Hacking the Rigol MSO5000 series oscilloscopes

[BTO]

An unterminated coax is technically unbalanced is it not?

Sure.  But where does using a balun come into connecting sig gen to scope via coax.  Am I missing something?

Maybe it's just BTO's way of referring to the 50Ω through termination as a balun...  Given the 'scope doesn't have internal 50Ω option.

I appreciate the understanding...
In Short..
He asked me what connection and termination i'm using.
I answered his Question

obviously i'm not a retard and i do understand that an RG-6 Quad Coax has a nominal impedance of 75 Ohm.
At the end of the day, Before i say anything else,  I want to hear his response
I want to hear a more intelligent comment and a more respectful comment.

Comments like those are un called for, We are here to share electronics and have fun together
We are not here to make each other look like idiots , and.. there are consequences to such posts.

the 3 of us were talking, it was all cool, and then he came out with that.
anyway.....  I believe anyone can stuff up once,    I'm willing to wait for his reply , and based on his reply will determine how i respond

Just let him answer. let's hear what he has to say , Appreciate the support 

[Kean]

The prior discussion was about measuring scope bandwidth.  There are a few ways to do this, and had I assumed you were doing it a certain way (sig gen into scope).

You had replied to another user "I'm using a properly terminated cable" and I specifically asked you "what 50 ohm feed trough terminator are you using" (please ignore my speeling mistake) because I really was genuinely curious.

You didn't answer my question, and what you said confused me.  6SN7WGTB clearly understood my question, and gave a useful response.

Maybe the emoticons I used were a bit much and you have a thin skin.  I am happy for you to clarify your bandwidth testing method, or we can just drop the whole thing.

BTW, you are the one with a signature that states "QUESTION EVERYTHING".  So I just don't understand your problem here.

[Kean]

BTW, I cannot see in my reply anything I said that is offensive and that should make you fly off the handle in this way.

Was the face palm emoticon such a trigger for you?  That was just my was of responding to a mix up in cable impedance.
I can't imagine the confused emoticon could be it, as confusion is a perfectly normal thing and why people ask questions.

You may not think so, but I really was trying to contribute to the discussion.
If you want to report me to a moderator for stating facts and asking clarifying questions go ahead.

But if you are going to act like a child to something so innocuous, I'll just add you to my ignore list.  I recall now that our previous interaction also wasn't so great.

[BTO]

The prior discussion was about measuring scope bandwidth.  There are a few ways to do this, and had I assumed you were doing it a certain way (sig gen into scope).

You had replied to another user "I'm using a properly terminated cable" and I specifically asked you "what 50 ohm feed trough terminator are you using" (please ignore my speeling mistake) because I really was genuinely curious.

You didn't answer my question, and what you said confused me.  6SN7WGTB clearly understood my question, and gave a useful response.

Maybe the emoticons I used were a bit much and you have a thin skin.  I am happy for you to clarify your bandwidth testing method, or we can just drop the whole thing.

BTW, you are the one with a signature that states "QUESTION EVERYTHING".  So I just don't understand your problem here.

OK, that's a better response
Now..

The prior discussion was about measuring scope bandwidth.

Correct, No problems here

  There are a few ways to do this, and had I assumed you were doing it a certain way (sig gen into scope).

OK, well, i can go on about assumptions but i trust you know what i would have said here.
Anywhoo...
Initially or.. a while back i made some comments when i wasn't using Sig Gen into Scope, but then.. Later i did , so it depends which point in time
we are talking about .
I've recently bought another Sig Gen   WB-SG1  it doesn't seem bad, i wouldn't say highly accurate, but , good enough to show us the point of the discussion,
that being
1. Does the MSO5000 Go up to 500MHz
2. Does it go up to 900MHz like some are saying

Quick Answer.. it does indeed go up to 500MHz,  it also does go above 900MHz but doesn't make it to 1GHz
but, i'm in the process of testing all that now

I think the take away from this point is... We were just speaking somewhat GENERALLY about scope bandwidth
and Honestly.... I thought you were a cool bloke (Just putting that out there)

You had replied to another user "I'm using a properly terminated cable"

well, i thought that was you that asked
and i thought that comment came after your question,
but.. it doesn't really matter, in any case.. YES I SAID THAT,   but when i said that, I WAS REFERRING TO
A PROPERLY TERMINATED CABLE which means
- I didn't just screw on an F Connector
- I didn't crush it with a set of Pliers

- I TERMINATED IT CORRECTLY USING PROPER TERMINATION EQUIPMENT AND COMPRESSION TOOL
that's was CORRECTLY TERMINATED MEANS

