Fan noise measurement. That'll be real challengeNot.
Piss easy with a phone app like this:
USB keyboard and mouse performance in the UI compared to 2kX HD.
Piss easy with a phone app like this:
An app won't tell you how whiny or annoying a sound is, only how loud it is.
Piss easy with a phone app like this:
An app won't tell you how whiny or annoying a sound is, only how loud it is.
Really ::)
About time you did some research instead of spouting about shit you have no experience with.
Audio spectrum analyzers give frequency and level measurements just in case you didn't know.
Their measurement only need be qualified by the distance to microphone measurement and I'm very sure Martin already knows how these things work.
They don't need be for comparative measurements or would you rather trust Dave's ear to judge fan noise ? :-DDPiss easy with a phone app like this:
An app won't tell you how whiny or annoying a sound is, only how loud it is.
Really ::)
About time you did some research instead of spouting about shit you have no experience with.
Audio spectrum analyzers give frequency and level measurements just in case you didn't know.
Their measurement only need be qualified by the distance to microphone measurement and I'm very sure Martin already knows how these things work.
I guess the real problem is can you trust those result?
I bet that no one is calibrated.
About time you did some research instead of spouting about shit you have no experience with.
Audio spectrum analyzers give frequency and level measurements just in case you didn't know.
Oh FFS Fungus, must you be spoon fed ? :palm:About time you did some research instead of spouting about shit you have no experience with.
Audio spectrum analyzers give frequency and level measurements just in case you didn't know.
Please tell us what a whiny/annoying spectrum looks like compared to a nice relaxing one.
This needs to be precisely defined if the results are to be valid.
Please tell us what a whiny/annoying spectrum looks like compared to a nice relaxing one.Oh FFS Fungus, must you be spoon fed ? :palm:
This needs to be precisely defined if the results are to be valid.
Did you not follow this link posted above:
https://apps.apple.com/nz/app/id1281873790
Their measurement only need be qualified by the distance to microphone measurement and I'm very sure Martin already knows how these things work.
It's a spectrum analyzer (for a device not everybody has).No it's not.
Not that its needed for a comparative test. ;)Their measurement only need be qualified by the distance to microphone measurement and I'm very sure Martin already knows how these things work.
Maybe it's no surprise but I have a calibrated microphone at home. ;)
And access to a ISO calibrated Class 1 SPL meter..
Piss easy with a phone app like this:
Audio Spectrum Analyzer dB RTA
Hi folks,
No no, I don't have the scope yet, I also have to wait about 2 weeks for it....
This is already a placeholder or should give the possibility to consider it in advance, what I should test everything.
And compare, because I still have other scopes here....
First my own, quasi as a reference, the SDS2504X HD.
Then from work the Rigol DS1054Z and the Siglent SDS1104X-E.
The predecessor and the current competitor, so to speak.
Other existing measuring equipment:
- SDG2122X 120Mhz function generator.
-R&S SML01 1.1Ghz signal generator
-Tektronix A6302/AM502 current clamp combination
- Demoboards with several signals (and decoder functions) from Batronix and Siglent
- Deskew fixture from Siglent
- Analog 10Mhz test oscillator for ENOB determination
- Ultra low distortion 1khz sine generator (still to be tested)
- Leo Bodnar pulser 40ps risetime
So think about something, I'll get back to you here when the Rigol has arrived.
What is not clear is:Since this depends on the input buffer design and the crossover frequency particularly, it is not that easy to make a fair comparison. Chances are you test this at certain conditions (vertical gain, offset, signal frequency, percentage of overload) that make one scope look much better than the other, but there might be other conditions, where it is exactly the other way round.
- overload recovery.
- distortion (two tone test)People are often tempted to use the "Wave Combine" function of the SDG for this. Unfortuanetely, this generates some 3rd oder intermodulation products itself - at least at higher frequencies. So for this test, we need to use the two outputs of the SDG individually and have a resistive wideband power-combiner to create the test signal. This gives only 6 dB isolation between channels, but in my experience this is sufficient and no additional attenuators for the individual channels are required.
People are often tempted to use the "Wave Combine" function of the SDG for this. Unfortuanetely, this generates some 3rd oder intermodulation products itself - at least at higher frequencies. So for this test, we need to use the two outputs of the SDG individually and have a resistive wideband power-combiner to create the test signal. This gives only 6 dB isolation between channels, but in my experience this is sufficient and no additional attenuators for the individual channels are required.
Not that its needed for a comparative test. ;)
And a measuring tape I hope.
Anyways, sure lots better than Dave's ear.
Recall the Wave Combine on the SDG2XXX is pretty good, vaguely remember we measured such on the SSA3021X+, but may not be good enough for a 12 bit DSO. WRT to using separate AWG outputs, adding a 6~10dB pad in each AWG output before the resistive combiner should eliminate any potential IMD between the AWG channels, and still have enough signal level at the test DSO input.Just to know the truth once and for all - and to have it documented, I've done a couple of tests to finally conclude that the internal "Wave Combine" feature unsurprisingly would be barely adequate even at low frequencies. Not to mention the catastrophy at high frequencies (Reply #460):
Boot time: 1min20sec.:o That's even longer than the 47 seconds or so which Dave had reported! Maybe this was just the first initialization for the brand-new unit? Does it get any faster on subsequent boot cycles?
The display itself is very reflective and not super bright, rather somewhat "dimmed".The photos show that you clearly need new (different) ceiling lights to work with that scope. ;)
-Bodnar, the second:Makes sense that one sees the effect of capturing fewer harmonics with the reduced sampling rate. But why does the curve appear noisier too? Is that an effect of phase fluctuations between the incoming pulses and the sampling clock?
Memory on automode, when the sample rate drops, the signal is already visibly changed.
I find it a little bit too dim, like the MSO5000 once.
it gets quickly glear that the intensity grading is way worse than on Rigol's legacy scopes. Even the DS1000Z is performing far better than this new 12-bit series. See RigolDS18 -- this is as good as it gets! It seems like they have got only four gradations and need to dither in between...
Colour grading doesn't seem to work properly with infinite persistance, but that may have to be expected.
-Bodnar pulser connected via 50Ohm resistor, risetime is 3.6ns which makes something around 100Mhz, not bad.
Or if you put in the formula 0.45, you get exactly 125Mhz...Aha.
It could be the 100MHz "Limit" means "limited time", like a demo version for the first 10days.. But they forgot to install the RTC, thus it means forever.. :)
The 1.5V peak at 70MHz comes from the higher order low-pass.
It may be interesting to check if other HDO800/900 specimen perform better, especially since the test is rather easy to perform.
Quick and dirty, intensity grading....looks very good.Seems weird if you lose the intensity grading in color-corrected temperature mode.
But switching to color grade mode will deactivate the intensity adjustment.
(DS5: 25Mpts, DS7:1Mpts)
-Only one "normal" USB port, which I consider a big minus.
So to cut a long story short, consider the DHO800/900 with more than two channels active to be a 100MHz scope, and you are on the safe side.
If it makes much sense to spend the premium on the DHO924(S) can definitely be questioned. I probably wouldn't even apply a hack regarding the frequency upgrade if one should become available.
Quick and dirty, intensity grading....looks very good.Seems weird if you lose the intensity grading in color-corrected temperature mode.
But switching to color grade mode will deactivate the intensity adjustment.
(DS5: 25Mpts, DS7:1Mpts)
How many levels of intensity grading do the DHO800 & DHO900 series operate with? just 64 levels, like DS1054Z or even less.?
Nothing pops up checking Google for gradings levels on DHO800 & 900 series:?
with hands-on experience who can comment?
Just let the scope auto-trigger in the 1V/div range (in my particular case, I capped the input with a 50R BNC terminator) and stopped the digitizing engine then.
After that, zoom the vertical scale to 20mV/div (that's the last step provides proper magnification). You will find a peak-to-peak noise in the ballpark of 80mV!
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8jrpCoZyx8&t=2130s[/url]
...
Hmm... Dave did the same measurement in his review video, starting at 1V/div and zooming in to 50 mV/div, then 20 mV/div. I would eyeball the noise at 20 mV peak-peak in his quick test, so 2 bits more than what you found. Might there be something wrong with your scope -- a power supply issue maybe?
...
It may be interesting to check if other HDO800/900 specimen perform better, especially since the test is rather easy to perform.
On my DHO804, using your parameters (20us/ timebase, 1.25GSa/s) the noise of the 1V/div stopped 50ohm capped signal I can measure (as std-deviation or AC-RMS) is 9.5mV at 20mv/div, 1.1mV at 2mV/div and 260uV at 500uV/div. (I prefer to use std-dev to measure noise, rather than Vpp, since Vpp could be reflecting real tail excursions in the sampled distribution, which can make the signal Vpp noise look "better" in less capable scopes.)
On my DHO804, using your parameters (20us/ timebase, 1.25GSa/s) the noise of the 1V/div stopped 50ohm capped signal I can measure (as std-deviation or AC-RMS) is 9.5mV at 20mv/div, 1.1mV at 2mV/div and 260uV at 500uV/div.
So to cut a long story short, consider the DHO800/900 with more than two channels active to be a 100MHz scope, and you are on the safe side.
That's obvious from the sample rate.If it makes much sense to spend the premium on the DHO924(S) can definitely be questioned. I probably wouldn't even apply a hack regarding the frequency upgrade if one should become available.
It's a 250MHz 'scope when there's only one/two channels enabled.
If you:
a) Work with 50 Ohm stuff and know to stick to two channels when doing that.
b) Need four channels for working with probes at other times.
Then ... it might be worth it.
For everybody else? Probably not.
Looking at screenshots from various scope brands on the web, they all seem to show color grading without putting intensity grading on top, and I think that is what you want for clarity.
Actually, I still like the intensity grading of the DS1000Z series better, not to speak of the higher models of this heritage...
Which does not rule out the possibility that some scopes may let you combine both grading modes, and their combined use is just never shwon in screenshots. Anyone with hands-on experience who can comment?
For clarity?.. it's a scope, you want "information", and whatever that can visualize that information, the better.If I want to see frequent and rare signals, intensity grading will limit the dynamic range of "rareness": Very infrequent signals will become invisibly dim, or frequent signals will saturate. That's where I think color grading is most useful -- it lets the scope visualize that larger dynamic range on a color scale. But making the infrequent traces not only blue, but also very dim, seems to negate that benefit?
and what do you mean by "puttng on intensity"? it's a grading that scales the signal intensity' so you in fact get better clarity.
It's exactly what you want, for "clarity.
I do recall that mid to higher-end models, will often let you work with the intensity grading, also in color-corrected modeWhat do you mean by "color-corrected" mode? Are we really talking about the same thing, i.e. false color or heatmap encoding?
A good intensity grading is a must for a modern digital bench scope, it would be a shame if it's not up to par with the latest Rigol entry DS1000Z series with 64 levels.I certainly agree, as far as (pure) intensity grading is concerned. As mentioned earlier, the datasheet does specify "real-time 256-level intensity grading" for the DHO 800/900 scopes. So let's hope that is what we actually get -- eventually maybe, if and when properly implemented in software...
The problem here is that it seems that 16 or less levels are used to render waveforms.
Quick and dirty, intensity grading....looks very good.
But switching to color grade mode will deactivate the intensity adjustment.
For clarity?.. it's a scope, you want "information", and whatever that can visualize that information, the better.If I want to see frequent and rare signals, intensity grading will limit the dynamic range of "rareness": Very infrequent signals will become invisibly dim, or frequent signals will saturate. That's where I think color grading is most useful -- it lets the scope visualize that larger dynamic range on a color scale. But making the infrequent traces not only blue, but also very dim, seems to negate that benefit?
and what do you mean by "puttng on intensity"? it's a grading that scales the signal intensity' so you in fact get better clarity.
It's exactly what you want, for "clarity.QuoteWhat do you mean by "color-corrected" mode? Are we really talking about the same thing, i.e. false color or heatmap encoding?
I do recall that mid to higher-end models, will often let you work with the intensity grading, also in color-corrected mode
If I want to see frequent and rare signals, intensity grading will limit the dynamic range of "rareness": Very infrequent signals will become invisibly dim, or frequent signals will saturate. That's where I think color grading is most useful -- it lets the scope visualize that larger dynamic range on a color scale. But making the infrequent traces not only blue, but also very dim, seems to negate that benefit?
I agree. Making infrequent signals dim is pretty useless. It only serves mimicking analog scope like behaviour while forgetting the main problem of analog scopes is that they hardly show infrequent signals. :palm: At my first employer I had an analog Hameg scope with overrange indicators (LEDs). I used those regulary to catch pulses which where invisible on the screen.For clarity?.. it's a scope, you want "information", and whatever that can visualize that information, the better.If I want to see frequent and rare signals, intensity grading will limit the dynamic range of "rareness": Very infrequent signals will become invisibly dim, or frequent signals will saturate. That's where I think color grading is most useful -- it lets the scope visualize that larger dynamic range on a color scale. But making the infrequent traces not only blue, but also very dim, seems to negate that benefit?
and what do you mean by "puttng on intensity"? it's a grading that scales the signal intensity' so you in fact get better clarity.
It's exactly what you want, for "clarity.
You seem to forget what I warned you about.
Scope should drop to 100Mhz (or 70MHz) BW if needed to prevent aliasing and show that on screen.
The specific comment you replied & commented on #40 - had two long videos of this exact feature, so not sure why you're unsure what we are talking about.
It goes under tons of different names & labels from vendor to vendor, some call it "heatmap" some calls its "color grading", some call it "Color Corrected Temperature" and some just label it as CCT, it goes under a lot of different names.
sorry! Long silent films where I am expected to stare at the screen and figure out what is happening and what the message is don't work well for mAs explained, a few times now.. a lot of different labels are used amongst scope vendors for the "color temperature" function.
Actually no-one (including MicSig) calls it "color corrected mode" or "color corrected temperature". "Color temperature
Looking at screenshots from various scope brands on the web, they all seem to show color grading ]without putting intensity grading on top, and I think that is what you want for clarity.
(*) Edit: Actually I can't find any documents where MicSig themselves use the "CCT" acronym or spell it out. The "correlated color temperature" meaning seems to come from a different discipline too, unrelated to false color scales.Its Micsig'slabel in the OS-menu/display/waveform "CCT"..you can see it in the first post... and "correlated color temperature" [CCT] does confuse, as it very common label in lighting for light temperature, but in newer models like ETO/MDO.. it seems be exchanged for "Color temperature display" but this aint a Micsig thread.
