New Rigol DS1054Z oscilloscope

[kcbrown]

You ask some very good questions, but I'm worried about further derailing this thread by going even farther astray from the concrete product at hand!

Fair enough.

Most of what you ask is addressed by my prior statement that people will tolerate a bad UI up to a point; Windows is a perfect example of this. It's not as good as Mac, but not so bad as to make most users run and scream.

And how is the Rigol's UI any different?

You are right that good UIs cost money, and absolutely 10000% correct that the designer must truly understand the task at hand. (Having worked in UX, and having had to spend 6 months immersing myself in library science for one project, I truly cannot agree with you more!) But I think your examples are kinda flawed: Microsoft spends a fortune on UX research and design, but various other factors resulted in bad UIs despite this. Linux is really the example of what happens when there's little investment in UX.

Well, if MS spent that kind of money on the UI of Windows, it certainly doesn't show...

But then, if they did spend that kind of money, then it illustrates nicely that spending money on UI expertise is necessary but not sufficient -- you have to actually make good use of that expertise.

It's not clear to me how much Linux really counts.  It is the way it is because it's mostly a purely volunteer effort.  Because it doesn't compete in commercial terms as a general rule (people can use it or not as they see fit, and don't have to pay directly for it), the normal rules regarding competitiveness and user interface really don't apply to it.  And because it essentially has "evolved" to where it is now, it is supremely difficult to make its UI cohesive, since was never designed with the user experience in mind from the start.

And that brings me to a point that I don't think has really been raised: usability has to be baked in from the beginning.  You can't just paste it on top of something that doesn't have it.  I dare say that Rigol's user interface issues aren't just skin deep -- fixing them would require rearchitecting the UI from the ground up, if only because consistency is one of the necessary traits of a good UI.

It's hard to find examples of things that are good and cheap and "not derivatives" because the normal progression of technology is for things to begin expensive and then get copied cheaper.

Precisely.

But look at the context of this discussion: a cheap scope which is clearly "derivative" of more expensive DSOs, and we have people arguing that because it's cheap, we must accept the bad UI.

They're not arguing that we "have" to accept the bad UI.  They're arguing that the UI is the natural outcome of the company putting its resources elsewhere, and that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  Something would have to give if the company put more resources into the UI than it did.

It doesn't help that user interfaces, like all other aspects of computing, are an "intellectual property" minefield.  Look, for instance, at what Apple did to Samsung over the UI of the phone.

I happen to think that the main reason the Rigol UI is the way it is is because the people who designed it were coders first, and UI designers second.  It takes a specific commitment on the part of the company to hire people who specialize in UI design.

Nonetheless, I would posit that there's lots of inexpensive software, for example, with excellent UIs. And lots of expensive software (*cough* Eagle *cough*) whose UIs make me want to gouge my eyes out.

Sure.  But again, you have to look at the target market.  The inexpensive software that has good UIs either targets a relatively large market (and thus, the company putting it out can afford the up-front expertise necessary), or is designed and implemented by a company that already has the necessary UI expertise on hand.  Sometimes, the people designing the software happen to already come with a UI-oriented background and thus already have much of the necessary expertise.   So of course, there will be examples where the UI is good, the software relatively inexpensive, and the target market small nonetheless.   But I would regard those cases as exceptional, most especially because commercial software tends to be rushed to release.

[John at the Falls]

[...]
March 25 2017
I just got my brand new DSO1054 today.
[...]
Firmware is 00.04.04.01  (00.04.04 SP 1)

Obviously: The repealed Version 00.04.01.01 is on delivery.
But still not as update. IIRC because the problems with some older boards. How hard can it be to check the board version in the installer program?

Do anyone know if the coming update version contains something else as the "old board solution"?
(Imagine: The legendary "pluses" error would be corrected...)
Is there something new known?
I´m curious if there will be any advantage in updating the 1054z if it runs already with the software version 00.04.01.01.

BTW: Something known about "LFCal" and "Output" in the expanded SelfCal menue?
Perhaps they are related to the LA and FG option of the 1074z-s?
Or, what are they supposed to do in the 1054z?

