New Rigol DS1054Z oscilloscope

[David Hess]

Does anybody know if the DS1104Z supports ETS (Equivalent Time Sampling)?

No, none of the Rigol UltraVision DSOs do.

I disagree with the simplicity of this answer.  They have something functionally equivalent.

On an ETS oscilloscope, the trigger to clock delay is measured which allows the samples to be aligned before any reconstruction is applied.  This allows timing measurements to the resolution of the time delay counter.

On a DPO style oscilloscope using only digital triggering, the reconstruction happens before triggering which yields a comparable trigger to clock delay measurement.  If this did not happen, then timing measurements would be limited to the base sample rate which even at 1 GS/s would only be 1 nanosecond which is pretty poor.  At 250 MS/s, it would be 4 nanoseconds which is completely unacceptable in a 100 MHz instrument.

[marmad]

I disagree with the simplicity of this answer.

What a surprise! 

They have something functionally equivalent.

This is yet another new theory of yours. 

On a DPO style oscilloscope using only digital triggering...

But who said the Rigol UltraVision scopes are only using digital triggering? It's not specified in any Rigol datasheets.

...the reconstruction happens before triggering which yields a comparable trigger to clock delay measurement.  If this did not happen, then timing measurements would be limited to the base sample rate which even at 1 GS/s would only be 1 nanosecond which is pretty poor.

Why don't you look at a DPO that is actually advertised as using a digital trigger? Such as the Siglent SDS2000 - a 2GSa/s DSO (just like the Rigol DS2000) - that, according to it's datasheet, has a trigger timing and resolution of precisely 1ns.

Normally, when people talk about ETS, they're talking about the ability to sample at higher than RT rates. Even if what you're describing is functionally equivalent inside the DSO, it's operationally completely different - and thus irrelevant - to the end user of the DSO.

[David Hess]

On a DPO style oscilloscope using only digital triggering...

But who said the Rigol UltraVision scopes are only using digital triggering? It's not specified in any Rigol datasheets.

That is right.  It is not specified in any datasheets or manuals.

If Rigol got off their asses and wrote some real documentation, we would not have to conduct extraneous experiments or make educated guesses about how their oscilloscopes actually function, what they can do, and how they perform.

If they are *not* using only digital triggering, then what are they using in addition?  Are their any analog DSO triggers which are not used to support ETS except in toys?

...the reconstruction happens before triggering which yields a comparable trigger to clock delay measurement.  If this did not happen, then timing measurements would be limited to the base sample rate which even at 1 GS/s would only be 1 nanosecond which is pretty poor.

Why don't you look at a DPO that is actually advertised as using a digital trigger? Such as the Siglent SDS2000 - a 2GSa/s DSO (just like the Rigol DS2000) - that, according to it's datasheet, has a trigger timing and resolution of precisely 1ns.

And then I will look at the early LeCroy DSOs which were advertised as having digital triggers and find that they had timing resolution significantly higher than their real time sample rate would suggest.

Normally, when people talk about ETS, they're talking about the ability to sample at higher than RT rates. Even if what you're describing is functionally equivalent inside the DSO, it's operationally completely different - and thus irrelevant - to the end user of the DSO.

It is relevant to an end user who expects ETS like performance out of his DSO which says nothing about ETS in its documentation or marketing.  Are you suggesting these Rigol oscilloscopes are crippled compared to the obsolete ETS oscilloscopes they replaced?

Capture a pair of synchronous high frequency sine waves in single shot mode and measure the resolution of the delay between them.  Or do the same with one or more fast transition edges which displays pattern sensitive jitter or controlled delay.  Can these oscilloscopes make these measurements?

[Mark_O]

Hi, Creep.  I suspect this has already been addressed at this point, but since you asked me directly...

Mark_O: can't one just turn off the other channels to check how the signal looks in one channel mode if you get a feeling something might be off? Then if you have confirmed it, you can safely turn on the rest of the channels knowing that what you see is the accual signal. Of course, this assmums that one is triggering off the channel in question.
Would there be any accual problems going about it this way?

