How do we get twenty functions into two buttons?
But how am I ever going to be satisfied with my Rigol's UI now... it doesn't even include "Whack" triggering !
While it is not usually a problem with low bandwidth oscilloscopes, the relationship between the -3dB bandwidth and transition time depends on the shape of the passband so measuring only the transition time may not be sufficient.
Actually I did it properly also, with ETS and all, real -3dB point is 140MHz, cross checks with pure sine.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/picoscope-2000/msg1153233/#msg1153233
Mentioned 200MHz with square on purpose, because Z-box owners often do not have 100MHz+ high fidelity sine sources and will do their bw testing with square. Point being that if classical frontend unhacked 100MHz will do -3dB at 200MHz with square, then 50MHz would probably do -3dB at 100MHz etc...
Meaning its not like you cannot measure timing related things @100MHz quite ok with any proper 50MHz scope.
In short: this whole bw hackability thing is bit overrated in this case (especially considering Sinc trickery). Real point of hacking is IMHO more in getting all other stuff unlocked.
This does not follow.
It all comes down to what you need it for.
If just look at it and presume Sinc=OFF is actual analog response of DS1000Z then its roughly -5dB at @100MHz, which they compensate with non-standard Sinc producing bit silly amplitude gain @100MHz with Sinc=ON. Input in this test is perfect sine. There is theory around that Sinc=OFF applies some lowpass filter but I do not buy it. Rather Sinc=ON applies artificial bandwidth boost. Actually quite logical thing to do at first glance but easy to lose track with reality of actual input signal...
If just look at it and presume Sinc=OFF is actual analog response of DS1000Z then its roughly -5dB at @100MHz, which they compensate with non-standard Sinc producing bit silly amplitude gain @100MHz with Sinc=ON. Input in this test is perfect sine. There is theory around that Sinc=OFF applies some lowpass filter but I do not buy it. Rather Sinc=ON applies artificial bandwidth boost. Actually quite logical thing to do at first glance but easy to lose track with reality of actual input signal...
I don't understand what problem you see here? You have chosen to sample at only 2.5x the signal frequency (at 100 MHz), so of course the sin(x)/x correction becomes relevant. If you switch it off, I assume the scope reconstructs the signal by simple "connect the dots" interpolation of the samples.
I don't understand what problem you see here? You have chosen to sample at only 2.5x the signal frequency (at 100 MHz), so of course the sin(x)/x correction becomes relevant. If you switch it off, I assume the scope reconstructs the signal by simple "connect the dots" interpolation of the samples.except it doesn't
Could you elaborate on that, please? My comment was intended to be constructive; yours does not help me so far. Thanks for explaining.
I don't understand what problem you see here? You have chosen to sample at only 2.5x the signal frequency (at 100 MHz), so of course the sin(x)/x correction becomes relevant. If you switch it off, I assume the scope reconstructs the signal by simple "connect the dots" interpolation of the samples.except it doesn't
Could you elaborate on that, please? My comment was intended to be constructive; yours does not help me so far. Thanks for explaining.
Yep. If it wasn't hackable we'd all be buying the $400 GW-Instek.
GWI 1054B has surprisingly high non-hacked bandwidth. Same with my Pico. Very sharp edge square will show -3dB only at 200MHz, on 100MHz unhacked scope (Many Rigol BW claims are made using square also).
Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, but that's not how bandwidth is traditionally measured.
Either the 3dB point of a sine wave is used, or the rise time of a rectangular wave is used to derive it.
While it is not usually a problem with low bandwidth oscilloscopes, the relationship between the -3dB bandwidth and transition time depends on the shape of the passband so measuring only the transition time may not be sufficient.
Once you enable sin(x)/x interpolation, the signal and its amplitude get properly reconstructed, as expected.
It is not only what you want it for, but also what are your expectations. For someone that has used and /or owned new or used top end scopes, it may very well be a letdown. If you are like me, where the last scope you used and owned was a Tek 535a 30 years ago, the Rigol is a incredible thing to use. I'm pleased with the scope. Of course I see better scopes out there, but the Rigol was affordable to me now. In the future, I will probably outgrow it and want something better, but it will fill my needs learning and most things fairly well.
Instead i think that many of us (hanging in this thread) do not know if something look right or not, i know i certainly didn't when i got my Z. Let's not forget this scope is aimed at hobbyist/students.. it is important to remind that there are flaws that cannot be swept under the rug by the "it's only 400" broom. The flaws are there, period.
you have to know which are so when you question what is on the screen you can decide if the flaw or the bug is affecting your measurement or not and in which amount.
I'm pretty sure most of us are able to know when something doesn't look right, and know to question and validate the results. Whether it's a Rigol or Keysight/Tek/LeCroy/R&S, you should always be in a position to be able to know about what to expect, and use the scope to verify. When it doesn't look right you need to be able to analyse and troubleshoot your findings. Most of the time it will be the DUT itself, but sometimes anomalies will be a problem with your test regime, and occasionally that will be the tool you are using. I am certain most of us are capable of figuring out which it is.
Instead i think that many of us (hanging in this thread) do not know if something look right or not, i know i certainly didn't when i got my Z. Let's not forget this scope is aimed at hobbyist/students.. it is important to remind that there are flaws that cannot be swept under the rug by the "it's only 400" broom. The flaws are there, period.
you have to know which are so when you question what is on the screen you can decide if the flaw or the bug is affecting your measurement or not and in which amount.
This is true of all test gear, not just the ones you have a personal mania against.