The "noise signal" output of the "S"-Model's ;) AWG appears to be very decent. The valley at 78.125MHz indicates the Nyquist frequency (due to a DAC sample rate of 156.25MHz = 1/8 Fs of the scope's ADC). Unfortunately, there's quite some amount of the sampling frequency leaking through to the AWG output (and it's not related to the scope section's ADC as I assumed in this contribution (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5107203/#msg5107203)).Its a bargain for the price, does the display have any off-center axis to conclude if its TFT or IPS LCD?
Considering these figures, I'm a little bit surprised that Rigol limited this AWG to 25MHz, the reconstruction filter and the other components appear to be laid out for a 50MHz AWG. Also the noise signal output appears to indicate this. So we may actually be up to a surprise eventually. For a "real" 25MHz AWG, I would have expected the reconstruction filter to be configured for a lower cut-off frequency with a steeper slope...
Btw, I like the handling and the speed of the scope's FFT along with the overall responsiveness of the U/I. That's quite an improvement vs. the "legacy" models. Once the problems are ironed out, this is going to be a nice instrument.
Which does not rule out the possibility that some scopes may let you combine both grading modes, and their combined use is just never shwon in screenshots. Anyone with hands-on experience who can comment?
Did you mean this effect??
Micsig STO2202C
Btw, I like the handling and the speed of the scope's FFT along with the overall responsiveness of the U/I. That's quite an improvement vs. the "legacy" models. Once the problems are ironed out, this is going to be a nice instrument.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1896849;image)
Rigol MSO 5000 and Siglent models could do this.
The first I've shown here long ago, the second I could post it here in the later evening.
Having two full height signal displays without overlay (as shown above) seems like a huge benefit.
Btw, I like the handling and the speed of the scope's FFT along with the overall responsiveness of the U/I. That's quite an improvement vs. the "legacy" models. Once the problems are ironed out, this is going to be a nice instrument.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1896849;image)
Also the windowing feature which nobody seems to mention. Having two full height signal displays without overlay (as shown above) seems like a huge benefit.
other manufacturers usually split screen horizontally, because X axis carries more details.
You can move the windows..
Well said.Which does not rule out the possibility that some scopes may let you combine both grading modes, and their combined use is just never shwon in screenshots. Anyone with hands-on experience who can comment?
Did you mean this effect??
Micsig STO2202C
Thanks! The attachments finally showed up now, after what appeared to be some forum glitch.
The first picture seems to use intensity grading to extend the color grading scale towards the low end: There's blue for less frequent signals, and dark blue for even rarer signals. That's a nice way of doing it, which I had not (consciously) come across before.
The other two pictures, at least to my eyes, show pure color grading: The information is in the color, I don't perceive additional information in intensity variations. That's what I had typically seen before.
All three pictures nicely illustrate what 2N3055 pointed out, namely that the "intensity" slider actually shifts the color scale in this mode. Which apparently it cannot do in the Rigol DHO models, since it gets disabled entirely -- that's a pity.
My preliminary takeaways regarding "grading" on the DHO 800/900 are:
- It does do intensity grading. Specified as 256 levels in the datasheet, looking good in screen captures on the PC (Martin72), looking less convincing on actual photos of the built-in screen (TurboTom).
- It does color grading. Looking alright if the fixed color scale is a good match (Martin72), but offering little or no flexibility to tweak it. Various other scopes offer more flexibility, notably among entry-level scopes the MicSigs.
QuoteYou can move the windows..
Like this...
Vertical view is on this tiny screen not recommendable(my opinion)..
Welll, member 2N3055 and me are used to that, since we have PicoScopes.Quoteother manufacturers usually split screen horizontally, because X axis carries more details.
You can move the windows..
...
Its a bargain for the price, does the display have any off-center axis to conclude if its TFT or IPS LCD?
not that is meens much, as a good TFT is prefered over a bad IPS and vice versa but the TFT could be a problem from certain angles if people got it up on a VESA mount/arm
QuoteYou can move the windows..
Like this...
Vertical view is on this tiny screen not recommendable(my opinion)..
Could you please check can you reposition/resize measurements window?
That is not the point. The moveable/sizeable windows allow the user to make the most of what already is a tiny screen. Bonus points if you have the money to buy a scope with a bigger screen where moveable/sizeable windows are even better. On the RTM3004 I use the sizeable windows to allow me to keep an eye on the signal in a small window and have the FFT display at almost the full visible area of the screen. Cramming everything into the same viewport doesn't help in some cases.
Martin,
I have a small ask?
Could you please check can you reposition/resize measurements window?
Thanks!
You have that function on many other scopes.
Martin,
I have a small ask?
Could you please check can you reposition/resize measurements window?
Thanks!
Now I get what you mean... ;)
You can swap the windows left/right, upper/lower, "delete" them and/or add.
Thats all, you can´t define a size or drag it on the screen where you want and if you close a window, for example ch1 and leave the "measure" window on, measure is now fullscreened.
But to get ch1 displaying back, you must go in the windows menu and add this again, annoying..
Edit: Or close the "last" window.
I've seen it on R&S, etc, but not on anything for $400 (or anywhere close).
Maybe you guys are surrounded by that stuff all day long and lost sight of what you're dealing with here.
On a screen this small it has limited use but yes they provided it.. I see that external screen would be pretty much necessary if you want to make it bussy.You have that function on many other scopes.
I've seen it on R&S, etc, but not on anything for $400 (or anywhere close).
Maybe you guys are surrounded by that stuff all day long and lost sight of what you're dealing with here.
@2N3055:
Here an example when you want to have the measures in a window (they´re also on the right side of the screen, but hiding).
Even though just 5 lines of statistics eat half of the display ? :-//@2N3055:
Here an example when you want to have the measures in a window (they´re also on the right side of the screen, but hiding).
I like the one on the bottom. That one is quite OK..
I wouldn't want to have more than two windows open on the small screen.
We don't always want to just complain. ;)
Even though just 5 lines of statistics eat half of the display ? :-//@2N3055:
Here an example when you want to have the measures in a window (they´re also on the right side of the screen, but hiding).
I like the one on the bottom. That one is quite OK..
I don't remember seeing positive things in these threads apart from size and cuteness
Everything else has been a mad rush to see who can find the most things to complain about.
I don't remember seeing positive things in these threads apart from size and cuteness. Everything else has been a mad rush to see who can find the most things to complain about.
I know of one person here that said they will return DHO900 because it is so full of bugs and problems that he has no patience for it and at this point does not consider it a finished product. And he has many Rigol products. He said that at this point if he had to do some work he would use DS1000Z. He said he might reconsider it in a year or so if they fix at least majority of problems....
This is not meant to be a "Rigol sales pitch" thread
Lets say we wanted stats on just 1 measurement as we sometimes do.Even though just 5 lines of statistics eat half of the display ? :-//@2N3055:
Here an example when you want to have the measures in a window (they´re also on the right side of the screen, but hiding).
I like the one on the bottom. That one is quite OK..
I'm not comparing with my scopes that have several display modes and many other details not present here.
I still prefer Siglent measurements that are much more powerful implementation (I refuse to buy any scope without histicons ever again).
It is not perfect.. For instance in this table there is no P-P stat..
But it is actually usable (compared to the vertical table on the right it is much better)..
On my DHO804, using your parameters (20us/ timebase, 1.25GSa/s) the noise of the 1V/div stopped 50ohm capped signal I can measure (as std-deviation or AC-RMS) is 9.5mV at 20mv/div, 1.1mV at 2mV/div and 260uV at 500uV/div.
I understood from Dave's review video that the scope will not actually "zoom in" any further below 20 mV/div, although it claims to change the vertical scale. Are the 2mV and 500µV values really meaningful, or did I misunderstand?
During the time I had the MSO5074Can you give us some of your personal pros/cons for comparison of MSO5000 and DHO800/900?
Lets say we wanted stats on just 1 measurement as we sometimes do.
Will half the display still be wasted ?
On my DHO804, using your parameters (20us/ timebase, 1.25GSa/s) the noise of the 1V/div stopped 50ohm capped signal I can measure (as std-deviation or AC-RMS) is 9.5mV at 20mv/div, 1.1mV at 2mV/div and 260uV at 500uV/div.
I understood from Dave's review video that the scope will not actually "zoom in" any further below 20 mV/div, although it claims to change the vertical scale. Are the 2mV and 500µV values really meaningful, or did I misunderstand?
People want to know does it work, how it works etc.
I understood from Dave's review video that the scope will not actually "zoom in" any further below 20 mV/div, although it claims to change the vertical scale. Are the 2mV and 500µV values really meaningful, or did I misunderstand?
From the datasheet.
[4]: 500 μV/div is a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV.
I don't know exactly how it works, but doesn't 12bit mean that at 1mV/div, that is, 8mV/4098 = 1.95uV, the smallest voltage difference that the scope still detects?
People want to know does it work, how it works etc.
But nobody has commented on that yet.
eg. How's the UI compared to old twisty-knob UIs?
I'm guessing it must be really good if it manages to go unnoticed and uncommented - just like the windowing that everybody ignored.
Would you go back to twisty knobs after using one of these for a week?
I understood from Dave's review video that the scope will not actually "zoom in" any further below 20 mV/div, although it claims to change the vertical scale. Are the 2mV and 500µV values really meaningful, or did I misunderstand?
From the datasheet.
[4]: 500 μV/div is a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV.
Thanks. But what I was referring to is the limited ability to zoom in after taking a measurement at a larger vertical scale, then stopping it. There seems to be a bug where the DHO lets you select sensitivities beyond 20 mV/div, but does not actually magnify the trace accordingly.QuoteI don't know exactly how it works, but doesn't 12bit mean that at 1mV/div, that is, 8mV/4098 = 1.95uV, the smallest voltage difference that the scope still detects?
In theory, yes. But in reality there will be analog noise which limits what you can actually distinguish. The "effective number of bits" (ENOB) will be less than 12. -- Also, with a smaller effect: The scope will have some "headroom" when sampling the data, so mapping the 4096 counts to 10 divisions (of 1 mV each) is probably the right starting point in your example.
ENOB is declared as >8bits in datasheet, whatever that means.
Why? Because it is too small. I can't see a thing and my fingers are too big.
Of course, that is me. Someone with Superman's vision and small fingers might think 7" is just fine.
I personally think that 10" is smallest usable screen size on touchscreen scope..
I hate touchphones for same reasons..
You will see when you get it. You will be able to use it. It just won't be comfortable and will be fiddly.
ENOB is declared as >8bits in datasheet, whatever that means.
Why? Because it is too small. I can't see a thing and my fingers are too big.
Of course, that is me. Someone with Superman's vision and small fingers might think 7" is just fine.
I guess I'm superman. My Windows laptop is 10" touch screen and I'm very happy with it.
Have you tried a stylus or a mouse? I use a stylus with my laptop (or tip of my fingernail if I have to hit something small and don't have the stylus in my hand).
nb. The laptop has the usual trackpad below the keyboard but I never touch it. Ever.I personally think that 10" is smallest usable screen size on touchscreen scope..
You have the option of an external screen of any size you want. Screens are cheap these days. You can get an 11" touch screen for $100 or 15" for $150.
Or use a non-touch screen with a mouse.I hate touchphones for same reasons..
Yet most of the world loves them.
To first 2 comments: I NEVER learn to live with stupid things and never find ways to justify why I'm suffering.
If something is frustrating me I try to solve it instead of coping..
If possible I simply save for few more months and just buy a thing that will be joy to use instead of never ending source of frustration..
That is my hard learned life lesson.
And to 3rd, no, world does not love them. Many people hate them, use them in very limited ways, and are endlessly frustrated with how stupidly they are made.. It is just that we have no choice anymore...
thank you for your answers, I have learned a few things.I doubt you will be getting more work space. From what I have gathered so far it looks like the screen is rendered using the 3D GPU so it is easy to just scale it up/down to any resolution but the relative size of the elements will stay the same. IOW: on a bigger screen you'll get fatter lines and bigger text.
The small display is not a problem for me, I will use it with a higher resolution external monitor on the table. on the other hand, the fact that the windows cannot be resized affects me unpleasantly, I hope the updates will solve it.
The question is, if you open several windows on the external high-resolution monitor, will the scope's image freeze, crack or affect its operation.
ENOB is declared as >8bits in datasheet, whatever that means.
8-bit 'scopes will have <8 ENOB so >8 is a big improvement. :-+
FWIW: Noise and ENOB is one thing I haven't seen people complaining about so far.
To first 2 comments: I NEVER learn to live with stupid things and never find ways to justify why I'm suffering.
If something is frustrating me I try to solve it instead of coping..
If possible I simply save for few more months and just buy a thing that will be joy to use instead of never ending source of frustration..
That is my hard learned life lesson.
And to 3rd, no, world does not love them. Many people hate them, use them in very limited ways, and are endlessly frustrated with how stupidly they are made.. It is just that we have no choice anymore...
No need to go all fundamentalist here... For phones, where "small" is one of the key requirements, I think touch screens are a great interface choice to make all the functionality accessible. And I am prepared to live with a certain degree of fumbling, even though I struggle with the little on-screen keyboard, because "small" is important for me in this context.
I just noticed that the DHO1000/4000 do the sidebar much better:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1897551;image)
I wonder why that is? It surely can't be just because of the screen size. The DHO800 sidebar looks like it has enough room.
(and I'd trade another dozen pixels of horizontal space for more measurements...)
I wonder if that can be hacked... maybe there's a boolean that controls it in the firmware ???
I'm also curious about changing HDMI resolution after activation test mode. On its higher settings of 1080p will the scope UI resize properly to get closer to DHO1000/4000 or stay the same and just scale up proportionally?
The question is, if you open several windows on the external high-resolution monitor, will the scope's image freeze, crack or affect its operation.
I'm wondering if the HDMI display can be used for different windows and information than is being shown on the main display.
I'm also curious about changing HDMI resolution after activation test mode. On its higher settings of 1080p will the scope UI resize properly to get closer to DHO1000/4000 or stay the same and just scale up proportionally?
From what's been reported so far it seems to show the same content as the main screen but it uses properly scaled fonts and graphics in the UI so it doesn't pixellate.
The part the shows the oscilloscope traces, OTOH, is just an upscale.
ie. There's nothing extra. .