You made the mistake of applying what i said to be necessarily and exactly specific to scopes.
that's not what i was saying
I'm in Telecommunications, I obviously know that an RG-6 has a Nominal impedance of 75 Ohm and RG-59 has 50 Ohm.
I don't commonly have RG-59 just lying around, However i did have RG-6 terminated with Male F
and i screw on Female F to Male BNC Converter

Now.. for the sake of just testing the scopes bandwidth, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I DO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS AN IMPEDANCE MISMATCH... obviously

But when i said.. CORRECTLY TERMINATED CABLE,  I was just talking about the cable being correctly terminated and not being pulled out of a garbage bin somewhere or looking like it was a dog's breakfast.

and I specifically asked you "what 50 ohm feed trough terminator are you using" (please ignore my speeling mistake) because I really was genuinely curious.

RIGHT...
1. and i took your comment as being genuinely curious

2. I couldn't care less about your spelling mistakes , it's all good

3. Yes you did ask me that
Now... i was running out the door to a 5 grand job  and i caught (what i now see.. in hindsight) as part of your comment.
i read it as ....
"What terminator are you using "    i'll accept responsibility for that .

then i answered the question

and no i don't have thin skin.  I'm not upset, i'm not a princess, none of that.   I don't get upset at all.
but there is a difference between not getting upset and requesting basic respect from my fellow electronics people here

also.. there is the issue that some of the Mods could get a bit too happy with the "Your account is suspended" button.
there is also that to consider. it's not just about how sensitive i am or whatever
it's about if a mod picks up on it, How will they react.
Personally, i don't want my account suspended.

Which is why i replied the way i replied
and i'm glad you replied the way you did.

OBVIOUSLY there is a misunderstanding here.  Largely due to emoji's i would say .
but hey... I'm off the opinion that ANYONE can make a mistake and anything here can be misunderstood, and that's fine.
I give everyone a chance to clarify things and if we clear this up we can move forward and i hold no bad blood

or we can just drop the whole thing.

No, that's not necessary,   in my opinion, even if you were to drop it it still doesn't work out as well as if it's talked about and clarified quickly
then we return to topic
I would rather just clear it up quickly.   i'm not offended,  no need to drop anything.

Give me a moment and i'll see if we can clear this up.

6SN7WGTB clearly understood my question, and gave a useful response.

LOL.... that doesn't mean that everyone will understand your question and give a useful response.
I understand why you would say this, but it's false logic

to a normal person, i would say in this situation "I'm not like other people"  ... but when i'm here we are all bloody weird aren't we.
it's why we do what we do .
but it still stands  that we are not all clones of 6SN7WGTB 

but again, i was running out the door
but also, there was no need for the chip on the shoulder,  Again, it's not an offense thing,  it's a disrespect thing .
Respected or Disrespected i remain calm regardless.  but it doesn't mean i ignore the disrespect or tolerate it

My Mantra is... if i extend courtesy and respect to others i would think (but do not require) that they would return the courtesy
but i also understand that misunderstandings can happen.
so.. that's what it is

Maybe the emoticons I used were a bit much

if i can speak honestly and openly

- The emoticons sent the wrong message
- Firstly generally speaking (But not always) people who use emoticons commonly tend to be uneducated people.  Psychologically this goes back
  to a need to express oneself with words and thus it is a SIMPLER mindset.

- You then combine that with the rudeness that the emoticons projected and Voila

when i saw that comment i was thinking to myself... Why the hell is he being a D#$K ?  he's been cool so far, why was this necessary.
it wasn't anger,  it was more.... If i'm going to continue this i want assurance that he's not being rude.

but no, not thin skin at all, Just a lover or common courtesy and respect.

I am happy for you to clarify your bandwidth testing method,

I'll do it in another post, i was going to do this anyway . let me just get through this stuff first

BTW, you are the one with a signature that states "QUESTION EVERYTHING".  So I just don't understand your problem here.

ABSO FIRETRUCKIN LUTELY  Question Everything, Absolutely !
My problem is not you questioning me
My problem is the projected disrespect.

BUT, YOU ARE NOW CLARIFYING THAT WAS NOT YOUR INTENTION,  so.. Ok, Cool
But feel free to question me on anything and i will answer honestly

[BTO]

BTW, I cannot see in my reply anything I said that is offensive and that should make you fly off the handle in this way.

Was the face palm emoticon such a trigger for you?  That was just my was of responding to a mix up in cable impedance.
I can't imagine the confused emoticon could be it, as confusion is a perfectly normal thing and why people ask questions.

