Author Topic: The Rigol DS1052E  (Read 537154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline shirsch

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #700 on: August 21, 2010, 08:30:53 pm »
Indeed, and there's likely to be noise on the original signal (no signal in the real world has zero noise). Turning on averaging or bandwidth limiting should reduce it, and turning on peak detect should make it worse. As long as it's not too much (<= .1div or so, depending on bandwidth, acquisition mode and vertical sensitivity?), you shouldn't worry about it, and just get used to seeing it. I would be suspicious if I saw a completely clean signal. Using a shorter ground lead may help if you want to reduce it, Bob Pease has a good write-up about noise in scope shots.

Thanks.  That makes sense.  Graduating from my trusty old 65Mhz. HP 1706A to the Rigol is a bit of future shock! 
 

alm

  • Guest
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #701 on: August 21, 2010, 08:56:27 pm »
Entry-level DSO's tend to exaggerate noise, since they can only show one intensity. A CRT does some sort of intensity grading, random noise tends to be darker than the stable signal, so you hardly see it. More expensive scopes try to emulate this behavior, but the Rigol will just show you the last signal at a constant intensity. It's also possible that the Rigol front-end produces more noise, since the HP was probably higher-end when it was new.
 

Offline whitis

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #702 on: August 24, 2010, 01:29:13 am »
Entry-level DSO's tend to exaggerate noise, since they can only show one intensity. A CRT does some sort of intensity grading, random noise tends to be darker than the stable signal, so you hardly see it. More expensive scopes try to emulate this behavior, but the Rigol will just show you the last signal at a constant intensity. It's also possible that the Rigol front-end produces more noise, since the HP was probably higher-end when it was new.

This persistance mode can only work on repetitive signals; it can't work on single sweep.   However, on single sweeps the noise just sits there; it doesn't dance around attracting your attention like it does on repetitive sweep.

This is a dubious "feature", more gimmick, or even bug, than feature.   Although it can be useful sometimes, its primary effect, particularly if defaulted to on, is to make the scope superficially appear more accurate while actually making it less accurate.   Showing you the noise in your signal can be just as important as showing the intended signal.   Sometimes you want to clean up the signal but this should be done at your explicit request, after you have seen the noise, rather than hiding the noise.    I have spent a lot of time extracting small signals from large amounts of noise; there is a place for cleaned up signals.

The Rigol does have an infinite persistance mode (:DISPlay:PERSist), where each pixel, once written remains visible, though at a reduced intensity compared to the current refresh.   This has roughly the opposite effect as the form of persistance described above as it actually highlights noise; this is likely to be more useful.  It does not have exponential decay which would give the gimmick effect, though that ought to be easy to add.

The rigol has an averaging mode, where multiple sweeps are averaged together.   When you want to clean up the signal and hide the noise, this is more genuinely useful than the phosphor gimick.    It is vector rather than raster based, so the high resolution data sent to the computer is cleaned up and measurements made on the oscilloscope or on the computer can use the cleaned up data.   In addition, it has filter modes that operate on the waveform (:CHANnel1:FILTer).    The Rigol does have a switchable 20Mhz bandwidth limit (:CHANNEL1:BWLIMIT) on the input channels which can suppress high frequency noise which may be outside the frequency response of your circuity, anyway.   Thus, when you do need to clean your data (preferably after inspecting the uncleaned data, first), you have several ways to do so.

One use for persistance is when using the scope as an XY display, such as when displaying simulated laser show effects.    However, the Rigol lacks a Z axis modulation input.   Analog modulation would require an additional expensive high speed A/D converter channel, though it would be a zero marginal cost feature on a 4 channel scope.    Digital (on/off) modulation, however, could employ the trigger input on the scope.  It just takes some extra bits in memory; the memory on many fpga's is organized in multiples of 9 bits wide vs 8 bits wide so the extra bits may be free.   Thus digital modulation should be a zero marginal cost upgrade on the 2 channel models.