My dream just got broke...
Don't expect it to be as good as Micsig. Probably even HDO1000/4000 with bigger screen,at this stage of development does not have touch as well made as for instance Micsig that is something you are familiar with. Micsig has been doing it for a long time now. Rigol still has to learn all the details of how it's done.
Hi,
Measured the DS1054Z today at work..
"Usable" values:
Rigol DS1054Z: Width: 115mm / Height : 70mm /Diagonal: 135mm
Rigol DHO804: Width: 150mm / Height: 60mm / Diagonal : 160mm
This is probably called an optical illusion. ;)
Hi,
Measured the DS1054Z today at work..
"Usable" values:
Rigol DS1054Z: Width: 115mm / Height : 70mm /Diagonal: 135mm
Rigol DHO804: Width: 150mm / Height: 60mm / Diagonal : 160mm
This is probably called an optical illusion. ;)
...
That's about what I expected - DHO is wider because there's no side menus but vertical is less because the bars at top/bottom are bigger.
The DHOs have 12% more overall area... but really it's a toss-up because vertical is arguably more important than horizontal.
OTOH the DHOs have nearly twice as many vertical pixels so they easily win in terms of information displayed.
There's a pop-out side panel with measurements on it. Any measurement can be expanded to see stats by clicking the arrow at the bottom of the measurement.
Notice how much faster/easier it is to do than menu diving and using a twisty knob to turn things on/off.
Resolution doesn't matter. Screen size does. A higher resolution (as in smaller dot size) gives a nicer image though. In some of my own projects that need a nice graphic interface I choose a display with a higher resolution so the UI is prettier to look at.
...
That's about what I expected - DHO is wider because there's no side menus but vertical is less because the bars at top/bottom are bigger.
The DHOs have 12% more overall area... but really it's a toss-up because vertical is arguably more important than horizontal.
OTOH the DHOs have nearly twice as many vertical pixels so they easily win in terms of information displayed.
DS1000Z: 800 x 480
DHO800 / 900: 1024 x 600
This is 25% more vertical resolution than the DS1000Z, which easily explains the somewhat crowded appearance of the DHO800 / 900's screen vs. the DHO1000 / 4000 series...
Resolution doesn't matter. Screen size does. A higher resolution (as in smaller dot size) gives a nicer image though. In some of my own projects that need a nice graphic interface I choose a display with a higher resolution so the UI is prettier to look at.
Resolution doesn't matter. Screen size does. A higher resolution (as in smaller dot size) gives a nicer image though. In some of my own projects that need a nice graphic interface I choose a display with a higher resolution so the UI is prettier to look at.
And it really is, it just looks better and sharper than the other 7" scopes I know.
The same effect can be seen on the 10" models, it just looks better, so the UI.
DS1000Z: 800 x 480
DHO800 / 900: 1024 x 600
Sincerely I have an hard time swallowing these DHO pictures. The menus seem rendered in 4K but the signal looks like Minecraft. ???
Well, maybe it's just me.. :-//
No. ;)
I see it exactly the same way.
The presentation of the graphical elements benefits a lot from it, everything just looks sharper/better.
But the actual signal does not benefit from it.
Can you give us some of your personal pros/cons for comparison of MSO5000 and DHO800/900?
I'm also wondering why u decided to get this new DHO, because of the smaller size or fancy 12-bit resolution?
Sincerely I have an hard time swallowing these DHO pictures. The menus seem rendered in 4K but the signal looks like Minecraft. ???
Sincerely I have an hard time swallowing these DHO pictures. The menus seem rendered in 4K but the signal looks like Minecraft. ???
Maybe Android will let you install crude bitmap fonts to make the display look more familiar. ;)
I prefer that scope should minimize usage of screen for anything that is not related to waveforms, or other useful data..
Menu fade/hide is a 2 edged sword especially when set to a fast hide as it's often gone before you can take a screenshot. :horse:QuoteI prefer that scope should minimize usage of screen for anything that is not related to waveforms, or other useful data..
I would also like to have this with my Siglent. ;)
As with Windows, for example.
Fades out after a few seconds, is back again at the touch of a finger/mouse.
We disable menu hide before dispatch so new users don't have it disappear while finding their way around a new DSO.
I prefer that scope should minimize usage of screen for anything that is not related to waveforms, or other useful data..
Enabling menu hide is what experienced users need as it saves considerable time however it's a suboptimal choice for the new user of a scope.We disable menu hide before dispatch so new users don't have it disappear while finding their way around a new DSO.
They enable it by default? :palm:
Regarding the anti-aliased, nice-looking fonts: Why not? The screen resolution and grading capability is there anyway (driven by the need to display information-rich curves), so anti-aliased fonts come for free. They do not take up more space than crude bitmap fonts in lower resolution, and they do make the information easier to read.
I see people getting downright giddy how cool it looks and not even noticing when it is missing basic features...
Form over substance and utility.
[...]
To summarize, I'm not against "cool" and sophisticatedly looking GUI. I'm against that being replacement for actual capabilities.
If you ask me, Rigol should have pushed for 10" screens even with lower resolution than they have now (to make it cheap enough to make to keep the product price range), not use use panoramic display ratio and therefore provide larger screen real estate to show information, even if fonts were a bit blocky...
But... Rigol knows all this. They know that DHO800/900 with lover resolution 10" screen would be perceived as same as DHO1000 (hint: they are pretty much same except screen and slightly higher sampling rate which makes no difference for a 100MHz scope). 800 and 900 are artificially created to make product for that range and make scope lineup differentiation.
Actually DHO900 with lover res 10" screen would make DHO1000 pretty much dead in a water, sales vise ...
I see people getting downright giddy how cool it looks and not even noticing when it is missing basic features...
Form over substance and utility.
[...]
To summarize, I'm not against "cool" and sophisticatedly looking GUI. I'm against that being replacement for actual capabilities.
Fully agree; choosing a scope based on its looks while ignoring the capabilities is not wise. Although, on second thought, that approach is probably not harmful for the (large?) share of hobbyists who only use very basic DSO functionality anyway -- essentially using it like a CRO which takes up less space, plus maybe the ability to stop and capture a trace. I am pretty sure that Rigol gets an above-average share of those users, and there's no harm in that. (Except for the missed opportunity to discover more advanced scope capabilities...)QuoteIf you ask me, Rigol should have pushed for 10" screens even with lower resolution than they have now (to make it cheap enough to make to keep the product price range), not use use panoramic display ratio and therefore provide larger screen real estate to show information, even if fonts were a bit blocky...
Yes indeed. Their screen design works fine on the 10" screen, I think, so there is nothing wrong with the choice of fonts, frames, colors per se. It's just that the settings displays and controls take up a rather large part of the 7" screen, which causes usability compromises some will be happy to accept while others will not.QuoteBut... Rigol knows all this. They know that DHO800/900 with lover resolution 10" screen would be perceived as same as DHO1000 (hint: they are pretty much same except screen and slightly higher sampling rate which makes no difference for a 100MHz scope). 800 and 900 are artificially created to make product for that range and make scope lineup differentiation.
Actually DHO900 with lover res 10" screen would make DHO1000 pretty much dead in a water, sales vise ...
No doubt, a lot of these design choices are marketing-driven. And I don't blame Rigol (or the other scope manufacturers) for that. Hobbyists benefit from this "market segmentation" approach, since they get a lot of functionality at an attractive price point, while the manufacturers still find differentiators to motivate commercial customers to pay much more. Screen size and bandwidth are nicely obvious differentiators which pretty much all manufacturers have relied on.
I am curious to see how Siglent will play this with the SDS1000X HD vs the 2000X HD. With the most recent spec changes they have positioned them even closer to each other, so it seems that they will either need to make the 1000X HD relatively expensive, or will lose a significant share of potential 2000X HD customers to it.
So, it seems Rigol's strategy with the 800/900 series is perhaps following
So, it seems Rigol's strategy with the 800/900 series is perhaps following
Exactly. And it has been working for some time. So, why change?
So, it seems Rigol's strategy with the 800/900 series is perhaps following - the buyer makes the purchase because the box is cute, has got VESA mount, there is a 12bit logo and it could be battery powered.. And with the other parameters the buyer will perhaps slowly and laboriously find a mental justification why the purchase has been actually made, and even though the justification will not be found the Rigol is hoping the buyer is lazy enough to return the box after he/she/it realizes the box is not performing well, perhaps overpriced and may be the worst buy..
:D
... Of course, this could have been arranged differently (like five selections CH1~CH4 plus "Digital", where tapping the latter would have opened a new window to select the digital channel), but this way it makes some sense as well...
For many hobbyist users, ...
For many hobbyist users, ...
Agree and let me add 2 more categories:
- those for whom this is better than what they'll ever need
- those that only buy it to be able to participate in the EEVBlog "pissing contests"
Should there be a separate thread for real bugs just in case Rigol is watching this?
Should there be a separate thread for real bugs just in case Rigol is watching this?
Won't this one do?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-oscilloscope-bug-reports-firmware/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho800900-oscilloscope-bug-reports-firmware/)
For many hobbyist users, this will be all the scope they were looking for and ever need. For others, it might be a compromise consciously made, in view of portability, space or budget constraints. For some it might be a second scope for portable use only. And for some, it will be just a vehicle to feel superior because they bought something else.
Agree and let me add 2 more categories:
- those for whom this is better than what they'll ever need
- those that only buy it to be able to participate in the EEVBlog "pissing contests"
The latter seems to work fine, the adapter did me no good, the stick is not recognized by the Rigol in the back(but not by the 1104X-E either).Yes well, it is the 'USB Device' port same as X-E.
The latter seems to work fine, the adapter did me no good, the stick is not recognized by the Rigol in the back(but not by the 1104X-E either).Yes well, it is the 'USB Device' port same as X-E.
These will fix the miserly USB A port allocation:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/255819611500 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/255819611500)
Yeah of course but in a new design in this day and age a single USB A port is just plain being mean. It's not like there isn't any realestate to have added more.The latter seems to work fine, the adapter did me no good, the stick is not recognized by the Rigol in the back(but not by the 1104X-E either).Yes well, it is the 'USB Device' port same as X-E.
These will fix the miserly USB A port allocation:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/255819611500 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/255819611500)
I've got a 3 Euro USB hub connected to mine and it works perfectly. I've got mouse and USB stick working together.
...
Yeah of course but in a new design in this day and age a single USB A port is just plain being mean. It's not like there isn't any realestate to have added more.
I still haven't managed to update my firmware. >:(
I know the USB stick works because I can see in the file manager.
A new update is avaible ?
A new update is avaible ?
...
Yeah of course but in a new design in this day and age a single USB A port is just plain being mean. It's not like there isn't any realestate to have added more.
Not true in case of the DHO900 where the digital probe connector takes up all the space between the USB host port and CH1 BNC. And the '800 and '900 share the same PCB. But it should have been possible to place another USB host connector at the rear.
v00.01.01.00.01 2023/08/10
1. Remove all time-related displays on the instrument
2. To modify the vertical interface, click the wiring diagram to modify the AC coupling function
3. Modify the delayed scan Chinese display as Zoom
4. Modify the order of the menu in the upper right corner, put the measurement in the front and Default in the back
5. The probe ratio interface is removed, and the probe ratio option is added to the vertical first-level menu
I guess it's a market segmentation thing. A second USB host port is clearly a feature found only in midrange scopes, never mind the fact that it only costs 30 cents to add. ::)
Define a midrange scope. :P...
Yeah of course but in a new design in this day and age a single USB A port is just plain being mean. It's not like there isn't any realestate to have added more.
Not true in case of the DHO900 where the digital probe connector takes up all the space between the USB host port and CH1 BNC. And the '800 and '900 share the same PCB. But it should have been possible to place another USB host connector at the rear.
I guess it's a market segmentation thing. A second USB host port is clearly a feature found only in midrange scopes, never mind the fact that it only costs 30 cents to add. ::)
Upgrade done.. ;)
Define a midrange scope. :P
I spent several minutes there....Upgrade done.. ;)
>:( >:( >:(
Let me download that file again...
Nearly, $499 7" display 4ch X-E has 2x USB A, one front, one rear.Define a midrange scope. :P
10" screen, price close to or above 1000€, multiple USB ports. ;)
Naming of the ranges is debatable, of course. But the manufacturers seem to agree that their entry-level scopes are characterized by a 7" screen, a price tag in the mid-3-digits, and apparently a single USB port.
You have to select (check) the circle to the right of the filename. Then it will show up in the "Upgrade" window.
I spent several minutes there....Upgrade done.. ;)
>:( >:( >:(
Let me download that file again...
You have to select (check) the circle to the right of the filename. Then it will show up in the "Upgrade" window.
4. Modify the order of the menu in the upper right corner, put the measurement in the front and Default in the back
5. The probe ratio interface is removed, and the probe ratio option is added to the vertical first-level menu
Sir, yes Sir ! ;)Custom ?
More than enough to select.
Custom ?
How many ?
Custom ?
How many ?
Correction made. :PQuoteCustom ?
How many ?
There is no such thing, and with 28 options,youI don't need it.
For example, we have many differential probes with 200x, 500x, 1000x and even 1500x.:-//
And we have mostly scopes that "offer" only 3 fixed ratios, I find manual input annoying, such a selection as the DHO offers it more practical.
However when working with shunts one does need custom attenuation which it seems Rigol has not allowed for.
Yet when you consider this DSO is targeted at the price conscious buyer that's very unlikely to have the additional budget for a $ current probe the lack of custom attenuation might be just that.Quote from: tautechHowever when working with shunts one does need custom attenuation which it seems Rigol has not allowed for.
When is the magic word..
I don't think that's a flaw that would be game-changing.
For one or the other it might be, then he has to buy another scope, but seen on the majority this is rather void.
Uh, oh!Best you stay away then as it's more complex than getting a USB stick to work. :P
Is somebody compiling a new Rigol vs. Siglent comparison chart?
QuoteCustom ?
How many ?
There is no such thing, and with 28 options, you don't need it.
For example, we have many differential probes with 200x, 500x, 1000x and even 1500x.
And we have mostly scopes that "offer" only 3 fixed ratios, I find manual input annoying, such a selection as the DHO offers it more practical.
Here's a very peculiar finding: https://youtu.be/3TAeSheBUl4 (https://youtu.be/3TAeSheBUl4)
I guess this is due to the AWG using the highest output level configuration via the THS3095 which is most probably supplied via rails that aren't regulated on the AWG piggyback board and that may slightly get affected by the power consumption (balance) of the Rigol's frontend chip which apparently draws some substantial current that may be affected by the input signal / trace position input. What a sentence... :phew: When trying to talk in a foreign language while recording a video clip, I'm less eloquent ::)
It almost looks like channel offset DAC loses resolution when AWG is enabled. So you get same offset steps as if you are on 2V/div. This might even be code bug, where programer did some mess with numerous variables named offset_xxxx
Does it happen with all channels?
QuoteCustom ?
How many ?
There is no such thing, and with 28 options, you don't need it.
For example, we have many differential probes with 200x, 500x, 1000x and even 1500x.
And we have mostly scopes that "offer" only 3 fixed ratios, I find manual input annoying, such a selection as the DHO offers it more practical.
However when working with shunts one does need custom attenuation which it seems Rigol has not allowed for. :-BROKE
:-+However when working with shunts one does need custom attenuation which it seems Rigol has not allowed for. :-BROKEYou can always use a math channel to convert to your custom scale.
However when working with shunts one does need custom attenuation which it seems Rigol has not allowed for. :-BROKE
You can always use a math channel to convert to your custom scale.
Strike it off the sales pitch list, it's a bit lame.
But you use up math channels fast that way. And they are very limited in a frist place so you will sometimes need several just to achieve some math..
But you use up math channels fast that way. And they are very limited in a frist place so you will sometimes need several just to achieve some math..
You are obvioously a more advanced user than me -- I don't see myself using up 4 math channels anytime soon. No doubt that one can construe use cases where one could use more, but certainly not a deal breaker for me...
No.
Also, does the "DC1M" on the Siglent meant that it has a 1 MHz lowpass activated?
No.
Also, does the "DC1M" on the Siglent meant that it has a 1 MHz lowpass activated?
It's the channel tab showing DC coupled with 1M Ohm input vs 50 Ohm.
And finally, in the second pair of screenshots (including CH2) it looks like multiple overlaid captures are shown in the Rigol screenshot, vs. a single capture on the Siglent, which makes them hard to compare.
Here is a picture of the siglent sds1104x-e, but with 50µs, I will add 100µs later...Better comparison would be to be using channels 1&3 to maintain sampling rates, but you already know such as that's how you use your HD. ;)
Picture made
I´ve tried it a dozen of times* but yes, for you I´ll try it one more time... ;)
Thanks so much -- I did not mean to annoy you! But I am afraid I might still not have gotten my point across.
If you look at e.g. RigolDS15.png in reply #219, you have apparently captured the signal shorty after the minimum of the sine wave -- the curves are almost horizontal on the left of the screen and then begin to climb gradually. Overall, their slope is significantly lower than on the Siglent screenshots, where the signal goes up by a total of > 200 mV over the capture time of 1 ms, or even 350 mV over 0.65 ms in the SDS1104X-E screenshot.
Larger slope -> larger DAC step size -> more pronounced steps in the unfiltered signal. Hence my suggestion to try and make sure that you capture the signal at the same phase of the sine oscillation on both scopes. (Or use a sawtooth instead if that's available on the demo board.)
Ah, right, that scope can switch in internal 50 Ohm termination. Luxury! :)It's not just an "internal termination", but a proper 50 ohms channel that maintains a VSWR of <1.5 over the full bandwidth of 500 MHz (and beyond).
It's not just an "internal termination", but a proper 50 ohms channel that maintains a VSWR of <1.5 over the full bandwidth of 500 MHz (and beyond).
Any 50 ohm termination of a 1meg scope input, be it internal or external via through terminator, yields acceptable results up to 100 MHz at best.
Yes, that's what I tried to say in #222 -- different trigger levels were apparently used on the Siglent vs. Rigol captures.
So how do passive probes with bandwidths up to 500 MHz manage to push the signal over a much longer 1 MOhm connection?A passive high impedance probe is a rather complex construction. The key is in the attenuation (20 dB for x10), which leaves enough headroom to compensate for the mismatch on both ends of the probe cable. Here I've "designed" some simple passive x10 high impedance probe, that performed well up to at least 300 MHz in the simulation (reply #521):
I don't mean to quarrel, but am genuinely curious -- if the short internal high-impedance connection from BNC jack to front end is already considered problematic at > 100 MHz, what is the impact of a passive probe's cable?
Then look again at the pictures to see if the difference can really be decisive.
Something about the topic..
I have now measured again, both scopes have been set exactly the same, at each step.
And this is the result, I can not change... ;)
It is obvious why steps on Siglent are higher.
Because screen display is taller.
Rigol has weird panoramic ratio, waveform plot area is some 20% "squished" vertically compared to Siglent.
The Rigol seems to run a filter, the staircase signal does not look so pronounced, compared to another 12-bit scope.
It is obvious why steps on Siglent are higher.
Because screen display is taller.
Rigol has weird panoramic ratio, waveform plot area is some 20% "squished" vertically compared to Siglent.
That's what I meant in #236 when talking about the vertically compressed display due to the "letterbox" format.
But as mentioned I don't think that is the only effect. The displayed step size in mV also seems to differ, unless I am looking at things totally wrong. Please see my post #238 and Martin's most recent screenshots.
@Martin72: How many times/steps did you zoom in on the Rigol scope to get the "Stepped" sine screenshot from the original still? The one with the 1v/div setting cannot be the original since the trigger setting is different. If the original has also been recorded at 1V/div, zooming in to 50mV/div (4 steps) should be okay. But if it's been more than five increments, the shown effect is exactly what I'ld expect due to the "funny" behavior of Rigol's digital vertical zoom engine that I tried to analyze here: (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5108949/#msg5108949)
Edit: Apparently I got your approach wrong: The screenshot with the "stepped sine" isn't a magnification of the other one with the full sine. I tried to replicate your findings (though I haven't got a Siglent scope for comparison) and also no stepped sine waveform, but I "assembled" a stepped ramp of 3Vpp with 1000 3mV steps. Obviously, zooming into the still of the "whole" ramp doesn't show any steps at all, but the DHO914S resolves the magnified signal exactly as one would expect. The screenshots are in sequence: original ramp, magnified still of original ramp (vertical position slightly adjusted) and magnified, triggered signal.
I cannot find anything unexpected here. :-//
Questions?
It is obvious why steps on Siglent are higher.
Because screen display is taller.
No, it's not that.
Look at the maximum/minimum voltages in each one. They're completely different ranges.
Turn on some cursors if it will help you see it.
Questions?
Where's the screenshot of the Rigol?
Finding: you can actually see the non-linearity at a vertical shift of 500mv (ten divisions of the 50mV/div range). That's practically a no-go.Who needs a linear ADC, when we can have a prestigious 12 bit badge on the front cover and as long as it's cheap!
Strange enough, the amplification factor appears to increase, but then there's also some kind of "integration" of the signal taking place.
Strange enough, the amplification factor appears to increase, but then there's also some kind of "integration" of the signal taking place.
That's what I meant, a kind of "filtering", plus that with the same settings the signal curve tends to be flatter with the rigol, at least that should remain the same if you don't change anything except the vertical sensitivity.
Heck, guys -- I don't know why I am having such a hard time to get my point across. I am not concerned about varying step sizes within one of the captures or such. I am pointing out that the images which have been compared were showing two different signals. Specifically, two different segments of the test board-generated sine waveform, with different slopes and hence step sizes (differing between the scopes). WHich made the steps look less pronounced on the Rigol.
Please have a look at the attached, which is an annotated combination of the screenshots "Rigol_50mv" and "Siglent_50mV" from Martin's post #237. Maybe that explains it better than another 1000 words?
Yes we understand. That is why we moved to AC coupling and offset and trigger level of 0.
But Thomas found that signal gets distorted at some points when offset is applied.....
Who needs a linear ADC, when we can have a prestigious 12 bit badge on the front cover and as long as it's cheap!
Yes we understand. That is why we moved to AC coupling and offset and trigger level of 0.There's a Déjà-vu: the ones brave enough to read my review of the SDS1104X-E back in late 2017, might have noticed the following statement in the "DC Accuracy" section:
But Thomas found that signal gets distorted at some points when offset is applied.....
The table below shows the results of all measurements. For each vertical gain setting, measurements have been performed for both polarities and three offsets (zero and ±3 divisions) with and without input signal respectively, resulting in a total of seven measurements per range. The reason why measurements with offset have been included is the probably widely unknown fact that not all DSOs will pass this test, so I wanted to be thorough.
Now something completely different, before I leave for the next hours...Just for fun. ;)
https://youtu.be/UOFe9wmdIKk
I actually ordered a DHO924S from Batronix. But now I'm thinking about whether an MSO5000 would be better for me. Since I'm currently doing more digital technology than analogue technology, the 12 bits don't appeal to me at the moment. As I said, at the moment.
The form factor is great, especially because I don't have much space, but it's not really the deciding factor. Otherwise, I don't see any more advantages with the DHO924s. Rather only disadvantages. Am I missing something important? What do you think?
The RIGOL seems to have a really small display area to show waveforms, signals. It is possible to hide the top and lower bars?
QuoteThe table below shows the results of all measurements. For each vertical gain setting, measurements have been performed for both polarities and three offsets (zero and ±3 divisions)
Well, to be honest, I've not come across a single DSO so far, that would not pass this test - with one exception:
Finding: you can actually see the non-linearity at a vertical shift of 500mv (ten divisions of the 50mV/div range).
Martin,
could you please repeat measurement: 20µs/div, 10mV/div no offset (offset 0), AC coupling, NO 20MHz BW limit. Triger 0V .
Signal should got straight through center of screen with no adjustments.
Post that image. We can directly compare that with my posted images.
I actually ordered a DHO924S from Batronix. But now I'm thinking about whether an MSO5000 would be better for me. Since I'm currently doing more digital technology than analogue technology, the 12 bits don't appeal to me at the moment. As I said, at the moment.
I just found out another detail that may save Rigol's honor (...at least a little bit) ;)
The observed effect of the nonlinearity at high vertical offsets appears to be only present if the total amplitude of the input signal far exceeds the screen range.
What exactly do you mean by "relatively noisy"? Are there any tests, maybe even a video?
Martin,
could you please repeat measurement: 20µs/div, 10mV/div no offset (offset 0), AC coupling, NO 20MHz BW limit. Triger 0V .
Signal should got straight through center of screen with no adjustments.
Post that image. We can directly compare that with my posted images.
Hi,
Of course I can...
Settings like you suggested: 20µs/div., 10mV/div, AC coupling (channel and trigger) and here we go...
Except the zero-crossing, all are looking the same, rigol dho, siglent sds1104x-e, siglent sds2504x hd..
Looks like the rigol have a DC "problem".
Hi,
Of course I can...
Settings like you suggested: 20µs/div., 10mV/div, AC coupling (channel and trigger) and here we go...
Except the zero-crossing, all are looking the same, rigol dho, siglent sds1104x-e, siglent sds2504x hd..
Looks like the rigol have a DC "problem".
...
So there could be some op-amp overload in there...
The MSO5000 [...] is also very hackable, all nicely documented, so you can start with an MSO5072. (which even comes with 4 probes, it seems?Nope, four inputs and front ends, but only two probes. The two included ones are 350 MHz however, according to Batronix.)
I actually ordered a DHO924S from Batronix. But now I'm thinking about whether an MSO5000 would be better for me.
The MSO5000 is relatively noisy for an 8-bit front end, but certainly good for digital electronics. It is also very hackable, all nicely documented, so you can start with an MSO5072. (which even comes with 4 probes, it seems?Nope, four inputs and front ends, but only two probes. The two included ones are 350 MHz however, according to Batronix.)
You won't get the touch screen or the cuteness, but... :-//
What exactly do you mean by "relatively noisy"? Are there any tests, maybe even a video?
There have been long (and sometimes heated) debates on this forum. Here's an entire thread about scope noise which talks about the MSO5000 a lot. The link goes to a page mid-thread which has some comparison screenshots, but other pages might be interesting as well: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/how-much-noise-floor-and-other-things-matter-in-oscilloscope-usability/150/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/how-much-noise-floor-and-other-things-matter-in-oscilloscope-usability/150/)
Nevertheless, if your main interest is digital electronics, I'd say this should not stop you from getting an MSO5000!
By the way: The 16 digital inputs are the same on the MSO5000 and the DSO924, it seems. Rigol's probe kit is expensive (but nice -- fast comparators which work up to +- 40V, good if you should also be interested in very vintage digital electronics). But there are cheap DIY solutions if you only need typical logic levels up to 5V.
Oh! So you really believe the DS4000 would have performed better if we'd measured it at 10 divisions offset instead of just three?QuoteThe table below shows the results of all measurements. For each vertical gain setting, measurements have been performed for both polarities and three offsets (zero and ±3 divisions)
Well, to be honest, I've not come across a single DSO so far, that would not pass this test - with one exception:Finding: you can actually see the non-linearity at a vertical shift of 500mv (ten divisions of the 50mV/div range).
3 divisions != 10 divisions.
So you still believe in "OpAmp overload", even though David Hess and me have explained numerous times what causes overload distortion in a serious scope frontend?I just found out another detail that may save Rigol's honor (...at least a little bit) ;)
The observed effect of the nonlinearity at high vertical offsets appears to be only present if the total amplitude of the input signal far exceeds the screen range.
So there could be some op-amp overload in there...
Do you even know where that capacitor sits? And how do you suppose anyone knows its value? Do you have a DMM? have you ever measured the input resistance (DC!) of any serious scope when it is AC coupled?Yes we understand. That is why we moved to AC coupling and offset and trigger level of 0.
But Thomas found that signal gets distorted at some points when offset is applied.....
It might be to do with the AC coupling. What size capacitor is in each device?
What I tested is following (and I suggest you test the same on Rigol):
- same demoboard sine 50 Hz non filtered.
- Input in DC mode.
- position signal that you look at top of sine. (5 ms/div).
- try at 200, 100, 50 mV/div ( I don't know the offset range of top of my head.).
Look for distortion...
Hint: once you roughly get where it starts distorting, set vertical to fine for more precise point..
Oh! So you really believe the DS4000 would have performed better if we'd measured it at 10 divisions offset instead of just three?
What I tested is following (and I suggest you test the same on Rigol):
- same demoboard sine 50 Hz non filtered.