You may not think so, but I really was trying to contribute to the discussion.
If you want to report me to a moderator for stating facts and asking clarifying questions go ahead.

But if you are going to act like a child to something so innocuous, I'll just add you to my ignore list.  I recall now that our previous interaction also wasn't so great.

BTW, I cannot see in my reply anything I said that is offensive and that should make you fly off the handle in this way.

- I didn't fly off the handle, i gave you opportunity to respond and clarify.

Was the face palm emoticon such a trigger for you?  That was just my was of responding to a mix up in cable impedance.

- No, it was a combination of things , but that's why i asked for clarification.

I can't imagine the confused emoticon could be it, as confusion is a perfectly normal thing and why people ask questions.

- People don't ask questions because they are confused, People initially ask questions when they lack knowledge.
Confusion does not necessarily need to be a part of it.
I'm not shooting down your point, i'm just adding my 2 cents worth

You may not think so, but I really was trying to contribute to the discussion.

- OK, then don't assume that i didn't think so, Because that's what makes it worse. Instead in the future, Just ask me straight up.
I promise you it'll end better if you do.
With me.. do not assume anything,  Question everything and ask me .

If you want to report me to a moderator for stating facts and asking clarifying questions go ahead.

and as if to prove my point

SEE HOW THINGS CAN GET OUT OF HAND
Now..
- I didn't say anything about reporting you
- But imagine i was a hot head and now JUST BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT.. i did report you.

here's what happens.... Both parties get banned and the forum mods deem it "Let's give them some time to cool off"  LOL
I mean.. that works if they are actually upset, in my case, i'm not


Listen....
You've clarified it, ok
Fair enough, I now understand what your intention were (which is why i asked before i said anything)
You also need to understand what i meant by "Properly Terminated"
I wasn't using the Electronics Oscilloscope term, i was using the Telecommunications Industry terming of it , as a generalization, not as a specific comment.

i was just trying to say... Rest Assured it's not a crap cable and it's a cable that is relatively new and recently made and terminated properly.
that's all that was.

Now let me see if you made any other comments that i need to address

[BTO]

BTW, I cannot see in my reply anything I said that is offensive and that should make you fly off the handle in this way.

Was the face palm emoticon such a trigger for you?  That was just my was of responding to a mix up in cable impedance.
I can't imagine the confused emoticon could be it, as confusion is a perfectly normal thing and why people ask questions.

You may not think so, but I really was trying to contribute to the discussion.
If you want to report me to a moderator for stating facts and asking clarifying questions go ahead.

But if you are going to act like a child to something so innocuous, I'll just add you to my ignore list.  I recall now that our previous interaction also wasn't so great.

NOPE, That seems to be all the comments

OK, SO IF YOU'RE COOL WITH IT

- Thanks for the clarification
- Sorry for the misunderstanding

LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC SHALL WE

[BTO]

The prior discussion was about measuring scope bandwidth.  There are a few ways to do this, and had I assumed you were doing it a certain way (sig gen into scope).

You had replied to another user "I'm using a properly terminated cable" and I specifically asked you "what 50 ohm feed trough terminator are you using" (please ignore my speeling mistake) because I really was genuinely curious.

You didn't answer my question, and what you said confused me.  6SN7WGTB clearly understood my question, and gave a useful response.

Maybe the emoticons I used were a bit much and you have a thin skin.  I am happy for you to clarify your bandwidth testing method, or we can just drop the whole thing.

BTW, you are the one with a signature that states "QUESTION EVERYTHING".  So I just don't understand your problem here.

one last point i forgot to mention, re the thick skin thing...
mate, i don't know your personally yet so i don't know how much i can muck around with you. as a starting point, i can see you're an Aussie  
so there is that.
But, i digress

OK NOW... RE THIS POINT

I am happy for you to clarify your bandwidth testing method,

NOTE : this is just a quick comment
1. To get us back on track
2. It will be followed up with other comments

to be honest, this discussion , not just me you and 6SN7WGTB  but something TV84 raised as well got me thinking.

he said something like "MSO5000 can't go beyond 350MHz"
this was said after i said something like "we got the MSO5000 to 500MHz" and i mentioned a model number change.
TV84 then said something like.. it's just a cosmetic change

and even though i understand his point, there is a correlation internally in the scope with the model number and the bandwidth.
However i looked into his point and (Re my previous comments that i won't repeat here because it's too long) it turns out that the scope was showing
clear signs that the bandwidth was increased

But i didn't have an AWG that went beyond 35MHz at this point.
Then people started posting results to confirm it wasn't just a cosmetic model number change in the sysvendor.bin
Then people started saying they were getting 700MHz and 900MHz went they upgraded to the 500MHz
Then people started to say they were getting 500MHz with merely upgrading to 350MHz with the script but not editing the sysvendor.bin

this got me thinking

1. I suppose none of us bothered to check our MSO5074 before upgrade if it could go to 500MHz
I WON'T BE MAKING THAT MISTAKE AGAIN..... LOL
From now on,  i buy a 20MHz scope.. I'm checking that bastard for 2GHz  LMFAO

2. and i know how we progressed through the activation process

3. Then, i wasn't going to go out and buy a $13,000 Rigol Sig Gen that is dead on Accurate.  But i did end up buying a Sig Gen.
    i won't trust it with my life for accuracy, but it doesn't appear to be all that crap.  i got the WB-SG1



This thing goes to 8GHz
Honestly, at first i thought it was Ebay B.S.  but NO, it actually goes into the GHz

apparently there are   6GHz, 8GHz, 12GHz and 24GHz Models

4. so i decided to test a whole bunch of stuff

I HAVE THE FOLLOWING

Sig Gen WB-SG1  (8GHz)
This actually has 2 Channels
Channel 1 - 1Hz to 200MHz (it actually goes to 300MHz before it dies out)
Channel 2  - 35MHz - 8GHz

Channel 1 is BNC
Channel 2 is SMA

RIGOL DS1054z  (Unlocked to 100MHz)

RIGOL DS2000A  (Unlocked to 300MHz)

RIGOL MSO5000 (Unlocked to 350MHz) then further to that up to 500MHz


i'm now in the process of testing both the Sig Gen and the Scopes in a sort of a shoot out to see what responds how and how well.
Initially this is just a general level test
SO YES I'M COMMITTING THE SIN OF USING AN RG-6 Coaxial  75 Ohm

At this stage my only concern is to establish

1. How well does the Sig Gen perform on a basic level

2. What is the max Bandwidth that is visible on each scope

3. What is the max bandwidth that i can get to THAT THE SCOPE ACTUALLY MEASURES



SO FAR I HAVE THESE RESULTS

(see Attachment)

LEGEND
Greyed out Cell means , Not supported or No result obtained
Red Cell means  , Failed or a quantified result was not achieved
Yellow Cells means.. there was a change in value from a previous repeating value

The top 3 lines read as follows

WB-SG1            RIGOL DS1054z               RIGOL DS200A               RIGOL MSO5074         
            Freq. Counter      CURSORS         Freq. Counter      CURSORS         Freq. Counter      CURSORS   
AWG Freq.   Wave   Amplitude      Top   Bottom   Amplitude   Frequency      Top   Bottom   Amplitude   Frequency      Top   Bottom   Amplitude   Frequency


on the left i have the output of the Sig Gen

AWG Freq - The actual frequency that the Sig Gen is displaying (irrespective of what it is actually outputting)
Wave       - The Wave Type.   This sig Gen only does SQUARE WAVE, but then at higher frequencies it goes to Sawtooth and Sine Wave. it Sacrifices amplitude
                 to achieve the wave needed to get to the higher frequencies.
Amplitude  - it's set to 3.3V pk/pk   there is a screw at the back of it, likely connected to a POT,  i thought this might be a way to adjust the voltage. but it's not.


Frequency Counters
Top               - This is the HARDWARE COUNTER
Bottom         - This is the SOFTWARE COUNTER
Amplitude     - This reading comes from setting the cursors on the actual waveform and reading the Delta Reading
Frequency    - This reading comes from setting the cursors on the actual waveform for 1 cycle and reading the Delta Reading

then i repeat the process for the 3 scopes

the idea is...

I want to compare the scopes to each other
But i also want to test the Sig Gen for some degree of accuracy and confidence
so that's why i'm using both counters and cursors to establish what frequency i'm factually receiving vs what frequency is stated on screen.

that's what i have so far
i'm going to keep continuing this up to 1GHZ, i don't imagine i'll get further than that

FEEL FREE TO OFFER ANY INPUT ON MY TESTING METHOD

EDIT : The spreadsheet is now completely finished

[Odd-Job]

There is probably where your problem lies. Did you have the output of the SigGen from the MSO 5xxx on 50Ω? Or HiZ/1MΩ? Either way, using 75Ω coax is gunna muck around with your levels, giving a false sense of attenuation band pass etc.
 All you have is 75Ω coax eh, do you install Antennas for terrestrial FTA television, CATV or satellite communication?
Get your self some 50 ohm coax, maybe a bit of RG58, and as you know all about termination, strip & crimp some BNC's on and re-try a sweep , take some screen capture and repost.




