| Products > Test Equipment |
| REVIEW - Rigol DS2072 - First Impressions of the DS2000 series from Rigol |
| << < (278/566) > >> |
| Marc M.:
Good news everyone. I received my DS-2072 from TEquipment today 8). The revisions as received were: Serial: DS2A151200xxx (under 500) Soft Ver.: 00.00.01.00.05 Hard Ver.: 1.0.1.0.0 SPU: 03.01.02 WPU: 00.06.00 CCU: 12.29.00 MPU: 00.05 After doing some bandwidth and risetime tests, I tried to apply the keys to unlock bandwidth and options. I got all the options turned on except for 200Mhz b/w. The model # stayed 2072 >:(. I tried several times, first just the DSA9 key, then the DSAR followed by DSA9 keys but it still stayed a 2072 |O. I tried updating the firmware to 01.01.00.02 then applied the DSAR & DSA9 keys. Success! This time everything including the 200 MHz b/w were unlocked :clap:. Not sure why it wouldn't work prior to the FW update :-// Using a Rohde & Schwarz SMS generator into a 50 ohm passthru, I did 2 simple plots of freq. vs mV thru 500 MHz before and after applying the keys. The results tracked close to Wim13's results with a similar setup (post #1215 Pg. 82). To check risetime, I used a Tek PG 502 pulse generator with a spec'd risetime of <= 1 nS feeding the DS2072 thru a Tek 50 ohm feedthru terminator. Prior to applying the keys, I got a risetime of 2.5 nS. After applying the keys, it dropped to 1.3 nS, also in line with other folks results IIRC. Again, a huge thank you to Marmad, cybernet, teneyes, Wim13, and all the others that have contributed so much to the collective knowledge regarding these scopes :-+ :-+ :-+. Marc - |
| Marc M.:
--- Quote from: PeterK13 on July 04, 2013, 09:58:36 pm --- --- Quote from: Carrington on July 04, 2013, 08:28:00 pm ---...we could get without much difficulty A BW of 300/400MHz... --- End quote --- Whatfor? The scope has not been calibrated for this. Maybe a 70Mhz scope was only calibrated for 70 Mhz so even 100 or 200Mhz measurements are not valid... --- End quote --- Nonsense! The hardware and firmware are identical between the 2072, 2102, and 2202 models. The only difference between models is the entry of a key(s). Many folks here have done exhaustive testing prior to and after applying these keys and have proven this to be fact. I just received my 2072 today and have done some basic tests for myself all of which have tracked the others work just about perfectly. If you go thru the couple of threads regarding the 2072, you can see some excellent plots done by Wim13 showing the vertical bandwidth past 400 MHz. One of the tests I performed that I haven't seen elsewhere was a test of the horizontal timebase accuracy. Using a Tektronix TG-501 (checked against my Rubidium standard - spot on), I checked my 2072 horizontal timebase at several sweep speeds. The max sweep frequency of the 2072 is 5 nS so we can assume it would be calibrated at that setting. After applying the keys, the 2 nS speed is unlocked, so that would be questionable as to it's accuracy. Here are 3 screenshots of the TG-501 feeding the unlocked DS2072 at 10,5, and 2 nS: As you can see, all were pretty much spot on. So any questions regarding the reduced accuracy of a unlocked DS-2072 vs a DS-2202 are baseless. |
| ve7xen:
Has anyone else tried using the 'advanced' math functions and found them... strange? I was fooling around tonight and thought the integrate function wasn't doing what I wanted, so I fed in a pure sine wave into Intg(CH1) and got... oddness. It's vaguely sinusoidal, but with a changing offset and very small amplitude. The slant of it changes slowly with time as well, moving around randomly despite a stable trigger and clean input signal. Anyone know what's going on here - I'd expect a simple phase shift? The Diff(CH1) is even weirder, in almost the opposite way. This one goes up to GU on the units and also looks like crap. Are these functions intentionally not performing the Integral and Derivative functions I learned in calculus? FWIW I'm running the latest firmware whatever .02. |
| jonese:
--- Quote from: Marc M. on July 06, 2013, 04:51:59 am --- --- Quote from: PeterK13 on July 04, 2013, 09:58:36 pm --- --- Quote from: Carrington on July 04, 2013, 08:28:00 pm ---...we could get without much difficulty A BW of 300/400MHz... --- End quote --- Whatfor? The scope has not been calibrated for this. Maybe a 70Mhz scope was only calibrated for 70 Mhz so even 100 or 200Mhz measurements are not valid... --- End quote --- Nonsense! The hardware and firmware are identical between the 2072, 2102, and 2202 models. The only difference between models is the entry of a key(s). Many folks here have done exhaustive testing prior to and after applying these keys and have proven this to be fact. I just received my 2072 today and have done some basic tests for myself all of which have tracked the others work just about perfectly. If you go thru the couple of threads regarding the 2072, you can see some excellent plots done by Wim13 showing the vertical bandwidth past 400 MHz. .... --- End quote --- I think it's a bit too early to state that. We have no knowledge that Rigol has calibrated a 2072 for anything higher than 70 MHz (we don't know what their process is in production). Just because you can see stuff visually up to the -3db drop, doesn't mean it's accurate. Perhaps if we had a dump of the calibration data table would shed some light on what parameters could be calibrated and if there are some parameters that only the 100/200 scopes would utilize. |
| ve7xen:
--- Quote from: jonese on July 06, 2013, 06:42:51 am ---I think it's a bit too early to state that. We have no knowledge that Rigol has calibrated a 2072 for anything higher than 70 MHz (we don't know what their process is in production). Just because you can see stuff visually up to the -3db drop, doesn't mean it's accurate. --- End quote --- If you're talking calibration constants, that's not a hardware difference... If someone has measured a DS2072->DS2202 at reasonable intervals up to -3dB with an expected and linear curve, I think it is data enough to know it's not going to be meaningfully (way) out. Strictly yeah, you shouldn't trust it, but all signs point to the data being good anyway, and after all the experimenting done around here I'm fairly confident the frontends are identical. There may be additional calibration at the factory, but like buying used gear on eBay, it's more than good enough for almost any use you're going to encounter with a scope you hacked. I wonder if the self-cal routine would null out any nonlinearities, if any did appear on these scopes. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |