I'm not surprised. I like the Agilent scopes much much better these days than the TEK. I have an MSO7104B and it is spectacular. I still like my Rigol ds4014 a lot... except it is 2 months old and already broke!
Have you had the MSO7104B for a long time? If so, was there any one (or more) things that prompted you to buy the DS4014, or was it simply to try out something new? I am still tossing up between an Agilent MSO7054B and the Rigol MSO7034, and I keep wondering if all that extra sample memory will make up for the other shortcomings of the Rigol. I'd really appreciate your opinion.
Thanks,
I've had the Agilent MSO7104B for a few months but I had a 7104A with many options on it for several years (at my last startup).
I got the DS4014 based on price. It's a real steal. If cost wasn't an issue I would always go agilent. At the same price point I might still go Rigol over Tek believe it or not.
As I mentioned Rigol hardware is solid, firmware is okay but a little buggy, PC software is pretty bad compared to what Agilent or Tek has.
Extra sample memory is only useful in certain cases. I find it most useful for digital, but honestly for digital I usually use the Saleae logic 16 which is dirt cheap compared to a scope so the deep memory doesn't get that much use on the MSO7104A/B or on the ds4014. If the scope is your primary logic analyzer I'd consider having the extra memory but maybe not enough to go Rigol over Agilent. Again Rigol is a price play more than anything in my opinion.
As somebody mentioned before, MSO4000's waveform update rate goes down when serial decode is enabled. It is clearly visible with naked eyes. Not good on a $4,400 scope! http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/mso4000/mso4024/
EDIT: The memory was at the lowest setting, 14kpoints per channel.
Another comparison...
EDIT:This time nobody knows what the memory setting was at Rigol scope.
I'm not surprised. I like the Agilent scopes much much better these days than the TEK. I have an MSO7104B and it is spectacular. I still like my Rigol ds4014 a lot... except it is 2 months old and already broke!
Have you had the MSO7104B for a long time? If so, was there any one (or more) things that prompted you to buy the DS4014, or was it simply to try out something new? I am still tossing up between an Agilent MSO7054B and the Rigol MSO7034, and I keep wondering if all that extra sample memory will make up for the other shortcomings of the Rigol. I'd really appreciate your opinion.
Thanks,
The Rigol has only a segmented memory (called record) and no other tools for long memory management. No Search or automatic scroll. No marks possible. Nothing like Waveform Inspector on Tektronix scopes AFAIK.
On the other hand, the segmented memory is quite impressive.
Hydra, while your demonstration was valid, because you selected an appropriate sample depth, those others you linked to were completely bogus. As
I already pointed out, a couple months ago, in some detail.
As somebody mentioned before, MSO4000's waveform update rate goes down when serial decode is enabled. It is clearly visible with naked eyes. Not good on a $4,400 scope! http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/mso4000/mso4024/
EDIT: The memory was at the lowest setting, 14kpoints per channel.
Another comparison...
EDIT: and even after all this time, I
still haven't seen anyone comment on how horrible the analog wave trace of the I2C stream looks on the Tek. It's just a flickery, blurry mess.
@Gallymimus
Thanks for your comments. I've been using a Tek MSO4034 with the 10MSa option at the office for the last five years or more, and now I want something for home. The designs that I work on are truly mixed-signal and the 10MSa option has been extremely valuable, hence my trepidation at dropping back to the 8MSa of the Agilent. Of course, work-arounds are always possible, but inevitably slow your progress. The slow response of the Rigol GUI irks me, and there are still bugs in what is essentially a DS4000 product that has been on the market for a couple of years.
@Hydrawerk
Exactly. Quite coincidentally, just yesterday I spoke to John South (Emona Product Manager for Rigol) about the lack of Mark/Search capability, and he is going to ask if there is anything in the pipeline. I sent him a screen shot from my Tek to illustrate a cursor problem, and he is finding out if that is just a FW update (my demo machine has version 00.02.00.00.04) or if it's something that will need further work. So the distributor support seems responsive, let's see if it translates into action.
Does everyone else have problems with RS232 decoding on a DS4000/MSO4000 at the higher baud rates (e.g. 57600, 115200, ...)? Whether or not it works correctly seems to depend on several things such as memory size, T/B time/div, and the delay between characters. If no one else has these problems I'll describe the details of what I see, otherwise I'll put it down as just another bug.
Firmware version is 00.02.01.00.03.
Serial decode is definitely not "robust", perhaps useable but quirky?
I could accept it on the 1000/2000 series, not on the 4000s. I've reported it to Rigol, they don't give a shit.
Serial decode is definitely not "robust", perhaps useable but quirky?
I think your being generous.