Forgot to mention that my board is 0.1.4 (with software ver 00.04.01.01)

The firmware release notes are very clear and simple to read. I will read the notes and if nothing catches my interest, I will not update.

I also built a battery pack for it using 12 18650 Lithium Batteries. Works beautiful.
Posted here on this thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/battery-pack-for-rigol-ds1054z/50/

[tooki]

You ask some very good questions, but I'm worried about further derailing this thread by going even farther astray from the concrete product at hand!

Fair enough.

Most of what you ask is addressed by my prior statement that people will tolerate a bad UI up to a point; Windows is a perfect example of this. It's not as good as Mac, but not so bad as to make most users run and scream.

And how is the Rigol's UI any different?

You are right that good UIs cost money, and absolutely 10000% correct that the designer must truly understand the task at hand. (Having worked in UX, and having had to spend 6 months immersing myself in library science for one project, I truly cannot agree with you more!) But I think your examples are kinda flawed: Microsoft spends a fortune on UX research and design, but various other factors resulted in bad UIs despite this. Linux is really the example of what happens when there's little investment in UX.

Well, if MS spent that kind of money on the UI of Windows, it certainly doesn't show...

But then, if they did spend that kind of money, then it illustrates nicely that spending money on UI expertise is necessary but not sufficient -- you have to actually make good use of that expertise.

It's not clear to me how much Linux really counts.  It is the way it is because it's mostly a purely volunteer effort.  Because it doesn't compete in commercial terms as a general rule (people can use it or not as they see fit, and don't have to pay directly for it), the normal rules regarding competitiveness and user interface really don't apply to it.  And because it essentially has "evolved" to where it is now, it is supremely difficult to make its UI cohesive, since was never designed with the user experience in mind from the start.

And that brings me to a point that I don't think has really been raised: usability has to be baked in from the beginning.  You can't just paste it on top of something that doesn't have it.  I dare say that Rigol's user interface issues aren't just skin deep -- fixing them would require rearchitecting the UI from the ground up, if only because consistency is one of the necessary traits of a good UI.

It's hard to find examples of things that are good and cheap and "not derivatives" because the normal progression of technology is for things to begin expensive and then get copied cheaper.

Precisely.

But look at the context of this discussion: a cheap scope which is clearly "derivative" of more expensive DSOs, and we have people arguing that because it's cheap, we must accept the bad UI.

They're not arguing that we "have" to accept the bad UI.  They're arguing that the UI is the natural outcome of the company putting its resources elsewhere, and that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  Something would have to give if the company put more resources into the UI than it did.

It doesn't help that user interfaces, like all other aspects of computing, are an "intellectual property" minefield.  Look, for instance, at what Apple did to Samsung over the UI of the phone.

I happen to think that the main reason the Rigol UI is the way it is is because the people who designed it were coders first, and UI designers second.  It takes a specific commitment on the part of the company to hire people who specialize in UI design.

Nonetheless, I would posit that there's lots of inexpensive software, for example, with excellent UIs. And lots of expensive software (*cough* Eagle *cough*) whose UIs make me want to gouge my eyes out.

Sure.  But again, you have to look at the target market.  The inexpensive software that has good UIs either targets a relatively large market (and thus, the company putting it out can afford the up-front expertise necessary), or is designed and implemented by a company that already has the necessary UI expertise on hand.  Sometimes, the people designing the software happen to already come with a UI-oriented background and thus already have much of the necessary expertise.   So of course, there will be examples where the UI is good, the software relatively inexpensive, and the target market small nonetheless.   But I would regard those cases as exceptional, most especially because commercial software tends to be rushed to release.

You realize you're trying to explain UX basics to someone who did UX professionally for years? All valid points, to be sure! But going well afield of the scope of this thread, methinks!

As far as the point of consistency, and needing to reengineer the entire UI to be consistent: I think the measurements UI stands out precisely because it doesn't behave like the rest of the scope's UI (internal consistency), nor any other device UI I've seen (external consistency). I think it would be eminently possible to make the measurements more user friendly without having to redesign the entire product.

