Happy with my new DS1054Z, but I'm an old dog with 50 yrs 'scope experience trying to learn new tricks
I'm used to 'scopes having the trigger point be the left end of the scan. Can someone explain the Rigol concept of the trigger point defaulting to the middle of the screen? I'm working with the output of a 16 channel multiplexer and it's a pain to be always winding the horiz. position to get it to display a whole sequence from left to right.
Happy with my new DS1054Z, but I'm an old dog with 50 yrs 'scope experience trying to learn new tricks
I'm used to 'scopes having the trigger point be the left end of the scan. Can someone explain the Rigol concept of the trigger point defaulting to the middle of the screen? I'm working with the output of a 16 channel multiplexer and it's a pain to be always winding the horiz. position to get it to display a whole sequence from left to right.
As fas as I know, that's the default for all digital sampling oscilloscopes, not just Rigol.
.. or an analog with delaying time base
Some scopes have a setting for a default horizontal trigger location - centre of the screen (most common), left of the screen (analog default) or right of the screen. For example, Keysight 3000 series has this setting.
As for Rigol DS1054Z, I do not recall such setting, so horizontal location has to changed manually. In most cases default at the centre is good enough because of pre/post trigger memory.
As fas as I know, that's the default for all digital sampling oscilloscopes, not just Rigol.
Some scopes have a setting for a default horizontal trigger location - centre of the screen (most common), left of the screen (analog default) or right of the screen. For example, Keysight 3000 series has this setting.
As for Rigol DS1054Z, I do not recall such setting, so horizontal location has to changed manually. In most cases default at the centre is good enough because of pre/post trigger memory.
Thank you both, I looked at few manuals and see this now. Great for repetitive waveforms but not great for most of what I seem to play with.
For some reason the power up "last" setting wasn't working yesterday, but it seems to be OK this morning. If that keeps working it will help
.. or an analog with delaying time base
Interesting, none of the analogs of any level of sophistication or cost that I have used have defaulted to starting the trace/scan in the middle of the screen. Do you have a link?
but you are right, it is a pain in the ass sometimes.
i.e. in a tektronix TPS when you expand/reduce the sweep speed the horizontal marker stays where it is and expands/shrings things.
in the rigol however the "center" remains at the same point so you are looking at the same think, expanded or shrinked.
both have their reason to be, but considered you can actually enter in delayed time base mode by presing the horizontal knob...
.. or an analog with delaying time base
Interesting, none of the analogs of any level of sophistication or cost that I have used have defaulted to starting the trace/scan in the middle of the screen. Do you have a link?
not really but that's how i'd use it, maybe "delayed trigger" is a better definition for an analog scope and the only one i've used since high school is a tek 7000, the timebase i have has this possibility
That trigger position is normal for all(?) DSO scopes. That's not the issue however. The problem is that Rigol doesn't implement any sort of encoder acceleration, so what ends up happening is you end up feeling like you're endlessly winding the knobs.
These small details are never in datasheets or folks rarely ever notice or talk about it, but it's these small haptic details that make a big difference in day to day use of a tool. At least for me.
Stuff like this is why I would chose an R&S HMO1202 over chinese B brand scopes, because you can be sure Rohde and Schwarz know how to implement the UI properly. Especially if you use the tool a lot.
That trigger position is normal for all(?) DSO scopes. That's not the issue however. The problem is that Rigol doesn't implement any sort of encoder acceleration, so what ends up happening is you end up feeling like you're endlessly winding the knobs.
These small details are never in datasheets or folks rarely ever notice or talk about it, but it's these small haptic details that make a big difference in day to day use of a tool. At least for me.
Stuff like this is why I would chose an R&S HMO1202 over chinese B brand scopes, because you can be sure Rohde and Schwarz know how to implement the UI properly. Especially if you use the tool a lot.
Very good point, sadly R&S is not in my retired old guy price range...