Copy
 
Roger.
Over

[Evgeni61]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm completely confused. I recently bought an MSO5072. The firmware version 00.01.03.03.00 is installed on it. I can't figure out which method of unlocking additional options I should use? Can I hack it using patches from three files?

[BTO]

There is probably where your problem lies. Did you have the output of the SigGen from the MSO 5xxx on 50Ω? Or HiZ/1MΩ? Either way, using 75Ω coax is gunna muck around with your levels, giving a false sense of attenuation band pass etc.
 All you have is 75Ω coax eh, do you install Antennas for terrestrial FTA television, CATV or satellite communication?
Get your self some 50 ohm coax, maybe a bit of RG58, and as you know all about termination, strip & crimp some BNC's on and re-try a sweep , take some screen capture and repost.




Copy
 
Roger.
Over

Did you have the output of the SigGen from the MSO 5xxx on 50Ω? Or HiZ/1MΩ?

Output of the SIGGEN FROM THE MSO
No, i used the Sig Gen in the video

All you have is 75Ω coax eh

NO...
Since i'm in Telecommunications i can obtain whatever coax i please.
it's just that i don't commonly use RG-59 So i don't have a roll on hand.
But of course i will get  some 30 odd metres from something and then terminate it appropriately

I did the test with what i had on hand

[BTO]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm completely confused. I recently bought an MSO5072. The firmware version 00.01.03.03.00 is installed on it. I can't figure out which method of unlocking additional options I should use? Can I hack it using patches from three files?

1. Do not use the patch method it is really really outdated

2. Go to this link
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-mso5000-dr-mefisto-licensing-method/

Follow the steps from there
there will be a cloud link you go to
You'll download the pdf
the firmware file 1.3.3.0
the python script

follow the instructions , let me know if you need help.
don't worry , it's easy and you'll be fine

Let me know the good news when you've unlocked it all

[Retired2]

Good Day to All.
This site is AWSOME!!!
Can someone help me?
I have a MSO5354 and i would like to change the model number to 5504 to see what upper limit I can achieve.

I have been running into this message: Error: --use_sysvendor_key must be hex

This request if from: python rigol_mso_util_2.13b.py --offline --sysvendor-file sysvendor.bin --use-sysvendor-key rigol_dec_sysvendor_7767455A7645643701770077456876A8_17301535015725.data --model MSO5504

Am I not using the request properly?
How do I obtain the sysvendor key in hex format?   Where might it be located?

[Kean]

FEEL FREE TO OFFER ANY INPUT ON MY TESTING METHOD

Hey, sorry I've been really busy with work and forgot to reply.

Thanks for clarifying the confusion was in the word "termination".  You were referring to terminating a cable with a connector, and I was referring to terminating a cable for impedance matching.

You and I have very different writing styles.  With one-on-one with a customer or friend I do like to explain things in detail, but I make an effort on forums to keep things concise.  For this reason, I am not going to attempt to reply to the various points you made, and just stay on topic and use point form.

- You keep mentioning RG-59, but that is also 75 ohm cable like RG-6.  You want RG-58 or similar.  If using only a short cable you can probably get away with something like RG-316 which is easily found with both BNC and SMA connectors.
- With your testing you should be looking for a max 3dB drop in the amplitude to identify the bandwidth, but checking the frequency counter display is also a good plan.
- You ideally want a "levelled" signal generator, or at least one that you know has reasonably level output over frequency.  If it differs by more than 1dB, then your test efforts will be wasted.
- In addition to correctly terminating the cable with connectors, you need a 50 ohm terminator on the scope input.  This is because the sig gen will have a 50 ohm output impedance and that needs to be matched to get correct levels and reduce reflections.  It also reduces the effect of the scope input capacitance which become significant at higher frequencies.  Up to a couple of tens of MHz this may not have a lot of effect (other than level), but as you go into the hundreds of MHz it certainly will.
- I believe you will also want to standardise the test with smaller signals that 3.3V because some sig gens may struggle to output that voltage swing at the higher frequencies, especially when loaded by 50 ohms.
- As I was alluding to in earlier posts, the quality of the pass-through terminator can make a big difference when getting into hundred of MHz.  So you either need a good quality one that is rated for low loss beyond your upper frequency, or you need to characterise your setup with a better scope that the one you are checking (or using an SA/VNA).

