. The forum has clout, we would all just need to pull in the same direction to wield it.
Don't bother because if that would actually work there wouldn't be so many bugs in Rigol (and Siglent) scopes today. The fact is these products are just cheap toys for hobbyists and tinkerers. Sure their scopes can display a signal but there are just too many bugs and checkbox features (functions with no practical use) to be used in any professional setting. If you spend a bit more the number of bugs goes down exponentially and the number of useful features goes up. As Hydrawerk already wrote GW Instek is a major step up from Rigol and Siglent.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 08:34:03 AM by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline theirishscion

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2016, 11:38:35 AM »
In China you'll find mostly Tektronix and maybe Keysight. I got a few oscilloscope screendumps from China and much to my surprise whey where using Tektronix scopes.
The industrial users I'm talking about generally aren't taking screen grabs and sending them to Dutch engineers, they're slamming the next board into the bed-o-nails and hitting the '????' (or whatever) button with one hand while they apply the oval QC Passed sticker to the last board they just pulled out of the fixture with the other. For every well engineered, well tested product being exactingly manufactured in China for the US and Western EU market, there are 10 other dodgy ones destined for the less affluent rest of the world being cranked out on the absolute cheapest functional equipment available to the manufacturer.

We all have excellent taste when we can afford it. We make compromises when we cannot, that goes double for the developing world.

Don't bother because if that would actually work there wouldn't be so many bugs in Rigol (and Siglent) scopes today. The fact is these products are just cheap toys for hobbyists and tinkerers. Sure their scopes can display a signal but there are just too many bugs and checkbox features (functions with no practical use) to be used in any professional setting. If you spend a bit more the number of bugs goes down exponentially and the number of useful features goes up. As Hydrawerk already wrote GW Instek is a major step up from Rigol and Siglent.

I'm not sure why you say 'don't bother'. The bug list in Rigol products seems to shrink substantially with each iteration of software they release for a given product (and yes, they occasionally introduce new bugs. That happens in software development. It's not good, per se, but no regression testing regimen is perfect). Surely having an actively curated 'to do' list on our part couldn't hurt, would provide a single point of reference for our community itself, a reference for them, and we know for a _fact_ that Siglent listens actively. I'm willing to bet that Rigol would cock an ear as well.

I'm disappointed by the "Rigol equipment is irredeemably crap, so why even bother? They're nowhere near comparable to $brand's professional tools" attitude that feels pervasive around here. Why the negativity? It seems churlish, like Americans disparaging Honda and Toyota in the late 1970s "That jap-crap will never be as good as my Chevy!". They're well made physically (Rigol at least). They're cheap. They're generously featured. They seem to be improving in leaps and bounds, year after year. Basically they seem like perfectly good honest machines. If nothing else, cheap-o Rigol kit is absolutely adequate for the vast majority of technician-level work. And that is of course going to be the bread and butter demographic for the brand to begin with. Look at the background in most of Louis Rossmann's videos; ( etc) a venerable old DS1102E, which is apparently quite adequate for his repair work. And yes, he's tighter than a duck's arse, but then so are most businessmen and tradesmen. They spend money when they _need_ to.
 

Offline Gary350z

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2016, 12:58:48 PM »
Rather than moaning the there are still bugs in the firmware, a far more productive thing for the community to do would be to amass a really well documented and reproducible bug list and then politely and respectfully keep reminding Rigol NA about it until they get fixed. The forum has clout, we would all just need to pull in the same direction to wield it.

There is already a bug list for the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1490
  • Country: us
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2016, 01:32:40 PM »
I am on my second Rigol oscilloscope (DS1102E for three years; bought a DS4014 last year) and did not have a problem with them. Sure, a bug here and there and some corners cut on the implementation, but nothing yet that scared me away from the brand - especially if the price is right. 

Regarding the popularity, the number of oscilloscopes sold is reflected on the number of complaints - it is just human nature to voice anything only when you are pissed. On the other hand, the popularity brings detailed improvements by users (this one is the best IMHO) and extensive bug reports.

 
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline theirishscion

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 12
  • Country: us
Re: Rigol reliability
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2016, 03:23:14 PM »
There is already a bug list for the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/
The data in that list appears to be somewhat stale (last update months older than last firmware update). If you slog through the whole thread, many of the bugs are, well, either not reproducible, or outright fixed. Which is not to say that bugs don't remain, rather that that list is not an entirely accurate reflection of those bugs. And this release list isn't what I'd associate with a company who doesn't care about fixing bugs; http://beyondmeasure.rigoltech.com/acton/attachment/1579/f-0657/1/-/-/-/-/DS1000Z%20Firmware%20Release%20Notes.pdf?sid=KC33isVPp

Also, the entire 2nd half of the list is pure wishlist, not bugs.

But yes, I am glad some attempt has been made to catalog these errors, it'd be nice if it was a bit more curated. Not that it's our job to do so, far from it. Rigol are running lean though, very few employees for a very productive organization. As reflected in their pricing.

Ironically, I suspect the success of the DS1000z series has been its downfall; bugs and all, they still seem to sell 'em as fast as they can make 'em. I bet they'd have got another revision of the firmware out already if they were in 2nd or 3rd place. :-)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 03:47:29 PM by theirishscion »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf

 

http://opalkelly.com/