new killer scope in town - a true game changer from R&S - RTB2002 & RTB2004

[Rich@RohdeScopesUSA]

I don't have an easy way to generate a known-clean signal that low - Rigol DG4062 will do 1mv RMS but no idea how much noise may already be on it.

Rich could easily do the test too, if he should happen to have access to a R&S UPV.  It can generate 20Hz at -100dB THD+N.

Unfortunately, I don't have a UPV (or any source/attenuator that can make that signal). I'll see if someone in Munich can do it though.

-Rich

[mrpackethead]

FYI:
These are the fees I pay to get my multimeters into the country:




And people expect Oz seller to sell at the same price as other countries? 

You get really stung for those fees.   I'm sure we pay a lot less than that in our Melbourne office. I'll go and find out.

[norks]

Duties came in at $1000.40? Coincidence or are they just making fees up because they figure a grand will do 

Great to see your sample scopes arrived, Dave. I hope fortune smiles and you get the time to do a thorough review on this one. Everyone knows you have a lot on your shoulders though so I appreciate whatever you can do. 

[boffin]

Is it possible to just get a shipping agent in Taiwan, and just ship them from there, rather to down-under and potentially back ?

[mrpackethead]

@Rich@RohdeScopesUSA..  How do i get a decently priced Scope in New Zealand.  I can access it in the USA and do dubious shipping... but if theres a way to do it properly i'd perfer

[norks]

Rich, how is the dvm feature done in the RTB?  Is there any dedicated circuitry for that or is it just calculated from the acquisition?

[agdr]

Rich could easily do the test too, if he should happen to have access to a R&S UPV.  It can generate 20Hz at -100dB THD+N.

Unfortunately, I don't have a UPV (or any source/attenuator that can make that signal). I'll see if someone in Munich can do it though.

-Rich

A big thanks for passing the request along!  Hopefully someone in the lab there will be able to find time to do it.  Passing that test the way ci11 found the HMO1212 can do would be another selling point for the scope, especially for us audio types. 

[MrBungle]

Dave still hasn't reviewed scopes he does have 

Reviewing scopes properly takes several days solid work at least. I rarely get that sort of break, or can find time to commit to that at the moment.
And yes I have a wife and two kids (one school age, & one of which I take care of 1 full work day a week), a business to run, a new logistics employee to train, two new products in progress, and it's not like I can do lab stuff or shoot video at home when the wife is sleeping. Not to mention other videos I want to do.

Haha yeah I know, was just taking the piss, hence the big cheesy grin.
I was gonna stick my tongue out but that icon is kinda crap: 

[Howardlong]

For me, if you want a decent real world scope review, Mike's are honest real world tests, not just spec and feature testing. They include the good and the bad. I can see him becoming -the- de facto scope tester.

[agdr]

20Hz @ 400 uV tortures a Keysight DSOX3000 series - in high res mode it will display it, trigger is hit/miss and measurements such as the frequency counter won't work. Of course the 1mV per division is zoomed and it is 8 bit. I used a 33250A with a 30dB attenuator to generate the signal.

Interesting!  Thanks for performing the test.  The 3000's were the other scope I had been seriously considering.  From  Rich's earlier quick noise floor test a 3000 series appeared to be around 2x noisier on the high vertical gain setting.  Sounds like the tiny signal is getting buried in the noise.

[mikeselectricstuff]

For me, if you want a decent real world scope review, Mike's are honest real world tests, not just spec and feature testing. They include the good and the bad. I can see him becoming -the- de facto scope tester.

Ain't gonna happen...

[mikeselectricstuff]

Re. low-level stuff.
The smallest 20Hz sinewave signal it will reliably trigger from is about 1mV p-p. There is a slight offset on the trigger level and it's a little jittery- maybe 3-4%. 
These were with intensity at 100%

TBH if you're seriously working with signals that low you should probably be using an external amplifier - not too difficult or expensive at audio levels.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Anti-glare screen protector makes a huge difference to screen shininess - time will tell how durable it is but at £2.49 for two it's hardly a big deal if it needs replacing every so often.
I used this one, cut down
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/191778503815?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
 

[Neganur]

It's difficult to say anything about that trace comparison since there are a number of important differences (for HiRes mode):

• Screen resolution is different: 1280 × 800 pixel  on the RTB vs. 640 (H) x 480 (V) pixels on the HMO
• Sample rate: 300kSa/s on the RTB vs 10kSa/s on the HMO
• Memory depth: maximum 20MPts for the RTB vs. 2MPts for the HMO (1 Ch)

Naturally, I would assume to see more features on the RTB's trace since there is more data, and the HMO's smaller screen resolution also does an 'optical average'?

Interesting screenshot, cheers!

What bandwidth does that HMO1202 have that is being compared to?
The datasheet does not directly list the model BW only that in 1mV/DIV mode the BW is 100MHz (HMO Manual, page 63: Analog Channels)
EDIT: never mind, I'm stupid and forgot they're both in 20 MHz limit mode.

[Howardlong]

For me, if you want a decent real world scope review, Mike's are honest real world tests, not just spec and feature testing. They include the good and the bad. I can see him becoming -the- de facto scope tester.

Ain't gonna happen...

Hmmmmm.... of all the reviews I've seen of recently reviewed and released scopes, I can only draw one conclusion!

My point being that Dave tends to be doing teardowns rather than in-use reviews, and several others do "reviews" which add zero value beyond confirming what's on the data sheet, and the -only- person doing reviews using real use cases is you. A teardown is interesting its own right, but it's not a review of how well it works. Indeed, scope demo boards have their uses, those boards are designed to show off the good bits, not the less good bits. In the hands of a noob, reviewing a scope demo board with a scope is just confirming what's on the datasheet, and sometimes not even that, indeeed sometimes such reviews can be misleading.

Several "reviewers" are really out of their depth and/or only seem to receive scopes because they have significant Youtube subs or views, indeed I'm slightly surprised Pewdiepie, Casey Niestat or Zoella don't get scopes... or maybe they do.

[nctnico]

Maybe that is the whole point of sending scopes to reviewers who use the demo boards: only show the good parts and get attention. Ofcourse those reviews are useless for serious scope users. Of all the RTB2000 videos (until now) the one from Mike is the most informative.

[EEVblog]

My point being that Dave tends to be doing teardowns rather than in-use reviews

I explained that above, I want to do reviews, and intend to do reviews, but they are a massive amount of work and unfortunately often get put aside for other things. Please understand this.
I usually do a teardowns first because they are relatively quick, and I like to take apart something before I use it.

Indeed, scope demo boards have their uses, those boards are designed to show off the good bits, not the less good bits.

I use demo boards a lot for convenience. Often not of the same brand as the scope being tested.

Several "reviewers" are really out of their depth and/or only seem to receive scopes because they have significant Youtube subs or views, indeed I'm slightly surprised Pewdiepie, Casey Niestat or Zoella don't get scopes... or maybe they do.

Cynical much?

[EEVblog]

Maybe that is the whole point of sending scopes to reviewers: only show the good parts and get attention.

I for one show many things wrong with every product I review. To the point that many complain that I bitch and moan too much about nit picking details in products.
I showed Keysights new $15k scope blow up on their big launch day.
I showed a meter that blew up in my hand and almost killed me.
The list goes on.
Companies take a massive risk sending me stuff, and several companies avoid sending me stuff for this reason.

Yes, they send them to blogger for the attention, of course, why wouldn't they? How else can they directly reach such a massive target audience in an engaging way.
They know they have to take the good with the bad. I'm not aware of any bloggers in our space who don't say negative things about a product.

[ci11]

Re. low-level stuff.
The smallest 20Hz sinewave signal it will reliably trigger from is about 1mV p-p. There is a slight offset on the trigger level and it's a little jittery- maybe 3-4%. 
These were with intensity at 100%

TBH if you're seriously working with signals that low you should probably be using an external amplifier - not too difficult or expensive at audio levels.

Thanks, Mike. These are interesting results from the RTB.

The plot thickens a bit as the attached additional plot shows the HMPO1212 triggering on a 20Hz 490µV sine without Hi-Res smoothing and there is plenty of trace detail, despite the much lower 640x480 screen resolution. No offset needed but I was told that triggering reliability is much better with Hi-Res mode on. One RTB sample should not a conclusion make, so more observation is likely needed.

With regards to using an external amplifier: differential amplifiers or probes offer more amplification of low level signals, but they do not increase the dynamic range. Good low level sensitivity increases both signal integrity and the dynamic range hence the usefulness of the scope for audio.

Once again, I thank the forum member who performed these painstaking tests methodically. He owns the HMO1212.

