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

[Gizmo]

Mike -- this is the 04.00.00.01 firmware which has been patched. It is the latest from Rigol and will work with whatever scopes the firmware is supposed to work with. The only difference is that the DS1052E is set in code to be the same as the DS1102E.

As it is the latest firmware, you can just plug in and update with any current scope. When a new version is released then a new patch will need to be made.

[Marinski]

Hi All,

Another 1052E is now successfully an 1102E, thanks to the great tutorial in this thread. No issues detected so far, but I noticed that after the: upgrade from 3.01 to 4; downgrade from 4 to 2.02; hack; upgrade back to 4.01 the scope has lost it's hardware number, or at least it is not displayed in the utility menu, even after the CH1,CH1,CH2,CH2,MATH command to who more data. I know it was 58, but anyone has any idea whether it can be set explicitly?

Thanks!

[Gizmo]

For all those downgrading, model changing and upgrading twice, you can just use the above custom firmware and do it in the one flash. Much less chance of bricking.

I developed the hack specifically because I don't like the idea of all the possible things which could cock up with the existing process (like losing hardware version as above).

Up to you though! 

Incidentally the hardware version can be set using the :INFO:HARDVERSION command.

[Marinski]

Many thanks, Gizmo, worked like a charm!

I suspected it would be something like that and had already tried :INFO:HW 58, but it didn't work. So it's a matter of getting the right string...

Anyway, thanks again!

[synfinatic]

Ok, I got bored with trying to unlock the :MODEL command. Here's a custom firmware which sets the DS1052E to be a DS1102E. You wont notice any difference in serial or model number, but you now have the functionality of the DS1102E scope (2ns minimum time scale / 100Mhz). I've tested it and my 32Mhz clock I was looking at definitely has more resolution, so it is working.

CRC32: E62BB61B
MD5: 01d2d46d6c565c492b6f49725404f18b

http://wikisend.com/download/269418/DS1000EUpdate.rar

There's only 90 days on this download, so can someone please share it somewhere more permanent.

For anyone who is sceptical, do a file compare between the official 00.04.00.00.01 firmware and this one, and you'll see only one byte has changed.

As ever use at your own risk, blah blah. Works for my hardware 58 version DS1052E scope.


Edit:
May as well add some instructions. Copy the DS1000EUpdate.RGL file from the rar onto a memory stick, put it in the scope, and select OK when it asks if you want to update. It's that simple.

For your peace of mind, check the file's MD5 against the above number when it's on your memory stick to ensure it's correct before flashing. The scope doesn't bother with any data integrity checking, which is a bit of a shame, so if the file is corrupted at all, you will most likely brick the scope.

Thanks Gizmo!  I just upgraded my scope using your hack.  I'm hosting the file here:  http://synfin.net/public/DS1000EUpdate.rar

Should be pretty permanent.

[dda]

Ok, I got bored with trying to unlock the :MODEL command. Here's a custom firmware which sets the DS1052E to be a DS1102E. You wont notice any difference in serial or model number, but you now have the functionality of the DS1102E scope (2ns minimum time scale / 100Mhz). I've tested it and my 32Mhz clock I was looking at definitely has more resolution, so it is working.

Ha! too easy. Thanks!

[synfinatic]

Hmmm... I was on 3.0 before (came that way from Rigol) and noticed some screen flickering (a few times a minute).  Now after going to 4.0 it's worse... much worse.  Flickering once every 2-3 seconds.   Noticing some people complained about flickering with more recent versions, I did the two-step downgrade to 2.0.02 SP2.  Lost my serial/model number in the firmware, but at least the screen flickering has stopped.

This unit is brand new- just got it friday.  Any suggestions where to go from here?  Just do that 100Mhz hack with the 2.02 firmware and call it good?  Or should I try something else?

EDIT: Hmmm... looks like the hardware version was wiped out too... and I didn't write it down ahead of time.   Since it's so new, guess it's probably a 58 or perhaps a 59 (seems like there are a few of those).  Dug through more of this thread and found the instructions to fix the serial, model and hardware (just guessed it's a 58) and that newer hardware needed newer firmware so I updated back to 00.03.01... is that right?  Is 00.03.01 > 2.0.02 SP2?  So confusing! 

All I know so far is the screen flicker seems to be still gone (hooray!) and it still thinks it's a 100Mhz scope.