[tooki]

What about the colors for the channels?

• Yellow
  
• Light blue
  
• Pink
  
• Dark blue

Ick. Why two variation of blue - it's confusing. There are other colors out there Rigol - green, red, brown, orange. I really don't want pink on my scope in any case. How could any serious manufacturer have decided to use those colors? I guess for $400 I suppose.

Colors?! Come on, xrunner -- I'm sure you can come up with something even more trivial than that! 
How about criticizing the color of the enclosure, or maybe the choice of the "Z" suffix in the model designation, or the font they chose for that "Z"? 

If you really want to discuss colors: I am mildly color-blind, and am happy to confirm that your choice of colors (green, red, brown, orange) is about the worst set of four someone could come up with for the about 8% of males affected by that...

I also found the choice of dark blue and cyan to be a bad choice!

I don't think xrunner was suggesting green, red, brown, AND orange to replace the current yellow, cyan, magenta, and dark blue, but rather is suggesting that either green, red, brown, OR orange would be a superior substitute for the dark blue color only. (Of course, then you'd have the issue of differentiating yellow from the red, green, brown, or orange!)

[ebastler]

You realize you're trying to explain UX basics to someone who did UX professionally for years?

Presumably yes -- you had mentioned that once or twice. (Or maybe it was a dozen times or so?)   

[rstofer]

Given an encoder with detents...

...which it doesn't have.

(and would probably cost them $0 to implement)

However, like with the fan, it's a mod that one could make.

Did it the first week.  On consideration, the factory fan is no worse than any other fan (like the one on my Tek 485) and it may not have been worth the effort.  The encoder seems like a better mod.  I can see where some folks wouldn't want to mod a brand new scope but, really, what's to go wrong?  Maybe destroy the PCB?  That's kind of a worst case!  Everything else is all good!

One downside to a very quiet fan is that I leave the scope running for hours at a time.  It is over at 90 degrees to my computer keyboard and once it's out of sight, it's out of mind.

I don't have any other experience with a DSO - zip, nada,...  Therefore, I don't have any objections to the UI.  It works fine.  I get wiggly lines on the screen and they are somewhat meaningful.  I don't expect much more than that.

Would I spend another $500 to get a slick UI?  Nope!  Not even $100.  It just isn't a big deal.  I get wiggly lines and that's all I need.  And, anyway, who decides the definition of 'slick'?

[MrW0lf]

and if they had such a person then their implementation wouldn't have these shortcomings in the first place.

Thats a conundrum indeed... Possibly only thing that could shake things up is market pressure (dropping sales) but if people are quite happily buying stuff then things will stay as is. It is important to avoid "whitewash" by "forum gurus". Best give objective advice like yep its cheap, 4 channels, this and that quite good, BUT things 1, 2, 3 are bit problematic, buy if sure you do not need them (working). If the poor noob cant trust forum gurus, who can he trust?

Of course it is.  You weren't there on their design staff, working on the product from the start, for free, were you?

Well... I can see problems with fixing major stuff. But sometimes little things can change a lot. But yet again this would require some specialist-in-command to understand why something needs to be fixed... And if there is none... 

Again, I have to ask, because you didn't answer the question (though it was asked of tooki), how would you expect Rigol to recover their costs of hiring a competent UI person who also has expertise in T&M equipment use?

With Z-box its probably too late. However they surely have next gen product in works. If they continue in same manner with next gen its not gonna end well, especially with A-brands showing interest in hobby market. So if they hire proper UI and Q&A stuff now, might do better in coming years. And good people are not that expensive, just hard to find. Expensive are people giving impression that they are good... They do much better than actually good specialists often quietly sitting years on same job...

[kcbrown]

and if they had such a person then their implementation wouldn't have these shortcomings in the first place.

