I agree, looking like the UI is responsive throughout the video - only that it is waiting for a trigger event to occur.
I'm looking at the considerable delay between the trace appearing and the FFT updating. It's a good fraction of a second.
I agree, looking like the UI is responsive throughout the video - only that it is waiting for a trigger event to occur.
I'm looking at the considerable delay between the trace appearing and the FFT updating. It's a good fraction of a second.
It says 125 Mega samples.... so it's probably not a 32k FFT..
I agree, looking like the UI is responsive throughout the video - only that it is waiting for a trigger event to occur.
You can judge here: https://youtu.be/zrfG9wtQjh0?t=98
The big color-graded FM demo was static for a reason
You mean the slow refresh? But isnt that just because its being triggered externally by the spec an?
And also, that is on a 125 Megasamples... Not 32kS, not 4MS.. So that looks interesting.
It seems a very promising hardware. It will drill down to bugs. If it won't be buggy then a good scope.
As far as U/I goes, that's personal preference..
From what I could see browsing through the manual, it has many good things.
The problems I see:
- One thing I don't like is that in manual math seems very rudimentary. The way it is described in manual it doesn't have advanced mode, meaning arbitrary math. That means math, as described, is on the level of ds100Z not ds4000. That's not good.
- Math source can be only channel and ref. No math to math piping. R&S RTM3000 does it right.
- Because of 2. you cannot perform FFT on math. That would be awesome. Picoscope, R&S RTM3000, Tek MDO3000/4000 and others can do it...
- On all list/table based U/I elements, use of screen estate is inefficient. Lots of small windows in the middle of the screen,overlapping over other important data, no docking... R&S is doing it right, Lecroy too. Keysight is kinda OK.
I'm sure if I played with it for some time I would find more things that are suboptimal for a scope that wants to be midrange..
and those god damn button shapes. I can't un-see it now on my DS1054Z. There's no logic to it at all. I think I have been able to fathom out some of the sort of symmetry that has made them choose which corners to chop off which buttons, but it's utterly insane and no other equipment has weird randomly shaped buttons.
and those god damn button shapes. I can't un-see it now on my DS1054Z. There's no logic to it at all. I think I have been able to fathom out some of the sort of symmetry that has made them choose which corners to chop off which buttons, but it's utterly insane and no other equipment has weird randomly shaped buttons.
You won't even see them after it's been on your bench for two days.
and those god damn button shapes. I can't un-see it now on my DS1054Z. There's no logic to it at all. I think I have been able to fathom out some of the sort of symmetry that has made them choose which corners to chop off which buttons, but it's utterly insane and no other equipment has weird randomly shaped buttons.
Yeah, while i kinda agree with you it is not some fancy design, i couldn't care less. It's a tool...
I personally think design (apart from ergonomics) is being given too much attention (
).. I abhor form over function...
I DO care about clear logical layout, that support hierarchy of instruments menus and functions...
This scope has performance in spades. The established brands should be worried. I recall that it was going to be released at last years Electronex show in Melb but was held back. Looks like they spent a year ironing out the bugs before they were going to make it public. From the videos and comparison to the TEK MDO3000 it looks quite impressive.
cheers
I agree, looking like the UI is responsive throughout the video - only that it is waiting for a trigger event to occur.
I'm looking at the considerable delay between the trace appearing and the FFT updating. It's a good fraction of a second.
Hmm, yes there is something going on there.
With 8bit input you get 8bit output. Any advanced math co-processor or any fastest ASIC cannot change that..
Any band filtering, even decimation using an elementary boxcar filter, will enhance precision.
With 8bit input you get 8bit output. Any advanced math co-processor or any fastest ASIC cannot change that..
Any band filtering, even decimation using an elementary boxcar filter, will enhance precision.
Not at all. You may get more resolution but only if there is enough noise AND the ADCs are linear (which they aren't) otherwise you'll see a fantasy signal.