Do others have significant problems?
Does everyone else have problems with RS232 decoding on a DS4000/MSO4000 at the higher baud rates (e.g. 57600, 115200, ...)?
@Sailor I think the DS2000 Firmware was based on the DS4000 ,and in the DS2000 firmware there was a bug that for RS232 decoding of 56K(fixed) was in correcting programmed for 56000!! this was indicated by varying the speed and the center frequency of NO errors was 56000.(55200-56800)
Now if the USER specified rate was used and set to 57600 the decoding would work OK.
You may wish to give USER a try.
Here are 2 E-mails I received from Rigol CN
=====================================
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your report .
I checked with R&D ,it's a mistake in the menu ,it should be 56000bps, we
will fix this bug in next version about 3 months later .
And sorry for the inconvenience bring to you .
Any further questions please feel free to contact me .
Best regards£¬
Vivien Liu/ÁõΡΡ
----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir
OK,I agree with you,I will check with R&D .
Maybe 57600 is right ,then just need change internal programme .
Any further questions please feel free to contact me .
Best regards,
Vivien Liu/???
Marketing Department
RIGOL Technologies,INC.
TEL:010-80706688-811
http://www.rigol.com===========================
Maybe there still is a Bug for 115200 in the DS2000, I'll check
Now if the USER specified rate was used and set to 57600 the decoding would work OK.
You may wish to give USER a try.
I agree that would be well worth trying. It may be that the decode itself is actually fine, but the baud rate is off, so it will never sync up properly.
...E-mails I received from Rigol CN
=====================================
we will fix this bug in next version about 3 months later.
That's rather disappointing. When there are known defects, you're just supposed to live with them for N+3 months. I don't think the last version was N=0 months ago, so the total time gets long. And I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time they've heard about this problem.
@Sailor
Did you set the Trigger to RS232, at correct settings? (rate and levels)
Thanks for your comments. Yes, Teneyes, the bus setup and the trigger setup are good. My 115200 baud tests use a 1000-byte stream, output at full rate i.e. there is only approx 2 usec from the end of a stop bit to the beginning of the next start bit. The waveform quality and timing is excellent. I have tested different memory sizes, starting with a fast time/div setting, and repeating with slower time/div until it fails. Here are simple results:
Memory = 1.4MB
Works at 2msec/div, 5msec/div (probably also at shorter rates).
Fails at 10, 20, 50, ... ms/div
Memory = 14MB
Works at 2msec/div, 5msec/div (probably also at shorter rates).
Fails at 10, 20, 50, ... ms/div
Memory = 140MB
Works at 2msec/div, 5msec/div, 10msec/div, 20msec/div (probably also at shorter rates).
Fails at 50, 100 ... ms/div
Obviously, as the time/div goes up, the sampling rate decreases, for a given memory size. But the sampling rates at which it works and at which it fails are not consistent across the different memory sizes. I really can't see the logic behind the failures.
Maybe it's something to do with their algorithm. Certainly its fast, only taking 2-3 seconds (although panning back and forward is painful). My Tektronix MSO4034 takes nearly a minute to decode 10MB of memory, but it works every time, every setting, no problem.
Another gripe: Trying to set a USER baud rate is a lost cause on this scope. The numbers change nice and smoothly for a while, then suddenly jump wildly, by hundreds-to-thousands of counts. Turning the knob backwards a little (if the numbers had jumped forward) will often produce a jump back to near the value that you were at when the first jump occurred. Or not!
As I wrote earlier in the thread I emailed Rigol with a detailed description of the problems I've had with the decoders on my DS4k. I was quite open to the fact that I had it set up wrong and was hoping for an answer simply telling me that. I also asked for a document outlining how to get the most performance possible out of the decoders.
But no, a gentlemen replied and after some beating around the bush asking me to upgrade the firmware to the version I clearly stated I was already running he said he'd set up a test in order to see if he could reproduce my issues - well, that's kind.... Then I heard nothing.
A week later I emailed him to which he replied that he hadn't made any progress and that, I quote: I expect there are still some issues with the decoder. And that's it.
As I see it, it can be made to kind of "work" but it's so far away from what it could (and should) be that I'd never ever pay what they are charging for it.
IMO it's slow, really slow. And YES I have set the memory depth to minimum, 14kpts. Obviously one can't expect to get performance like on the Agilent 3000X etc due to the software vs hardware aproach to decoding but I still feel it's REALLY SLOOOOW (a couple of frames per second IME). In an effort to get around that I thought I'd use the segmentet memory but the decoders doesn't work on recorded frames....and so on.
So yes, others (like me) are having significant problems and no Rigol doesn't seem to give a shit.