Some noise might be an artifact of overclocking the A/D converters.    One of the differences of the higher graded parts is that they might actually settle to within noise specs in the shorter alloted time available at 100Mhz vs  40Mhz.   On more sluggish parts that don't make the grade, the signal may not have fully settled and may be between two A/D counts.    While 1 count of noise is unavoidable as a signal may hover on the boundary between two counts effectively producing a very high noise gain, settling effects might not be consistent from sweep to sweep.

The Rigol doesn't antialias lines which can produce jagged edges on diagonal lines which are inherent on rasterized displays without antialiasing.   It does appear as if it usually displays the trace by plotting two pixels vertically instead of one, but not always.   This may happen when the 256 counts are reduced to somewhat less vertical pixels as a way of displaying intermediate values beyond the display resolution.   This may make the noise appear a little more subdued but may also make it appear like there is 1 pixel of additional noise when you scrutinize the display.

A significant source of noise can be pickup in the probe.   If you clip the probe ground lead to the tip, you have created a loop antenna which picks up noise from the surroundings.   For illustration purposes, If you set this loop on top of the scope (inside the area occupied by the handle), you will see some some very significant noise from the scope itself at 2mV per division.   Now, hold the clip and rotate the probe 180 degrees about its axis.    This changes the ground lead from a loop to a figure 8, which like a twisted pair produces some cancelling.   Even in such close proximity to the noise source, this drops the noise by more than half.   Of course, you can also appear to get the opposite effect if you start in a less noisy area and rotate half the loop into the noisy area, so keep the loop(s) centered on the same area.

Emulating the persistance/brightness defects of an analog scope is a lot like tube vs transistor amplifiers.    You can emulate the poorer fidelity of a tube amplifier on a solid state amplifier with a handfull of components, but only an Audiophool would argue that the tube amplifier is superior.   You can give people a choice if they prefer a distorted aesthetic, just as you can blur a high quality image for a particular aesthetic but a camera which can only produce blurred images is inferior.   Choice is good, locking people into bad choices or defaulting them to on so they bite the unwary, is bad.

Most of the noise on the scope at logic level scales is +/-1 count.   At the 2mv/div level, it is noticeably higher but not that different from my Tektronix 2236 Analog Oscilloscope, which cost about $3500 when I bought it new or about $9700 in todays dollars.   On 2mV per division (and 500uS) with a looped probe, most of the noise is within about 2 minor divisions (plus a few spikes) on the Rigol and a little over 1 on the Tektronix, using the Rigol probe on 1x in both cases, though a good portion of that difference may be the analog scope hiding the noise.   With foil shorting the probe tip to the ground ring or with the probes disconnected, both scopes show about 1 minor division of noise.   It is more noticable on the Rigol, but it isn't really worse.  This is with a fan, a computer, two LCD monitors, a cell phone, a WiFi router, a DSL modem, a gigabit ethernet switch, a laser printer and an injet  printer/scanner, a barcode printer, a DVD recorder, a couple compact fluorescent light bulbs, a keyboard and mouse, a laptop, an air conditioner, assorted cables, and two oscilloscopes making noise in the immediate vicinity.   However, outside RF is significantly attenuated.

 

alm

  • Guest
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #703 on: August 24, 2010, 05:04:37 am »
A very informative post, I agree with most of it, except:

This persistance mode can only work on repetitive signals; it can't work on single sweep.   However, on single sweeps the noise just sits there; it doesn't dance around attracting your attention like it does on repetitive sweep.
True, but most analog scopes don't work that great in single sweep mode either ;). Not much you can do for single sweeps, except bandwidth limiting or other kinds of filters (eg. notch filters).

This is a dubious "feature", more gimmick, or even bug, than feature.   Although it can be useful sometimes, its primary effect, particularly if defaulted to on, is to make the scope superficially appear more accurate while actually making it less accurate.   Showing you the noise in your signal can be just as important as showing the intended signal.   Sometimes you want to clean up the signal but this should be done at your explicit request, after you have seen the noise, rather than hiding the noise.    I have spent a lot of time extracting small signals from large amounts of noise; there is a place for cleaned up signals.
They don't hide information, but combine information from previous sweeps without completely obscuring the current sweep. It simulates the persistence of real phosphor. In my opinion this feature is quite useful for complex or unstable signals, it gives you a quick visible clue about stability. It allows you to visually separate rare events from constant parts of the signal, without throwing tons of information away like with averaging. The average of a signal that's 50% of the time sinusoidal and 50% of the time DC would be an attenuated sine. Using a 'gimmick' like DPO (or Agilent/Lecroy equivalent) would show both a horizontal line and a sine, at reduced intensity.
 

