Whether or not you are acting from an independent standpoint in your head is beside the point when your sig says otherwise.Granted, gave that some thought and exactly why I added a footer.
I don't normally.
FYI any signature I use will instantly apply to ALL my existing posts so I have to live with this signature like a flag on my forehead.
Would you all be happier if my signature was "NZ Test Equipment Supplier"?
Is that sufficent disclosure?
Should all this discourage me from making valid comment/posts, in this thread or any other?
Just try and hold me back.
Whether or not you are acting from an independent standpoint in your head is beside the point when your sig says otherwise.Granted, gave that some thought and exactly why I added a footer.
I don't normally.
FYI any signature I use will instantly apply to ALL my existing posts so I have to live with this signature like a flag on my forehead.
Would you all be happier if my signature was "NZ Test Equipment Supplier"?
Is that sufficent disclosure?
Should all this discourage me from making valid comment/posts, in this thread or any other?
Just try and hold me back.
Hello, I am sorry that you had trouble with the beta. I double checked here, but the firmware doesn't enable downgrading. We have limited that to avoid compatibility issues with the latest hardware and earlier firmware versions. In fact, that is tied to the same reason we ask for serial numbers before we share firmware for upgrading. It allows us to verify compatibility and make sure there will not be issues. As our firmware gets more sophisticated in verifying versions we can hopefully make that more easily available.
Hello, I am sorry that you had trouble with the beta. I double checked here, but the firmware doesn't enable downgrading. We have limited that to avoid compatibility issues with the latest hardware and earlier firmware versions. In fact, that is tied to the same reason we ask for serial numbers before we share firmware for upgrading. It allows us to verify compatibility and make sure there will not be issues. As our firmware gets more sophisticated in verifying versions we can hopefully make that more easily available.
I'm sorry, but i'm not really buying that. You had no problem to hand out a link to the beta firmware so that people can test it. Nowhere in that post did it say something like "This firmware is only suitable for units in the serial number / hardware revision range XXX to YYY, please do not apply to units outside thatt range". In the teardown videos there are resistor straps visible that set the revision of the unit. Did Rigol place them there just for fun, or can the firmware read out what they are set to? I would assume the latter, so the firmware should be able to differentiate.
If the firmware really can't make that distinction, then it is rather poorly designed when it comes to such stuff. Heck, even 50€ sat receivers can do it and tell you that some firmware file for another type, using the exact same hardware but having slight diffences in functionality, is not compatible with the unit the user wants to upload it to.
Unless Rigol is hand-soldering every device specifically for the customers, eaach one in turn being different, it is really hard to believe that you need to have that begging-for-firmware procedure in place. If the firmware needs to be specific for a few model revisions and/or serial number ranges, but the units are unable to figure it out on their own, then simply put that information out there together with those files. You know, like "here is firmware version A. This version is only for the series B units, hardware revision C and serial number range XX to YY. Do not apply to other units". Again, you had no problem providing a beta firmware to people without any such restrictions/information attached, which strongly hints at this not really being an issue. Don't treat your customers as stupid folks who can't read, have some confidence in them, please.
Surely you can press help immediately right after power up to do a force firmware update if you have the previous version firmware on a USB stick, right?
Or is the DS1000 boot sequence different than the DS2000 series?
Surely you can press help immediately right after power up to do a force firmware update if you have the previous version firmware on a USB stick, right?
Or is the DS1000 boot sequence different than the DS2000 series?It use to work, the help button on a DS1000Z, however, with the latest firmware upgrade, RIGOL also distributed a new bootloader that needed to be installed first. I don't know if this was really needed, I did follow the procedure that RIGOL gave me, and it includes a new boot loader.
So now the HELP button does not longer work with booting....
I think what is going on is that Rigol are not testing downgrading firmware and are only releasing firmware that is tested to work as an upgrade from previous versions. There is nothing to say that a downgrade wouldn't work, there is simply no incentive for them to spend time testing downgrades from a new firmware to every previous version that is in the wild. If they haven't tested it, they aren't allowing it. That would be my guess as to part of their motive.
After all, most manufacturers manage to do exactly that. I don't see any good reason why Rigol should be special.
None of this will stop me from buying more Rigol gear unless they become hostile toward their customers over issues.
Well, did not they produced a nice letter saying they did a test and found no issues. It was all in user's heads, before we pointed out to the PLL problem.
Aren't we having a deja vu now, this time with them having tested the beta which was also successful as they say. It is again all in the heads of those who claims they have their scopes locking up and/or the issue not fixed.
Cant wait for MarkL to hook up his SA to the "final firmware-d" scope. I think I have earned some credibility here to say these guys have no idea what they are doing to the PLL. It was not a proper fix, it was a desperate attempt to patch the hole by any means, whatever seemed to work.