Don't know about the DS1000Z but on my DS4000 there's three options available for the point around which the waveform expands/compresses as you change the timebase. Trigger Point, Center of screen and User defined.
That trigger position is normal for all(?) DSO scopes. That's not the issue however. The problem is that Rigol doesn't implement any sort of encoder acceleration, so what ends up happening is you end up feeling like you're endlessly winding the knobs.
These small details are never in datasheets or folks rarely ever notice or talk about it, but it's these small haptic details that make a big difference in day to day use of a tool. At least for me.
Stuff like this is why I would chose an R&S HMO1202 over chinese B brand scopes, because you can be sure Rohde and Schwarz know how to implement the UI properly. Especially if you use the tool a lot.
Very good point, sadly R&S is not in my retired old guy price range...
There's a heck of a price difference between the modern equivalent of the DSO1202 and the DS1054Z. So, I just roll the knob along the length of my finger and I get there in about two strokes. And there is some kind of acceleration thing going on because I can slow scroll or cause a large jump depending on fast I twirl the knob.
Center of screen only.
And there is acceleration. 0 to intinity, in one step
One thing to note - some scopes slow down significantly (in terms of waveforms per second, WPS) when horizontal position is not at default location. This not stated in clear language in manuals/specs, beware if you need better WPS performance.
I am not 100% certain about this for DS1054Z, I have to test this next week.
I'm used to 'scopes having the trigger point be the left end of the scan. Can someone explain the Rigol concept of the trigger point defaulting to the middle of the screen? I'm working with the output of a 16 channel multiplexer and it's a pain to be always winding the horiz. position to get it to display a whole sequence from left to right.
As far as I know, that's the default for all digital sampling oscilloscopes, not just Rigol.
All of my old DSOs allow setting the trigger position at different locations in the acquisition record. I did not even suspect that the Rigol or any other modern but real DSO does not allow this.
.. or an analog with delaying time base
Interesting, none of the analogs of any level of sophistication or cost that I have used have defaulted to starting the trace/scan in the middle of the screen. Do you have a link?
He means you can use delayed sweep to move the effective trigger position toward the right of the actual trigger.
Stuff like this is why I would chose an R&S HMO1202 over chinese B brand scopes, because you can be sure Rohde and Schwarz know how to implement the UI properly. Especially if you use the tool a lot.
Seems that there will always be differences between $400 and $975 ie the OP's scope and a HMO1202
Stuff like this is why I would chose an R&S HMO1202 over chinese B brand scopes, because you can be sure Rohde and Schwarz know how to implement the UI properly. Especially if you use the tool a lot.
Seems that there will always be differences between $400 and $975 ie the OP's scope and a HMO1202
Yep, that's the part people don't seem to get.
Yes, your R&S responds better to the controls, but ... it wasn't a simple case of "which one should I choose". It's not Ford vs. Chevy, it's Ford vs. Lexus. That extra bit of niceness
cost you $575 (or whatever).
People don't buy Ford/Chevy because they're insensitive clods who don't appreciate the fine things in life like the Lexus owners do, they buy them because they're cheaper. They have enough wheels (four) and go from A to B perfectly well.
If you're a professional who uses a 'scope all day long as a way of making money then sure, get the R&S. If you're rich for some reason then sure, get the R&S. If not, get the Rigol.
Not one person here can put their hand on their heart and say the wiggly lines on screen are no good or that it's a plasticky piece of crap which will last 10 minutes. The wiggly lines are fine, the build quality is good. For $400 it's a complete bargain.
I think it's a fine 'scope for the money, I hope nobody thought
I was implying otherwise.
He means you can use delayed sweep to move the effective trigger position toward the right of the actual trigger.
I know how delayed sweep works, but both preceding posts referred to "defaulting" so it was easy to misinterpret the comment.
Now my "power up last" has decided to work correctly the issue is not such a big deal for me.
While we are on the subject, is there a variable control for the Timebase/Horizontal speed hidden somewhere, or are the fixed steps "it"?