Offline scrat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 608
  • Country: it
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #704 on: August 24, 2010, 08:36:23 am »
Up till now I worked with Tektronix or Agilent scopes only, never used cheap scopes.
I'd say that a good "DPO" technique (emulation of phosphor on digital TFT display) is useful, because it allows to see rare events evaluating their rate of occurence, and to easily distinguish them from the repetitive signal (while typical persistence is not that good).
An information which is often not present or well hidden on scope's specs is the waveform capture rate. This is usually a quite embarassing information, since typical rates are few thousands wfms/s, which means you are loosing a big portion of time from a trigger to the following.
I did never see the current triggering rate visualized on the screen, although I think it could be interesting.

For my hobby I'm going to buy a Rigol, but after seeing the video , which is referred to the old Rigol series, I'm wondering if that thing which seems an artifact (the vertical lines shown when the scale or the waveform changes) has been solved in the 1000E, or if you think it was a problem coming from the waveform generator. Another thing that makes me hesitant is the comparing with GDS1000, but there is another thread on that topic. Unfortunately there are too few Instek owners...
One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man. - Elbert Hubbard
 

Offline saturation

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4788
  • Country: us
  • Doveryai, no proveryai
    • NIST
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #705 on: August 24, 2010, 11:23:13 am »
Great post and insight.  Will give those probe techniques a detailed look into.

Entry-level DSO's tend to exaggerate noise, since they can only show one intensity. A CRT does some sort of intensity grading, random noise tends to be darker than the stable signal, so you hardly see it. More expensive scopes try to emulate this behavior, but the Rigol will just show you the last signal at a constant intensity. It's also possible that the Rigol front-end produces more noise, since the HP was probably higher-end when it was new.

This persistance mode can only work on repetitive signals; it can't work on single sweep.   However, on single sweeps the noise just sits there; it doesn't dance around attracting your attention like it does on repetitive sweep.

This is a dubious "feature", more gimmick, or even bug, than feature.   Although it can be useful sometimes, its primary effect, particularly if defaulted to on, is to make the scope superficially appear more accurate while actually making it less accurate.   Showing you the noise in your signal can be just as important as showing the intended signal.   Sometimes you want to clean up the signal but this should be done at your explicit request, after you have seen the noise, rather than hiding the noise.    I have spent a lot of time extracting small signals from large amounts of noise; there is a place for cleaned up signals.

The Rigol does have an infinite persistance mode (:DISPlay:PERSist), where each pixel, once written remains visible, though at a reduced intensity compared to the current refresh.   This has roughly the opposite effect as the form of persistance described above as it actually highlights noise; this is likely to be more useful.  It does not have exponential decay which would give the gimmick effect, though that ought to be easy to add.

The rigol has an averaging mode, where multiple sweeps are averaged together.   When you want to clean up the signal and hide the noise, this is more genuinely useful than the phosphor gimick.    It is vector rather than raster based, so the high resolution data sent to the computer is cleaned up and measurements made on the oscilloscope or on the computer can use the cleaned up data.   In addition, it has filter modes that operate on the waveform (:CHANnel1:FILTer).    The Rigol does have a switchable 20Mhz bandwidth limit (:CHANNEL1:BWLIMIT) on the input channels which can suppress high frequency noise which may be outside the frequency response of your circuity, anyway.   Thus, when you do need to clean your data (preferably after inspecting the uncleaned data, first), you have several ways to do so.