- Input in DC mode.
- position signal that you look at top of sine. (5 ms/div).
- try at 200, 100, 50 mV/div ( I don't know the offset range of top of my head.).
Look for distortion...
Hint: once you roughly get where it starts distorting, set vertical to fine for more precise point..
I had done this with the "lower peak" of the sinus, because from 100(or was it 50)mV the rigol allows an offset of +/-1V (above this it is 8V).
When I found nothing, I shortened the time base to 500µs, see picture.
The Siglent SDS1000X HD will perform just as well as the 2000 (except for the bandwidth and MSO option) and it will most likely be very affordable.
Fnally the question, why the heck does everyone always want to overload the oscilloscope input? Why not just use zoom if we want to inspect a signal in more detail?
there’s no point in having a scope advertised as 12 bits when its performance is just not there, no matter how cheap it is.
And zoom is also included, albeit somewhat hidden.
(but it doesn't seem to remember that setting when you power off >:( )
It looks like somebody at Rigol was sleeping during the lecture about significant digits.
Whiny fans are just that: instead of producing wideband noise, they make sound that has peaks in spectrum that allows our ear to recognize tones.Fans with evenly spaced blades are more likely to whine. The fan blades on a car alternator are unevenly spaced for this reason. Gives a spread spectrum effect so there won’t be sound concentrated at one frequency.
If you have any tone between 400-4000Hz where our ears are most sensitive, you will hear annoying whine (tone). Simple as that. It can also be at other frequencies, but between 400-4000Hz we are very sensitive.
As long as you do it the same for all of them you will have good relative measurements. Then compare spectrum to how it sounds to you and you will quickly find what the "whine" is all about.
I did just that to few devices. One good example of device that is not completely silent but has very "noise like" sound is Keysight MSOX3000T. Just a whooshing, not very silent but with no distinguishing tones so no whining.. Excellent acoustic design.
Best one is, of course, Siglent SDS2000X HD. Pretty much completely silent. Large, low speed fan, and cooling based on low pressure/low speed airflow volume.
Siglent SDSD6000H12 Pro OTOH is quite louder. But that one needs to expel much more thermal energy out of the case... It is still not annoying because there are no large peaks inside so you forget about it, but after few hours, when you switch it off you suddenly realize how quieter the room is. Of course, that is my very quiet lab, in open space office not so much.
DHO800 has miniscule fan that pretty much guarantees whine and noise by itself. Offending tones will be easily measured.
the scope can generate output voltage at its input!!
Rigol DHO800 and DHO900 don't have a PROPER ZOOM function.
SDS2354X HD, if I saw it correctly, it's quite impressive.the scope can generate output voltage at its input!!
Ummm... yes. It wouldn't be able to calibrate itself without that feature.Rigol DHO800 and DHO900 don't have a PROPER ZOOM function.
Do you have an oscilloscope that can do better?
SDS2354X HD, if I saw it correctly, it's quite impressive.Rigol DHO800 and DHO900 don't have a PROPER ZOOM function.Do you have an oscilloscope that can do better?
the scope can generate output voltage at its input!!
Ummm... yes. It wouldn't be able to calibrate itself without that feature.
SDS2354X HD, if I saw it correctly, it's quite impressive.Rigol DHO800 and DHO900 don't have a PROPER ZOOM function.Do you have an oscilloscope that can do better?
OK, so go get one of those instead of one of these Rigols...
What are you talking about?the scope can generate output voltage at its input!!Ummm... yes. It wouldn't be able to calibrate itself without that feature.
It is a software thing. No BOM price attached.
You don't seem to get it.What are you talking about?the scope can generate output voltage at its input!!Ummm... yes. It wouldn't be able to calibrate itself without that feature.
Calm down and count to 10 before posting.
I'm referring to the "offset" part of the "offset+gain amplifiers" that ALL oscilloscopes have.
(Hopefully Mr. Red Ink is referring to the same thing)It is a software thing. No BOM price attached.
I'm fairly sure offset amplifiers are hardware.
P.S. Even those 70µV you see are generated by that being non-shielded measurement, all kinds of unwanted thermocouples and multimeter zero offsetIf on DHO800 you set bias to 8 V on 100 or 200 mV/div vertical, you get 60 mV output voltage, not uV!
If on DHO800 you set bias to 8 V on 100 or 200 mV/div vertical, you get 60 mV output voltage, not uV!
You don't seem to get it.
Vertical zoom is a SW special feature and little to do with vertical offset limits.
What are you talking about?the scope can generate output voltage at its input!!Ummm... yes. It wouldn't be able to calibrate itself without that feature.
Calm down and count to 10 before posting.
I'm referring to the "offset" part of the "offset+gain amplifiers" that ALL oscilloscopes have.
(Hopefully Mr. Red Ink is referring to the same thing)It is a software thing. No BOM price attached.
I'm fairly sure offset amplifiers are hardware.
[...] So we don't have any more misunderstanding.
Serg65536 reported that when he adjusts vertical offset (yes, that hardware one you are talking about) that results in output voltage appearing on input BNC. There is absolutely nothing right about that, that is defect if true. That is either that he measured wrong (in which case it is false alarm) or his scope is damaged or all of the scopes have that defect. Thing to do here is for other users try to replicate same thing.
Serg65536 reported that when he adjusts vertical offset (yes, that hardware one you are talking about) that results in output voltage appearing on input BNC.
Actually, Serg65536 reported a problem when he sets a large bias, not offset. Those seem to be different settings, and I just realize that I am not clear what the "bias" is and does. Maybe someone can confirm or correct my understanding:
If my concept of "bias" is correct, that raises two questions for me: (a) I thought that this is adjusted automatically by the scope during self-calibration.
(b) Why would the "bias" mechanism cause an output voltage on the inputs
(b) Why would the "bias" mechanism cause an output voltage on the inputs
It wouldn't.
(If it did then calibrating the 'scope would also produce a voltage there)
BTW using bias at 100 and 200 mV/div gives OUTPUT VOLTAGE from -40 mV (for -8 V bias) to 60 mV (for 8 V bias). Yes, the scope can generate output voltage at its input!!
For the 500 mV, 1, 2 V/div ranges output voltage range is -1,7...3.5 mV.
So don't try to move you waveform with the "bias" field!!
Well, Serg65536 has apparently measured an output voltage(b) Why would the "bias" mechanism cause an output voltage on the inputsIt wouldn't.
I would not be too concerned, since I don't see any reason to input large "bias" settings.
Serg65536 reported that when he adjusts vertical offset (yes, that hardware one you are talking about) that results in output voltage appearing on input BNC. There is absolutely nothing right about that, that is defect if true. That is either that he measured wrong (in which case it is false alarm) or his scope is damaged or all of the scopes have that defect. Thing to do here is for other users try to replicate same thing.
Have you tried it yourself?
I just set mine to output 1kV and tried the tongue test. I didn't feel any tingle, so.... :-//
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1902489;image)
I just set mine to 1.8 Megavolts and there was no arc flash. I think we're safe.
PS: Yes, I twisted the knobs all over the place. Didn't see a single microvolt.
Could you please confirm that your twisting of knobs also included a setting of 200 mV/div and +8V bias voltage? What voltage did your multimeter show on the scope input jack in that state?
See image zoom1 where you can see a small box in upper overview. That part is magnified in bottom zoom window.
In image zoom2 you can see additional horizontal zoom (small box is smaller this time).
These two views are from the same physical capture, and works with stopped and live data...
There is no change in acquired time-base or physical vertical attenuation or voltage offset on channel.
It is post processing.
That is zoom.
So we don't have any more misunderstanding.
What's your Siglent scope model? That zoom feature looks really nice 👍
Could you please confirm that your twisting of knobs also included a setting of 200 mV/div and +8V bias voltage? What voltage did your multimeter show on the scope input jack in that state?
I'll do it after 2N3055 explains to us how measuring a voltage across something with a 1MOhm impedance has any significance.
FWIW I measured the current across the connector with those settings and saw 80nA.
Does that answer the question?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1902621;image)
That is SDS2000X HD. But it is same on 6000A too. And incoming SDS1000X HD will be exactly the same.
See image zoom1 where you can see a small box in upper overview. That part is magnified in bottom zoom window.
In image zoom2 you can see additional horizontal zoom (small box is smaller this time).
These two views are from the same physical capture, and works with stopped and live data...
There is no change in acquired time-base or physical vertical attenuation or voltage offset on channel.
It is post processing.
That is zoom.
So we don't have any more misunderstanding.
What's your Siglent scope model? That zoom feature looks really nice 👍
What's your Siglent scope model? That zoom feature looks really nice 👍
The DHO800 zoom function looks quite similar to me? See the attached screenshot by Martin72, https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5115042/#msg5115042. (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5115042/#msg5115042.)
If you look more closely, that is only horizontal zoom.
On my images you can see I selected a small square, both horizontally and vertically..
And 80nA will fully open MOSFET or FET if enough voltage is available
Inexpensive does not mean cheap nonfunctional shit. DHO800 is limited enough in capabilities that it's price is very good only if it works flawlessly.
On SDS2000X HD I can have 80V offset on 200mV/div range. And it shows full 140µV on input in that case... yes 140 microvolts. That is worst case scenario. On average it is 20-30µV.
e.g. by a pinch/zoom finger gesture. Not sure whether that is actually supported, though; I don't see it mentioned in the manual.
Has anyone tried whether setting an offset (rather than a bias) causes the same voltage output on the DHO? I am still unsure whether they are different hardware settings, or just two different ways to set and display the same physical adjustment in the front end.
e.g. by a pinch/zoom finger gesture. Not sure whether that is actually supported, though; I don't see it mentioned in the manual.
Yes, it is.
Has anyone tried whether setting an offset (rather than a bias) causes the same voltage output on the DHO? I am still unsure whether they are different hardware settings, or just two different ways to set and display the same physical adjustment in the front end.
..Inexpensive does not mean cheap nonfunctional shit. DHO800 is limited enough in capabilities that it's price is very good only if it works flawlessly..Yep, as of today the box is overpriced actually.
e.g. by a pinch/zoom finger gesture. Not sure whether that is actually supported, though; I don't see it mentioned in the manual.Yes, it is.
That is good news. :-+ Can you please show how it looks ? Does it show smaller selection square in upper window similar to what I have shown?
e.g. by a pinch/zoom finger gesture. Not sure whether that is actually supported, though; I don't see it mentioned in the manual.Yes, it is.
That is good news. :-+ Can you please show how it looks ? Does it show smaller selection square in upper window similar to what I have shown?
Pinch-zoom works. Not selection window.
I'm confused now...
What if you connect a 32" 4K touch panel to this scope?
If you have a trace with some high level pulses and some low level detail between the pulses, can you wind up the vertical sensitivity very much to see the low level stuff without the X amplifier overloading and rendering the trace unusable?
If you have a trace with some high level pulses and some low level detail between the pulses, can you wind up the vertical sensitivity very much to see the low level stuff without the X amplifier overloading and rendering the trace unusable?
Not as much as with a $2000 'scope.
OTOH you have 12 bits so you can get the whole wave on screen. press STOP, then magnify it and shift it around in software.
(and obviously a $3000, 12bit 'scope will do it even better)
A couple years ago when I was looking for an entry level scope, the DS1054Z and SDS1104X-E are the two that most reviews pointed to as very good bang for buck (with the GDS-1054B being thrown into the mix sometimes) - especially if hacking for extra bandwidth/features is acceptable. I'd think that the DHO804 deserves to be in that list. After a couple rounds of firmware fixes, it might even be considered the "go to" entry level scope. At the very least it should drive down the prices of the other entry level scopes (the DS1054Z has already been dropped to $315).
If I were scopeless, I'd almost certainly choose the DH0804 over the DS1054Z or the SDS1104X-E - even with all the unknowns about it that are still floating around out there.
Is anyone actually having any showstopper problems in everyday use using the 1.00 firmware?
Is anyone actually having any showstopper problems in everyday use using the 1.00 firmware?
I would not even cite the 12 bit resolution as a purchase argument.
Apparently the 900 series Bode function is a bad joke!! [...]
The 814 we have has an FFT implementation that's not applicable for professional use, nothing close to Siglent's. [...]
the 900 series [...] is likely the target for the upcoming Siglent SDS1000X HD, as Rigol hit a home run with the 800 series, but fouled out with the 900 series. Without a custom ADC chip set, Siglent can't compete with the 800 series, so wisely focused on the higher price 900 series & market segment, and with the apparent issues with the 900, seems Rigol has left the door open.
Apparently the 900 series Bode function is a bad joke!! [...]
The 814 we have has an FFT implementation that's not applicable for professional use, nothing close to Siglent's. [...]
As noted Apparently, which is why we used this as we don't have the 900 series, and generally don't provide direct statements wrt things we don't have "hands on" experience with. However, from what's been shown by folks that are knowledgable the Bode Function apparently is a bad joke!! Apparantly, one knowledgable individual has decided to return the DHO914 based on "hands on" experience related somewhat to the Bode Function experience. Just spend some time reviewing with an unbiased educated assessment of what's been reported wrt the Bode Function as implemented on the 900 series, you'll soon find all your answers!!!
We do have the DHO814 and can say the FFT implementation is not quite there for our professional use, the SDS2000X+ implementation is useful and we have both DSOs with "hands on". The 814 FFT implementation is Ok to play with, but lacks many of the necessary control & display features for our pro use. Couple examples, FFT averaging doesn't seem to work correctly, no FFT cursors which can be directly configured with peaks amplitude thresholds and directly displayed as table of amplitude and frequency, both of these are show stoppers for our pro use which directly relates to SA use (the SDS2000X+ has both features that work well). The 814 FFT speed is impressive tho, and with some work could be honed into a useful feature for our use.
Maybe we missed something, please enlighten if so!!
So as we've stated the 814 is quite an impressive little DSO for GP use, apparently the 900 series has missed the mark.
Anyway, YMMV as always ;)
Best,
Likewise, what is missing in the FFT functionality besides the somewhat awkward, indirect control of span and resolution? It certainly outperforms Siglent's offering in this price range regarding speed (massively) and dynamic range (mildly), from what I have seen in Dave's review video. I don't think I have seen an in-depth review of the FFT on the forum, and would appreciate if someone could share their observations.