Interesting thread and thanks to the folk that have posted to it.
I'm considering a new scope and the toss up (in the $3k - $4k) range is Rigol, Agilent & Tek.
Tek seems a 'little' behind the times in the current state of the art, so bang is less for the buck than the other two. My concern with Rigol is that I think it's a tail trying to wag the dog problem in terms of getting Rigol (US/EU etc) to push for firmware bug fix requests back to the actual developers in China.
Given the cost delta between Rigol and the equivalent bandwidth Agilent is maybe 20 - 30%, this thread has convinced me to focus on the Agilent DSOX2000/3000 series where at least there's a more direct line from sales to tech. For a piece of test equipment that IS used daily and has an expected life cycle of 5+ years, penny wise and pound foolish needs to be addressed in the purchasing process.
cheers,
george.
Another gripe: Trying to set a USER baud rate is a lost cause on this scope. The numbers change nice and smoothly for a while, then suddenly jump wildly, by hundreds-to-thousands of counts. Turning the knob backwards a little (if the numbers had jumped forward) will often produce a jump back to near the value that you were at when the first jump occurred. Or not!
I agree that trying to use the Multifunction knob for this is a frustrating exercise. Have you tried using the Navigation knobs?
I think the DS2000 Firmware was based on the DS4000 (...)
Everything is based on that old DS6000 scope, I think.
The 2000s just got a major firmware revision bump (it's now listed on the Rigol site), perhaps the 4000s will see an improvement soon.
Another gripe: Trying to set a USER baud rate is a lost cause on this scope. The numbers change nice and smoothly for a while, then suddenly jump wildly, by hundreds-to-thousands of counts. Turning the knob backwards a little (if the numbers had jumped forward) will often produce a jump back to near the value that you were at when the first jump occurred. Or not!
My DS2000 has the Navigation Knob to adjust the USER define Bitrate, Yes the outer Knob jumps , but the inner Know moves 1 bit at a click , it does take many rotation to change 300 counts.
Does the 4000 have the fine control knob?
The 2000s just got a major firmware revision bump (it's now listed on the Rigol site)...
"Major" in terms of functionality or fixes? Or "Major" in terms of Version number?
The 2000s just got a major firmware revision bump (it's now listed on the Rigol site)...
"Major" in terms of functionality or fixes? Or "Major" in terms of Version number?
lol, knowing them they just bumped the big number hoping shit would fix itself!
Interesting thread and thanks to the folk that have posted to it.
I'm considering a new scope and the toss up (in the $3k - $4k) range is Rigol, Agilent & Tek.
Tek seems a 'little' behind the times in the current state of the art, so bang is less for the buck than the other two. My concern with Rigol is that I think it's a tail trying to wag the dog problem in terms of getting Rigol (US/EU etc) to push for firmware bug fix requests back to the actual developers in China.
Given the cost delta between Rigol and the equivalent bandwidth Agilent is maybe 20 - 30%, this thread has convinced me to focus on the Agilent DSOX2000/3000 series where at least there's a more direct line from sales to tech. For a piece of test equipment that IS used daily and has an expected life cycle of 5+ years, penny wise and pound foolish needs to be addressed in the purchasing process.
cheers,
george.
Sadly I'd have to agree after a unsatisfying warranty repair experience. Scope was less than 2 months old, they had it for repair for 1 month! They sent it back yesterday with one of the stickers on the back missing and the warranty void sticker "voided". Adhesive is still showing on the removed stickers. It looks like second hand junk now which really sucks. I'm surprised they didn't replace the labels. Thank god I had other scopes and I wasn't relying on this one. An entire month without the primary scope probably would put us out of business!
Sadly I'd have to agree after a unsatisfying warranty repair experience. Scope was less than 2 months old, they had it for repair for 1 month! They sent it back yesterday with one of the stickers on the back missing and the warranty void sticker "voided". Adhesive is still showing on the removed stickers. It looks like second hand junk now which really sucks. I'm surprised they didn't replace the labels. Thank god I had other scopes and I wasn't relying on this one. An entire month without the primary scope probably would put us out of business!
Well, that's a pretty damning experience! Did they at least fix the rail-to-rail noise issue, and other problems you were having?
> It looks like second hand junk now which really sucks. That's
totally unacceptable for a newly purchased, 2-month old DS4104.
I'd be furious.
Have you contacted Chris Armstrong at all? He's the head honco (General Manager) at Rigol US, and I'd think he'd want to know about the QoS his techs are providing (or lack thereof). His email is: carmstrong@rigol.com, just in case you don't already have it.
At my DSOX2000, there were no warranty void labels. They also were not on Tek DPO2000 that my friend bought a year ago.