One use for persistance is when using the scope as an XY display, such as when displaying simulated laser show effects.    However, the Rigol lacks a Z axis modulation input.   Analog modulation would require an additional expensive high speed A/D converter channel, though it would be a zero marginal cost feature on a 4 channel scope.    Digital (on/off) modulation, however, could employ the trigger input on the scope.  It just takes some extra bits in memory; the memory on many fpga's is organized in multiples of 9 bits wide vs 8 bits wide so the extra bits may be free.   Thus digital modulation should be a zero marginal cost upgrade on the 2 channel models.

Some noise might be an artifact of overclocking the A/D converters.    One of the differences of the higher graded parts is that they might actually settle to within noise specs in the shorter alloted time available at 100Mhz vs  40Mhz.   On more sluggish parts that don't make the grade, the signal may not have fully settled and may be between two A/D counts.    While 1 count of noise is unavoidable as a signal may hover on the boundary between two counts effectively producing a very high noise gain, settling effects might not be consistent from sweep to sweep.

The Rigol doesn't antialias lines which can produce jagged edges on diagonal lines which are inherent on rasterized displays without antialiasing.   It does appear as if it usually displays the trace by plotting two pixels vertically instead of one, but not always.   This may happen when the 256 counts are reduced to somewhat less vertical pixels as a way of displaying intermediate values beyond the display resolution.   This may make the noise appear a little more subdued but may also make it appear like there is 1 pixel of additional noise when you scrutinize the display.

A significant source of noise can be pickup in the probe.   If you clip the probe ground lead to the tip, you have created a loop antenna which picks up noise from the surroundings.   For illustration purposes, If you set this loop on top of the scope (inside the area occupied by the handle), you will see some some very significant noise from the scope itself at 2mV per division.   Now, hold the clip and rotate the probe 180 degrees about its axis.    This changes the ground lead from a loop to a figure 8, which like a twisted pair produces some cancelling.   Even in such close proximity to the noise source, this drops the noise by more than half.   Of course, you can also appear to get the opposite effect if you start in a less noisy area and rotate half the loop into the noisy area, so keep the loop(s) centered on the same area.

Emulating the persistance/brightness defects of an analog scope is a lot like tube vs transistor amplifiers.    You can emulate the poorer fidelity of a tube amplifier on a solid state amplifier with a handfull of components, but only an Audiophool would argue that the tube amplifier is superior.   You can give people a choice if they prefer a distorted aesthetic, just as you can blur a high quality image for a particular aesthetic but a camera which can only produce blurred images is inferior.   Choice is good, locking people into bad choices or defaulting them to on so they bite the unwary, is bad.

Most of the noise on the scope at logic level scales is +/-1 count.   At the 2mv/div level, it is noticeably higher but not that different from my Tektronix 2236 Analog Oscilloscope, which cost about $3500 when I bought it new or about $9700 in todays dollars.   On 2mV per division (and 500uS) with a looped probe, most of the noise is within about 2 minor divisions (plus a few spikes) on the Rigol and a little over 1 on the Tektronix, using the Rigol probe on 1x in both cases, though a good portion of that difference may be the analog scope hiding the noise.   With foil shorting the probe tip to the ground ring or with the probes disconnected, both scopes show about 1 minor division of noise.   It is more noticable on the Rigol, but it isn't really worse.  This is with a fan, a computer, two LCD monitors, a cell phone, a WiFi router, a DSL modem, a gigabit ethernet switch, a laser printer and an injet  printer/scanner, a barcode printer, a DVD recorder, a couple compact fluorescent light bulbs, a keyboard and mouse, a laptop, an air conditioner, assorted cables, and two oscilloscopes making noise in the immediate vicinity.   However, outside RF is significantly attenuated.


Best Wishes,

 Saturation
 

alm

  • Guest
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #706 on: August 24, 2010, 07:23:10 pm »
An information which is often not present or well hidden on scope's specs is the waveform capture rate. This is usually a quite embarassing information, since typical rates are few thousands wfms/s, which means you are loosing a big portion of time from a trigger to the following.
I did never see the current triggering rate visualized on the screen, although I think it could be interesting.
Absolutely, although a few thousand wfms/s is actually much better than average, I don't think cheap DSO are anywhere close to that. Something in the order of 10-100wfms/s probably, and less with features like math/measurements enabled (sometimes <10wfms/s). Trigger re-arm time is another related parameter, although this is often specified. DSOs are much worse in this regard than analog scopes, although high-end DSOs are much better (I think they can do in the order of 100kwfm/s or so now). Another example where you need an expensive DSO to come close to the performance of a cheap old analog scope.
 