Thats a conundrum indeed... Possibly only thing that could shake things up is market pressure (dropping sales) but if people are quite happily buying stuff then things will stay as is. It is important to avoid "whitewash" by "forum gurus". Best give objective advice like yep its cheap, 4 channels, this and that quite good, BUT things 1, 2, 3 are bit problematic, buy if sure you do not need them (working). If the poor noob cant trust forum gurus, who can he trust?

Truth, that.

We see extremes at both ends.  One which sweeps the UI issues under the rug ("what did you expect for $400?") and one which overemphasizes the faults.  The faults are there and are undeniable, but do not make the scope unusable for most purposes traditionally targeted by scopes.  It's almost like Rigol is the Microsoft of oscilloscopes.   

Well... I can see problems with fixing major stuff. But sometimes little things can change a lot. But yet again this would require some specialist-in-command to understand why something needs to be fixed... And if there is none... 

There are a few things they could fix directly, I'll certainly grant that.  I suppose the main problem from their perspective is: how are they supposed to know if the proposed solution is an improvement if they don't even have the expertise on hand to validate the solution in the first place?  It's not like we're talking about a bug where there exists an objective metric that can be used to validate its presence.  Here, we're talking about user interfaces.   Someone there thought the current implementation was a good idea (bad though it is).  How do you convince them of the error of their ways?

Again, I have to ask, because you didn't answer the question (though it was asked of tooki), how would you expect Rigol to recover their costs of hiring a competent UI person who also has expertise in T&M equipment use?

With Z-box its probably too late. However they surely have next gen product in works. If they continue in same manner with next gen its not gonna end well, especially with A-brands showing interest in hobby market.

Well, maybe it will and maybe it won't.  The A brands are still commanding a premium for what you get in terms of functionality (the value they provide is in the level of support, the polish, the UI, and other "intangibles" that make the whole experience better).

As long as the competition insists on charging more for the same functionality, Rigol fits a niche that nobody else seems to be playing in.  I see no evidence that this is changing in the next generation.  And that's a shame.  Any manufacturer could easily steal Rigol's thunder merely by offering a 4 channel 100MHz oscilloscope for $400 that included deep memory, decoding, etc., but was more responsive, more reliable (no freezing or crashing), and had a better UI.   Nobody has stepped up to that plate, and I see no evidence that anyone will.

And if anyone raises objections to the description of the Rigol as a 100MHz 4 channel scope with deep memory, decoding, etc., remember that what matters in the hobbyist market is the actual capability of the device once in the hands of the customer, not the capability as shipped.  Put another way, in the hobbyist market, which is the market we're talking about here, the hacked capabilities are the ones that really matter on the ground.

So if they hire proper UI and Q&A stuff now, might do better in coming years. And good people are not that expensive, just hard to find. Expensive are people giving impression that they are good... They do much better than actually good specialists often quietly sitting years on same job...

"Hard to find" almost always translates to "expensive" in the market, unless the demand for "hard to find" is low.  I'm not convinced that the demand for solid UI people is quite so low as to keep their price low, but you're a UI guy so you'd have a much better handle on that than I -- presumably.  Here, we're talking about UI people who are intimately familiar with the things one would use a scope for.   I expect that's a very small set of people, and chances are there are very few indeed who aren't already employed by a T&M manufacturer somewhere.

[Fungus]

And if anyone raises objections to the description of the Rigol as a 100MHz 4 channel scope with deep memory, decoding, etc., remember that what matters in the hobbyist market is the actual capability of the device once in the hands of the customer, not the capability as shipped.  Put another way, in the hobbyist market, which is the market we're talking about here, the hacked capabilities are the ones that really matter on the ground.

Yep. If it wasn't hackable we'd all be buying the $400 GW-Instek. Rigol would have to lower the price to $300 or something to stay in the market.

[MrW0lf]

Yep. If it wasn't hackable we'd all be buying the $400 GW-Instek.

GWI 1054B has surprisingly high non-hacked bandwidth. Same with my Pico. Very sharp edge square will show -3dB only at 200MHz, on 100MHz unhacked scope (Many Rigol BW claims are made using square also). Also there is evidence that Rigol is boosting analog bandwidth with cannot-turn-off Sinc function, which is not Sinc function at all. And cannot be turned off for that exact reason - it would reveal true analog bandwidth. So whole bandwidth issue is somewhat in the M-badged BMW 318i class...
But GWI does not have decoding, Picos are bit expensive and more R&D geared etc... So yea... there certainly is place for product that would go for direct attack. Would be excellent for tinkerer-on-the-budget. Might push proper Q&A to entry level...
So think its important to report various issues on the forum - if not the manufacturer then competition can take note and do better. Quite possible Siglent took note with halted X-E launch and now implementing R&S-like features on-the-hurry

[JPortici]

With Z-box its probably too late. However they surely have next gen product in works. If they continue in same manner with next gen its not gonna end well, especially with A-brands showing interest in hobby market.

this may raise a good point... i don't think i've heard of a new rigol scope in quite some time?

Expensive are people giving impression that they are good...

OT: wisest words of the day

[MrW0lf]

I expect that's a very small set of people, and chances are there are very few indeed who aren't already employed by a T&M manufacturer somewhere.

Well exactly, one might be already employed. Worst case if employed for long time. High chances one gets paid less than market value. Market actually do not know that person even exists and so on... So I would insist on "hard to find" more than on "expensive". Good specialist is often not good salesman and lacks skills to make himself even properly visible on the market. Not everyone is born YouTube star etc

Recently I did meet one inventor who is extremely good in mechatronics but totally incapable of finding matching employer. Inventor refuses to go for boring job, rather stays unemployed. Cutting edge R&D job actually needing his talents - nowhere in sight in this pond-of-a-country. Rather sad situation overall. Gifted him one of my scopes... but probably should have bought ticket to Boston Dynamics office instead

[Howardlong]

Yep. If it wasn't hackable we'd all be buying the $400 GW-Instek.

GWI 1054B has surprisingly high non-hacked bandwidth. Same with my Pico. Very sharp edge square will show -3dB only at 200MHz, on 100MHz unhacked scope (Many Rigol BW claims are made using square also).

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, but that's not how bandwidth is traditionally measured.

Either the 3dB point of a sine wave is used, or the rise time of a rectangular wave is used to derive it.

(I fear I will regret intervening....)

[bitseeker]

(I fear I will regret intervening....)

It's OK, Howard. I've had my share of regrettable intervenings, too. It happens.

[kcbrown]

I expect that's a very small set of people, and chances are there are very few indeed who aren't already employed by a T&M manufacturer somewhere.

Well exactly, one might be already employed. Worst case if employed for long time. High chances one gets paid less than market value. Market actually do not know that person even exists and so on... So I would insist on "hard to find" more than on "expensive". Good specialist is often not good salesman and lacks skills to make himself even properly visible on the market. Not everyone is born YouTube star etc

Right.  Which means the primary market for T&M UI expertise resides amongst those who are already employed.

Now, what enticement can a company that needs more such people offer to people who are already employed?   I think we know the standard answer to that: more money.

Recently I did meet one inventor who is extremely good in mechatronics but totally incapable of finding matching employer. Inventor refuses to go for boring job, rather stays unemployed. Cutting edge R&D job actually needing his talents - nowhere in sight in this pond-of-a-country. Rather sad situation overall. Gifted him one of my scopes... but probably should have bought ticket to Boston Dynamics office instead

No doubt that could have helped. 

Actually, you indirectly bring up a good point here: geographic location matters.  In what locations can most of the UI expertise be found?  I suspect it'll be in locations where UI expertise is routinely used.  Places like Silicon Valley.   But here, we're talking about Rigol.  They're in China.  While I expect that eventually such expertise will be more readily available there, as with anything else, it'll take time for them to ramp up.  That doesn't help a company like Rigol that needs such expertise now.

In light of that, it might be a bit remarkable that the Rigol UI isn't worse than it is...

[CatalinaWOW]

No doubt that could have helped. 