With 8bit input you get 8bit output. Any advanced math co-processor or any fastest ASIC cannot change that..
Any band filtering, even decimation using an elementary boxcar filter, will enhance precision.
Not at all. You may get more resolution but only if there is enough noise AND the ADCs are linear (which they aren't) otherwise you'll see a fantasy signal.
There are some basic laws of physics which, as of today and in this Universe, still apply. You get samples with 8bits of amplitude "V", and, you get them the time "T" apart. Creating any other better values out of these 2 is just the "fantasy", correct.
With 8bit input you get 8bit output. Any advanced math co-processor or any fastest ASIC cannot change that..
Any band filtering, even decimation using an elementary boxcar filter, will enhance precision.
Not at all. You may get more resolution but only if there is enough noise AND the ADCs are linear (which they aren't) otherwise you'll see a fantasy signal.
There are some basic laws of physics which, as of today and in this Universe, still apply. You get samples with 8bits of amplitude "V", and, you get them the time "T" apart. Creating any other better values out of these 2 is just the "fantasy", correct.
E... No.
(don't attack me for lack of mathematical rigor here... it is deliberate)
If you do have A/D converter that is 8 bits for example, and very linear and monotonic (it has accurate step). And you have signal that is right between two steps, what you get on the output?
Signal will have a certain amount of noise in it, and if it is random noise, you will get random rounding to lower and upper value on output of A/D converter. In a 100 samples, average of those 100 samples would be pretty much exactly in between bits. If signal was a little lower, you would get more flicking to low value and less on high value.
In a way it would look like a PWM modulation between two bits, and average of several measurements would converge to a true value, to an accuracy higher that A/D has.
Sometimes noise is deliberately introduced, that's called dithering.
It is valid technique, but has limitations.
EDIT: Sorry I pressed something and it got posted before I was finished.
With 8bit input you get 8bit output. Any advanced math co-processor or any fastest ASIC cannot change that..
Any band filtering, even decimation using an elementary boxcar filter, will enhance precision.
Not at all. You may get more resolution but only if there is enough noise AND the ADCs are linear (which they aren't) otherwise you'll see a fantasy signal.
There are some basic laws of physics which, as of today and in this Universe, still apply. You get samples with 8bits of amplitude "V", and, you get them the time "T" apart. Creating any other better values out of these 2 is just the "fantasy", correct.
E... NO.
(don't attack me for lack of mathematical rigor here... it is deliberate)
If you do have A/D converter that is 8 bits for example, and very linear and monotonic (it has accurate step). And you have signal that is right between two steps, what you get on the output?
Signal will have a certain amount of noise in it, and if it is random noise, you will get random rounding to lower and upper value on output of A/D converter. In a 100 samples, average of those 100 samples would be pretty much exactly in between bits. If signal was a little lower, you would get more flicking to low value and less on high value.
In a way it would look like a PWM modulation between two bits, and average of several measurements would converge to a true value, to an accuracy higher that A/D
First of all the noise will need to have a higher amplitude than 1 LSB, secondly that noise would need to have a perfect Gaussian distribution. In reality 8 bit ADCs are made to have 8 bits. Any extra linearity is just a waste of money & effort because that is not the goal (IF it is even possible to get the extra linearity).
It could have been a nice order configuration option from Rigol that the user can select a Matte display or Glossy display upon ordering the oscilloscope.
Some people prefer Glossy, while other people hate it. In fact I personally prefer Matte display so much better, as the reflections on a Glossy display can make the oscilloscope display useless in some lab environments.
Or if it is too hard to implement a configuration option, why not just stick with a Matte display which works for most people?
What do other people on this forum think about this? Why would one like to have a Glossy display in the first place? Is there any advantage at all, or is it really only a disadvantage as such?
Glossy screens are crap. There is no option where they are better that matte... Glossy is cheap multimedia crap that is so ubiquitous because tablets use them. Which would be so much better with matte screens too. And matte screens show less smudges from fingerprints ...
I guess it needs additional cost to make matte screen and apply anti reflective coating.
Absolutely they could... And they should come already laminated on screen from factory....
Anybody in touch here with senior management from Rigol? Please make them talk to 3M management for a good bulk rate on factory mounted anti-glare filters!
Glossy screens are crap. There is no option where they are better that matte... Glossy is cheap multimedia crap that is so ubiquitous because tablets use them. Which would be so much better with matte screens too. And matte screens show less smudges from fingerprints ...
I guess it needs additional cost to make matte screen and apply anti reflective coating.
Uh, my experience so far has been such that matte screens are a nightmare to clean from fingerprints (or any smudges) and the fingerprints show up just as well as on glossy (until you try to wipe them off; glossy gets clean in single wipe, matte just gets worse and needs microfiber and soap water and still needs half a minute of gentle wiping). All the way to the point of getting permanent marks on my anti-reflection coating of one of my displays, because it seems impossible to get whatever crap ended up in the microscopic pits... Also, most matte surfaces are, afaik, based on some form of plastic/non-hard material, which means that if you use it as a touchscreen, it will not be nice even matte for long (e.g. the most used spots on a matte-surfaced keyboards get glossy in less than couple years, and the spots that get hit by fingernails much faster).
There must be a reason why majority of touchscreens are glossy, even on the most expensive high end devices, which could (and would) use more expensive choices. Best examples are some expensive laptop models which offered both touch and non-touch display versions; the touch ones were always glossy, non-touch ones had always anti-reflection.
For non-touch displays I always choose some anti-reflection stuff, but touch ones... until they can figure out a type that can last years without getting wear marks and a method to clean them properly, glossy it is for me.
I have two touch screen scopes with glossy screens and it really is not an issue at all.
I am looking formward to the review. https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1024170698275618817
It is already online.
Yes you're right Dave, that physical interface is a complete.. a complete failure.
My DS1054Z is bad, but that has twice as much of everything. It extends into the square corners and face of the housing itself.
FFS Rigol, soften the edges of everything. Make buttons square with slightly radiused corners, or just round, maybe with a convex front, orient all the text horizontally, and don't mix conflicting of fonts.
If a button says "Back" on it, give it an arrow pointing to the left (back), not an arrow pointing up.
I know it's not of primary importance, but it's pretty important. It's like decent spelling and grammar in business.
Not true. With 8Bits resolution on paper, you will get quite less bits in reality, due to noise, nonlinearity and other issues.
The ENOB value should be compared. The RIGOL does not even have this specified (prove me wrong). I guess that its about 6-7Bits across full bandwidth, not more.
I cant help the impression that the discussion here focusses a bit much on aspects of aesthetics and product exterior design and not so much on the features and specs of the unit. The same thing happened with other equipment like the RIGOL electronic load, e.g. There were serious flaws, but the majority of the review minutes spent was on design aspects if button should be labeled left to right or if backwards slanted characters should be allowed by law. This, IMHO, is the wrong priority for a technical forum (dont get me wrong - I dont like their design too much myself - but I dont think it is the most important thing to talk about in such overwhelming detail).
So, I suggest to focus on features, compliance to specs, bugs, usability, reliability, ... first, and then all the aesthetic aspects. If handled the other way such a thread gets filled with gossip because everyone has a different taste.
So, I suggest to focus on features, compliance to specs, bugs, usability, reliability, ... first, and then all the aesthetic aspects. If handled the other way such a thread gets filled with gossip because everyone has a different taste.
I agree with your observation! The thing is though, all we have so far is Dave's first impression of the scope. He is about to perform the teardown and then the review later. So really this being the first 3rd party review on the internet we are all waiting on the details of this scope to be revealed.
The real strengths and weaknesses are yet to to be revealed and I for one am curious if Rigol have made a step up with this new scope.