Offline jahonen

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1046
  • Country: fi
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #707 on: August 24, 2010, 07:47:28 pm »
An information which is often not present or well hidden on scope's specs is the waveform capture rate. This is usually a quite embarassing information, since typical rates are few thousands wfms/s, which means you are loosing a big portion of time from a trigger to the following.
I did never see the current triggering rate visualized on the screen, although I think it could be interesting.
Absolutely, although a few thousand wfms/s is actually much better than average, I don't think cheap DSO are anywhere close to that. Something in the order of 10-100wfms/s probably, and less with features like math/measurements enabled (sometimes <10wfms/s). Trigger re-arm time is another related parameter, although this is often specified. DSOs are much worse in this regard than analog scopes, although high-end DSOs are much better (I think they can do in the order of 100kwfm/s or so now). Another example where you need an expensive DSO to come close to the performance of a cheap old analog scope.

Agilent explains how waveform capture rate affects the capability to catch rare events in their application note: http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-7885EN.pdf.

Agilent 5-6-7k series scopes do the 100kwfm/s, Tektronix TDS 3000 does about 3600 wfm/s when using standard 10kpts record length and their 4000-series drop to seconds/waveform if maximum 10 Mpts record length is used (what the hell, it is tediously slow, good for single sweeps but unusable for live adjustments). New Rohde&Schwarz scopes with special ASIC claims 1 Mwfm/s (haven't seen that live yet).

Regards,
Janne
 

Offline scrat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 608
  • Country: it
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #708 on: August 25, 2010, 01:58:39 pm »
Mid-end oscilloscopes like Tek's DPO7000 can go to 250k wfms/s, but of course visualization is a big problem there, since screen refresh rate is much lower. Then the fastest update rates can be reached only when in a strange display mode, which shows waveforms in a color-grade (by rate of occurence of each point) going from red to blue. So one can actually see rare events better than with "digital phosphor" behaviour, but having all the traces with the same colours is a bit confusing (search for "FastAcq" in the text of this page: http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/psdetails.lotr?ct=PS&cs=psu&ci=13306&lc=EN). Of course, this allows for succesive proper triggering of the rare event, choosing one of the numerous modes...
One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man. - Elbert Hubbard
 

Offline lynx

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #709 on: August 28, 2010, 05:20:40 pm »
>>drieg


Hello, it would be awesome if you can do anything to help! Here is the information you requested:

PCB rev: 10 12
HW rev: DEMO7

>>Meiner

I bought them off ebay, I have yet to recieve them.






Hello,

I have now reflashed my scope with the imagefile provided by drieg and the oscilloscope is alive!

Thank you drieg!


 











 
The following users thanked this post: ivi_yak

Offline drieg

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Country: cz
    • Silcon Electronics
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #710 on: August 29, 2010, 08:01:35 am »
HTH  8)

If there is anyone else with partially or totally bricked scope after FW up/downgrade or unsuccessful "100MHz hack", feel free to contact me...

Bricked Rigol? This thread might be of any help.
 

Offline shirsch

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #711 on: August 29, 2010, 01:41:36 pm »
HTH  8)
If there is anyone else with partially or totally bricked scope after FW up/downgrade or unsuccessful "100MHz hack", feel free to contact me...

Does this require direct programming of the flash memory part, or is it applied through the USB port?  If the former, is it via JTAG or unsoldering + insertion in a programmer?  My scope is not bricked, but I have friends who are toying with the idea of the hack and would like to understand the disaster recovery path a bit better.

Thanks for your good work!
 

Offline drieg

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Country: cz
    • Silcon Electronics
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #712 on: August 29, 2010, 05:05:04 pm »
It depends on the concrete situation. Different issue, different approach. If the scope is totaly dead, the only way is to programm the flash via BlackFins's JTAG or in external programmer. The prerequisite for both is that the part of flash where unique "factory calibration data" are stored is not corrupted.

In case of partially working scope (dimlow, shafri and others), there are always more possibilities...
« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 08:32:24 am by drieg »
Bricked Rigol? This thread might be of any help.
 

Offline Meiner

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
Re: bricked scopes
« Reply #713 on: August 29, 2010, 09:52:43 pm »
@lynx
@Meiner

I could be of any help reconstructing your FLASH content. The vital data seems to be OK in both cases. Could tell me the HW version (e.g. "DEM07") and the PCB version (e.g. "0941") of your scopes?

Hi drieg,

my board is a DEMO7 but "94V-0". Hope you can help me, too!
Thanks, Meiner
 
The following users thanked this post: ivi_yak

Offline Meiner

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 9
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #714 on: August 29, 2010, 10:06:25 pm »
>>Meiner

I bought them off ebay, I have yet to recieve them.


Hi Lynx,
I could not find any TS048 ZIF socket offers in ebay. Could you pls tell me a supplier or would you recommend to solder a flash containing a hex from drieg (still hoping I'll get one!) ?

Meiner
 

Offline lynx

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #715 on: September 01, 2010, 08:08:53 pm »
>>Meiner

I bought them off ebay, I have yet to recieve them.


Hi Lynx,
I could not find any TS048 ZIF socket offers in ebay. Could you pls tell me a supplier or would you recommend to solder a flash containing a hex from drieg (still hoping I'll get one!) ?

Meiner


Ultimately I ended up not using them so if you want them you can have them just send me a PM.

 

Offline ceut

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: fr
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #716 on: September 26, 2010, 08:10:07 pm »
Hello all  :)
I'm new here, and I look at the DS1052E as I'm very interested in.
I would like to unlock it too if I buy it, so I've read all the interesting informations that are here.
For moment, I wait before buying it because of the calibration problem...

For PIC, memory etc.. programming, I use a lot a good and not very expensive programmer that I find here http://www.mcumall.com/comersus/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=4312
(You can see compatibility list here http://www.mcumall.com/comersus/store/mcumall_TrueUSBWillemsupportICs.asp)

PS: sorry for my english, it's not my langage  :)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 05:49:12 am by ceut »
 

Offline drieg

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Country: cz
    • Silcon Electronics
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #717 on: September 28, 2010, 10:10:17 am »
Hello,

I have now reflashed my scope with the imagefile provided by drieg and the oscilloscope is alive!

Thank you drieg!

I've started a new thread to help people with unsuccessful Rigol DS1102E hack:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=1379.0
 
Bricked Rigol? This thread might be of any help.
 

Offline ceut

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: fr
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #718 on: September 30, 2010, 06:09:45 am »
Hello all!
I have found that
http://www.goodluckbuy.com/atten-ads1102ca-100mhz-digital-oscilloscope-dso-ads1102.html
I found that this one is not very expensive for a 100Mhz DSO.
It looks like the Rigol...
Does anyone know this model(Atten ADS1102) ?
Thanks  ;)
 

Offline scrat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 608
  • Country: it
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #719 on: September 30, 2010, 06:52:07 am »
Hello all!
I have found that
http://www.goodluckbuy.com/atten-ads1102ca-100mhz-digital-oscilloscope-dso-ads1102.html
I found that this one is not very expensive for a 100Mhz DSO.
It looks like the Rigol...
Does anyone know this model(Atten ADS1102) ?
Thanks  ;)

It seems there is a big difference, if (as I suppose) they are selling the ADS1000 series: "Memory depth of ADS1000 is 4K and that of ADS1000M is 2M"
One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man. - Elbert Hubbard
 