Actually, you indirectly bring up a good point here: geographic location matters.  In what locations can most of the UI expertise be found?  I suspect it'll be in locations where UI expertise is routinely used.  Places like Silicon Valley.   But here, we're talking about Rigol.  They're in China.  While I expect that eventually such expertise will be more readily available there, as with anything else, it'll take time for them to ramp up.  That doesn't help a company like Rigol that needs such expertise now.

In light of that, it might be a bit remarkable that the Rigol UI isn't worse than it is...

While I am sure that many elements of good UI design transcend cultures, I suspect that some elements are culture dependent.  It would be surprising if it weren't since music, art and other forms of interaction are significantly different between cultures.  Perhaps for someone embedded in Chinese culture the 1054Z is better than European culture derivatives find it to be.  And surely they have as much capacity to disdain other cultural views as we do.

[Sredni]

While I am sure that many elements of good UI design transcend cultures, I suspect that some elements are culture dependent. 

Think about the Hakko Fx-888 UI. The buttons seems intended to be used in right to left order, and not from left to right. Like a manga.

[boggis the cat]

While I am sure that many elements of good UI design transcend cultures, I suspect that some elements are culture dependent.  It would be surprising if it weren't since music, art and other forms of interaction are significantly different between cultures.  Perhaps for someone embedded in Chinese culture the 1054Z is better than European culture derivatives find it to be.  And surely they have as much capacity to disdain other cultural views as we do.

The UI is not very well thought-out.  Menus don't seem to be logically grouped, and functions nested within sub-menus makes the operation difficult.  I don't think this is a cultural artefact -- it's just poor design.

The more problematic issue is how slow it is to update when using, though.  I just calibrated two of the MSO1074Z models, and they were a huge PITA trying to set the vertical position and trigger levels -- so slow to update that they're bordering on unusable.

Perhaps this isn't a big deal for hobbyist use, but I would not want to use one of these Rigols.

[Fungus]

Think about the Hakko Fx-888 UI.

I'd rather not.

[David Hess]

Yep. If it wasn't hackable we'd all be buying the $400 GW-Instek.

GWI 1054B has surprisingly high non-hacked bandwidth. Same with my Pico. Very sharp edge square will show -3dB only at 200MHz, on 100MHz unhacked scope (Many Rigol BW claims are made using square also).

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, but that's not how bandwidth is traditionally measured.

Either the 3dB point of a sine wave is used, or the rise time of a rectangular wave is used to derive it.

While it is not usually a problem with low bandwidth oscilloscopes, the relationship between the -3dB bandwidth and transition time depends on the shape of the passband so measuring only the transition time may not be sufficient.

[ebastler]

Think about the Hakko Fx-888 UI.

I'd rather not.

 

[Fungus]

Think about the Hakko Fx-888 UI.

I'd rather not.

 

How do we get twenty functions into two buttons? 

[MrW0lf]

While it is not usually a problem with low bandwidth oscilloscopes, the relationship between the -3dB bandwidth and transition time depends on the shape of the passband so measuring only the transition time may not be sufficient.

Actually I did it properly also, with ETS and all, real -3dB point is 140MHz, cross checks with pure sine.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/picoscope-2000/msg1153233/#msg1153233
Mentioned 200MHz with square on purpose, because Z-box owners often do not have 100MHz+ high fidelity sine sources and will do their bw testing with square. Point being that if classical frontend unhacked 100MHz will do -3dB at 200MHz with square, then 50MHz would probably do -3dB at 100MHz etc... Meaning its not like you cannot measure timing related things @100MHz quite ok with any proper 50MHz scope. In short: this whole bw hackability thing is bit overrated in this case (especially considering Sinc trickery). Real point of hacking is IMHO more in getting all other stuff unlocked.

[Neo2199]

Just out of curiosity. Did someone found some discounted deal for this scope? I am trying to extend my tiny lab. Thanks

[alsetalokin4017]

But how am I ever going to be satisfied with my Rigol's UI now... it doesn't even include "Whack" triggering !