I'd be curious if all those (non-harmonic) spurs in the screenshot by mawyatt are actually still there if you download the data to a PC and do the FFT offline. I seem to recall that the FFT mode on the DHO4000 that Martin tested did some very weird resampling, potentially resulting in similar artefacts? I think it also showed the wrong units for the RBW. No units at all on the new one?
I'd be curious if all those (non-harmonic) spurs in the screenshot by mawyatt are actually still there if you download the data to a PC and do the FFT offline. I seem to recall that the FFT mode on the DHO4000 that Martin tested did some very weird resampling, potentially resulting in similar artefacts? I think it also showed the wrong units for the RBW. No units at all on the new one?
Those artifacts came directly from DHO814, as same source (AWG) was used for both scopes. I would expect they should show in data download as well, since they are displayed on screen, unless something really strange is going on with the FFT signal processing and/or display processing. Like 2N3055 mentioned we don't have a lot of direct control of the FFT engine it's very hard to compare and understand what's going on.
Those artifacts came directly from DHO814, as same source (AWG) was used for both scopes. I would expect they should show in data download as well, since they are displayed on screen, unless something really strange is going on with the FFT signal processing and/or display processing. Like 2N3055 mentioned we don't have a lot of direct control of the FFT engine it's very hard to compare and understand what's going on.
I was asking specifically because something really strange seemed to be going on with the FFT on the DHO4000 on some settings. And I don't know if that was ever explained/fixed.
From memory, I can confirm that the FFT function of the 804 is no different from the 4204.
I just ran an FFT of a 10khz sine wave from the demo board, pictures to follow.
I can't find an Average function in the menu, so I guess it won't exist.
I just activated peaksearch, max 15 points, it doesn't matter where I put the threshold, all peaks "gather" around the 10khz fundamental.
It may be that the signal from the board is simply bad.
There's a average option under Menu button as Horizontal, Acquisition, Average. This seems to do an average with the waveform before FFT. We got this to work and this is the FFT result. No luck with Cursor Peaksearch in FFT tho. The Siglent does the FFT average after the FFT we believe, more like a SA.
The DHO4204 also has no average mode for FFT. ;)
We do have the DHO814 and can say the FFT implementation is not quite there for our professional use, the SDS2000X+ implementation is useful and we have both DSOs with "hands on".Thank you for demonstrating the difference between a measurement vs. a mess of noise and interference.
Thank you for demonstrating the difference between a measurement vs. a mess of noise and interference.
If we try to compare the two screenshots, we have all the information on the Siglent: FFT-sample rate, FFT-length and the Averaging mode. For convenience, we also get the frequency step - and in future versions of the FW we'll also get the RBW, which depends on the window function. About the only useful window for SA applications is Flattop, so we have to multiply the frequency step by ~3.8 and get a RBW of ~362 Hz in this case.
By contrast, the Rigol shows a much lower sample rate and claims a RBW of "20" - whatever that means. If we assume that the scope actually uses its maximum of 1 Mpts FFT, then the frequency step is about 30 Hz. How can we get a RBW of 20(Hz?) under these conditions? Only explanation could be the rather useless rectangle window, which can't be used for accurate measurements at all and doesn't have a constant RBW either - at the border between frequency bins it can be even much worse than a proper window function.
We can see the excessive noise and high internal spur levels. It does not look like it would measure the individual harmonics correctly. Considering the enormous difference in RBW (362/20), the dynamic appears to be inferior too. And don't forget, the Siglent is just an 8 bit DSO!
But then again, all this does not matter - it's incredibly fast after all!
Thank you for demonstrating the difference between a measurement vs. a mess of noise and interference.
If we try to compare the two screenshots, we have all the information on the Siglent: FFT-sample rate, FFT-length and the Averaging mode. For convenience, we also get the frequency step - and in future versions of the FW we'll also get the RBW, which depends on the window function. About the only useful window for SA applications is Flattop, so we have to multiply the frequency step by ~3.8 and get a RBW of ~362 Hz in this case.
By contrast, the Rigol shows a much lower sample rate and claims a RBW of "20" - whatever that means. If we assume that the scope actually uses its maximum of 1 Mpts FFT, then the frequency step is about 30 Hz. How can we get a RBW of 20(Hz?) under these conditions? Only explanation could be the rather useless rectangle window, which can't be used for accurate measurements at all and doesn't have a constant RBW either - at the border between frequency bins it can be even much worse than a proper window function.
We can see the excessive noise and high internal spur levels. It does not look like it would measure the individual harmonics correctly. Considering the enormous difference in RBW (362/20), the dynamic appears to be inferior too. And don't forget, the Siglent is just an 8 bit DSO!
But then again, all this does not matter - it's incredibly fast after all!
FFT has always been an Achilles heel of cheap Rigol scopes if I'm not mistaken. Also, the screenshots are comparing a 500€ scope with a 1500€ one (assuming 4 channels in both cases). For many, that's peanuts. I don't work in an engineering environment, but, for my job, 1000€ is peanuts if it gets more work done, faster and more reliably.
For a hobbyist that can be the difference between 1 year of savings and 3. That's 3 years without a scope. If you extend that to the multimeters, power supply, AWG, logic analyzer, soldering iron, lab computer etc. it gets out of hand pretty fast. Ask me why I know.
There are a lot of problems, IMHO, with the DHO900, which roughly amounts to paying more for the same, as neither the bode plot nor LA work properly.
But the 800 is really good. It's cheaper than all the alternatives, Siglent, GWInstek or Micsig, its basic functionality is good, high resolution, reasonably low noise, fast interface, touchscreen, mouse support, HDMI out, fast data out to PC, good web interface, and a lot of other stuff.
I really don't get the hate. I mean, user 2N3055's criticism to the DHO900 is well deserved, I think. I would be really pissed with the FRA myself.
But why bash a bottom-of-the-barrel scope (in terms of it's price) comparing it with scopes 3 times (or even 7 with the 2000HD) the price?
The software is not finished, indeed, but everyone expected that, because that's how Rigol operates, at least with their entry-level scopes.
So, yeah, it's the best standalone scope you can buy for <500€. And yes, I don't think anybody would chose this over an SDS2000X+ or HD.
FFT has always been an Achilles heel of cheap Rigol scopes if I'm not mistaken.
FFT has always been an Achilles heel of cheap Rigol scopes if I'm not mistaken. Also, the screenshots are comparing a 500€ scope with a 1500€ one (assuming 4 channels in both cases). For many, that's peanuts. I don't work in an engineering environment, but, for my job, 1000€ is peanuts if it gets more work done, faster and more reliably.
For a hobbyist that can be the difference between 1 year of savings and 3. That's 3 years without a scope. If you extend that to the multimeters, power supply, AWG, logic analyzer, soldering iron, lab computer etc. it gets out of hand pretty fast. Ask me why I know.
There are a lot of problems, IMHO, with the DHO900, which roughly amounts to paying more for the same, as neither the bode plot nor LA work properly.
But the 800 is really good. It's cheaper than all the alternatives, Siglent, GWInstek or Micsig, its basic functionality is good, high resolution, reasonably low noise, fast interface, touchscreen, mouse support, HDMI out, fast data out to PC, good web interface, and a lot of other stuff.
I really don't get the hate. I mean, user 2N3055's criticism to the DHO900 is well deserved, I think. I would be really pissed with the FRA myself.
But why bash a bottom-of-the-barrel scope (in terms of it's price) comparing it with scopes 3 times (or even 7 with the 2000HD) the price?
The software is not finished, indeed, but everyone expected that, because that's how Rigol operates, at least with their entry-level scopes.
So, yeah, it's the best standalone scope you can buy for <500€. And yes, I don't think anybody would chose this over an SDS2000X+ or HD.
BTW the SDS2000X+ was available on sale for ~$1000 awhile back, good deal if acquired. Maybe this sale will reappear!!
I agree with you that cheap scopes don't have unlimited development budget..
And I can see that it can see as bashing when someone has large list of problems to complaint about.
In addition to that, I'm old enough that I remember well how it is if you simply cannot afford 50€ more..
Problem is:
DHO4000 that is NOT cheap scope has equally bad BODE plot and FFT implementation as cheap DHO900/800.
Actually Rigol here developed a common platform. If they make excellent FFT for DHO4000, users of DHO800 could get same excellent FFT.
This is happening with Siglent: many features from Siglent's 10000 € scopes are available on much cheaper touchscopes...
Also cheap GW-Instek has very good FFT implementation, and slightly more expensive model has full realtime spectrum mode, well implemented.
Trust me, low price is not reason for shoddy FFT implementation.
So if all the problems, and unknowns are put together, DHO800 is not best scope you can buy today for 500ish €.
12 bit makes not such a big advantage to trade off that for many other (maybe necessary stuff, people need to decide for themselves what they need) that is missing or does not work well yet.
It does have capability to become good buy, when Rigol actually makes it work properly.
I can see future in which that statement might be true. But right now, today, no.
Of course, people, fully aware of current unfinished status, might chose to consciously buy it in this state of development and simply wait for as long as needed for Rigol to debug and finish it. We all have our own will, priorities, etc. But make sure you understand you are buying unfinished product and sort of promise that Rigol will eventually finish it in due time. If that is OK with you, it's perfect.
I must admit I tend to project a different perspective: I cannot afford to have a measurement instrument that I cannot trust. Even with very expensive instruments I sometimes measure with two different ones to verify.. Keysight has bugs too... R&S and Tek too...
My experience have proven that it is best to avoid ANY product for at least 1 year after initial release, if you actually need to depend on it...
With that in mind, my opinions are obviously influenced by that.
Best,
Siniša
You are right. "The best scope" does not exist, and my assertion was baseless without taking individual needs into account.
BTW the SDS2000X+ was available on sale for ~$1000 awhile back, good deal if acquired. Maybe this sale will reappear!!
Since "Best" and "Worst" are highly subjective, we tend to refrain from such, and our "Limited" opinion, limited in the sense we've only had a week to play around with such, the DHO814 has shown to be a good performer for General Purpose tasks, and has some unique/interesting properties that one might find useful.
Best,
And I'm not quite sure what should someone with 500 bucks to spend learn from it.
The actual comparison is still to come.... 8)
What I don't like is that "RBW" has no unit of measurement.Comparing spectra with my MSO5000, the RBW seems to be in Hz.
You can only change the vertical offset position of the FFT with a button, if the menu is active and you have selected the offset there.Maybe this is what you meant, but upon clicking on the Offset or Scale input fields in the FFT menu window, the two small yellow 1 & 2 hexagons appear at their corners, indicating you can change their values with the respective two "action encoders".
Outside of the menu, you can neither move the FFT up or down with the vertical knob, nor are the 2 action buttons responsible for this, they change span and center.
Only with the fingertouch you can change the position.
No luck with Cursor Peaksearch in FFT tho.By clicking on the cursor panel and going into "Setting" you can change the source for the cursors to the FFT math channel, and then manually move the cursors with the respective 2 "action encoders", e.g. to match displayed frequencies on the peaksearch table. Far from ideal, but usable...
how do you know its boxcar averaging?This is quite easy: When doing a single shot trace of preset sample count and analyze the individual samples, you can easily see the quntization of the values (like the "bins" in a histogram). At 1.25MSa/s, 1V/div you will find a quantization of approx. 2.31mv, which, assuming a quantization of 12bits (as per Rigol's specs), results in a total peak-to-peak range of approx. 9.5V which easily matches the 8 vertical divisions (8V) of visible vertical range.
The same test with a sampling rate of 100kSa/s has a quantization of approx. 0.2875mV which leads to a resolution in the ballpark of 15 bits. Since in a single shot, the calculation of a classic "isotemporal" average isn't possible, and the sampling engine itself can still be kept running at its "native" speed, it's a reasonable approach to average the "raw" samples that fall between two "shadow memory" (software) samples, into each adjacent s/w sample, resulting in the observed increase in resolution. And that's just boxcar averaging.
So to cut a long story short, just the fact to find a higher than hardware resolution in down-sampled single shot traces indicates that some kind of boxcar averaging has been applied to decimate the ADC raw data.
how do you know its boxcar averaging?...
I think people are confusing the several "sample rates" within a scope. The ADC sampling rate and acquisition sampling rate (which is the data stored to memory) are not always equal. And what happens between those steps is not consistent between difference scopes/brands.
The megazoom "issue" that you've pointed to (out of context) is those scopes reducing the acquisition sample rate when in non-8bit modes, (peak detect, averaging, high resolution) as the acquisition rate changes to fill the available aquitision memory (keeping the horizontal timebase the same). The ADCs keep running at their full rate for all acquisition modes, just as the Rigol do, tuning on more channels increases the multiplex to the ADCs and drops the per channel ADC sample rate (XXGS/s to 0.5*XXGS/s).
switchabl is correct that the ADC sample rate is determining the peak detect capture window (unless some scopes have analog domain peak detect?).
With "normal" sampling configuration, the DHO900 is actually boxcar averaging when the "Shadow Memory Sampling Rate" is lower than the ADC rate which apparently stays the same all the time (only activating additional channels multiplexes this sample rate over the enabled channels). See here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5109618/#msg5109618 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5109618/#msg5109618)
... provided that Siglent wants to play this game at all. ::)
I assume all current tests are done with DHO800 at 100MHz and DHO900 at 250MHz.
..
It does have capability to become good buy, when Rigol actually makes it work properly.
I can see future in which that statement might be true. But right now, today, no.
..
Had you already determined the bandwidth of your scope ?
..
It does have capability to become good buy, when Rigol actually makes it work properly.
I can see future in which that statement might be true. But right now, today, no.
..
That is the key question here - the "capability to become good buy"..
What the prospective buyers (like me) want to know is whether there is the "capability" actually existent. They want to know whether the current issues are because of the state of the current software implementation and could be fixed, or, that the current issues are there because of the hardware limitation which is the final state and cannot be improved..
...
i tried the test you described. i got same bin size of around 2.2-2.4mV (very close to 12bits using your metric of 9.5Vpp) for both sample rate, so my setup is nowhere near your 20500 bins. maybe you've set other parameters/setting in your scope? Average acquisition maybe? or different FW? attached are my data and running FW version...
if you have Uni-T UTG962 AWG, its Sync output terminated can give 1ns risetime, you can use that to check DHO800 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/yet-another-fast-edge-pulse-generator/msg3615705/#msg3615705 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/yet-another-fast-edge-pulse-generator/msg3615705/#msg3615705). here (attached) i just tested it on DHO800...Had you already determined the bandwidth of your scope ?I don't have a fancy pulse generator like you guys but I've seen rise times around 4.8ns which would be ~70Mhz.
if you have Uni-T UTG962 AWG, its Sync output terminated can give 1ns risetime, you can use that to check DHO800
If I do that I get 3.5ns rise time - it's 100MHz bandwidth right now! :)
FWIW I just turned mine into a 924 ...............Did that fix any bugs ?