[Neganur]

I too agree that most reviews out there are rather useless and more 'unboxing' style and banner spec repeating.
Both Mike & Dave do actual useful measurements or comparisons to other gear that is not just comparing numbers
(well, they actually use the gear and show why they think something is weird/great/useful/novel).

It's a bit hard to put a finger on it but I think they do actually review the scopes differently and complement each other.
While Mike is more practical usefulness and of course tied to what he does professionally, Dave likes to take it apart and compares it to other gear he has used (or has in the lab).
It's not just about the datasheet values either but rather the curiosity to see what's inside and identify technology used in the gear.

I actually like the comparisons a lot since it is really difficult to ask a vendor for demo units.

Dave also shares his opinion on what he likes about it and what he thinks is useful or better or well done. Certainly able to dis a product too; or Mike's bug findings and usability/feature suggestions.
Point being that you get a broad overview of the scope by watching different style reviews and not just the one that identifies that it has too little memory

I've been looking forward to Dave getting the RTB2000.

Scope reviews are difficult. Compare a review done by Shahriar/Dave/Mike vs. e.g. Watt Circuit.

[Bud]

Maybe that is the whole point of sending scopes to reviewers who use the demo boards: only show the good parts and get attention.

The public does not give shit about good on bad reviews. I exposed much of rigol incompetence in my Project Yaigol post, regardless - people still come in droves to by rigol crap.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I do like to poke at real hardware and not use stuff like built-in training waveforms etc. (e.g. I initially though that the UART decode framing issue might have been because I was running at 2Mbaud, but then verified it at more common rates.)
You do see a lot of reviewers doing little more than running through manufacturers' demos etc., which is a bit lazy. Having said that, I'm too lazy to do really comprehensive reviews, and tend to focus on what interests me.

I'll be using the R&S as my main scope for a while & may do the odd short vid on particular aspects but I don't have anything planned at the moment. ( Unless Dave misses something obvious  )
I also have a pretty big pile of teardown items that need attention...

Maybe that is the whole point of sending scopes to reviewers: only show the good parts and get attention.

Which is why any credible reviewer will not do paid reviews or allow right of edit before publication. If a manufacturer is happy with that, they have to have confidence in their product. 

[EEVblog]

Dave also shares his opinion on what he likes about it and what he thinks is useful or better or well done. Certainly able to dis a product too;

I thought I was kinda famous for dissing products? 

or Mike's bug findings and usability/feature suggestions.

I usually find bugs and mention feature/usability issues in almost every review. Not sure why you think that would be a Mike only thing?

Point being that you get a broad overview of the scope by watching different style reviews and not just the one that identifies that it has too little memory
I've been looking forward to Dave getting the RTB2000.

Bare in mind I have two other scopes that I got recently before this one I have not done reviews on yet. Well, actually, more than that if you go back

Scope reviews are difficult.

They are actually impossible to do thoroughly.
Even on a basic scope like the new Siglent 2CH entry level job, testing and demoing every function everyone is interested in would be a several hour review.
Not to mention it being impossible to evaluate every feature in every combination to find bugs and usability issues etc. It's purely pot-luck.
Even my "quick overview" videos end up with 100-200 clips shot.

[MrW0lf]

The public does not give shit about good on bad reviews.

According to Georgia Guidestones you should not worry too much about public as a whole... it's clearly on someones "todo list"... if you save some it's already sufficent  Let others enjoy good entertainment, no matter on YouTube or scope screen 

[Neganur]

With regards to using an external amplifier: differential amplifiers or probes offer more amplification of low level signals, but they do not increase the dynamic range. Good low level sensitivity increases both signal integrity and the dynamic range hence the usefulness of the scope for audio.

hmm! Low sensitivity on its own is ofc nice but the scope's input amp still only does 1mV/DIV over 8 DIV with whatever resolution it has.
You can't  take advantage of sensitivity unless you can see the signal (dynamic range increased by HiRes mode) or what am I missing?

A good low noise preamp will do exactly that: improve system sensitivity, and give a noise figure better than that of the scope without preamp.
You don't necessarily give up measurement range either if your preamp has good enough noise figure, you can put attenuation after the preamp and still improve sensitivity while not amplifying overall anymore.

I also don't see how signal integrity is improved by lower sensitivity, sensitivity means I can detect signal - whether it's in good condition or not.