Anyways, sounds like the next step it to do a self calibration and I'll be done.

[Gizmo]

Many people say not to do self calibration after the upgrade. I don't know whether the calibration done at the distributor will be better than the self calibration, but you'd certainly hope so. If you don't have any issues, don't recalibrate would be my suggestion.

Can someone add the custom 04.00.00.01 patch to the first post instructions please? There is a lot of unnecessary downgrading and upgrading plus losing of data going on for no reason.

Thanks synfinatic for the file host and I'm glad it's working well for people.

When the next firmware comes out I'll provide another 100Mhz patch, or people can do the old header replacement trick to get the current firmware to install over new ones.

I don't know if there's anything more interesting I can do or add to the current firmware, but I'm investigating possibilities.  If I had an idea what was causing the screen flicker, or had it myself, I'd look into that...

[synfinatic]

If anyone recently purchased a scope, I'd be interested to know what hardware version (58 or 59) you have and what the date is on your Contents List & Certificate of Calibration- especially if yours came with version 3 and not 4 firmware.  Mine are both Oct 9, 2012. 

EDIT: Also first part of your serial number would be a nice cross reference as well. Mine starts with DS1ED1422

 Thanks!

[Gizmo]

Mine came directly from Rigol in January -- v4 frmware and 58 hardware. Hardware 58 appears to be the most common currently as far as I can tell. I guess it depends how long they have had stock, and if they upgrade the firmware before shipping out as to what you get.

The firmware certainly does differentiate between hardware versions and sets up values accordingly, so I would guess it's quite important to get it right for correct operation of the scope.

[synfinatic]

Thanks Gizmo... I'll have to dig through this thread again.  I thought I read someone had 59 with 3.01 from the factory.  Seems really strange that newer hardware would ship with older firmware, so maybe I miss-read that.  Would you mine checking your serial number and letting me know if it's newer or older then the one I posted?  That's probably the best indication of what hardware version it is.   Often hardware vendors will encode hardware revisions in the most significant bits of the serial number.

[Gizmo]

Mine is a similar serial, 1448, so a little higher.

One thing that I have just noticed is that the older firmware (like 2.5.2 age) doesn't know about hardware 59. It feasible I guess that if it doesn't recognise the hw version, it just blanks it. Certainly if the model number isn't recognised the scope automatically overwrites it with DS1052E.

So that *may* indicate a 59 hardware. Although I've not checked the firmware thoroughly enough to know if it does wipe the hardware number if not recognised...

[synfinatic]

I'll look through the thread again, but 99% sure other people with 58 are seeing their info wiped out after downgrading, so I don't think the two are related.  Since your serial is after mine and came with later firmware, I'm going to guess that most likely mine is 58.  I haven't noticed anything obviously wrong with it, but since this is my first ever scope and I just got it, I'm not sure I'd know if it wasn't working perfectly anyways.

[notsob]

Geoff, Simon or Dave, would you mind moving 'supertechster's' post somewhere else

[Alex33]

Used a modified firmware from Gizmo.
Not so simple. Yes there was 2ns minimum time scale, but:
1. He is not selected by the AUTO
2. has not changed the bandwidth of about 95 MHz.

[Gizmo]

I have used the modified firmware and have measured a rise time of roughly 3ns, which is 100mhz bandwidth. The full bandwidth is only available with 1 channel -- with 2 active the bandwidth is 50mhz.

Please let me know what the issue is / how to see it, as it seems to be working ok for me, although I may be missing something...

Cheers!

[Alex33]

Gizmo, I measure the voltage from the antenna analyzer into 50 ohms (AA range 0-230 MHz).
The graph shows that after 90 MHz is a sharp decline.
The measurements were performed before and after the firmware update.
Next time, set of 2 ns per division, the signal is more than 100 MHz, press Auto, scope switch to 5ns.
Can not be switched control varicap control1 (see diagram).
osc: DS1ET14....
        00.04.00.00.01
        dsp=00.01
        FPGA=03.07
        HardVersion=58
reference to the source schema http://rigol.codenaschen.de/index.php/Schematics

[A Hellene]

Nice hack, Gizmo!

Very well done! Thank you!
__________


Alex33,

Members of this forum have occasionally reported that this specific oscilloscope line can perform decently up to a bandwidth of 170 MHz. Not to mention the little-known 150 MHz DS1152E-EDU devices, whose existence confirms the previous statement.

