Compare apples with pears - Rigol/big mem. depth versus Agilent/small mem. depth

[hendorog]

At the end of the day you'll find out than mostly use Rigol scope on the lowest memory settings, only rarely using more.

I think its more likely that most people use their Rigol scope on Auto memory setting.

I only change that setting when I need to. Otherwise I leave it in Auto.

[wraper]

At the end of the day you'll find out than mostly use Rigol scope on the lowest memory settings, only rarely using more.

I think its more likely that most people use their Rigol scope on Auto memory setting.

I only change that setting when I need to. Otherwise I leave it in Auto.

Exactly, which in most cases is the lowest memory.

[hendorog]

Exactly, which in most cases is the lowest memory.

Which then makes the slower performance irrelevant then doesn't it

Its there if you need it, otherwise it doesn't really matter.

Note: I'm not bashing the Agilent scopes, I'd love to have one actually, and I think the Rigol/Siglent/Owon scopes are helping to force Agilent to acknowledge the lower end of the market actually matters.
However the criticism Rigol gets just doesn't wash with reality from my experience.

[tautech]

However the criticism Rigol gets just doesn't wash with reality from my experience.

I'd say the same of Siglent. 

[GlowingGhoul]

However the criticism Rigol gets just doesn't wash with reality from my experience.

Funny I was just reading about upgrading heat sinks and replacing poor quality caps in the Rigol DP842, another thread about some serious issues with a Rigol SA, and before that one of the endless Rigol scope bug threads...

[hendorog]

Funny I was just reading about upgrading heat sinks

Actually thats the one thing about my scope that has actually concerned me. Someone here opened up his DS4k and added some additional heatsinks due to the heat.

and before that one of the endless Rigol scope bug threads...

Bugs are getting regularly fixed, thats what really matters. If that stopped I would be much less happy.

Just look at the SA thread about the Tek RSA306, several people kept banging on about how bad it was and overlooked the fact it was updated and significantly improved.
 

[Howardlong]

However the criticism Rigol gets just doesn't wash with reality from my experience.

Funny I was just reading about upgrading heat sinks and replacing poor quality caps in the Rigol DP842, another thread about some serious issues with a Rigol SA, and before that one of the endless Rigol scope bug threads...

I have a Rigol SA, PSU and scope, namely DSA815-TG, DP832 and MSO1074Z-S. I also have Agilent and Keysight SAs, DMMs and scopes.

The only bug that ever concerned me in actual use on Rigol kit was in the DP832 power supply where the OCP wasn't working consistently (although the CC did). It has been fixed in a firmware upgrade. I am not sure which "serious issue" you're referring to on the SA. The scope faults have been numerous but have never been something that I encountered in actual use. They too are fixed in firmware updates. In some ways you may find yourself better off with a greater volume selling device because these bugs are much more likely to be discussed in public.

I am sure that there are features in other brands too. Other than for enhancements and bug fixes, why else would all manufacturers frequently release updated firmware? Just take a look at the firmware release notes.

I'm not saying that Rigol QA is on a par with Keysight/Agilent, not at all in fact, just that if you think your Agilent TE is 100% bug free then regretfully I fear you are going to be disappointed. Irrespective of the brand, an engineer should always be wary of blindly trusting everything their instruments tell them, and know when something isn't quite right.

[GlowingGhoul]

However the criticism Rigol gets just doesn't wash with reality from my experience.

Funny I was just reading about upgrading heat sinks and replacing poor quality caps in the Rigol DP842, another thread about some serious issues with a Rigol SA, and before that one of the endless Rigol scope bug threads...

I have a Rigol SA, PSU and scope, namely DSA815-TG, DP832 and MSO1074Z-S. I also have Agilent and Keysight SAs, DMMs and scopes.

The only bug that ever concerned me in actual use on Rigol kit was in the DP832 power supply where the OCP wasn't working consistently (although the CC did). It has been fixed in a firmware upgrade. I am not sure which "serious issue" you're referring to on the SA. The scope faults have been numerous but have never been something that I encountered in actual use. They too are fixed in firmware updates. In some ways you may find yourself better off with a greater volume selling device because these bugs are much more likely to be discussed in public.

