EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: Gary350z on May 05, 2016, 08:27:56 pm
-
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?
-
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 :)
-
Rigol DM:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/video-review-rigol-dm3068-6-5-digit-digital-multimeter/?action=dlattach;attach=26674;image)
R&S DM:
(http://streamlinemechatronics.com/picts/DSCN0435.JPG)
I think nothing is wrong with the Rigol, if you are aware what to expect.
sources:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/video-review-rigol-dm3068-6-5-digit-digital-multimeter/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/video-review-rigol-dm3068-6-5-digit-digital-multimeter/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hameg-hmc8012-porn/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hameg-hmc8012-porn/)
-
What does everyone think about this?
You get what you pay for. If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
-
My Rigol tech support has been excellent. :-+
What does everyone think about this?
You have had some unlucky gear but from what I read everything was fixed and they were quite responsive to get things right. For me that is really great. It is not critical to my business to have zero downtime and cost is an issue so Rigol seems like a great choice for many options. If I was operating a business where we used test gear to manufacture millions of dollars of equipment then sure it would be dumb to not have top quality gear from someone like Keysight since downtime could cost a ton.
-
What does everyone think about this?
The forums aren't full of people complaining, so... I guess you had bad luck :-//
Be happy that you got good support.
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
Oh, a Keysight fanboi...
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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!
-
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 :)
-
What does everyone think about this?
About the same experience except warranty support here completely sucks.
-
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.
-
And another example of poor support, or how Keysight deals with a 3 years old bug (starts at about 22:03):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x5Ud5bw-bk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x5Ud5bw-bk)
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
Oh, a Keysight fanboi...
That was just an example. I am not a Keysight fanboy. For good performance and reliability for an affordable price you might consider GW Instek.
-
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ 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).
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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; ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLH2Ns7Zqo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLH2Ns7Zqo8) 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.
-
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:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/)
-
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 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-rotary-encoder-mod/) is the best IMHO) and extensive bug reports.
-
There is already a bug list for the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-(ds1054z-ds1074z-ds1104z-and-s-models)-bugswish-list/ (https://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 (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. :-)
-
Is still wonder why people nag about quality for a 400 dollar scope. Most descent second hand 100MHz scopes cost more. You get lots of features, 4 channels...
Of course they could make it a better quality scope and improve support, so people could nag why the damn thing has to cost over a grand.
I had my share of experiences with expensive gear that failed prematurely or had very bad support.
I have had gear with some quality control issues. I contacted the right people, and they replaced the gear without any costs, and sonetimes even throw in extras or upgrades as a compensation. If that device would be the first gear I received from them I might have gotten the idea they would sell bad stuff. But they don't, someone can make a mistake, even if it is by mistake, or on purpose.
In most support cases the quality is verry much depending in who you are talking too/mailing with. Some people love their job and would like to help you out, other people don't or had a shitty day and would like to tell you to go f#ck yourself. Of course when you talked to one of them you know all about the quality of their service.
Lots of people are happy with their Rigol product, so in the end it's not that bad.
I only used the DS6xxx series scope, and I loved it. It's so much faster and feels so much better than my 15K tek scope. I don't know about quality on the long run, so well see.
-
Rigol are running lean though, very few employees for a very productive organization.
I've spoken to Rigol NA several times. They are very nice people. They have said "they will do what ever they can to make me happy".:-+ They also said they only have 7 or 8 people in the whole United States.
-
Is still wonder why people nag about quality for a 400 dollar scope. Most descent second hand 100MHz scopes cost more. You get lots of features, 4 channels...
Of course they could make it a better quality scope and improve support, so people could nag why the damn thing has to cost over a grand.
I had a problem with Rigol multimeter. Price was about 80% of similar Agilent (Keysight) meter. Their service completely sucked, replacement, which I got in the end, was a filthy used unit. Half a year spent (sitting there for months, travelling back and forth to Germany because they didn't admit the fault) to replace the unit which developed a fault within a week from purchase :palm:.
-
I had a problem with Rigol multimeter. Price was about 80% of similar Agilent (Keysight) meter. Their service completely sucked, replacement, which I got in the end, was a filthy used unit. Half a year spent (sitting there for months, travelling back and forth to Germany because they didn't admit the fault) to replace the unit which developed a fault within a week from purchase :palm:.
My Rigol scope was repaired in 2 weeks by Rigol NA. Brand new main board. Excellent returned condition. :-+
I've read many times Rigol repair/service in other countries is crap.
-
Yes, service quality usually depends on which country you live. For some companies I always contact their USA headquarters, local offices tend to take much longer if they react at all.
-
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.
Rigol and Siglent may be listening but that doesn't stop them from throwing half assed products on the market and waiting years to fix the bugs listed on this forum. If I buy a scope (or any other piece of equipment) I want it to work as advertised when I receive it. I don't want to wait years for the firmware to become functional. What Rigol and Siglent are doing is using their customers as their software test department so as a customer you are basically paying for testing their product. How dumb is that?
Ofcourse people keep raving on about bang for your buck but if you put the (unhacked) Rigol DS1074Z next to the GW Instek GDS2074E you'll see that the latter is cheaper ($860 from Tequipment versus $1293), has more features, deeper memory with 4 channels on, etc.
-
Ofcourse people keep raving on about bang for your buck but if you put the (unhacked) Rigol DS1074Z next to the GW Instek
:-DD
Yes, but nobody would ever do that. They'd put a hacked DS1054Z next to it and that would make your GW Instek look like very poor value for money.