Yes, this would work.  And no, there are no actual problems with doing so.  One could either do it preemptively, using a single enabled channel to probe the DUT, looking for high-frequency content.  And even use the FFT to check for higher amplitude content in the no-no part of the spectrum.  OR, just proceed without, and only fall back to check if your testing suggests that something may be amiss.

P.S. I know that that would be a hassel and I'm not saying it's convenient. Nor am I saying I understand this stuff all that well, it's just an idea I got while reading the previous comments.

Your understanding is fine, and it doesn't have to be a huge hassle.  It is an extra thing to remain aware of, and could cost you some time.  And time is often something a professional engineer is trying to optimize.  But the 1000z-series are versatile scopes, and very usable. 

If I were using one in 4-channel mode, but in too big a hurry to check, I'd just enable the 20 MHz BWL.  And if that were insufficient, I'd just use one of my other DSOs, that didn't have that constraint.  But though I have quite a few scopes, only a couple of my Tek's and one LeCroy exceed the Rigol's capabilities on 4-channels.  And they're not nearly as compact.

~~

One thing folks need to keep in mind is that people like Marmad are simply trying to provide an education, by calling attention to the limitations of the instruments we're using.  The educators aren't saying "don't even try to use it", or "the thing is worthless".  Just that you can't go in blindly.

If you think that's not possible or even likely, consider this scenario.  Someone who reads the EEVBlog see's the discussion on the 1054z, and the great price, and decides to pick one up, and hacks it to a 1104z model, with "100 MHz bandwidth".  And, like pascal_sweden, assumes that a 100 MHz scope is always fine for examining 100 MHz signals.  So he hooks it up to the embedded system he's working on, and starts looking at the SPI bus.  Since the 1000z series supports all 4 of the required channels (MOSI, MISO, CS, and CLK) he can do that easily.

Nowadays, SPI busses aren't just 2 MHz, or 5, or 8 MHz.  I've got one here that's running at 60 MHz, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear about faster.  So let's say he's looking at that signal on his embedded system.  He's perplexed, because he can't get the darn thing to decode properly.  It should work (a la, pascal), because it's "only" 60 MHz.  But there are numerous problems that prevent it.  First off, the scope isn't capturing fast enough to determine where the edges of the pulses are, with any certainty.  (And the Rigol can't sync to the clock... it's async.)  But there's also a lot of large-amplitude spectral content, way past the Nyquist limit, that the Rigol will do nothing to ameliorate.  That will fold over into the passband, and depending where the trigger levels are set, could be of high enough amplitude to completely corrupt the decoded stream on the SPI bus.  But even rare, sporadic, corruption is extremely undesirable, if not totally unacceptable.

Now he's going to be pretty unhappy.  He bought something thinking he knew what it could do for him.  And it's not working.  So the first conclusion is that it's broken.  We've seen that here more than once, and I saw it all the time back when I was discussing similar topics on the RC Groups forum.  "The scope's no good.  It doesn't work."  And lots of time wasted.  All because folks were unaware of the limitations of the test instruments they're using.

Having that knowledge in advance will enable them to work smarter, not harder, and get better results they can be confident about.  And spend less time scratching their heads, trying to figure out what's wrong with their DSO, and more time focusing on what's wrong with their circuit/system.  That is the goal, after all.

[Mark_O]

...the reconstruction happens before triggering which yields a comparable trigger to clock delay measurement.  If this did not happen, then timing measurements would be limited to the base sample rate which even at 1 GS/s would only be 1 nanosecond which is pretty poor.

In depends on context whether a 1 ns timing measurement is poor or not.

And then I will look at the early LeCroy DSOs which were advertised as having digital triggers and find that they had timing resolution significantly higher than their real time sample rate would suggest.

That's true, but so what?  I have a 9300-series LeCroy, and two 9400-series.  And you are correct about their timing resolution/capabilities.  But they all had ETS (well, RIS), so they got that for "free", because they had a clock (or facsimile thereof) that ran 40x-50x faster.  I see interpolation capabilities in the ps range.  Back about 50 years ago, when I was using LeCroy scopes in the Physics labs at the Uni, picosecond events were extremely important.  But the current "affordable" scopes we're talking about were never intended for that purpose.

It is relevant to an end user who expects ETS like performance out of his DSO which says nothing about ETS in its documentation or marketing.

Why would anyone expect that?     If it says nothing about some aspect of its performance, I have no expectations.

Are you suggesting these Rigol oscilloscopes are crippled compared to the obsolete ETS oscilloscopes they replaced?

Marmad may not, but I would.  Though I wouldn't use the word crippled.  They're simply more limited, in some ways.  And I also don't understand why it would surprise you that scopes designed to sell for 50x less, would be less capable in some regards?

Capture a pair of synchronous high frequency sine waves in single shot mode and measure the resolution of the delay between them.  Or do the same with one or more fast transition edges which displays pattern sensitive jitter or controlled delay.  Can these oscilloscopes make these measurements?

No.  Not really.  Not effectively.  The 1000z series doesn't specify, but the higher-performance 2000-series can have up to 2 ns of skew (nominally 1 ns) between the two channels.  That's up to 4 clock periods at it's max sample rate.  And there's enough jitter in their trigger systems (somewhere between 4-8 ns, IIRC) to make that look small by comparison.

The smallest resolution on any trigger-related setting in the 1000z specs is 8 ns, and for the 2000 series is 2 ns.  Step increments are 4 ns* and 1 ns, respectively.  What does that tell you?


*AFAIK.  I hope Marmad (or anyone with those Rigols) will correct me, if that is incorrect about the step-size.  The setting may be less, even if it can't really honor it.  But the 1000z may have a 1 GHz clock, even when it's not using it to drive sampling directly.

[David Hess]

...the reconstruction happens before triggering which yields a comparable trigger to clock delay measurement.  If this did not happen, then timing measurements would be limited to the base sample rate which even at 1 GS/s would only be 1 nanosecond which is pretty poor.

In depends on context whether a 1 ns timing measurement is poor or not.

I would consider it poor for an oscilloscope specified to have a 3.5 nanosecond transition time or 100 MHz bandwidth but I would agree it also depends on the context of what is being measured; most people are not measuring anything which requires this level of precision and if they are, they are using an oscilloscope more suited to the task.

But to borrow and scale a phrase, a 100 MHz oscilloscope cannot track a 2.5 nanosecond edge but it should be able to measure a delay of 1.0 nanoseconds between two such edges.

And then I will look at the early LeCroy DSOs which were advertised as having digital triggers and find that they had timing resolution significantly higher than their real time sample rate would suggest.

That's true, but so what?  I have a 9300-series LeCroy, and two 9400-series.  And you are correct about their timing resolution/capabilities.  But they all had ETS (well, RIS), so they got that for "free", because they had a clock (or facsimile thereof) that ran 40x-50x faster.  I see interpolation capabilities in the ps range.  Back about 50 years ago, when I was using LeCroy scopes in the Physics labs at the Uni, picosecond events were extremely important.  But the current "affordable" scopes we're talking about were never intended for that purpose.

So what was the facsimile of the clock which allowed high resolution delay measurements?  RIS as they describe it sure sounds like what I described where transition midpoint timing (*) is derived after reconstruction.

It is relevant to an end user who expects ETS like performance out of his DSO which says nothing about ETS in its documentation or marketing.

Why would anyone expect that?     If it says nothing about some aspect of its performance, I have no expectations.

I tried to answer the question taking into account its apparent context.

The Rigol user manual is explicit about supporting a timebase scale of 5 ns/div.  Without interpolation or reconstruction at 250 MS/s, that would produce a pretty awful looking display of a 3.5 nanosecond transition time signal (single-shot or not) when the display resolution indicates that about a difference of 100 picoseconds should be visible; 800 points / 12 divisions = 66 points per division in the display record but some of that is used by the UI so 50 points per division is more realistic.  That then comes out to 100 picoseconds at 5 ns/div.  Coincidentally, the delay calibration is *specified* in the user manual to be 100 picoseconds at 5 ns/div.

If it is not possible to see 100 picoseconds of delay difference using this oscilloscope, then it is odd that the delay compensation would support that resolution.  Why support it if it cannot be seen anyway?

That is also insignificantly worse than the oldest 100 MHz ETS DSOs that I know of can do.

Now maybe the DS1104Z cannot do the above with a single shot acquisition, but it sure should be able to because it is not difficult and the hardware is capable of supporting it.

Are you suggesting these Rigol oscilloscopes are crippled compared to the obsolete ETS oscilloscopes they replaced?

Marmad may not, but I would.  Though I wouldn't use the word crippled.  They're simply more limited, in some ways.  And I also don't understand why it would surprise you that scopes designed to sell for 50x less, would be less capable in some regards?

Considering my known antipathy toward Rigol, I find it odd to be arguing for the virtue of their recent instruments while it seems at least to me that others are arguing that they are less capable.

These oscilloscopes *are* less expensive but counter intuitively, I think that is why they use digital triggering instead of including the hardware to make a traditional TDC measurement to support ETS.  The former should have some additional limitations do to aliasing while still producing time resolution comparable to that provided by ETS hardware.

Capture a pair of synchronous high frequency sine waves in single shot mode and measure the resolution of the delay between them.  Or do the same with one or more fast transition edges which displays pattern sensitive jitter or controlled delay.  Can these oscilloscopes make these measurements?

No.  Not really.  Not effectively.  The 1000z series doesn't specify, but the higher-performance 2000-series can have up to 2 ns of skew (nominally 1 ns) between the two channels.  That's up to 4 clock periods at it's max sample rate.  And there's enough jitter in their trigger systems (somewhere between 4-8 ns, IIRC) to make that look small by comparison.

I think that skew specification has to do with operating the ADCs without interleaving on multiple channels where a different phases of the synchronous clock are used.  This certainly fits with the variation in maximum sample rate when a different number of channels is used.  Reconstruction should correct for that and produce horizontally aligned traces.

I have been speculating over the past couple of weeks that the digital trigger on these DSOs is noisy because of aliasing some of which is produced in the digitizer beyond the reach of any front end antialias filter.

The smallest resolution on any trigger-related setting in the 1000z specs is 8 ns, and for the 2000 series is 2 ns.  Step increments are 4 ns* and 1 ns, respectively.  What does that tell you?

It tells me that that is a limitation in the settability of their special triggers.  This is not unusual even in higher end DSOs.

*AFAIK.  I hope Marmad (or anyone with those Rigols) will correct me, if that is incorrect about the step-size.  The setting may be less, even if it can't really honor it.  But the 1000z may have a 1 GHz clock, even when it's not using it to drive sampling directly.

I wish someone would do the basic simple tests which would reveal how exactly these DSOs perform and then compile a wiki with the results.  I would do it myself but lack the necessary hardware, namely the DSO.

(*) The online reference I like to give for various TDC designs is currently down do to hosting issues but the relevant part of the description for a transition midpoint timing TDC is "A resolution of around 10ps or so is possible when using a 16 bit pipeline ADC clocked at 80MHz or more."  As I recall, these were popular in particle collision experiments because of their adequate resolution and accuracy and their very high measurement rate.

[Fungus]

Nowadays, SPI busses aren't just 2 MHz, or 5, or 8 MHz.  I've got one here that's running at 60 MHz, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear about faster.  So let's say he's looking at that signal on his embedded system.  He's perplexed, because he can't get the darn thing to decode properly.  It should work (a la, pascal), because it's "only" 60 MHz.  But there are numerous problems that prevent it.

Yep. This is why discussing Nyquist limits is a mistake in relation to DSOs. The "ten to one" rule for sample rate vs. bandwidth isn't predicted by theory, it comes from experience working with real signals.

nb. Theory can justify the rule (hindsight vision is 20:20...)

[marmad]

The Rigol user manual is explicit about supporting a timebase scale of 5 ns/div.

Yes, given it's maximum sample rate of 1GSa/s.

Without interpolation or reconstruction at 250 MS/s, that would produce a pretty awful looking display of a 3.5 nanosecond transition time signal (single-shot or not)

Who would think that the DSO could produce a decent looking 3.5ns rise time without interpolation when it's only sampling every 4ns? When looking at 5ns/div @ 250MSa/s (unless you're just examining the paltry 15 acquired sample points), the entire displayed waveform is nothing but interpolation. Expecting 'detail' at that time base and sample rate is fairly silly.

I wish someone would do the basic simple tests which would reveal how exactly these DSOs perform and then compile a wiki with the results.  I would do it myself but lack the necessary hardware, namely the DSO.

Virtually ANYTHING can be bought and returned within 30 days if you're willing to absorb the shipping costs. Instead of posting new speculation every few days (a couple of weeks ago it was that the Rigol secretly turned off sin(x)/x interpolation at higher sample rates to hide interleaving errors), perhaps you should get one of the scopes, run the tests you want and post your results - returning the DSO afterwards. I would be curious to see your results, and no offense, but judging by your posting frequency here, you have the requisite free time. 

[David Hess]

The Rigol user manual is explicit about supporting a timebase scale of 5 ns/div.

Yes, given it's maximum sample rate of 1GSa/s.

Great!  So where in the manual does it say that the fastest timebase scale is slower when more channels are used?  I must have missed that or maybe Rigol left it out.

Without interpolation or reconstruction at 250 MS/s, that would produce a pretty awful looking display of a 3.5 nanosecond transition time signal (single-shot or not)

Who would think that the DSO could produce a decent looking 3.5ns rise time without interpolation when it's only sampling every 4ns? When looking at 5ns/div @ 250MSa/s (unless you're just examining the paltry 15 acquired sample points), the entire displayed waveform is nothing but interpolation. Expecting 'detail' at that time base and sample rate is fairly silly.

Didn't I just say this above?  I obviously do not expect any detail faster than the analog bandwidth or between sample points but I do expect sin(x)/x reconstruction to produce something closely resembling a 3.5 nanosecond transition.  All of the necessary information baring aliasing is there.  The sample points should still be on the original waveform within the the limitations of the analog bandwidth.

I wish someone would do the basic simple tests which would reveal how exactly these DSOs perform and then compile a wiki with the results.  I would do it myself but lack the necessary hardware, namely the DSO.

Virtually ANYTHING can be bought and returned within 30 days if you're willing to absorb the shipping costs. Instead of posting new speculation every few days (a couple of weeks ago it was that the Rigol secretly turned off sin(x)/x interpolation at higher sample rates to hide interleaving errors), perhaps you should get one of the scopes, run the tests you want and post your results - returning the DSO afterwards. I would be curious to see your results, and no offense, but judging by your posting frequency here, you have the requisite free time. 

I still suspect they took steps to hide interleaving and aliasing errors.  Run the above test and find out.  It will show a sin(x)/x reconstruction problem or rather sin(x)/x reconstruction will reveal aliasing of a sine wave which is below the Nyquist frequency.

As far as buying and then returning an item I never intended to keep, I consider that rather dishonest.

[David Hess]

Nowadays, SPI busses aren't just 2 MHz, or 5, or 8 MHz.  I've got one here that's running at 60 MHz, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear about faster.  So let's say he's looking at that signal on his embedded system.  He's perplexed, because he can't get the darn thing to decode properly.  It should work (a la, pascal), because it's "only" 60 MHz.  But there are numerous problems that prevent it.

Yep. This is why discussing Nyquist limits is a mistake in relation to DSOs. The "ten to one" rule for sample rate vs. bandwidth isn't predicted by theory, it comes from experience working with real signals.

nb. Theory can justify the rule (hindsight vision is 20:20...)

I think it is a mistake as well.

The rule I usually use is related to capturing the 5th harmonic of a square wave with reasonable accuracy however most applications involve edges where transition time is a more realistic benchmark and that results in a similar rule.  If bandwidth is high enough, then sampling rate places somewhat of a limit on edge placement but not an absolute one.  Part of the difficulty here is using an oscilloscope in place of a logic analyser which would at least have the option of operating synchronously on a clocked data stream from SPI.  Of course most logic analyzers cannot measure signal integrity but the exceptions to this are fascinating.  Who was it that made that parallel bus logic analyser using a 4 bit flash ADC for each channel?  I remember the ads in the trade magazines.

It is worth mentioning that accurately capturing a 60 MHz SPI signal may also present probing difficulties and active probes are not cheap and low-z probes are not ubiquitous (but they are easy to make).  Just having a high bandwidth DSO with a fast sampling rate is not enough if probes with long ground connections are used or if the circuit cannot handle the capacitive loading of a high impedance passive probe or the low input resistance of a low-z probe.  I once designed in a pair of emitter followers to drive 50 ohm transmission lines in place of probes from something that was essentially a very fast SPI.  This worked much better than the active probe I did not have.

[alank2]

As far as buying and then returning an item I never intended to keep, I consider that rather dishonest.

It depends, it is all part of the terms of the deal.  If they have a free 30 day return privilege as an advantage to above their competitors, then you are fully right to use it.  One could argue that if you planned to return it from the get go that that might not be so ethical.

The Agilent document I think that was posted earlier says:

Although
sampling at even higher rates relative
to the scope’s bandwidth would further
minimize the possibility of sampling
frequency components beyond the
Nyquist frequency (fN), a sample rateto-
bandwidth ratio of 4:1 is sufficient to
produce reliable digital measurements

So while we would all love to have a 10:1 ratio or even better, I think it is going a bit far to say we must have 10:1.  No doubt that the sample rate when using 4 channels on the 1000Z scopes are there downside, but the price is incredible.

[marmad]

Great!  So where in the manual does it say that the fastest timebase scale is slower when more channels are used?  I must have missed that or maybe Rigol left it out.

If DSO manuals listed every thing the DSO can't do, given any and all possible combinations of settings, the manuals would be the size of encyclopedias. But I would agree that Rigol has been a little misleading about the actual, working BW of the DS1000Z with 3/4 channels ON. Then again, this is their bottom-of-the-line, super-low-cost DPO - and some trade-offs are to be expected. My only wish would be that they make those trade-offs a little bit more clear in the manual.

I obviously do not expect any detail faster than the analog bandwidth or between sample points but I do expect sin(x)/x reconstruction to produce something closely resembling a 3.5 nanosecond transition.  All of the necessary information baring aliasing is there.

Yes, "bar(r)ing aliasing" - rather a big "but", given the frequency roll-off the scope.

I still suspect they took steps to hide interleaving and aliasing errors.  Run the above test and find out.

I don't have the equipment to produce a clean sine wave close to 1GHz/500MHz (my DS2000's 1/2 channel Nyquist frequencies) - but even if I did, I'm not sure why I would spend time running tests to satisfy your (and your's alone, as far as I've read) suspicions.

As far as buying and then returning an item I never intended to keep, I consider that rather dishonest.

Well, who knows - you might love the DSO and think it's well worth $375 (or whatever it is at Tequipment with the EEVblog discount). 

[marmad]

...a sample rate to-bandwidth ratio of 4:1 is sufficient to produce reliable digital measurements.

So while we would all love to have a 10:1 ratio or even better, I think it is going a bit far to say we must have 10:1.  No doubt that the sample rate when using 4 channels on the 1000Z scopes are there downside, but the price is incredible.

The 10:1 ratio is for linear interpolation, not for sin(x)/x. If there is a strong possibility of aliasing (as when running 3/4 channels on the DS1000Z without extra filtering), it would be better to use linear interpolation, which is cruder but will be less wrong then sin(x)/x because it won't introduce false peaks (although it will introduce discontinuities in the gradient).

When using linear interpolation, a 10:1 ratio is preferable - as demonstrated in the following images. The first one shows a 5MHz sine wave interpolated linearly from 4 samples per period (4:1) - the second shows the same 5MHz sine wave interpolated linearly from 10 samples per period (10:1).

[Fungus]

One could argue that if you planned to return it from the get go that that might not be so ethical.

I'd certainly argue that. The seller will have a hard time selling it as "new" if it's had 30 days use (especially since the DS1054Z has trial features that tick away as you use it).

[marmad]

I'd certainly argue that. The seller will have a hard time selling it as "new" if it's had 30 days use (especially since the DS1054Z has trial features that tick away as you use it).

Well, if you aren't sure about keeping something you buy, you should certainly treat it (and the packaging) extremely well. And the trial features on these scopes are easily resettable by dealers with a simple key code.

[EEVblog]

So while we would all love to have a 10:1 ratio or even better, I think it is going a bit far to say we must have 10:1.  No doubt that the sample rate when using 4 channels on the 1000Z scopes are there downside, but the price is incredible.

Yes, and I'm not sure why any would quibble over this. Something to be aware of for sure, but still no reason why anyone wouldn't buy this scope at $399

[Deckert]

Does anybody know if the DS1104Z supports ETS (Equivalent Time Sampling)?

No, none of the Rigol UltraVision DSOs do.

Thanks marmad. That's interesting and, to a certain extent, somewhat disappointing. The DS1102Z's predecessors (the old DS1102) offered ETS and went down to 2ns/div on it's shortest time base. I was considering the DS1104Z as a replacement for my Atten ADS1102CML (a Siglent SDS1102CML), but I do use ETS often to measure output propagation delays.

Using ETS I have measured delays down to 1ns. I wonder if the ETS hardware is linked to the 1ns sample step or if I will be able to measure smaller delays (an experiment for another day).

--deckert

[marmad]

Thanks marmad. That's interesting and, to a certain extent, somewhat disappointing.

As mentioned in another thread, none of the current crop of low-cost, intensity-graded DPOs (Rigol DS1000Z/DS2000A, Agilent 2000X, Siglent SDS2000, etc) offers ETS.

The Rigol DS2000A has the 1ns timebase setting (when enabled to 300MHz), but of course, that's considerably more expensive than the DS1054Z.   

[Fungus]

Yep. People are arguing over this as if it were a $4000 oscilloscope, not $400.

For $400 the only question you should be asking is, "Where can I get one???"

[rbroders]

Can someone please send me the EEVblog discount code for TEquipment?

Thanks in advance -- BOb

[netdudeuk]

Yep. People are arguing over this as if it were a $4000 oscilloscope, not $400.

For $400 the only question you should be asking is, "Where can I get one???"

Agreed.  That's why it is such a shame that the main thread dedicated to what is probably the best oscilloscope buy in quite a few years has been polluted with irrelevant and unhelpful noise.  Perhaps the thread could be tidied up so it can add value long into the future ?

[Bert Camper]

Yep. People are arguing over this as if it were a $4000 oscilloscope, not $400.

For $400 the only question you should be asking is, "Where can I get one???"

Agreed.  That's why it is such a shame that the main thread dedicated to what is probably the best oscilloscope buy in quite a few years has been polluted with irrelevant and unhelpful noise.  Perhaps the thread could be tidied up so it can add value long into the future ?

+1

[miguelvp]

Yep. People are arguing over this as if it were a $4000 oscilloscope, not $400.

For $400 the only question you should be asking is, "Where can I get one???"

Agreed.  That's why it is such a shame that the main thread dedicated to what is probably the best oscilloscope buy in quite a few years has been polluted with irrelevant and unhelpful noise.  Perhaps the thread could be tidied up so it can add value long into the future ?

+1

Yeah, but where is my logic analyzer?

I kid, I kid.

Actually I've been telling hobbyist friends about this scope, they like my DS2072 so they will love that one (other than they only have one vertical and position control knob for all of the channels) but if I didn't have my 2000 series I would so get this one for less than half the price!

[Fungus]

Yeah, but where is my logic analyzer?

It has options for serial decoding, trigger on serial events/serial data, etc.

[Creep]

I don't consider this "noise". Quite a bit of information on the scope's shortcomings that people should be aware of. Nobody ever said that the scope wasn't great value, they just explained a few quirks of the scope and how to get around them.