In my opinion there must be some sort of QC at the Rigol assembly line, since not every cheap component they use in their oscilloscopes can be pushed beyond its limits and perform well. I am talking about the DS1000E/D front-end 40 MS/s ADCs being overclocked to 100 MS/s (see Dave's EEVblog #19: Rigol caught with their pants down!). Not that there is any deliberate difference between the AD9288-40 and the AD9288-100 A/D converters Rigol uses, besides their price tag. It is just that the chip manufacturer characterises the faster ones as full bandwidth products and those ones that cannot perform decently at full speed, as lower bandwidth ones; and instead of binning the latter ones they sell them as lower speed components and at a lower price.

By the same principle, the assembled oscilloscopes that cannot perform at full speed (due to the lower performance components they are assembled with) must probably be labeled as lower speed devices (i.e. DS1052 instead of DS1102) which, when pushed to meet the performance of the faster ones, they simply fail to do it right.

By the way, here are all the DS1000E/D schematics I have drawn when I disassembled my unit, trying to find out the cause of the excessive noise it exhibited right out of the box, and a few comments on the 20 MHz bandwidth limit varicap biasing.

In a few words, I think that the varicap stage is not responsible for the 90 MHz bandwidth knee you have measured.


-George

[Gizmo]

Thanks for the info there, George, you are far more knowledgable than myself about the Rigol!

As far as I can tell, I have done everything that the original mod does. I would be very interested if you would care to make the same measurements with the old downgrade / change model number hack, Alex33. They should be identical, and as George says I believe you are hitting a hardware wall with frequency due to components.

If there is anything the firmware hack does not do that the original hack does I will gladly investigate!

The issue with auto is purely down to how auto works, not that the scope doesn't know about the 2ns scale.

Thanks!

[Alex33]

Gizmo, George!
I understand very well what wrote George.
Will please all who scop modified in another way:
1. View 2ns/div used in the AUTO setting.
2. View AFC (frequency response) device using sin-signal after modification, if possible before the modification.
3. I will try to look at the control voltage varicap according Fig.1

I apologize for my English, I use google translator.
Best regards to all forum members.

[Alex33]

A good time to all.
George, I read the topic of your struggle with interference. I'm excited, it's fantastic.
I measured the voltage control varicap, it corresponds to the above scheme.
Regarding modifications:
 ADC frequency does not change when modifying
 ad8370 lmsh6552 and have significantly more bandwidth 100MHz
 so there are only passive components, like a filter tuned to 100 MHz..
This setting is suitable for 1052 and for 1102.
Remind bandwidth before and after the modification I have not changed.
Sincerely, Alex.

[leycec]

@Gizmo As a contemptible newbie, the original instructions on this thread were a tad... daunting. If I'm reading your recent posts right, your cleverly hacked firmware appears to implement the infamous 100Mhz Rigol hack:

• For all firmware versions, including firmware newer than version 00.02.05.02.00.
• Without requiring downgrades, Ultrascope for DS1000E Series.exe, DS1052_to_DS1102.zip, or rigupgr.zip.

Is that about right? If so, the original instructions could really benefit from a rewrite. Your firmware appears to obsolete steps 2 through 5 – effectively all of them! Have we dreamed and gone to Rigol hack heaven?

[Gizmo]

@leycec Yes, just copy the custom firmware to a USB stick, flash, and you're done! 

I have asked Polossatik, the owner of the original post, to link to the new instructions. But he hasn't managed to do this yet... The new hack saves a lot of hassle!

[RFT-Guy]

OK, Thanks a lot for this one, it worked well, 100 MHz BW available,
but lots of screen flickr (every 5-10 seconds white screen) .

Would like to revert back to original 02.05.02  (much less flickering once every 5 minutes) ,
can't find this Firmware anywhere, pls help!

DS1052E with fixed FW 00.04.00.01 and heavy duty screen flickering.




FIXED!!!! Perform

 [Storage] -> Factory -> Load     

fixes the flickering issue!


No more help needed!







rgds

Mike from Germany

[synfinatic]

DS1052E with fixed FW 00.04.00.01 and heavy duty screen flickering.


FIXED!!!! Perform

 [Storage] -> Factory -> Load     

fixes the flickering issue!


No more help needed!

This seems like a common problem with the 4.0 code and this is by far the easiest solution.  Definitely something we should try to let others know about!