I am sure that there are features in other brands too. Other than for enhancements and bug fixes, why else would all manufacturers frequently release updated firmware? Just take a look at the firmware release notes.

I'm not saying that Rigol QA is on a par with Keysight/Agilent, not at all in fact, just that if you think your Agilent TE is 100% bug free then regretfully I fear you are going to be disappointed. Irrespective of the brand, an engineer should always be wary of blindly trusting everything their instruments tell them, and know when something isn't quite right.

That would be an absurd assumption. Of course nothing is 100% bug free. However, the fact that the quality brands of TE not being "100% bug free" in no way changes the fact that faulty, bug ridden equipment is allowed out of Rigol's door on a regular basis. The number of problems with Rigol, in some case glaring errors, that have been reported here are not simply a matter of sales volume. It's indicative of building to a low price point with all the compromises that entails.

[Howardlong]

I'm not saying that Rigol QA is on a par with Keysight/Agilent, not at all in fact, just that if you think your Agilent TE is 100% bug free then regretfully I fear you are going to be disappointed. Irrespective of the brand, an engineer should always be wary of blindly trusting everything their instruments tell them, and know when something isn't quite right.

That would be an absurd assumption. Of course nothing is 100% bug free. However, the fact that the quality brands of TE not being "100% bug free" in no way changes the fact that faulty, bug ridden equipment is allowed out of Rigol's door on a regular basis. The number of problems with Rigol, in some case glaring errors, that have been reported here are not simply a matter of sales volume. It's indicative of building to a low price point with all the compromises that entails.

I think we are in agreement, it is a matter of the level that you are prepared to accept compared to mine. I have daily exposure in using both Agilent/Keysight and Rigol kit, and am explaining first hand my own real life experiences of both. Yes, the Rigol isn't QAd to the same degree as Agilent, but you pays your money and takes your choice.

I am not criticising you for wanting to pay for a brand with a historically good reputation. I buy them too remember. It's just that I'm offering my experiences of both and am happy to accept the risk, confident in that the odd bugs are not show stoppers, and that I am able to question and identify suspicious results. The few bugs that I've been aware of that would affect me have now been fixed. I certainly wouldn't describe any of the Rigol kit I have as being "bug ridden", and that is in real regular use.

So in short I agree with your sentiment that Rigol QA is not the same as Agilent/Keysight. I would add though that grim hearsays of Rigol kit being "bug ridden" and containing "glaring errors" are an exaggeration to say the least based on my own real daily experience of both brands. If you have a different opinion based on your own personal experience of Rigol equipment, then of course you're welcome to that opinion. I am just giving mine!

[Fsck]

You can buy a brand new four channel, 100MHZ Keysight DSOX2000 series with the full package of Keysight options (except MSO) for around $2000 USD. That's well within the range of what many hobbyists pay for performance bicycles, photography equipment, or gaming PCs.

Modern tachometers on bikes, or even some sports watches today, have a higher memory depth than the DSOX2000 series

Why do they call it InfiniiVision? Maybe they should call it FiniiVision, SlimiiVision, or TunnelVision =)

Disclaimer: FiniiVision (R), SlimiiVision (R) and TunnelVision (R) are Registered Trademarks by Wan Hung Lo Factories. All Rights Reserved

I don't know why you're ragging on them. I agree the memory depth is low, but it's baked into the ASIC and isn't easily changed. I actually wished they had built two megazoom 4 asics, one with lower memory for the lower end models and one with more memory for the higher end models.
we'll have to wait for megazoom 5 before (hopefully) more memory.

[hendorog]

At the end of the day you'll find out than mostly use Rigol scope on the lowest memory settings, only rarely using more.

I think its more likely that most people use their Rigol scope on Auto memory setting.

I only change that setting when I need to. Otherwise I leave it in Auto.

Exactly, which in most cases is the lowest memory.

That isn't correct, when in Auto the scope selects the memory depth according to the sample rate, which varies according to the timebase. The lowest memory depth is only selected when the timebase is < 10ns

[pascal_sweden]

Conclusion: Rigol isn't perfect, but it isn't as bad as some Agilent users (who never have touched a Rigol scope) believe or want to believe =)