FWIW I just turned mine into a 924
could you post the 814's vendor.bin...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-teardown/msg5062843/#msg5062843 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-teardown/msg5062843/#msg5062843)
FWIW I just turned mine into a 924Interesting, how did you do it ?
Do you have more memory now (50Mpts instead of 25Mpts) ?
I'm guessing that 924 didn't have the 50Mpts memory option.
The 50Mpts are standard for the 900 series.
Thanks! Now I have a HDO800 with 2.3ns rise time. :-+could you post the 814's vendor.bin...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-teardown/msg5062843/#msg5062843 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-teardown/msg5062843/#msg5062843)
..snip..
Self-cal worked OK. All we need now is a 50MSample memory hack.
Now I understand - you had first gone to the 924 and then "back" to the 814 ?why need to change back to 814 when 924 is much better spec? is there anything i'm not aware of? i will upgrade my scope to 924 when i settled tinkering with standard 804, backup the sd card and do the upgrade later.
why need to change back to 814 when 924 is much better spec? is there anything i'm not aware of? i will upgrade my scope to 924 when i settled tinkering with standard 804, backup the sd card and do the upgrade later.
so thats image for 924S? but you will lose 230MHz BW, i will just ignore that if i cant find 924 image or workaround imho.why need to change back to 814 when 924 is much better spec? is there anything i'm not aware of? i will upgrade my scope to 924 when i settled tinkering with standard 804, backup the sd card and do the upgrade later.I don't want this on the screen:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1906833;image)
so thats image for 924S? but you will lose 230MHz BW, i will just ignore that if i cant find 924 image or workaround imho.
..
I don't want this on the screen (or any LA-specific features in the menus if there are any)
..
I don't want this on the screen (or any LA-specific features in the menus if there are any):On the DHO804, with vendor.bin 924, when you click/tap on the LA icon you get a small window saying "Please Insert LA Probe", that disappears on its own. Other than that, I can not find any traces of the LA in the menus (e.g. as sources for (logic) triggers, decoder, measurements, cursors, or math channels.) The code must be checking for the presence of the LA probe (and/or some other hardware clue) before it populates the menus.
Interval trigger, is there an equivalent with the rigol ?
Why not ? I like it better when you have as little superfluous content on the screen as possible.Hides Interval trigger menu.
https://www.tiepie.com/en/fut/interval-trigger (https://www.tiepie.com/en/fut/interval-trigger)
Or pic from the siglent manual below.
Delaytrigger don´t work.
The best you can get with this is the same as when you use the edge trigger (stable signal with some "irritations" in it).
Another thing:
I couldn´t find in the manual how to set date and time...?
But do we agree that it should work, i.e. is equivalent to Siglent's interval trigger according to the manuals?
Another thing:
I couldn´t find in the manual how to set date and time...?
...
1. Remove all time-related displays on the instrument
Hi,QuoteBut do we agree that it should work, i.e. is equivalent to Siglent's interval trigger according to the manuals?
Hm..
I think it does not work because the delay trigger assumes two different sources with a phase shift.
Now we have only one.
I think it does not work because the delay trigger assumes two different sources with a phase shift.
Hi,QuoteBut do we agree that it should work, i.e. is equivalent to Siglent's interval trigger according to the manuals?
Hm..
I think it does not work because the delay trigger assumes two different sources with a phase shift.
Now we have only one.
Didn't we just prove with the missing interval trigger that you can replace it with another trigger type?
It will be the same the other way around. ;)
Second in DHO800 datasheet I count 15 triggers including serial ones. 12 analog triggers and 3 serial ones.
Siglent SDS1104X-E has 9 analog triggers and 5 serial ones (because it supports 3 more serial protocols). 14 total.
If you need CAN and LIN it is Siglent that has advantage..
I would say both have very good trigger set.
Tautech can have this thread to himself for a while.
Apropos, what is actually with your thread, did not you want to open its own with tests ?
Is it still coming ?
Fist of all Interval trigger on Siglent supports two channels, it is equal to Rigol Delay trig.Was the interval trigger working across 2 channels a feature added subsequent to the release of the 8/2021 manual? The siglentna.com manual description seems to convey that this trigger is defined on the same channel, referring to "the pulse time" of "the [same?] input signal"... https://siglentna.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/08/SDS1000X-ESDS1000X-U_UserManual_EN05B.pdf . Page 82. Thanks.
Second in DHO800 datasheet I count 15 triggers including serial ones. 12 analog triggers and 3 serial ones.
Siglent SDS1104X-E has 9 analog triggers and 5 serial ones (because it supports 3 more serial protocols). 14 total.
If you need CAN and LIN it is Siglent that has advantage..
Try looking in the DHO900 datasheet. :popcorn:
Fist of all Interval trigger on Siglent supports two channels, it is equal to Rigol Delay trig.Was the interval trigger working across 2 channels a feature added subsequent to the release of the 8/2021 manual? The siglentna.com manual description seems to convey that this trigger is defined on the same channel, referring to "the pulse time" of "the [same?] input signal"... https://siglentna.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/08/SDS1000X-ESDS1000X-U_UserManual_EN05B.pdf . Page 82. Thanks.
7 Mpts with all channels active.Second in DHO800 datasheet I count 15 triggers including serial ones. 12 analog triggers and 3 serial ones.
Siglent SDS1104X-E has 9 analog triggers and 5 serial ones (because it supports 3 more serial protocols). 14 total.
If you need CAN and LIN it is Siglent that has advantage..
Try looking in the DHO900 datasheet. :popcorn:
Sure, I can look at DS70000 datasheet too.
He's comparing DHO800 to SDS1104X-E.
7 Mpts with all channels active.To be more precise:
500 MSa/s with all channels active
MSO capability.
AWG capability.
So you Siglent salesmen have nothing to worry about. Sit back and relax.
Some other affiliations are less obvious, I guess.
Some other affiliations are less obvious, I guess.I don't understand.
Not everyone pointing out facts that are less favourable for Rigol is a "Siglent salesman".
Is it a fair comparison ?
DHO814 costs 499€(exc.VAT), SDS1104X-E 429€ (exc.VAT) so I think the comparison is logical.
SDS1104X-E and DS1054Z (mostly hacked to 100Mhz) might be the most popular entry level scopes on the market at the moment, now a new generation is here and that's why I'm interested.
OTOH SDS1104X-E is fully functional scope that was proven to work really well
FFT is half made and nobody can even prove it works well. Which means FFT is unusable in current state, unless you just want to gave something cool jumping on the screen, for visual effects.
Also not a SINGLE word about much hyped FastAcq. Is it simply a trick to hide fact it does not have real segmented mode that you can use for anything, like measurements or decoding.. Does anybody who bought these scopes actually plan to use them, or they just mean to twiddle PSU-s and hack them eternally?
Some other affiliations are less obvious, I guess.I don't understand.
I was not talking about you, and certainly don't mean to attack you. While it does come across that you generally like Siglent products, you tend to take a balanced and factual approach. Thanks for that!
By the way, I agree that the SDS1104X-E is a great scope in its class. If I had not bought a DS1054Z several years before the 1104X-E came out, I would probably own one of those today.
4. This kind of thinking creates clarity. For instance if you need statistics one scope has statistics and other don't you have clear choice of one of them being inadequate. If both have the statistics, than you go into detail and look into quality of implementation.
OTOH SDS1104X-E is fully functional scope that was proven to work really well
It's also big and ugly, not touch screen, won't run off a powerbank, twiddly knob user interface... and 100 Euros more expensive.FFT is half made and nobody can even prove it works well. Which means FFT is unusable in current state, unless you just want to gave something cool jumping on the screen, for visual effects.
Dave had no problems using it in his review video. It outperformed the Siglent in terms of noise floor and completely destroyed it in terms of update rate.
He also found some weird distortions/anomolies/bugs on the Siglent FFT which nobody has explained yet.
See Dave's video at the 32 minute mark:
https://youtu.be/S8jrpCoZyx8?t=1920
Also check out the Rigol's pulse response which follows on from the FFT. Better than the Siglent.Also not a SINGLE word about much hyped FastAcq. Is it simply a trick to hide fact it does not have real segmented mode that you can use for anything, like measurements or decoding.. Does anybody who bought these scopes actually plan to use them, or they just mean to twiddle PSU-s and hack them eternally?
It has real segmented mode with faster waveform capture rate than the Siglent.
Big and ugly... I'm not buying a girlfriend. And maybe I like them big and robust looking .. ?? :-DD Many people HATE touchscreen scopes.
Shitty type C connector and running of external (crappy) PSU is large put off.. That is my personal counter opinion. Who are you to judge me.
Do us a favour. Prove me wrong.
4. This kind of thinking creates clarity. For instance if you need statistics one scope has statistics and other don't you have clear choice of one of them being inadequate. If both have the statistics, than you go into detail and look into quality of implementation.
You also have to look at how fast/easy it is to use the feature. The Rigol's statistics shine in this area.
They're also better implemented (they use a sliding window and are always available - just unfold the stats area on the measurement of interest, no need to menu-dive and enable a special "stats" mode).
So it's horses for courses. You might be able to sit down and prove mathematically that the Siglent is somehow "best" but which is going to be nicer and more useful to most people?
eg. How do you assign weights to things like the way the statistics work? When you have little niceties like that all over the place then it starts to add up to something valuable.
The Rigol's windowing abilities, too. How will you factor that into the big equation?
etc., etc.
TLDR; Defining "better" isn't as easy as you seem to think.
Big and ugly... I'm not buying a girlfriend. And maybe I like them big and robust looking .. ?? :-DD Many people HATE touchscreen scopes.
Shitty type C connector and running of external (crappy) PSU is large put off.. That is my personal counter opinion. Who are you to judge me.
This is good from somebody who claims to be 100% fact based.Do us a favour. Prove me wrong.
Is it "us", or is it "me".
Get one of these yourself if you're so interested in it.
Why are you interested anyway? Surely you already found your holy grail, one that does everything you need.
Also not a SINGLE word about much hyped FastAcq. Is it simply a trick to hide fact it does not have real segmented modeIt has fully segmented memory with recording and playback, as real as in any other DSO. (A trivial DSO capability these days). Check the manual, pgs. 187-197.
But that is only after we verify my truck is capable of...
Also not a SINGLE word about much hyped FastAcq. Is it simply a trick to hide fact it does not have real segmented modeIt has fully segmented memory with recording and playback, as real as in any other DSO. (A trivial DSO capability these days). Check the manual, pgs. 187-197.
What is your link to Siglent? It does seem to go beyond "generally liking their products".Most folks watching this forum got it by now. But it doesn't matter anyway - the only valid question would be: have I posted wrong facts anywhere? Or in this thread particularly?
Also not a SINGLE word about much hyped FastAcq. Is it simply a trick to hide fact it does not have real segmented modeIt has fully segmented memory with recording and playback, as real as in any other DSO. (A trivial DSO capability these days). Check the manual, pgs. 187-197.
Ad hominem.But that is only after we verify my truck is capable of...
Seems to me like you could keep on moving those goalposts forever.Also not a SINGLE word about much hyped FastAcq. Is it simply a trick to hide fact it does not have real segmented modeIt has fully segmented memory with recording and playback, as real as in any other DSO. (A trivial DSO capability these days). Check the manual, pgs. 187-197.
Case in point: He's already moved that one.
What is your link to Siglent? It does seem to go beyond "generally liking their products".Most folks watching this forum got it by now.
the only valid question would be: have I posted wrong facts anywhere? Or in this thread particularly?
1. Capture 10 different I2C packets, with timebase made such that you capture each packet into each owns Frame/segment. Stop the scope.
2. Decode those 10 different packets while moving from segment to segment...
1. Capture 10 different I2C packets, with timebase made such that you capture each packet into each owns Frame/segment. Stop the scope.
2. Decode those 10 different packets while moving from segment to segment...
I captured 1000, will that do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhKMkvBxtY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhKMkvBxtY)
nb. That video was recorded using the DHO web control.
Can you have measurements in a table with stats too? Enable some measurements and try. And if you enable statistics and play through these 1000 segments will it accumulate stats?
1. Capture 10 different I2C packets, with timebase made such that you capture each packet into each owns Frame/segment. Stop the scope.
2. Decode those 10 different packets while moving from segment to segment...
I captured 1000, will that do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhKMkvBxtY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhKMkvBxtY)
nb. That video was recorded using the DHO web control.
Can you have measurements in a table with stats too? Enable some measurements and try. And if you enable statistics and play through these 1000 segments will it accumulate stats?
There's some measurements on the right of that video.
1. Capture 10 different I2C packets, with timebase made such that you capture each packet into each owns Frame/segment. Stop the scope.
2. Decode those 10 different packets while moving from segment to segment...
I captured 1000, will that do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhKMkvBxtY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhKMkvBxtY)
nb. That video was recorded using the DHO web control.
Can table show only current segment or all of the segments?
Can table show only current segment or all of the segments?
Table view shows the packets on screen. If I capture three packets it shows three in the table.
Recording/playback updates the table perfectly.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1907964;image)
Did you read it? Carefully?Yes, I read it, and carefully. I own the scope, and have been using its segmented memory everyday since I've owned it.
Yeah sorry you're too quick. I meant in a table with stats. To see if stats is gathered across the segments.
Yeah sorry you're too quick. I meant in a table with stats. To see if stats is gathered across the segments.
Another goalpost move?
I couldn't find a way to reset stats at the moment I hit record but I set the stats window size to four and it seems to show the average of the last four segments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob6dKf_WHlc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob6dKf_WHlc)
The signal was a pulse from an Arduino that changes width 255..0, 255..0.
I also connected a mouse and the video record function shows it nicely. :-)
sniff sniff i smell siglent fanboyism.
No it is not moving a goalpost. This is what I was saying for last 3 months...
I presume that it can be shown in a table..
Maybe a table have a way to reset stats..
What you can to is go to segment 1 and enable some other measurement (that was not enabled at capture time)
And see if that one gets updated..