[...] While we are on the subject, is there a variable control for the Timebase/Horizontal speed hidden somewhere, or are the fixed steps "it"?
Yes. There is no "hidden control for Timebase/Horizontal speed", sorry.
Only the quite common 1-2-5 steps.
I am just curious...
What you want to measure with a variable Timebase that is not anyways delivered from the DSO´s Measurements?
Stuff like this is why I would chose an R&S HMO1202 over chinese B brand scopes, because you can be sure Rohde and Schwarz know how to implement the UI properly. Especially if you use the tool a lot.
Seems that there will always be differences between $400 and $975 ie the OP's scope and a HMO1202
Yep, that's the part people don't seem to get.
Yes, your R&S responds better to the controls, but ... it wasn't a simple case of "which one should I choose". It's not Ford vs. Chevy, it's Ford vs. Lexus. That extra bit of niceness cost you $575 (or whatever).
People don't buy Ford/Chevy because they're insensitive clods who don't appreciate the fine things in life like the Lexus owners do, they buy them because they're cheaper. They have enough wheels (four) and go from A to B perfectly well.
If you're a professional who uses a 'scope all day long as a way of making money then sure, get the R&S. If you're rich for some reason then sure, get the R&S. If not, get the Rigol.
Not one person here can put their hand on their heart and say the wiggly lines on screen are no good or that it's a plasticky piece of crap which will last 10 minutes. The wiggly lines are fine, the build quality is good. For $400 it's a complete bargain.
My point precisely is that specs are not everything. Too often we get hung up on specs.. but fail to recognize things which can be just as important, like the usability and the effectiveness of the tool with prolonged use.
Yes you will get some of the best spec/dollar with a DS 1054z but it's not without compromise. Also Rigol doesn't just make $400 scopes. They have scopes which cost more than the HMO 1202.
Speaking of variable timebases, I just acquired a Tektronix 2445B and made the startling discovery that the variable timebase control produces a continuously variable calibrated timebase. Do you want 15, 49, or 99 ms/div? That is no problem and the readout proudly displays it.
It also has an amazing dual delta delayed timebase; different traces or the same traces can be displayed with the same B sweep but with two different delays. I can't even get a modern DSO to do 1/4 of that although arguably they do not need to.
Although I'm quite happy with the middle of the screen most of the time I do wish there was a simple option to change that the resemble the analog method at the left side. This is quite definitely an option that only requires a firmware change and a pretty minor one at that. In fact you could have 9 options of: top-left, top-center, top-right, middle-left, middle-center (default), middle-right, bottom-left, bottom-center and bottom-right.
Brian
My point precisely is that specs are not everything. Too often we get hung up on specs.. but fail to recognize things which can be just as important, like the usability and the effectiveness of the tool with prolonged use.
Nope. At no point have we failed to recognize that.
Speaking of variable timebases, I just acquired a Tektronix 2445B and made the startling discovery that the variable timebase control produces a continuously variable calibrated timebase. Do you want 15, 49, or 99 ms/div? That is no problem and the readout proudly displays it.
It also has an amazing dual delta delayed timebase; different traces or the same traces can be displayed with the same B sweep but with two different delays. I can't even get a modern DSO to do 1/4 of that although arguably they do not need to.
Maybe I'm missing something but on a DSO you can get pretty much any timebase value you want through horizontal zoom.
Same with the delayed timebase. On a good DSO you can easily display one or more signals at various delays, i.e. with Multi-Zoom. And not just two different delays, but (depending on the scope) up to eight or even more.
I am just curious...
What you want to measure with a variable Timebase that is not anyways delivered from the DSO´s Measurements?
For instance, if I'm looking at the output of a 16 channel analog multiplexer I would like to be able to have it use most of the screen. By Murphy's law the clock speed is such that it's either just too wide, or only half the screen width.
Maybe I'm missing something but on a DSO you can get pretty much any timebase value you want through horizontal zoom.
Horizontal zoom would do it, where is it?