Hope this is helpful.  I am no expert on this stuff, but I have studied it and it is discussed elsewhere on this forum regularly.

Edit:

I forgot to mention - most scopes with 500MHz bandwidth or higher will have 50 ohm inputs instead of 1M ohm (or switchable).  Unfortunately the MSO5000 (nor my RTB2004) are lacking the switchable 50 ohm input feature, which is why I was interesting in getting a better 50 ohm pass-through terminator than the cheap P57 ones.  When dealing with 50 ohms I am usually dealing with RF and using one of my SAs or VNAs, so I don't need to worry about my scope inputs.

A couple of relevant posts about this topic (I am sure there are many more)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/50-ohm-inputs-for-siglent-sds1104x-e/
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/inexpenive-50-ohm-feed-through-terminations/

[BTO]

FEEL FREE TO OFFER ANY INPUT ON MY TESTING METHOD

Hey, sorry I've been really busy with work and forgot to reply.

Thanks for clarifying the confusion was in the word "termination".  You were referring to terminating a cable with a connector, and I was referring to terminating a cable for impedance matching.

You and I have very different writing styles.  With one-on-one with a customer or friend I do like to explain things in detail, but I make an effort on forums to keep things concise.  For this reason, I am not going to attempt to reply to the various points you made, and just stay on topic and use point form.

- You keep mentioning RG-59, but that is also 75 ohm cable like RG-6.  You want RG-58 or similar.  If using only a short cable you can probably get away with something like RG-316 which is easily found with both BNC and SMA connectors.
- With your testing you should be looking for a max 3dB drop in the amplitude to identify the bandwidth, but checking the frequency counter display is also a good plan.
- You ideally want a "levelled" signal generator, or at least one that you know has reasonably level output over frequency.  If it differs by more than 1dB, then your test efforts will be wasted.
- In addition to correctly terminating the cable with connectors, you need a 50 ohm terminator on the scope input.  This is because the sig gen will have a 50 ohm output impedance and that needs to be matched to get correct levels and reduce reflections.  It also reduces the effect of the scope input capacitance which become significant at higher frequencies.  Up to a couple of tens of MHz this may not have a lot of effect (other than level), but as you go into the hundreds of MHz it certainly will.
- I believe you will also want to standardise the test with smaller signals that 3.3V because some sig gens may struggle to output that voltage swing at the higher frequencies, especially when loaded by 50 ohms.
- As I was alluding to in earlier posts, the quality of the pass-through terminator can make a big difference when getting into hundred of MHz.  So you either need a good quality one that is rated for low loss beyond your upper frequency, or you need to characterise your setup with a better scope that the one you are checking (or using an SA/VNA).

Hope this is helpful.  I am no expert on this stuff, but I have studied it and it is discussed elsewhere on this forum regularly.

Edit:

I forgot to mention - most scopes with 500MHz bandwidth or higher will have 50 ohm inputs instead of 1M ohm (or switchable).  Unfortunately the MSO5000 (nor my RTB2004) are lacking the switchable 50 ohm input feature, which is why I was interesting in getting a better 50 ohm pass-through terminator than the cheap P57 ones.  When dealing with 50 ohms I am usually dealing with RF and using one of my SAs or VNAs, so I don't need to worry about my scope inputs.

A couple of relevant posts about this topic (I am sure there are many more)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/50-ohm-inputs-for-siglent-sds1104x-e/
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/inexpenive-50-ohm-feed-through-terminations/

Hey, sorry I've been really busy with work and forgot to reply.

- that's ok you don't need to apologize for being busy with work, Fact is , i've also been busy with work and neglected the forum a little.

Thanks for clarifying the confusion was in the word "termination".

- No problem

  For this reason, I am not going to attempt to reply to the various points you made, and just stay on topic and use point form.

- I mean.. Sure, but we are all already off topic.
The topic of this thread is HACKING THE MSO500

YOU WANT ME TO START A NEW THREAD DEDICATED TO THIS TESTING THINGY ?
I reckon it wouldn't be a bad idea, i was actually thinking about it the other day.

You want RG-58 or similar.

- You know what... You're correct, I apologize
Fact is.. A lot has been going on in my life in the last 2 years, i won't go into it , But just to say.. Yeah... Slip of the brain
I was thinking RG-58 and i said RG-59, Both of which i do not commonly use, But i can easily get my hands on.
and to kill a few birds with one stone
Yes, I have some shopping to do and probably should get the correct bits and pieces. You are correct, I'll endeavour to do that.