Offline ceut

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: fr
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #720 on: September 30, 2010, 06:52:25 pm »
It seems there is a big difference, if (as I suppose) they are selling the ADS1000 series: "Memory depth of ADS1000 is 4K and that of ADS1000M is 2M"
Apparently they sell the ADS1102CA, and after looking at official website  
http://www.attenelectronics.com/products/rf_microwave/ADS1000.htm
I see that:
ADS1102CA:
Bandwith: 100MHz
Sampling Rate: 1GSa/s
Equivalent Sampling Rate: 50GSa/s
Memory Depth: - Single Channel 2M
                     - Double Channels 1M/CH

Rise Time: <3.5ns
Input Impedance: 1M?||13pF
Sec/div Range: 2.5ns/div-50s/div
Roll?100ms-50s/div

Seems to be good ? What do you think?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 09:28:14 pm by ceut »
 

Offline scrat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 608
  • Country: it
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #721 on: October 01, 2010, 12:54:13 pm »
From this data it seems a good alternative to the Rigol, and it's cheaper. Unfortunately, while the Rigol has been tested and reviewed by many users, the Atten has not, so there could be minor details which make one of the two better than the other (about usability, for example).
However, consider that for many people these Atten products are copies of Rigol ones, and ADS1000 seems a copy of DS1000CA, the old Rigol series (take a look at this forum, too: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=663958&page=33).
One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man. - Elbert Hubbard
 

Offline ceut

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 48
  • Country: fr
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #722 on: October 01, 2010, 04:59:25 pm »
From this data it seems a good alternative to the Rigol, and it's cheaper. Unfortunately, while the Rigol has been tested and reviewed by many users, the Atten has not, so there could be minor details which make one of the two better than the other (about usability, for example).
However, consider that for many people these Atten products are copies of Rigol ones, and ADS1000 seems a copy of DS1000CA, the old Rigol series (take a look at this forum, too: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=663958&page=33).

Thanks for this great information!
I have checked the 2 DSO (ADS1102CA and DS1102CA: they're the same...)
Atten seems to be a copy of old Rigol as you said...
So I will buy a Rigol DSO !
 

Offline pheller

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #723 on: October 01, 2010, 07:41:18 pm »
One question regarding the Trigger "Sweep".  There is a setting "Single", which per the documentation captures a single waveform.

My question is, what comprises a "single waveform?"  Is it basically until the trigger condition goes away, or something else entirely?

--phil
 

Offline scrat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 608
  • Country: it
Re: The Rigol DS1052E
« Reply #724 on: October 01, 2010, 07:59:55 pm »
Thanks for this great information!
I have checked the 2 DSO (ADS1102CA and DS1102CA: they're the same...)
Atten seems to be a copy of old Rigol as you said...
So I will buy a Rigol DSO !

I'm on the same way, too.
It's been a few months now that I had this intention, but still I haven't bought it. For a time I wavered between DS1052E and GDS-1062A from Instek (which is a more reputated mark), but price has a big influence, since this will be for my hobby only (although..who knows?), and it seems that quality is good also for the Rigol (besides there is the 100MHz hack). Now you can find it on DealExtreme at 362$, and the €/$ exchange is favorable for us in Europe now, so I'm going to buy the Rigol these days.

One question regarding the Trigger "Sweep".  There is a setting "Single", which per the documentation captures a single waveform.

My question is, what comprises a "single waveform?"  Is it basically until the trigger condition goes away, or something else entirely?

--phil

Single mode allows the scope for a single trigger to be activated. So it could be called "one-shot", in other words it waits for the trigger and then acquires data until it reached the end of the screen or the end of the memory. Now I haven't one by hand, but I think it should acquire one screenshot, since by setting the sampling rate (or the timebase, if the ratio between these two is automatically set by the scope) you can decide how much time you'd like to record.
It is used for seeing rare events, or events that are each different one from the others, even if they all could activate the trigger For example, if you want to see the response of a program on an MCU to the first time it receives a byte on the UART, you can set trigger mode on "single", falling edge trigger on the RX signal and a proper timebase, so that the screen contains the whole response of your interest. If on the UART there will be other data after the first byte, and if you were on "auto" or "normal" mode (instead of "single" you will see the series of the various responses together, so not letting you see how the first was.
One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man. - Elbert Hubbard
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf