changing the rigol DS1052E to DS1102E using USB , the dummy guide

[torch]

Do changes in firmware affect the calibration settings?

As I understand it, the stored calibration data is unique to the machine, but not the firmware. That said, don't self-calibrate one of the HW58 machines while running 2.02 firmware during the downgrade. It's fine to run the self-calibration function after the final upgrade to 2.04 SP2 (or whatever other HW58-compatible version you decide to use).

[BobD]

Just did the upgrade to my brand new DS1052E.  Afterwards did the self calibration.  All worked beautifully.  Thanks guys. 
Now for a quieter fan which is on order.  Where do I find case removal instructions?  Yes I know it will void the warranty.

[A Hellene]

The cooling fan is running on 12V unregulated, directly from the -12V rail of the internal switching PSU. Should you decide to silence the fan, I think it would be better to insert an 8V regulator (like the old LM7808/LM7908) to decrease its rotational speed and airflow.

But, if you asked me, I wouldn't touch the cooling fan since it is needed for the good operation of the unit. That is because almost half of the power consumed from the mains (12.87W measured out of the 23VA totally consumed) goes to the actual oscilloscope circuitry, and what remains becomes heat within its casing; heat that has to be let out or it will shorten the life of the device or even destroy it.

The right answer would be a redesigned or a modified PSU that does not produce those amounts of heat within the unit.


-George

[tome]

I just received my DS1052E scope and want to do the upgrade to 100MHz.  It shows:

Software Version: 00.02.05.02.00
Hardware Version: 58

Can i use the files talked about in A Hellene's post (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg42404#msg42404)?
The reason I ask is that he talks about a 2.05.02.01.header.zip file, but as you see above I have 00.02.05.02.00...

Edit:  Oh, and can I go from 02.02 directly to 02.05.02 after the upgrade or do I need to go to 02.04.xx first?

Edit:  I now see Torch's post above that contains the files for 02.05.02 (I believe)...

Thanks,
Tom

[A Hellene]

Ah, Tom, I can see that I have confused you with my blabbing!

Yes, of course you can! This is the whole idea behind firmware upgrade: To load a firmware of a higher revision.
For example, 2.05.02.01 is a higher revision firmware in comparison to 2.05.02.00 or lower!

By the way, you need the "2.05.02.00 to 2.02.02.00 DS1000E series firmware.zip" --not the "2.05.02.01.header.zip" file that was intended to explain the inner workings of the update.


-George

[tome]

Very cool George.  Thanks for the clarification and all your work!
Tom

Ah, Tom, I can see that I have confused you with my blabbing!

Yes, of course you can! This is the whole idea behind firmware upgrade: To load a firmware of a higher revision.
For example, 2.05.02.01 is a higher revision firmware in comparison to 2.05.02.00 or lower!

By the way, you need the "2.05.02.00 to 2.02.02.00 DS1000E series firmware.zip" --not the "2.05.02.01.header.zip" file that was intended to explain the inner workings of the update.


-George

[A Hellene]

You are welcome, Tom.

[tome]

Seems to be a success.  Hopefully will get a chance to test it out soon.  Thanks!

[big t]

Hello,

Done. Works like a charm. Thanks to all 

Software Version: 00.02.05.02.00
Hardware Version: 58

[Dimitrije]

Hack successful.

00.02.05.02.00 -> 00.02.02.02.00 -> 00.02.04.01.02

Hardware Version: 58

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this guide especially Polossatik, A Hellene & Mechatrommer.

[hesdelineating]

..and another ds1052e got hacked...

Hardware Version: 58
with a usb-stick from 00.02.05.02.00 to 00.02.02.02.00
then changed the serial
and re upgraded to 00.02.04.01.02 with a usb stick.

Thanks to all who made this possible....
Especially A Hellene & Polossatik

[marmad]

For all those thinking of changing (or those who already have changed) their new Rigol scopes (and I am in these groups myself), I thought it might be interesting to re-post this message from the rcgroups thread on the DS1052E.  It was the only message ever posted by this particular user (Bruwer) - he makes some very good points - and somehow I have the vague impression that he might be involved in the manufacturing himself.  Anyway, it's food for thought:

Bruwer
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1

Rigol and Competition

Ok I am a late comer to this discussion.

You have to realise that there are a number of very similar Chinese made oscilloscopes out there.
Siglent, Atten, Owon, Agilent, Tektronics (Tekway), Hantek.

Who is copying who?
Each manufacturer does not want to give out any information that can help any of the others.

All of the above names have units with varying bandwidths. ALL can be changed by software from one version to another. All of them.
However, there is a reason why that all of them have these different units that does not seem to have been brought up here.
Selection during the testing process.
Pass or fail for an attribute.
So if you do change your unit from one model number to another then you will end up with a unit that will not meet their criteria for that model in some way or other.

A common reason for failure is that the ICs used are at the lower end of their manufacturers specifications. This is very relevant in these oscilloscopes as they all stretch the capabilities of the devices as much as they can.

Another is internal noise due to small changes that occur during the assembly process. Why? Because the original design is flawed. No one seems to be able to (or want to) correct that flaw.

However this is all normal for the common processes of design and manufacture, and not only in China. Of course marketing also comes into play.

So enjoy what you have. Make whatever changes you want. You own the unit after all.
Incidentally they all can easily be converted to battery power, if you want to use them in the field. There is room inside for batteries. If you remove the power supply module then a standard 12V computer power supply fits in nicely along with a small mains battery charger.

You will have to adapt the output of the computer power supply to suit the particular brand of oscilloscope that you have. But it is not difficult.

[torch]

The issue of selection during the testing process was brought up here on one of the original threads -- "The Rigol DS1052E" I think -- and if I recall correctly, it didn't seem to hold water under field testing. There were no significant differences in performance between "genuine" DS1102E models and modified DS1052E models. It MAY come in to play compared to the DS1152-EDU model (150MHz). But nobody here seems to have a genuine 1152 to compare with.

I like the battery power idea. I like it a lot... I've been thinking about that since someone (tinhead?) was talking about how inefficient the power supply is and how it shouldn't be drawing as much current as it is.

[bilko]

I like the battery power idea. I like it a lot... I've been thinking about that since someone (tinhead?) was talking about how inefficient the power supply is and how it shouldn't be drawing as much current as it is.

Yes, that would be a definite plus factor, anybody looked at doing this yet ?

[A Hellene]

[...]
how inefficient the power supply is
[...]

Ah, that was yours truly!

And, yes, it can very easily be done with a couple of SiC413 (€ 3.50 each), a cheap AVR (or another fast 8-bit) microcontroller and a few passive components.


-George

[marmad]

The issue of selection during the testing process was brought up here on one of the original threads -- "The Rigol DS1052E" I think -- and if I recall correctly, it didn't seem to hold water under field testing. There were no significant differences in performance between "genuine" DS1102E models and modified DS1052E models. It MAY come in to play compared to the DS1152-EDU model (150MHz). But nobody here seems to have a genuine 1152 to compare with.

Yes, I saw this mentioned in that thread as well (I think it was compared to Intel and their CPU speeds), but I thought this commenter laid it out particularly well.  Anyone who works with high-speed electronics know that their performance and adherence to specifications lies on a bell curve.  To me it seems obvious that the 50MHz Rigol scopes are ABSOLUTELY the slightly off-spec 100MHz scopes - the edges on either side of the bell curve.  It's really the only logical explanation in terms of cost and manufacturing and... well, pretty much everything.

And, honestly, what do you mean by field testing?  Some significantly large sample of people with the hacked scope - plus access to faster scopes, precision function and voltage generators, etc - have run the dozens of tests needed to see if they are fully in spec in every regard?  Perhaps a few ARE -  but most of them are probably off spec in a single attribute or two - or perhaps it's just when an external trigger is used, or extra high voltages, or....  some other combination of disparate factors.

Again, I have nothing at all against the hack - I love hacks; I've even thinking about it myself.  But I'm realistic enough to understand that what I'll probably be getting by it is a slightly off-spec 100MHz scope.

I like the battery power idea. I like it a lot... I've been thinking about that since someone (tinhead?) was talking about how inefficient the power supply is and how it shouldn't be drawing as much current as it is.

My little Tektronix 212 (with a tiny CRT) has been running off 10x A NiCad batteries for the last 35 years - not the same batteries obviously    I've had to replace them 3 or 4 times.

[torch]

@ George: You are correct, it was you, but it was https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg42404#msg42404 I was thinking of. I apologize for crediting the wrong person. I knew it was one of the smart ones, anyway. 

@marmad: By field testing, I mean all the testing done by hackers on this site. Not identical tests and protocols like you would have in a factory, as everyone has different equipment of differing quality and capability.

And you are absolutely correct that the absolute upper end of performance seems to vary a bit from machine to machine, even allowing for the above. But that variation (so far) has all been considerably above 100MHz performance levels. That's why I brought up the DS1152-EDU, which is ostensibly a 150MHz version of this unit. I think it is absolutely likely that the 1152 units are culled from the cream of the crop. In my own testing, using my equipment and limited skills, there was a very slight, but repeatable, difference switching back and forth between 1102 and 1152. So slight I can't see anyone paying good money for the difference. But someone (and I'm almost certain this time it was tinhead  ) changed some of the front end components and was closing in on 200MHz.

Now, looking at the "nasty surprise" thread(s), the situation may have changed. Rigol may well be shipping sub-standard units as DS1052E models now.

[A Hellene]

No need for apologies.

Actually, tinhead has posted a hack for the Tekway PSU, if I can remember accurately, to decrease noise and thermal losses.


-George

[scrat]

Yes, I saw this mentioned in that thread as well (I think it was compared to Intel and their CPU speeds), but I thought this commenter laid it out particularly well.  Anyone who works with high-speed electronics know that their performance and adherence to specifications lies on a bell curve.  To me it seems obvious that the 50MHz Rigol scopes are ABSOLUTELY the slightly off-spec 100MHz scopes - the edges on either side of the bell curve.  It's really the only logical explanation in terms of cost and manufacturing and... well, pretty much everything.

But there could also be a simple marketing reason: DS1052 model demand is perhaps much larger than that of the DS1102, so they could just be marking the units based on production and demand... Of course, having to test all of the units (for calibration, at least), they will mark as 50MHz the worst ones, but there could be potentially good 100MHz ones sold as 50MHz.

[marmad]

Of course, having to test all of the units (for calibration, at least), they will mark as 50MHz the worst ones, but there could be potentially good 100MHz ones sold as 50MHz.

Absolutely; I'm sure that there are.... and perhaps even more now since I'm sure they've had a surge in sales since this hack became public.

But one thing I've learned from most Chinese companies is that they might do anything to save a buck if it doesn't immediately and directly impact sales - such as overdriving circuits, not providing any serious support, not fixing bugs, etc.

So if, pre-hack, Rigol was selling, for example, X number of DS1052s and X/2 number of DS1102s - their design and choice of components would reflect, in general, the need for the amount of tested scopes to fall along that curve.

Now let's say, post-hack, they are selling X*4 number of DS1052s and X/4 number of DS1102s, and they could save X number of dollars by substituting slightly less costly caps or speed-rated versions of ICs because the tested scopes will still fall along their new sales projection graph; would they do so?  Perhaps, perhaps not - it's hard to say.

In any case, I will likely do the hack after my warranty runs out    (as well as changing the fan and adding a battery pack).  I just will be aware that it could be slightly lacking in some respects to a tested-at-the-factory 100MHz scope.

[torch]

Actually, tinhead has posted a hack for the Tekway PSU, if I can remember accurately, to decrease noise and thermal losses.

Do you mean this thread: this thread? It appears he was focussed on cleaning up some ripple more than reducing power loss through wasted heat, although he does mention replacing an "unnecessary heat-engine".

I have yet to examine the Rigol PSU so I have no idea if any of that might be applicable.

BTW: What's the micro-controller for? Excuse my naivete, but from the measurements you took,  The Rigol needs 6.4v, 15v and -12v. I'm guessing you plan to tie the +12v output of one buck converter to the -6.4v and -15v output of two more buck converters to get the voltages, and the buck converters need a few passive components to set their levels, but I don't see where the micro-controller fits into the picture?

[dimlow]

Last month i was in talks with Rigol to become an official distributor ( decided against it ) and was given sales figures for the DS1052 and the DS1152 models for Europe. The ratio is around 10:1. Also there is no difference between the 1052 and the 1152, only difference is the model numbers in the firmware and a sticker.
Rigol are very much aware of the hack and it means nothing to them. They are simply interested in the number of DS1000 units they sell. Selling the DS1000 series hardware with different frequency ratings is just to open the market to people that think they will get a better scope if its 100Mhz. 90% of unit sales from there whole range of equipment is the DS1052 the rest is just icing on the cake. Don't ask me for the sales figures i wont release them.

Edit, there second best selling item is the DG1022 function generator.

[marmad]

Also there is no difference between the 1052 and the 1152, only difference is the model numbers in the firmware and a sticker.

This is what they told you - a prospective distributor in a foreign country?

You're still ignoring the reality of manufacturing and electronics - some units have less or better specifications - it's simply a fact of the "typical/minimum/maximum" rating of electronic parts and inevitable glitches in assembly and construction.  You think that if one of the finished scope's bandwidth is rolling off around 80MHz, that they are going to chuck it into the garbage?  Or spend time and money replacing components?  Or just slap the DS1052E label on it?

Honestly, why do people want to convince themselves that their hacked scope is, in every possible tested attribute and combination of attributes, the equivalent of a 100MHz scope?

The ratio is around 10:1.

Ha, I proposed X*4 number of DS1052s vs X/4 number of DS1102s - which is 16:1.

[torch]

That reminds me of my buddy who bought a brand-new 5L Mustang (many years ago). Remote trunk* release was a $200 or $300 option which he didn't buy.

Shortly after he purchased it, we were checking out the underside. Damned if there wasn't a strange set of wires leading up to the rear of the trunk. A closer look revealed that the release mechanism was in place. The wires led back to the glove box. The only thing missing was the push-button itself.

It was cheaper for Ford to install one standard harness assembly for all cars than to make a separate harness for those that ordered the trunk release option. And I'm pretty sure they didn't test for bell curves... 

(Needless to say, he didn't send Ford the extra money when we installed a suitable push-button)

[saturation]

That's very very revealing, dimlow, thanks for sharing. 

Can you share what Rigol ranks in terms of sales compared to the overall market for DSO, or just for the units in this class, that is 50 MHz DSO?  You don't have to reveal the actual amounts.

In the USA Rigol website, they claim they are #2 or #1 in sales in this class of DSO back in 2008, just wondering if this is still valid.

Did they comment on what they think of its other Chinese brand competitors, Atten, Hantek, Owon?
 

Last month i was in talks with Rigol to become an official distributor ( decided against it ) and was given sales figures for the DS1052 and the DS1152 models for Europe. The ratio is around 10:1. Also there is no difference between the 1052 and the 1152, only difference is the model numbers in the firmware and a sticker.
Rigol are very much aware of the hack and it means nothing to them. They are simply interested in the number of DS1000 units they sell. Selling the DS1000 series hardware with different frequency ratings is just to open the market to people that think they will get a better scope if its 100Mhz. 90% of unit sales from there whole range of equipment is the DS1052 the rest is just icing on the cake. Don't ask me for the sales figures i wont release them.

Edit, there second best selling item is the DG1022 function generator.