Simple question (inspired discussion in the Rigol bugs thread):
Does R&S, at any point, ever discuss the the open-sourcing (or otherwise free) release of source code or firmware at any point during the entire history of a product (from design through to obsolescence)? Why, or why not?
If it easier to provide an answer by restricting the domain to oscilloscopes, then please do.
It occurred to me that, while we all discuss and speculate reasons which we believe obviate the need to keep software closed and locked up, I wondered if the guys making test gear actually have the discussion internally or not. If not, why not? Surely there are upsides and downsides.
I suspect companies as large as R&S, Keysight, Tek, etc. also have educational programs and educational outreach. Perhaps that is a group of people internally could ask the original question from a different viewpoint: is there a point in a product lifecycle that the educational benefit of a source code release outweighs the need for competitive advantage for the techniques used within?
I don't mean to antagonize or anything, either: I genuinely thought that maybe the question (what do we lose and gain by open sourcing for this product, at this time?) isn't even being raised at any point in the lifetime of something like an oscilloscope.
Hi, Rich,
I have a question about the probe compensation waveform on the RTO1000 scopes. It appears to have a very fast rise time, apparently less than 1 nanosecond. I've never seen such a fast risetime on previous scopes I've used. The user's manual doesn't say anything about rise time of this signal. Can you find out what the nominal rise time is?
Thanks.
phs,
great list. I would like to add one thing that really annoys me since the day I took my scope out of the box: trigger on the sweep of the signal generator.This is something that was highlighted internally pretty early on, so hopefully will be addressed soon.
Hi Rich,
Thanks for the info - was mainly interested in confirming that it was well under 1ns. The fast rise time is certainly useful - benefits definitely outweigh the drawback of needing a proper ground (if anything it teaches the user a lesson in good grounding )
On another note, did you ever find out about how the fan noise/speed control is meant to work in the RTB series? It was mentioned a while back - it seems that some users find their units very quiet, but others (unfortunately I'm among them) find theirs far from it. It's not a disaster, just strange that some find it quiet, some not, and I'd like to know if there is a problem or if it's just variability in the fan itself (or user's ears/noisy lab environment!). Note that it seems that the fan is running at full speed or close to it, rather than under thermal control.
Hi, i am looking to buy a multimeter,
any chance you will update the HMC8012 firmware to have "duty cycle display" in the future ?
thanks
Hi Hydron and The Electrician - for both the RTB2000 and the RTO1000/2000 the probe compensation signal's rise-time is quite fast (100s of picoseconds vs most scopes are typically 10s of nanoseconds). We don't spec it but I'll see if I can find out the exact rise-time.
There are benefits and drawbacks to a fast rise-time on the probe comp signal. If you use the typical alligator clip ground, you'll see ringing caused by the inductance of the extended ground lead (drawback). But the benefit of the fast rise-time is it allows us to provide a high-frequency adjustment to the probes when you use the short spring clip ground (or on the RTB2000 it has a very elegant way of doing the probe comp with no ground accessory needed).
Hope this helps.
-Rich
https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/us/manual/r-s-rt-zp03-manual-manuals-gb1_78701-172932.html
https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/us/manual/r-s-rt-zp03-manual-manuals-gb1_78701-172932.html
Is this supposed to answer my query about the rise time of the RTO calibrator? I looked through it and didn't see anytning about that.
Why do ask this question? I don't understand the intention.
Markus
Hi, Rich,
I’m looking for a new scope for home/hobby use. At work, I use Keysight scopes and R&S spectrum analyzers but I’ve never used an R&S scope.
I have a few questions about the RTE1024:
1) What spectrum analysis capabilities are built-in to the base scope price without purchasing the spectrum analysis option?
2) Where in the product life cycle is the RTE1024? In other words, how much longer will it be fully supported for calibration, repairs, and parts replacement should the need arise?
3) How much to extend the product warranty out to five years?
4) How much is the flat-rate repair price?
I have to admit an R&S scope is a long shot given my familiarity with Keysight’s products, but I’m trying to keep an open mind.
By the way, I’m in Fort Collins if you and Daniel ever want to go mountain biking up here or I could show you around Curt Gowdy in Wyoming sometime if you’ve never been there. I wouldn’t mind hitting Captain Jack’s or some of the trails down your way either.
Thanks,
Glen Akins
bikerglen.com
2. For the PLC, we provide 5-years of support once a product is discontinued, plus a significant amount of "best effort" beyond that. I actually think this is a huge advantage for R&S - as a privately held company we don't have the typical inventory pressures that cause other companies to flush inventory over time so we can support things well beyond a "typical" amount of time.
2. For the PLC, we provide 5-years of support once a product is discontinued, plus a significant amount of "best effort" beyond that. I actually think this is a huge advantage for R&S - as a privately held company we don't have the typical inventory pressures that cause other companies to flush inventory over time so we can support things well beyond a "typical" amount of time.
Considering that 5 years after discontinuance is typical for Keysight and that LeCroy even offers 7 years full support after end of production, and that both companies support older gear based on best efforts (i.e. LeCroy still offers repair for the 9300 Series of scopes which are from the mid-'90s), I'm actually struggling to see where the huge advantage for R&S is in this regard.
If the math of the beancounters shows it is better to dump everything then out it goes.
...us being privately held...
...us being privately held...
I didn't know R&S was privately held! Interesting. That is a whole new kettle of fish (in a good way). I've been an exec at both public and private companies, and yes definitely, the focus can be very different, especially with respect to investors/stockholders. Kind of the "new thing" here in the States the last few years has been taking public companies private (again), especially via large hedge fund buyouts, to get the thing out of the public eye and end the required public quarterly reporting nightmare, so they can move forward more nimbly.
Well good for R&S!
WRT the support, it is really the best effort part I was mentioning. We had a third party evaluate RF products for support life (our scope products haven't been around long enough) and on average, our support was roughly 5 years longer than others in the industry. Again, a large portion of this is due to us being privately held - if we have inventory we hold on to it, versus writing it off to improve things like ROIC (which is often important to investors in publicly held companies). For scopes, I think you are correct about LeCroy - from what I can tell they do a very good job of long term support too.
I didn't know R&S was privately held!
Interesting. That is a whole new kettle of fish (in a good way). I've been an exec at both public and private companies, and yes definitely, the focus can be very different, especially with respect to investors/stockholders. Kind of the "new thing" here in the States the last few years has been taking public companies private (again), especially via large hedge fund buyouts, to get the thing out of the public eye and end the required public quarterly reporting nightmare, so they can move forward more nimbly.