-
Ofcourse people keep raving on about bang for your buck but if you put the (unhacked) Rigol DS1074Z next to the GW Instek
:-DD
Yes, but nobody would ever do that. They'd put a hacked DS1054Z next to it and that would make your GW Instek look like very poor value for money.
For as long as you CAN hack it and IF Rigol never decides to undo the hacks with a firmware update. But you are making my point perfectly: Rigol wouldn't sell any of their 1000Z series if people had to pay full price.
-
For as long as you CAN hack it and IF Rigol never decides to undo the hacks with a firmware update.
:-DD
This isn't Microsoft. Rigol can't force a firmware update on anybody.
But you are making my point perfectly: Rigol wouldn't sell any of their 1000Z series if people had to pay full price.
Rubbish. I'd still have bought my 1054Z even if it was hard-locked to 50MHz. 50MHz is plenty for my tinkering and an oscilloscope is a must-have piece of equipment (preferably with 4 channels).
You really should have to ask yourself why the GDS2074E you keep pointing us to has a [urlhttps://www.testequipmentdepot.com/instek/oscilloscopes/digital/70-mhz-4-channel-digital-storage-oscilloscope-gds2074e.htm]30% discount[/url]? Can we say "they're dumping them because they're not selling any"? I think we can.
It's not really surprising because at the original retail price I could buy three DS1054Zs for the price of one GW Instek. The specs are very similar, nobody in their right mind would pay $1150 for a GDS2074E when there's $400 Rigols around.
-
Oddly enough GW Instek's alternative (GDS-1054B) for an unhacked DS1054Z is cheaper (at Tequipment) than the DS1054Z while it offers 1Mpts FFT, faster update rates, more memory with 4 channels enabled, higher samplerate with 4 channels enabled and most importantly: way less bugs. You'd be utterly stupid the buy the DS1054Z and not hack it because there is no value for money at all without hacking it!
And sure Rigol isn't forcing you to upgrade but what if there is the choice between fixing those irritating bugs versus losing the hacked options? Nobody knows when Rigol is going to plug the hole!
Besides that you are casually forgetting about the many bugs and shortcomings of the DS1000Z series. It can make a lot of sense to spend some more money on a better product than going for the ultimate value for money and ending up with a tool you can't really use (=just wasting money).
-
Nobody knows when Rigol is going to plug the hole!
Are you a betting man? I'm happy to take your money on that one. :popcorn:
-
I'd only be sad to lose the serial decoding.. but not that much to be honest.
I wonder if the GW has also a more stable triggering
Too bad the price is 150~200 euros more than the rigol here in europe
-
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.
Rigol and Siglent may be listening but that doesn't stop them from throwing half assed products on the market and waiting years to fix the bugs listed on this forum. If I buy a scope (or any other piece of equipment) I want it to work as advertised when I receive it. I don't want to wait years for the firmware to become functional. What Rigol and Siglent are doing is using their customers as their software test department so as a customer you are basically paying for testing their product. How dumb is that?
Its not dumb, its sneaky greedy behavior! The institutionalized (intentional deliberate board room decision) mentality to pack boxes full of bugs is sneaky and its a international trend seen all over the electronic industry. :box:
-
My 2c, I've worked with GWInstek devices off/on for >= 35 years, and they consistently field devices that live up to their spec sheets once released for sale, function reliably over years of use, with whatever bugs that existed tending to be non-critical if nonexistent; otherwise the spec sheet would be a lie at the time it was released for sale.
One really wants to focus on the project at hand not on applying bug fixes and hacking the device, unless the project itself is simply just hacking and exploring the device.
The 'GW' was their old trade name 'Good Will' from the 1970-1990s and you can still see their gear sold with that name on eBay from the early 1980s. GW now is the name of their corporate holding company with Instek, IIRC comes from "Instrument Technology" is the subsidiary that produces T&M gear which they adopted from the 1990s.
That said, they only issue I've ever had in using their devices is performance for price; when they started they competed against Heathkit, B&K, Leader, Trio, Global Specialties, Radio Shack, etc., and may have even been OEM for those brands. Today, there are in a niche carved on their own, higher than B&K types today, but much less under Keysight compared to its early days.
When Rigol came out with the 1000E series in 2007-8?and the 1052e in particular, it was stellar and bug free. But over the years, QC management has worsened, it can be seen in more products than just the 1054Z; all you need do is google 'Rigol problems' and read of complaints or see videos, and its not just at eevblog.
Granted, Rigol's issues can all be fixed at some point, but you have to wait and live through it, and lose that time meant for other things in your project had you gotten another brand.
Comparing the two scopes you mention contrast their management style as well as engineering savvy.
Oddly enough GW Instek's alternative (GDS-1054B) for an unhacked DS1054Z is cheaper (at Tequipment) than the DS1054Z while it offers 1Mpts FFT, faster update rates, more memory with 4 channels enabled, higher samplerate with 4 channels enabled and most importantly: way less bugs. You'd be utterly stupid the buy the DS1054Z and not hack it because there is no value for money at all without hacking it!
And sure Rigol isn't forcing you to upgrade but what if there is the choice between fixing those irritating bugs versus losing the hacked options? Nobody knows when Rigol is going to plug the hole!
Besides that you are casually forgetting about the many bugs and shortcomings of the DS1000Z series. It can make a lot of sense to spend some more money on a better product than going for the ultimate value for money and ending up with a tool you can't really use (=just wasting money).
-
It's not really surprising because at the original retail price I could buy three DS1054Zs for the price of one GW Instek. The specs are very similar, nobody in their right mind would pay $1150 for a GDS2074E when there's $400 Rigols around.
Specs are similar, quality is similar if you compare GDS2074E to DS1054Z (even if hacked to 100M). Really?
Other is serious tool and other is bottom entry level toy (but still not at all bad if think features and price specially for some "many kind of" hobby use).
-
I saw Dave's review of the GWInstek 1000B series fairly late and checked into scope prices at tequipment.net last week. Naturally, many DSO in the entry level are compared against Rigols 1000's these days.
They had ~800 1054Z in stock on May 14, and yesterday it was down to 467. That's amazing if true. At that rate they should be out by end of May 2016.
Regardless of its problems, it striking how many scopes they sell and I presume, reflects overall general interest in electronics at the entry level or hobbyist end.
For later reference here's a snapshot from yesterday.
-
Rigol, beyond measure! :) If GW would dump the price to 450, 50 bucks above Rigoletto i bet Rigoletto's sales would plumet!
The only defense Rigoletto would have is to lower price even further, and this would start a price race, lowest price wins no
matter how many bugs! ;)
-
Rigol, beyond measure! :) If GW would dump the price to 450, 50 bucks above Rigoletto i bet Rigoletto's sales would plumet!
The only defense Rigoletto would have is to lower price even further, and this would start a price race, lowest price wins no
matter how many bugs!
The only thing Rigol has going for them is the hackability. If the DS1000Z couldn't be hacked they would not sell a single unit. I'm wondering how fast the stock goes on other DS1000Z models so I just checked Tequipment and they have 10 units at most for the other 1000Z models.
-
Rigol, beyond measure! :) If GW would dump the price to 450, 50 bucks above Rigoletto i bet Rigoletto's sales would plumet!
I'd take that bet (and win!)
The only defense Rigoletto would have is to lower price even further, and this would start a price race, lowest price wins no
matter how many bugs!
Nope.
a) Most people aren't seeing the Rigol bugs - they're too obscure (I've only seen them because I followed instructions and went looking for them in the right sub-sub-menus, if I hadn't done that, then, meh).
b) GW Instek would also have to raise the bandwidth to 100Mhz and give the serial decoders away if they want to compete. Even then they only have two channels vs. Rigol's four. What use are serial decoders on a two-channel 'scope? :-//
Nope. To get a better oscilloscope then a hacked DS1054Z from GW-Instek you're not looking at the base model, you're looking at something that costs three times as much.
-
Rigol, beyond measure! :) If GW would dump the price to 450, 50 bucks above Rigoletto i bet Rigoletto's sales would plumet!
I'd take that bet (and win!)
The only defense Rigoletto would have is to lower price even further, and this would start a price race, lowest price wins no
matter how many bugs!
Nope.
a) Most people aren't seeing the Rigol bugs - they're too obscure (I've only seen them because I followed instructions and went looking for them in the right sub-sub-menus, if I hadn't done that, then, meh).
b) GW Instek would also have to raise the bandwidth to 100Mhz and give the serial decoders away if they want to compete. Even then they only have two channels vs. Rigol's four. What use are serial decoders on a two-channel 'scope? :-//
Nope. To get a better oscilloscope then a hacked DS1054Z from GW-Instek you're not looking at the base model, you're looking at something that costs three times as much.
It would seem that the GW Instek equivalent of a hacked DS1054Z would be the GDS-1104B and TEquipment has it for $730. Rigol certainly knows that users are going to upgrade their scopes and have taken no actions to prevent it. They KNOW they are selling a 100 MHz scope for a 50 MHz price and don't care. Well, that kind of works for me. There may be a more appropriate GW scope to compare but I want to compare it with a hacked DS1054Z because that's why I bought it.
Dave's recommendation and video carry a lot of weight. I don't know anything about a business relationship but Dave's enthusiasm made a big impact on my decision to buy.
I just watched Dave's teardown of a GW Instek GDS-1000B and he didn't seem all that impressed with some of the design decisions (cooling, shielding) but thought the use of a Zynq FPGA was clever (and it is!). The only thing worthwhile, from my point of view, was the interest it generated in playing with the Zynq. I guess I'll have to buy a Digilent board.
I didn't find a teardown or review of the GDS-1104B. If there is one, I would certainly like to see it. I would really like to see a side-by-side comparison.
Of course, we have to acknowledge that the GDS-1104B is absolutely without fault as opposed to the truly buggy nature of the Rigol. Or we can skip over that bit and use the cost difference to buy beer. We're never going to work in the corners anyway.
Without question, we can find better scopes that cost more money. There's a reason that some scopes cost $2k, $10k or even more. I don't know what it is exactly but it must be impressive.
Yup, the 1054 is a hobby grade entry level scope. Exactly why I bought it.
-
And another example of poor support, or how Keysight deals with a 3 years old bug (starts at about 22:03):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x5Ud5bw-bk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x5Ud5bw-bk)
I discussed this on another thread that I won't dig up. But basically here's what's going on:
Essentially, it comes down to an ideology that we hold here at Keysight scopes. That is: “Don’t compromise the waveform update rate!”
Keysight auto trigger mode works like this:
0. Assume a stable trigger was found
1. Wait for another valid trigger event
a.wait time = maximum of (4 * total time on screen) or 50 µs
i.note: on the 2000 and 3000A scopes, the wait time = maximum of (1/2 * total time on screen) or 50 µs. This is what we changed in firmware.
b. If a valid trigger event is found before (a) has passed, repeat (1)
c. If no event found, go to (2)
2. Enter “autotrigger” (or free-run) mode: acquire and display signals as fast as possible
a. The “as fast as possible” will be the fastest update rate available at that time/div setting
3. While doing (2), check trigger circuitry every 250ms to see if there was a valid trigger event in the past 250 ms
a. If there was a valid event, go to (1)
b. If there wasn’t a valid event, go to (2)
So here’s what is happening. For the 1 Hz cardiac pulse, because the pulses are so far apart and only happening once, the scope essentially stays in auto trigger mode (2). E.g. if there was a pulse in the previous 250ms period then it will wait for another pulse, but will time out before the required 750ms has elapsed unless the time/div setting is high enough (see 1). For example, put the cardiac pulse on and set the time/div to 25ms. Because the screen is then showing 250 ms of time, the wait period will be 4*250 ms = 1s and you will see the regular trigger.
What Tek and some other vendors do is build in a wait time after every single capture. I think Tek has an initial wait time of 4*time on screen, the switches to 2*time on screen after each subsequent trigger event. We spend the majority of the free-run time (2) acquiring and plotting instead of waiting.
The 3000T, 4000 X-Series, and 6000 X-Series scopes all follow the 1a guidelines, while the older 2000 X-Series and 3000A scopes keep the 1ai scheme. Ultimately, I don’t see this as a bug. I’m not just saying that because I work for Keysight, but as I’ve looked at this closer it seems to be more of a difference in ideologies about how auto trigger mode should work and how auto trigger mode is implemented, especially in the free-run portion of the state machine.
Another thought I had here is that our built-in DVM could run on the side and let you know immediately if the pulse stops because the frequency will change. Our DVM will work on the same channel you are probing, too, so no extra probing is necessary.
I hope this makes sense, I’d be happy to discuss further or clarify if I wasn’t clear enough.
-
Dave's recommendation and video carry a lot of weight. I don't know anything about a business relationship but Dave's enthusiasm made a big impact on my decision to buy.
IMHO that is not always a good idea. Dave overlooks a lot of things because he only does a very limited review of a product. I like Dave's teardown videos but his reviews are less informative than the datasheet of a piece of equipment. Especially with Chinese equipment I want to know if all the functions are really there and whether they are actually useful or just a checkbox item. Basically a full functional check but I do understand that really is too much to ask (and probably makes a really boring video) so when trying to get more info on a product I go through what is available on internet with a fine comb to get facts and not opinions (even if they come from Dave).
-
I discussed this on another thread that I won't dig up. But basically here's what's going on:
Essentially, it comes down to an ideology that we hold here at Keysight scopes. That is: “Don’t compromise the waveform update rate!”
Thanks for the detailed explanation! Still, it took 3 years to give the customer a feedback?
-
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...
My goodness, you sound like the guys that drive clapped out Korean cars with racing stripes and a fartcan exhaust scoffing at clearly superior vehicles and their owners.
Your Rigol is good value for the money. In comparison to Keysight it's an entry level toy. I realize that may be painful to hear. On the other hand, maybe you're just much smarter than the professionals who overwhelmingly favor Keysight (I have never seen a Rigol in a professional environment, have you?).
Of course, I could be wrong, and even if money were not an object you'd choose Rigol over Keysight for some inexplicable reason. Is that the case?
-
There is also the matter of risk. How much money is at risk should the product prove unsatisfactory? I can afford to toss a $400 scope but I would probably have to fight with Customer Service over a $2000 scope. I would drive to the factory for a $10,000 scope.
One thought that runs through my mind: All of the Chinese scopes are crap. Some crap is more highly refined but still crap. I know going in that there will be some number of problems with likely good results away from the edges of the specs. Now I can decide how much money to risk. It's a balance between acceptable performance and acceptable risk. As a hobbyist, my acceptable risk is much lower than if I were writing a Purchase Req for a large corporation. Not my money, the boss' money!
In the measurement business there are two, may three companies. Fluke if you want to measure things, Tektronix if you want to see things and maybe, just maybe, Agilent on their better stuff. But even the biggies are selling rebadged Chinese tools so how do you decide which ones are suitable? Price is one way but it just doesn't work for hobbyists. The prices are so off-putting that nobody will do more than look and drool. Then it's on to the Chinese products.
I'm not interested in a company with a great Customer Service department. I want to do business with a company that doesn't need one! Alas, my world doesn't work that way...
-
The days of Tektronix are long gone. When needing equipment I don't even look at their offerings even though I have owned several Tektronix scopes. Lecroy and R&S OTOH are missing from your list of A-brands.
-
So comparing it today they're down to 424. That's 43 scopes is about 2 business days and today isn't over yet. FWIW.
I saw Dave's review of the GWInstek 1000B series fairly late and checked into scope prices at tequipment.net last week. Naturally, many DSO in the entry level are compared against Rigols 1000's these days.
They had ~800 1054Z in stock on May 14, and yesterday it was down to 467. That's amazing if true. At that rate they should be out by end of May 2016.
Regardless of its problems, it striking how many scopes they sell and I presume, reflects overall general interest in electronics at the entry level or hobbyist end.
For later reference here's a snapshot from yesterday.
-
If you want an industrial grade instruments, save more $$$ and buy some Keysight gear.
Oh, a Keysight fanboi...
Your Rigol is good value for the money. In comparison to Keysight it's an entry level toy. I realize that may be painful to hear.
Not at all.
On the other hand, maybe you're just much smarter than the professionals who overwhelmingly favor Keysight (I have never seen a Rigol in a professional environment, have you?).
Another keysight fanboi? :-//
On the other hand, Of course, I could be wrong, and even if money were not an object you'd choose Rigol over Keysight for some inexplicable reason. Is that the case?
No, but when people coming in here asking about "Rigol" or "Which oscilloscope is best for $400" then there's no need to go on and on about other brands which cost five to ten times as much and look down on them for buying a Rigol.
I realize it may be painful to hear, but some people really do just want to know what the best value low-end oscilloscope is. So far, nobody's come up with a better option than a hacked Rigol DS1054Z.
And, getting back on topic: Rigol reliability does seem up to par. You can obsess all day long about the hanful of bugs in the firmware but they're well built and do a fine job of displaying wiggly lines on a screen. The difference between not owning an oscilloscope and owning a cheapo Rigol is night and day. Don't deny people that just because you think a "professional" would turn his nose up at one.
PS: Dave's a professional and he likes them.
-
Dave's daytime job is being a vlogger so whatever looks good on video works for him! >:D
Anyway you can still argue whether to spend $400 on a cheap tool (with several severe shortcomings you really just can't ignore like only decoding what is on screen, measurements which don't work, short FFT, etc) or save more cash and get a real tool. If you go for the real tool afterwards then the $400 is just wasted. From my own experience I know going for the cheap tool is mighty tempting but if you are serious about electronics a good tool might be a much better investment even though it takes longer to get the cash. Making do with one of the sub $100 pocket-scopes in the mean time is another alternative.
-
(with several severe shortcomings you really just can't ignore like only decoding what is on screen, measurements which don't work, short FFT, etc)
It may be painful to hear, but some people really don't do complex FFTs or look at maximum slew rates. They just want to see wiggly lines.
And ... to get a better, 4-channel 'scope with serial decoding option is going to cost you at least four times as much as a DS1054Z (I say "4 channels" because a 2-channel 'scope is painfully limited when it comes to looking at anything more than RS232).
Is decoding more than what's on screen really worth $1200 extra? I think you'll have a tough time selling that to anybody.
-
Your Rigol is good value for the money. In comparison to Keysight it's an entry level toy. I have never seen a Rigol in a professional environment, have you?
Maybe you can go and comfort the guy in this thread:
"I havent been lucky with Agilent/Keysight at all. In the last 3 years, this is the thrid time a brand new equipment fails on me"
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oh-no!-i'm-never-buying-any-agilent-keysight-equiment-ever-again! (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oh-no!-i'm-never-buying-any-agilent-keysight-equiment-ever-again!/msg945126/#msg945126)
-
Actually it's quite handy to have a cheap tool and an expensive professional one. For some tasks I wouldn't use the professional one, it's simply too valuable.
-
(with several severe shortcomings you really just can't ignore like only decoding what is on screen, measurements which don't work, short FFT, etc)
It may be painful to hear, but some people really don't do complex FFTs or look at maximum slew rates. They just want to see wiggly lines.
And ... to get a better, 4-channel 'scope with serial decoding option is going to cost you at least four times as much as a DS1054Z (I say "4 channels" because a 2-channel 'scope is painfully limited when it comes to looking at anything more than RS232).
Is decoding more than what's on screen really worth $1200 extra? I think you'll have a tough time selling that to anybody.
It is not $1200 extra. $1200 buys you a 4 channel scope which does 200MHz AND does everything the DS1000Z promises to do but fails to deliver. To me spending $1200 instead of $400 to get a tool which works is well worth the money any day. It's not like you'll need FFT or decoding every day but if you need it and it has so much limitations that it is just useless then you might be much better of by spending the $400 on a used digital oscilloscope and get 300MHz of bandwidth (or even more) and do without decoding.
-
The smug elitism on show in this thread is certainly not endearing me as a relative beginner to Keysight or any of the other higher-end brands being mentioned.
I pulled my Rigol 1054z apart and was impressed with the build quality - except for the damn noisy fan - easily solved with a quieter substitute.
I purchased fluke/agilent power-supplies and bench meters for the build, price and performance. I chose rigol and siglent for other equipment on the same criteria.
Dave's review of the "made in China" Keithley DMM, which eclipsed the Keysight alternative on build demonstrates that manufacturing origin is no bar to quality.
-
The smug elitism on show in this thread is certainly not endearing me as a relative beginner to Keysight or any of the other higher-end brands being mentioned.
You'll find most recent threads on scopes demonstrate this ongoing pissing contest and many thrive on it. ::)
My scope's better than your scope....
No it isn't
Yes it is
No it isn't
Yes it is
Rinse and repeat.
Fact is each have their strong points and weaknesses.......
-
Fact is each have their strong points and weaknesses.......
No, the fact is some equipment lives up to it's specifications and other doesn't. We didn't even got to the point of strong and weak points!
-
The only thing Rigol has going for them is the hackability. If the DS1000Z couldn't be hacked they would not sell a single unit. I'm wondering
how fast the stock goes on other DS1000Z models so I just checked Tequipment and they have 10 units at most for the other 1000Z models.
I reason similar, it is the hack-ability that sells them, i learned that many other more expensive Rigolettos can also be hacked
so it seams this is a deliberate marketing/sales plan. We enable you to upgrade for free if you accept all our bugs and rotten
customer service. >:D
-
$1200 for a hobby is too rich for me. I had a problem with $400. It's just a low end hobby, not nearly my #1 hobby. A second scope just isn't worth any more than $400.
-
To me spending $1200 instead of $400 to get a tool which works is well worth the money any day.
Yep, that's YOU.
It's not like you'll need FFT or decoding every day but if you need it
And ... if you turns out you don't need FFT then you wasted $800. $800 buys a lot of other stuff. You can have a proper power supply, a decent soldering iron, a second multimeter and a whole bunch of components to work with for $800. If you're a hobbyist just trying to have fun with electronics then spending $800 "just in case" makes no sense at all.
And even if you do need a more detailed FFT, you might still have wasted $800:
http://hackaday.com/2015/09/22/a-better-spectrum-analyzer-for-your-rigol-scope/ (http://hackaday.com/2015/09/22/a-better-spectrum-analyzer-for-your-rigol-scope/)
Anyway, I'm done with you. I've got better things to do. I've been called pig-headed many times but you win, you're better than me. Everybody's sick of listening to this crap and you're obviously blind to the real world.
From now on I'll just limit myself to telling other people to go ahead and buy/enjoy DS1054sZ. If you can find a single hobbyist who regrets buying one for non-specialized use then I'm all ears (and that's the only parameter that matters, IMHO)
-
I realize it may be painful to hear, but some people really do just want to know what the best value low-end oscilloscope is.
And, getting back on topic: Rigol reliability does seem up to par.
PS: Dave's a professional and he likes them.
Many good points Fungus. Thanks.
People argue too much about this here. For a hobbyist, if your needs are simple you get a $400 scope, if all you have is $400 you get a $400 scope, if you have money to burn you get a much better scope. If you really appreciate a $10,000 scope and can afford it, go for it. End of story!!!
Not all hobbyist are designing space shuttles at home.
Changing subjects. When watching youtube home electronics videos or pictures of peoples home benches on this forum, a lot of them have stacks of Fluke and Keysight bench multimeters, stacks or Keysight power supplies, $4000 scopes, spectrum analyzers, etc. This is some serious money.
The other day I counted 13 hand held multimeters on some guys shelf. :wtf: Who needs 13 multimeters!!!
"The Signal Path" guy has a half millon dollar scope in his house. (nothing against "The Signal Path", he's great)
I'm just saying this is some serious money for a hobbyist.
-
Changing subjects. When watching youtube home electronics videos or pictures of peoples home benches on this forum, a lot of them have stacks of Fluke and Keysight bench multimeters, stacks or Keysight power supplies, $4000 scopes, spectrum analyzers, etc. This is some serious money.
The other day I counted 13 hand held multimeters on some guys shelf. :wtf: Who needs 13 multimeters!!!
"The Signal Path" guy has a half millon dollar scope in his house. (nothing against "The Signal Path", he's great)
I'm just saying this is some serious money for a hobbyist.
There was recent discussion on this matter in this thread that may enlighten you as to just why.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/keysight-giving-scopes-to-youtubers/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/keysight-giving-scopes-to-youtubers/)
-
I really ask myself how many people really bought such an expensive scope for home use. Most people in electronics I know can never afford a 1K scope or up. Lets be honest, most of us have wives, kids, morgages, and bills to pay, or are still in school without big bucks to spend.
I have the luxury of having quite some electronics and repair knowledge, so most of my gear was bought or givin to be broken. This was the only way for me to get all the gear I have. Without this I would seriously consider a Rigol scope.
-
I really ask myself how many people really bought such an expensive scope. Most people in electronics I know can never afford a 1K scope or up. Lets be honest, most of us have wives, kids, morgages, and bills to pay, or are still in school without big bucks to spend.
You have to see getting good tools as an investment. Doing measurements (or anything else) more quickly/efficiently means more time for other things. For example: I bought my first DSO and high end logic analyzer (both used) in my early 20's when I was still studying even though they where in the 1k to 2k euro ball-park in today's money each. Those tools helped me a lot to solve problems / learn things more quickly. The logic analyser came in particulary handy for my graduation project where I had to debug a huge amount of code running in a microcontroller (back then internal flash/ram wasn't commnon so you could pick up code & data from the external address/data bus connecting the flash and ram). If I didn't had the logic analyser I think I would have spend at least a month longer because the some problems where not very obvious (like a bug in the C compiler). Working on my graduation project for a month longer would have meant waiting a month longer before getting a job. All in all the logic analyser paid itself back twice by just using it for the graduation project.
-
Changing subjects. When watching youtube home electronics videos or pictures of peoples home benches on this forum, a lot of them have stacks of Fluke and Keysight bench multimeters, stacks or Keysight power supplies, $4000 scopes, spectrum analyzers, etc. This is some serious money.
The other day I counted 13 hand held multimeters on some guys shelf. :wtf: Who needs 13 multimeters!!!
"The Signal Path" guy has a half millon dollar scope in his house. (nothing against "The Signal Path", he's great)
I'm just saying this is some serious money for a hobbyist.
There was recent discussion on this matter in this thread that may enlighten you as to just why.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/keysight-giving-scopes-to-youtubers/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/keysight-giving-scopes-to-youtubers/)
I've already read that discussion, but thanks.
-
You have to see getting good tools as an investment.
I do know everything about good tools, debugging and repairing stuff is a big part of my job. I know what good (reliable) tools can do, and I also know what bad (unreliable) tools can do. The problem is, expensive tools don't mean they are better or easier or faster to use. We recently replaced a >30K Tek with a 6K Rigol. The Rigol is smaller, faster to setup, is faster in updates, faster to boot.
But we are getting a bit off topic, the topic is Rigol's reliability.
I had enough problems with Keithley, Fluke, Tektronix and Weller gear. These are known as A brand, but I had the stupidest problems with them. We had about 50% of our Weller gear failed within 3 years (expensive stations). Our brand new Fluke thermal camera has more issues than you can count. We had an expensive Tek scope repaired multiple times, the problem still exists. We had a Keithley electrometer fail after about 1,5 years of use, and the repair took months. We also have lots of cheaper gear, but we never had any problem with them.
-
You have to see getting good tools as an investment.
I do know everything about good tools, debugging and repairing stuff is a big part of my job. I know what good (reliable) tools can do, and I also know what bad (unreliable) tools can do. The problem is, expensive tools don't mean they are better or easier or faster to use. We recently replaced a >30K Tek with a 6K Rigol. The Rigol is smaller, faster to setup, is faster in updates, faster to boot.
But we are getting a bit off topic, the topic is Rigol's reliability.
Then you had a wrong tool for the job. Of course if you get expensive advanced scope, it will be more difficult to use for simple everyday job than some simpler scope.
-
That's true, that's why I replaced it. I still wonder why they got the 30K Tek for a basic measurement in the first place.
-
I had enough problems with Keithley, Fluke, Tektronix and Weller gear.
I never wrote you need to get A-brand gear because A-brand gear is always good because it is more expensive or just has the A-brand logo on it! I only wrote that spending a bit more can buy you a piece of equipment which has more mature features so will provide better value for money in the long run. I'm also not a fan of the pray-gear approach where you buy a piece of equipment and have to pray & hope they eventually fix the issues and complete the promised functionality in a next firmware release.
-
I never wrote you need to get A-brand gear because A-brand gear is always good because it is more expensive or just has the A-brand logo on it!
It was a general remark about brands, it was not meant towards you.
Some people expect all kind of problems with non-A brand brand gear like Rigol, and expect nothing but perfection when buying A brands. It was just meant to show that I had my share of troubles with A-brands. I also have lots of cheap gear still working perfectly after years of use and abuse. Years ago I was just like that, distrusting all "lesser" brands. The main problem I faced was budget. Sometimes your budget does not permit A-brands, and you have to choose between a lesser brand, or nothing at all. I quickly learned most of them work just as well, or even better.
-
If you really appreciate a $10,000 scope and can afford it, go for it. End of story!!!
Why stop there?
A $20,000 scope is even better! People who own $20,000 'scopes probably look at $2,000 'scopes and think they're "toys", too.
Dave had a video with a $140,000 'scope. People who own those probably look at $20,000 'scopes and think they're junk - totally unsuitable for real work.
And guess what? If you own a Rigol DS1054Z you can look down on all the people who only have DSO Quads, etc., no problem! :-+
-
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.
I wouldn't include LeCrap in that list, they seem to be full of bugs. In the space of 30 minutes using a Wavesurfer 3000 series the "Cursors" process had crashed and needed to be restarted several times. Even the Keysight has a few issues - the 3000T series the other day was locking up when protocol decoding. Never had an issue with R&S though.
-
I had enough problems with Keithley, Fluke, Tektronix and Weller gear. These are known as A brand, but I had the stupidest problems with them. We had about 50% of our Weller gear failed within 3 years (expensive stations). Our brand new Fluke thermal camera has more issues than you can count. We had an expensive Tek scope repaired multiple times, the problem still exists. We had a Keithley electrometer fail after about 1,5 years of use, and the repair took months. We also have lots of cheaper gear, but we never had any problem with them.
Exactly! You can't rely anymore on the assumption that an expensive tool of a well known brand has a high reliability, runs fine and has only minor bugs. When you're shopping for a new tool you have to check for any user feedback on that tool. The Internet is really great for that. I wouldn't spend several k EUR on something brand new. The risk to get a lemon is simply too high. For Rigol there are tons of reviews and details of known bugs. So anyone should be able to understand what he gets when buying a Rigol.
And the argument "but you get premium support" is moot. It depends on the company, the local office, the distributor and so on. You can poor support from an A brand manufacturer if you're in the wrong country. Or you could superb support from a tiny company nobody knows. The best way to find out which manufacturer has good support is also by feedback of other users/customers. That makes this forum very valuable. And some manufactures understood that and got a representative here. Or they read the feedback.
I got a DS1054Z for my hobbist needs. So far it's a good and reliable scope. It has its limits, but I accept them, especially when I consider the price. If I would have gone for an A brand scope with similar specs for 5 times the money, my expectations would be accordingly higher. But I can't see any A brand scope matching those expectations. Paying 5 times more to get 50% more/better features and performance?
-
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.
I wouldn't include LeCrap in that list, they seem to be full of bugs. In the space of 30 minutes using a Wavesurfer 3000 series the "Cursors" process had crashed and needed to be restarted several times. Even the Keysight has a few issues - the 3000T series the other day was locking up when protocol decoding.
Without more details it's hard to say what the issue was but it sounds pretty much like a defective unit, because in the places I work there are now probably some 70 to 80 LeCroy WS3000 scopes (mostly WS3054), and none of them has shown any such problems. I also had one of the first WS3000 scopes in Europe after they came out in 2014, and even this very early firmware version didn't had any problem with cursors. In fact, the WS3000 Series has shown to be really robust and reliable, which is the main reason we buy so many of them now.
We also have a few DSOX3054Ts (as it supports decode for some serial standards that the WS3k doesn't support), and I am not aware of any issue where the scope locks up during serial decode.
This aside, it's in general also a bit silly to conclude a device must be full of bugs from a single instrument failing at certain operations. More likely than not this is caused by a problem in your specific unit, and the "bug" is really just the result of a simple hardware defect. Confirming a firmware bug requires that the problem can be reproduced on more than just a single unit. Even the best manufacturers have a certain percentage of defects, and if you end up with a defective unit then the sensible thing is to contact the manufacturer and request a replacement. Unfortunately many people don't think that far, and scream "bugs!" where there aren't any.
That is assuming the story is actually true, though, because, frankly, in my experience, when adolescent terminology like "LeCrap", "KeyShite" or "FuckTronix" are involved then the claims should be taken with a huge grain of salt as more often than not the content is usually hear-say at best and a load of BS at worst (and there are quite a few good examples of that in this forum). Such terminology doesn't exactly create an image of someone knowing his stuff about test equipment.
Never had an issue with R&S though.
So I guess you never have used early variants of the R&S RTO then, or the FSW, which had their own fair share of firmware problems. Nothing like the Rigols and Siglents, sure, but R&S is no stranger to annoying bugs.
And the argument "but you get premium support" is moot. It depends on the company, the local office, the distributor and so on. You can poor support from an A brand manufacturer if you're in the wrong country.
That is true, and support can be hit and miss if you have to rely on some distributor. If you're stuck in a country with little manufacturer presence then support will likely be limited.
The best way to find out which manufacturer has good support is also by feedback of other users/customers. That makes this forum very valuable. And some manufactures understood that and got a representative here. Or they read the feedback.
That works for hobbyists who are looking for some bottom-of-the-barrel/entry level gear which sells in large numbers to other hobbyists. The Rigol DS1054z is a good example for such cheap gear. It doesn't work for more expensive gear, though, simply because there usually aren't many reviews out there for expensive gear.
Also, not every review is necessarily well done or comes to the correct conclusion. There's a lot of noise out there.
I got a DS1054Z for my hobbist needs. So far it's a good and reliable scope. It has its limits, but I accept them, especially when I consider the price. If I would have gone for an A brand scope with similar specs for 5 times the money, my expectations would be accordingly higher. But I can't see any A brand scope matching those expectations. Paying 5 times more to get 50% more/better features and performance?
Fair enough. At the end of the day, for $400 the DS1054z is a great bargain, despite its flaws.
-
The best way to find out which manufacturer has good support is also by feedback of other users/customers. That makes this forum very valuable. And some manufactures understood that and got a representative here. Or they read the feedback.
That works for hobbyists who are looking for some bottom-of-the-barrel/entry level gear which sells in large numbers to other hobbyists. The Rigol DS1054z is a good example for such cheap gear. It doesn't work for more expensive gear, though, simply because there usually aren't many reviews out there for expensive gear.
Also, not every review is necessarily well done or comes to the correct conclusion. There's a lot of noise out there.
I think, if you would ask here about some expensive T&M gear you would get some feedback. We're simply decent engineers who don't brag about expensive toys at work ;) And you're right, we need better noise filters.
-
I have had a DS2102 for just over 3 years with no problems so far. My DG1022 (very low end fxn gen) is also 3 years old. The DP832 is around 2 years old now and a couple of months ago I bought DM3058E. Nothing has broken down so far and works as per spec from what I can tell.
In a past job we bought a TEK TDS210. It had to be sent back for repairs after 3 months when it suddenly became unresponsive (powered up and did nothing else). A couple years later (out of warranty) we noticed an increase in baseline noise (80kHz) that often came in bursts. The repair cost was going to exceed the cost of the scope, so it was left alone.
We had a TDS350 as well which worked flawlessly for years.
You could buy a Keysight/Agilent and still have a Rigol:
http://mightyohm.com/blog/2009/11/agilent-dso1000-firmware-update-confirms-rigol-connection/ (http://mightyohm.com/blog/2009/11/agilent-dso1000-firmware-update-confirms-rigol-connection/)
-
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; ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLH2Ns7Zqo8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLH2Ns7Zqo8) 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.
I find the Rigol to be decent. However, I never purchased it with the intention of repairing anything with it. I bought it to use as an educational tool for the channel because it is easier to explain a concept if people can see it, so I literally sorted by lowest price, and there it was... and it still works. I also used the software that comes with it to take screenshots that I use in some of the educational documents I created.
Is it the best thing in the world, no.
Am I ever going to repair anything with a $20,000 one that I wouldn't with the $399 one.. no.
So it's good for me.