To answer the question from a couple of days ago, yes, the PLL jitter was fixed.
(and some of them don't even own a DS1054Z...)
I do not need to own a DS1054Z to know that it is a poorly designed and low quality instrument.
Some of them do not own a Rigol DSO because their evaluations of both documentation and instrument revealed that Rigol is deceitful and makes poor quality products.
I do not need to own a DS1054Z to know that it is a poorly designed and low quality instrument. That flawed PLL design should have been caught by quality control. So should the likely hook problem reported in another discussion recently.
I do not need to own a DS1054Z to know that it is a poorly designed and low quality instrument.
Anyway, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, and mine it is that Rigol is not deceitful.
Again, it was not a PLL design issue, it was a software bug, and it was fixed.
Anyway, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, and mine it is that Rigol is not deceitful.
Yes, sometimes there are bugs, but most of them were just corner cases, nothing that will make the whole oscilloscope unusable.
All complex instruments have bugs, because all of them are, after all, software driven. Even the very expensive ones from the biggest manufacturers have bugs.
I do not need to own a DS1054Z to know that it is a poorly designed and low quality instrument.
So? It's still amazing value for money and a really useful thing to own. You want better? Spend more money.
Some of them [forum member] do not own a Rigol DSO because their evaluations of both documentation and instrument revealed that Rigol is deceitful and makes poor quality products.
I do not need to own a DS1054Z to know that it is a poorly designed and low quality instrument. That flawed PLL design should have been caught by quality control. So should the likely hook problem reported in another discussion recently.
It is a great value for the money even with its warts. I spent less for better however I knew exactly what would be sufficient for my needs.
It would be more interesting to know wether they fixed the design problems with the PLL circuitry.
Why, what problem is it causing?A few but Fungus doesn't really want to answer this fully.
Members MarkL and Bud are those that narrowed it down to design problems with the PLL and then Dave did a vid on it.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-683-rigol-ds1000z-ds2000-oscilloscope-jitter-problems/
Then Bud started looking hard at his own DS2000A, which he documented in full:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/
So yes, if there is a new revision MB it will be interesting to see if these things have been addressed,
It would be more interesting to know wether they fixed the design problems with the PLL circuitry.
Why, what problem is it causing?A few but Fungus doesn't really want to answer this fully.
Members MarkL and Bud are those that narrowed it down to design problems with the PLL and then Dave did a vid on it.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-683-rigol-ds1000z-ds2000-oscilloscope-jitter-problems/
Then Bud started looking hard at his own DS2000A, which he documented in full:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/
So yes, if there is a new revision MB it will be interesting to see if these things have been addressed,
Again, what problem is the hardware PLL issue causing?
I've still never seen anyone show any negative affect because of it (not jitter, that was fixed with a firmware update before yaigol).
Yes, fixed by masking with firmware of the PLL design errors.
Daves screenshots of before and after firmware:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-683-rigol-ds1000z-ds2000-oscilloscope-jitter-problems/msg578859/#msg578859
Yes, fixed by masking with firmware of the PLL design errors.
Fixed by configuring the PLL parameters such that it runs stably with the original component values. What's wrong with that?
Why would you call that "masking errors"?
Daves screenshots of before and after firmware:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-683-rigol-ds1000z-ds2000-oscilloscope-jitter-problems/msg578859/#msg578859
The side bands are 70dB down with the new PLL configuration. Looks good to me.
So rather than keep pointing fingers, somebody open the latest unit and have a look.
For reference, pics of the ADC and PLL componentry:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-683-rigol-ds1000z-ds2000-oscilloscope-jitter-problems/msg553418/#msg553418
I've been following these issues for some years and I'm still not convinced the design is "beyond measure" but if there has been a HW change and if indeed PLL component values are what they should be then we know the product has been improved.
(and some of them don't even own a DS1054Z...)
Some of them do not own a Rigol DSO because their evaluations of both documentation and instrument revealed that Rigol is deceitful and makes poor quality products.
I do not need to own a DS1054Z to know that it is a poorly designed and low quality instrument. That flawed PLL design should have been caught by quality control. So should the likely hook problem reported in another discussion recently.
My Scope (purchased a few days ago) came with firmware 04.04.SP3.
Is this version newer than v00.04.04.03.02?
Trying to upgrade to the publicly available v00.04.04.03.02 gives me an "Caution: An older software version detected" error and fails to update.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information on the 04.04.SP3 firmware.
Last week I bought another DS1054Z for a students lab at our university. The scope now comes with PVP2150 probes instead of the RP2200.
The probes are all black and the 1x / 10x switch is recessed. 1x rise time is much better, RP probes have 20cm longer cables. Other than that both types seem pretty comparable and come with the same accessories.
That change was made last year, FYI. They look comfier to use than the older ones, what do you think?
... on the RP2200 the switches tend to have a live on their own ...
Since the bug is not present in my oscilloscope, I thought that maybe I didn't used the correct settings/signals to reproduce it, so I asked for more detailed steps to reproduce.
Looking at the PLL's spectrum in the Dave's video, it seems that the PLL jitter bug was fixed (not only masked) long time ago, so no further questions. I have no intention to reproduce fixed bugs, thank you.
To answer the question from a couple of days ago, yes, the PLL jitter was fixed.