Now you mentioned if the sig gen was 1dB out and not smooth it's not worth the trouble.
well mate, i dare say that this Sig Gen then won't be the best for the job, in terms of smoothness.
at this junction in my life i didn't want to put in like $10k ish into a Sig Gen that could do that.
I'm just gonna have a play with the one that i have , I mean, it must be good for something , so i'll get the bits and pieces and we'll see

You mentioned it needs to be levelled.
An idea i had was to use a Pass Fail mask on it, although i didn't get around to doing this yet

I am no expert on this stuff, but I have studied it and it is discussed elsewhere on this forum regularly.

- Fair enough

As for the last bit
1. I agree
2. thanks for the links
3. At frequencies above say 400MHz i think i also need to be considering high frequency probes as well

I'm just trying to see what i can test with what i have so far

[BTO]

Good Day to All.
This site is AWSOME!!!
Can someone help me?
I have a MSO5354 and i would like to change the model number to 5504 to see what upper limit I can achieve.

I have been running into this message: Error: --use_sysvendor_key must be hex

This request if from: python rigol_mso_util_2.13b.py --offline --sysvendor-file sysvendor.bin --use-sysvendor-key rigol_dec_sysvendor_7767455A7645643701770077456876A8_17301535015725.data --model MSO5504

Am I not using the request properly?
How do I obtain the sysvendor key in hex format?   Where might it be located?

Sure no problem I just wanted to chime in to let you know i've read this
although i'm really tired now and had a long day.
Let me get back to you tomorrow, ok

[Retired2]

That would be fine.

[BTO]

That would be fine.

Just a quick one... I haven't forgot about you ok

[BTO]

That would be fine.

Sorry mate, my wife is ill, but just quickly what i can see from your script is this

Code: [Select]

python rigol_mso_util_2.13b.py --offline --sysvendor-file sysvendor.bin --use-sysvendor-key rigol_dec_sysvendor_7767455A7645643701770077456876A8_17301535015725.data --model MSO5504
TRY THIS..

Code: [Select]

python rigol_mso_util_2.13b.py --offline --sysvendor-file sysvendor.bin  use-sysvendor-key rigol_dec_sysvendor_7767455A7645643701770077456876A8_17301535015725.data --model MSO5504
The difference being
sysvendor.bin --use-sysvendor-key
You put 1 space then --

you should have 2 spaces then  "use"
Give that a go first

EDIT :
i also noticed this..

Code: [Select]

python rigol_mso_util_2.13b.py --offline --sysvendor-file sysvendor.bin  use-sysvendor-key rigol_dec_sysvendor_7767455A7645643701770077456876A8_17301535015725.data --model MSO5504
You're supposed to use the actual key so...
so do this

Code: [Select]

python rigol_mso_util_2.13b.py --sysvendor-key 10.1.1.140 Where 10.1.1.140  is replaced for your scopes I.P. Address

When this happens in the output you will see a
DEVICE XXTEA KEY [COPY WHAT IS BETWEEN THE SQUARE BRACKETS]

then do this

Code: [Select]

python rigol_mso_util_2.13b.py --offline --sysvendor-file sysvendor.bin  use-sysvendor-key COPY YOUR KEY HERE --model MSO5504
Try that

[BTO]

That would be fine.

Question : Since you haven't upgraded to MSO5504 yet, i'm interested to know on your MSO5354  when you adjust the TIME BASE
what is the fastest timebase you have ?
Does it go to 500ps ? or is it in the micro seconds ?

Also when you go to
CH1 / MORE / LABEL / INFO
and you turn on BANDWIDTH
Does it show up as 500M  or 350M  ?

[Retired2]

It shows CH1 BW:350M
i will be doing the upgrade in a couple of hours

[BTO]

It shows CH1 BW:350M
i will be doing the upgrade in a couple of hours

That's what i thought.
After the upgrade your time base will go to Max of 500ps and that bandwidth will change to 500M
in reality, as it stands your scope can already go up to 500MHz or so but with the upgrade it'll go to around 940MHz.
I've tested this with a Sig Gen
I'm in the process of seeing if i can get it higher, but as we have learned

1. Who deals with signals that high anyway in our game

2. You need to consider new probes when going above 350MHz

3. A lot of other considerations come into play as well
but hey... gonna give it a go

[Odd-Job]

Some screen shots ranging from 300 Mhz to 1 Ghz.
Also recorded some video of a sweep from 250Meg thru to 1.1 Gigahertz but even after resizing down to <8 Meg still cant upload Video. ( think it can be done, just not now)

Basically, the MSO5xxx will go to 1.1 gig where a sine-wave is clearly viewable and freq visually calculable. Signal level past 350-400 Mhz roll off is definitely Logarithmic.
I think that going from  1 uS to 500 pico Seconds is pointless. If the input filters are physically altered (passives and active components) so that it becomes a wide bandwidth reliable, truth-full piece of test equipment, yes but until then
In one screen grab , yeah there is  10 cycles of a 1.1 Gigahertz sine wave cleary visible but it is attenuated way down . In fact it is only visible @ 2mV/div, on 1mV or 5mV it would not sync. You might get to see 5 cycles @ 1 G but unless what is on your screen is correct from an onboard 'voltmeter' or counting peaks/ div, it just another thing to brag about, IMHLOpinion.

 50 Ohm termination at DSO input and RG-142 50 Ω coax used for measurements.
 
oddjob out.

[BTO]

Some screen shots ranging from 300 Mhz to 1 Ghz.
Also recorded some video of a sweep from 250Meg thru to 1.1 Gigahertz but even after resizing down to <8 Meg still cant upload Video. ( think it can be done, just not now)

Basically, the MSO5xxx will go to 1.1 gig where a sine-wave is clearly viewable and freq visually calculable. Signal level past 350-400 Mhz roll off is definitely Logarithmic.
I think that going from  1 uS to 500 pico Seconds is pointless. If the input filters are physically altered (passives and active components) so that it becomes a wide bandwidth reliable, truth-full piece of test equipment, yes but until then
In one screen grab , yeah there is  10 cycles of a 1.1 Gigahertz sine wave cleary visible but it is attenuated way down . In fact it is only visible @ 2mV/div, on 1mV or 5mV it would not sync. You might get to see 5 cycles @ 1 G but unless what is on your screen is correct from an onboard 'voltmeter' or counting peaks/ div, it just another thing to brag about, IMHLOpinion.

 50 Ohm termination at DSO input and RG-142 50 Ω coax used for measurements.
 
oddjob out.

Cool, Understood, Thanks for that.
by the way.... Awesome Name  LOL
 A James Bond fan i take it.

[Kean]

Some screen shots ranging from 300 Mhz to 1 Ghz.

Thanks Odd-Job.  If you don't mind, what equipment was used as the source of the signal, and what was the amplitude set to?

The 300MHz trace shows about 707mV P-P, which would be 250mV RMS.  If the source signal was meant to be 1V P-P (354mV RMS) into 50Ω, then that is already 3dB down.

[BTO]

Some screen shots ranging from 300 Mhz to 1 Ghz.
Also recorded some video of a sweep from 250Meg thru to 1.1 Gigahertz but even after resizing down to <8 Meg still cant upload Video. ( think it can be done, just not now)

Basically, the MSO5xxx will go to 1.1 gig where a sine-wave is clearly viewable and freq visually calculable. Signal level past 350-400 Mhz roll off is definitely Logarithmic.
I think that going from  1 uS to 500 pico Seconds is pointless. If the input filters are physically altered (passives and active components) so that it becomes a wide bandwidth reliable, truth-full piece of test equipment, yes but until then
In one screen grab , yeah there is  10 cycles of a 1.1 Gigahertz sine wave cleary visible but it is attenuated way down . In fact it is only visible @ 2mV/div, on 1mV or 5mV it would not sync. You might get to see 5 cycles @ 1 G but unless what is on your screen is correct from an onboard 'voltmeter' or counting peaks/ div, it just another thing to brag about, IMHLOpinion.

 50 Ohm termination at DSO input and RG-142 50 Ω coax used for measurements.
 
oddjob out.

Hi mate, i attempted duplicating your results. I got very similar results. No need for screenshots
I'm now using 50 Ohm SMA Cable LL195
I can see the difference in the waveforms vs RG-6

What i want to ask is this

1. What Sig Gen are you using because at the same frequencies, i'm not getting the amplitude that you're getting, Say at 400MHz and 1GHz
I suppose my Sig Gen  WB-SG1 is likely not going to compare to your one
My rise and fall times are pretty much the same as yours

2. Can you actually get the scope to display 1.1000 GHz in the frequency counter ?
I CAN'T !   i get a Max of 1.0600 GHz and sometimes that drops to 1.0588GHz
if we're being really technical, i can get it to 1.0610 GHz and sometimes it comes in at 1.0598GHz

as for the 500ps time base, i do agree that if we go to 1GHz it's somewhat pointless if we dont' have more bandwidth and screen to work with