Hello, I am sorry that you had trouble with the beta. I double checked here, but the firmware doesn't enable downgrading. We have limited that to avoid compatibility issues with the latest hardware and earlier firmware versions. In fact, that is tied to the same reason we ask for serial numbers before we share firmware for upgrading. It allows us to verify compatibility and make sure there will not be issues. As our firmware gets more sophisticated in verifying versions we can hopefully make that more easily available.
I'm sorry, but i'm not really buying that. You had no problem to hand out a link to the beta firmware so that people can test it. Nowhere in that post did it say something like "This firmware is only suitable for units in the serial number / hardware revision range XXX to YYY, please do not apply to units outside thatt range". In the teardown videos there are resistor straps visible that set the revision of the unit. Did Rigol place them there just for fun, or can the firmware read out what they are set to? I would assume the latter, so the firmware should be able to differentiate.
If the firmware really can't make that distinction, then it is rather poorly designed when it comes to such stuff. Heck, even 50€ sat receivers can do it and tell you that some firmware file for another type, using the exact same hardware but having slight diffences in functionality, is not compatible with the unit the user wants to upload it to.
Unless Rigol is hand-soldering every device specifically for the customers, eaach one in turn being different, it is really hard to believe that you need to have that begging-for-firmware procedure in place. If the firmware needs to be specific for a few model revisions and/or serial number ranges, but the units are unable to figure it out on their own, then simply put that information out there together with those files. You know, like "here is firmware version A. This version is only for the series B units, hardware revision C and serial number range XX to YY. Do not apply to other units". Again, you had no problem providing a beta firmware to people without any such restrictions/information attached, which strongly hints at this not really being an issue. Don't treat your customers as stupid folks who can't read, have some confidence in them, please.
Greetings,
Chris
ETA: And as has been suggested already, if the beta firmware does not allow "downgrading" to the previous non-beta version, then simply provide the previous version with a changed version number (or whatever) so that the beta recognizes it as an update and will "update". You want people to help you figure out the issue, the least you can do is to help them revert back after they tried the beta, found issues and reported them.
It's not hard to hate the DS1054Z now. But let's give Rigol the week or so they said they need to
provide the fixed firmware.
From what I gather from Bud and MarkL, there are a range of performances of the PLL depending on the borderline
stability of the PLL filter. I suspect that most problem DS1054Z DSOs will be fixed "well enough" in the view of Rigol.
I think there is a large variation in the degree of jitter/PLL problems, stemming from variation in values of the filter components. Should the promised new firmware not fix my 70 ns wide jitter I plan to open the DSO
and try some different capacitors (C2 mentioned in
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-683-rigol-ds1000z-ds2000-oscilloscope-jitter-problems/msg561375/#msg561375)
And if that does not fix it, then it's either ebay or chopping block with youtube video documentation.
What would I get for a DSO with 70 ns jitter? AUS $200? probably less.
Not worth spending any more time really, I blow $50 a week on beer.
Should the promised new firmware not fix my 70 ns wide jitter I plan to open the DSO
and try some different capacitors (C2 mentioned in
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-683-rigol-ds1000z-ds2000-oscilloscope-jitter-problems/msg561375/#msg561375)
Totally agree. In my case, Chris and team "upgraded" the firmware on my scope while they had it at their facility to use in investigating a network bug. So I had no choice in the matter. My only plan for this scope is to sell it. First that was delayed waiting for Chris and Steve to return it. Now that is delayed waiting for a firmware that doesn't randomly lock up the scope (WORSE than the situation before I sent it in for "repair").
Bud, i've got DS2072 here which i wouldn't mind opening. The only issue is -- it's the only oscilloscope here atm. And afraid i can't probe oscilloscope by itself, can i?
Not really familiar with PLL, but if it's expected to be a constant high level guess probing with dmm would work?
From what I can see, me and you are the only people that have reported being worse off with the beta FW in terms of the jitter.
I am also in the southern hemisphere and love beer too. Do I smell a conspiracy?
Did you buy yours from a local supplier or also imported it like me?
From what I can see, me and you are the only people that have reported being worse off with the beta FW in terms of the jitter.
I am also in the southern hemisphere and love beer too. Do I smell a conspiracy?
Did you buy yours from a local supplier or also imported it like me?
Only yours and mine are worse after beta?
Bud, i've got DS2072 here which i wouldn't mind opening. The only issue is -- it's the only oscilloscope here atm. And afraid i can't probe oscilloscope by itself, can i?
Not really familiar with PLL, but if it's expected to be a constant high level guess probing with dmm would work?
I would not bother opening a sealed DS2072, there is no jitter problem on a DS2000 series scope. You will probably also loose your guarantee.
I would not bother opening a sealed DS2072, there is no jitter problem on a DS2000 series scope. You will probably also loose your guarantee.
Don't think it's on the warranty (i've bought it like 2.5 years ago or so), and sending it back to rigol could cost more than the scope i'm afraid.
It's likely nothing to do with the trigger jitter indeed, it's more like a curiosity of what's going on. Maybe it's something more like "no discovered jitter issue" since the arrangement is the same as in ds1000z