Maybe a table have a way to reset stats..
Did you read it? Carefully?Yes, I read it, and carefully. I own the scope, and have been using its segmented memory everyday since I've owned it.
I suggest you either buy the scope, or borrow it, and perform and report on your own tests, before making preposterous statements about this or other scopes in reference to this thread (e.g., like interval trigger being the same as delay trigger). In the meantime, I am skipping your posts.
just post if you have anything you think usefull for the cause, ignore the noises, we that reached the level of "Guardianship" will sometime have to counter-post noises just for fun ;D noises will make difficult to follow a thread, but it happened and there is really no way to get rid of them, new members keep coming..Quotesniff sniff i smell siglent fanboyism.So that's it for me here, I can do without this kindergarten stuff.
I'll get back to you with tests when the thread has regained a certain objectivity.
No it is not moving a goalpost. This is what I was saying for last 3 months...
I presume that it can be shown in a table..
Maybe a table have a way to reset stats..
Yada yada. You're still adding more conditions. Can the revered Siglents do all this?What you can to is go to segment 1 and enable some other measurement (that was not enabled at capture time)
And see if that one gets updated..
It does.
Maybe a table have a way to reset stats..
Resetting stats can be done (of course) but it's not something you really need to do when you have a sliding-window function like this.
Stats simply update themselves in the background.
That is quite obviously wrong and false. You never used stats for actual measurements.
Resetting the stats is basic thing you do all the time.
You setup some measurement, let it run to verify if all works well and then you reset stats to start actual gathering of data
sniff sniff i smell siglent fanboyism... this is DHO800 thread, not DHO900 MSO remember? i heard DHO800 FFT not good? i provided facts not fart talk, tell me what SA price has -120 to -140dB dynamic range? this is possible because Rigol proved themselve by providing API documentation and working PC SW example since DS1000E, and it got better and better. i havent seen one single sig-fanboy proved otherwise (siglent has better FFT? duh!) thats why i stick with Rigol brand... my Anritsu MS8609A cant reach -100dB let alone -140dB.. ignoring the fact by nitpick is of no use, try to prove its antialiasing weakness by eyeballing sine/repeating signal beyond nyquist sampling limit is unrealistic in real circuit debugging, if it is, why mourn entry level scope for that? get one of those 10GSa/s Lecroy DSO then you can be happy to probe your 500MHz at 20 points per cycle..
here again look carefully, open your eyes wide (attached image) and tell me what wrong with it? if you dont have clue, it proves you are the siglent fan boyism... this is only 5Mpts, i can push to 50Mpts now, and then do averaging to get even lower noise and smaller RBW. i know i know before you argue, DSO is no place for SA (same as LA is not for DSO to do imho), get the real SA. i did, but i know i have one extra tool at $400 to do redundant verification. now i have two actually, DS1000Z and DHO804 (err... or should is say DHO924? thanks to hubertyoung and friends) LA? serial decoding? i will venture DHO924 later when i need it, glad to know its there but so far my clone salae logic can do the job for my simple need.
sniff sniff i smell siglent fanboyism... this is DHO800 thread ...You're wrong. This was intended as test and compare thread, not a Rigol DHO800 praising and worshipping thread.
i heard DHO800 FFT not good? i provided facts not fart talk, tell me what SA price has -120 to -140dB dynamic range?So what is it if not "fart talk" if you make such claims, taking everyone as a fool?
That is quite obviously wrong and false. You never used stats for actual measurements.
And you never had a scope with sliding window (or are failing to understand what one is).Resetting the stats is basic thing you do all the time.
You setup some measurement, let it run to verify if all works well and then you reset stats to start actual gathering of data
By the time you verified it's all working you already have the stats on these Rigols. You didn't need to reset them.
(assuming the trigger events are happening fast enough)
But as noted, you can reset the stats if you insist on it.
You can even reset stats individually instead of all at once.
sniff sniff i smell siglent fanboyism... this is DHO800 thread ...You're wrong. This was intended as test and compare thread, not a Rigol DHO800 praising and worshipping thread.i heard DHO800 FFT not good? i provided facts not fart talk, tell me what SA price has -120 to -140dB dynamic range?So what is it if not "fart talk" if you make such claims, taking everyone as a fool?
The very best high end spectrum analyzers like R&S FSEA30 can have up to 115 dB dynamic range, while the average SA doesn't have more than 80. So it's not very plausible, that a bottom of the barrel entry level scope will beat that by some orders of magnitude :palm:
Do you even know how dynamic range is defined? And then for a SA in particular?
We get no clear information about the test conditions or the input signal, but even so there is not more than 50 dB dynamic range visible on these meaningless screenshots. And a lot of spurious signals.
.. i heard DHO800 FFT not good? i provided facts not fart talk, tell me what SA price has -120 to -140dB dynamic range? this is possible because Rigol proved themselve by providing API documentation and working PC SW example since DS1000E, and it got better and better. i havent seen one single sig-fanboy proved otherwise (siglent has better FFT? duh!) thats why i stick with Rigol brand... my Anritsu MS8609A cant reach -100dB let alone -140dB..
Resting stats is something that you do all the time. It went over your head that to get good measurements, you need to measure several time to assure all is right. You do that by keeping scope running, and resetting stats several times.
How they do that -120 to -140dB dynamic range with a 12bit ADC?
PS: provided you mean the "noise floor" - how they could achieve such a low n.floor?
Resting stats is something that you do all the time. It went over your head that to get good measurements, you need to measure several time to assure all is right. You do that by keeping scope running, and resetting stats several times.
Please provide a concrete example of when manual resetting is better than simply seeing (eg.) the RMS of the last 100 acquisitions on a 'scope that's constantly running.
I can easily think of when sliding window is much more useful, eg. when you're fiddling with a trim pot and don't want to keep reaching over to the 'scope to reset the stats every time you adjust it.
I'm struggling to think of an example where manual resetting is better.
.. i heard DHO800 FFT not good? i provided facts not fart talk, tell me what SA price has -120 to -140dB dynamic range? this is possible because Rigol proved themselve by providing API documentation and working PC SW example since DS1000E, and it got better and better. i havent seen one single sig-fanboy proved otherwise (siglent has better FFT? duh!) thats why i stick with Rigol brand... my Anritsu MS8609A cant reach -100dB let alone -140dB..
How they do that -120 to -140dB dynamic range with a 12bit ADC?
PS: provided you mean the "noise floor" - how they could achieve such a low n.floor?
Resting stats is something that you do all the time. [...]Please provide a concrete example of when manual resetting is better [...]
Don't be mad if I don't, I explained several times.
Just think about it more, you will understand.
Every scope I have, have reset button directly inside stat window.
Resting stats is something that you do all the time. [...]Please provide a concrete example of when manual resetting is better [...]
Gentlemen, I am confused now. I thought you had found that manually resetting the statistics is possible with the DHO800? The user manual seems to say that the operation can even be assigned to the Quick button on the front panel if you need to use it often.
If I got this right and the scope does offer the choice of manually resetting stats -- what is the debate about?
Don't be mad if I don't, I explained several times.
All you explained is that you like to press reset, not that it's necessary.Just think about it more, you will understand.
Every scope I have, have reset button directly inside stat window.
Argument from authority. Got it.
Anyway: You're avoiding the question. Can the Siglent do all this segmention/stats stuff?
.. i heard DHO800 FFT not good? i provided facts not fart talk, tell me what SA price has -120 to -140dB dynamic range? this is possible because Rigol proved themselve by providing API documentation and working PC SW example since DS1000E, and it got better and better. i havent seen one single sig-fanboy proved otherwise (siglent has better FFT? duh!) thats why i stick with Rigol brand... my Anritsu MS8609A cant reach -100dB let alone -140dB..
How they do that -120 to -140dB dynamic range with a 12bit ADC?
PS: provided you mean the "noise floor" - how they could achieve such a low n.floor?
If you don't understand why you would need to reset stats all the time while doing measurements, than I cannot explain
Two hints.If you don't understand why you would need to reset stats all the time while doing measurements, than I cannot explain
I don't see any difference between resetting and simply waiting 2 seconds for the window to slide along.
(apart from the physical movement of your arm)
If those are made on your PC from data pulled from scope, that is just funny.so you didnt see the picture of built-in FFT i posted?
We are arguing FFT implementation on a scope is half cooked, and to disprove me you post images of FFT that you made on PC because FFT on scope is crap...
What a great irony is that????
thats not literature... this is literature... https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/86124/units-of-6-02n-1-76-as-an-fft-noise-floor (https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/86124/units-of-6-02n-1-76-as-an-fft-noise-floor) and this https://www.eetimes.com/fft-plots-provide-insight-to-a-d-performance/ (https://www.eetimes.com/fft-plots-provide-insight-to-a-d-performance/) but i wont bother digging deep. i already have 10Mpts FFT, with markers system and zoom out zoom in feature. so thats what i will use.. what you need to prove to me now is why FFT algorithm lies?Some literature to scratch the surface..... i heard DHO800 FFT not good? i provided facts not fart talk, tell me what SA price has -120 to -140dB dynamic range? this is possible because Rigol proved themselve by providing API documentation and working PC SW example since DS1000E, and it got better and better. i havent seen one single sig-fanboy proved otherwise (siglent has better FFT? duh!) thats why i stick with Rigol brand... my Anritsu MS8609A cant reach -100dB let alone -140dB..How they do that -120 to -140dB dynamic range with a 12bit ADC?
PS: provided you mean the "noise floor" - how they could achieve such a low n.floor?
https://www.edn.com/dsos-and-noise/ (https://www.edn.com/dsos-and-noise/)
If those are made on your PC from data pulled from scope, that is just funny.so you didnt see the picture of built-in FFT i posted?
We are arguing FFT implementation on a scope is half cooked, and to disprove me you post images of FFT that you made on PC because FFT on scope is crap...
What a great irony is that????
312K FFT points (625Ksamples) i'm providing both i'm not sure what siglent marketing hype refering to "points"?
How deep is sliding window ?
What timebase?
The FFT picture above tells me the real spectral lines of your signal (11 lines) are positioned in -30dB to -90dB band and they come from the FFT. All other spectral components you may see there is a math junk..
If it's taking its sweet time about settling down then feel free to manually reset it (or, more sensibly, adjust the window size so you don't need to reset it on the next change to your circuit).
The FFT picture above tells me the real spectral lines of your signal (11 lines) are positioned in -30dB to -90dB band and they come from the FFT. All other spectral components you may see there is a math junk..very good! now at least some people looked closer! ;) its possible i think to subtract dso's noise esp the larger one exist in three places there using some power combination formula, iirc its some form of "pythagorean" or squared root rms formula, but i need to read paper and formulation again first to back this up and apply it in real application, but thats for later. with built-in scope's FFT, we can only "eyeball".
Some of that grass will be spurious tones from ADC nonlinearities, and some are folded back signal that was aliased.same rule applied to any FFT calculating machine, siglent, rigol, tek, hp R&S whatever. is at the mercy of sampling HW system. to get rid aliasing entirely, you need brickwall filter, and that is a theoritical filter one cant achieve in real world. unless you are far crippling the sampling mechanism with much much lower BW filter. 8th order approximation also not that flat, how good front end filter for both rigol and siglent?
How deep is sliding window ?
Whatever you want. (eg. In my segmentation test I set it to '4')
It remembers the setting, even across power cycles.What timebase?
Doesn't matter. You can easily look at the number and see if it's still settling or not.
If it's taking its sweet time about settling down then feel free to manually reset it (or, more sensibly, adjust the window size so you don't need to reset it on the next change to your circuit).
If it's taking its sweet time about settling down then feel free to manually reset it (or, more sensibly, adjust the window size so you don't need to reset it on the next change to your circuit).
Also: If it never settles down then you know the system isn't stable.
Your manually-reset stats might hide that valuable information from you.
Some of that grass will be spurious tones from ADC nonlinearities, and some are folded back signal that was aliased.same rule applied to any FFT calculating machine, siglent, rigol, tek, hp R&S whatever. is at the mercy of sampling HW system. to get rid aliasing entirely, you need brickwall filter, and that is a theoritical filter one cant achieve in real world. unless you are far crippling the sampling mechanism with uch uch lower BW filter.
Otherwise known as "artifacts".
While studying physics at the University of Chicago, I had friends in the archaeology department who thought artifacts were a good thing (as opposed to rocks carved by natural processes).
and i'm also providing information relating to that. whether you already know it or not. i'm not being rude nor i say i disagree, infact i do agree i'm just adding fact to it. sorry if you got insulted too much ;)Stop being rude and aggressive. I explained something, replying to his "math junk" comment to which I disagree. I didn't say it was "Rigol problem".Some of that grass will be spurious tones from ADC nonlinearities, and some are folded back signal that was aliased.same rule applied to any FFT calculating machine, siglent, rigol, tek, hp R&S whatever. is at the mercy of sampling HW system. to get rid aliasing entirely, you need brickwall filter, and that is a theoritical filter one cant achieve in real world. unless you are far crippling the sampling mechanism with uch uch lower BW filter.
Of course every system has same. There are no ideal systems. We discussed this many times.
At his point I don't have any opinion on how well it performs. Thanks to your data I will take a look and then will comment.
Otherwise known as "artifacts".yes and every systems are not perfect, they have their own artifacts.
While studying physics at the University of Chicago, I had friends in the archaeology department who thought artifacts were a good thing (as opposed to rocks carved by natural processes).
You don't understand much do you?
Thank you!!You don't understand much do you?
Aaaaand.... we're done here.
Otherwise known as "artifacts".
While studying physics at the University of Chicago, I had friends in the archaeology department who thought artifacts were a good thing (as opposed to rocks carved by natural processes).
Usually called spurious tones in SA world... When in spectrum mode I call them so.. Seems appropriate..
When I messed with FFT (in the stone age w/ Z80/68k in asm) I did shoot a Dirac pulse into it to see the floor :)why play with theoritical signal that never existed? here FFT from computer generated sin wave (saved in CSV)... -280dB noise floor :palm: the -160dB harmonics are probably Double (64bits) FP precision artifacts (or Single 32bits? cant remember).
When I messed with FFT (in the stone age w/ Z80/68k in asm) I did shoot a Dirac pulse into it to see the floor :)why play with theoritical signal that never existed? here FFT from computer generated sin wave... -280dB noise floor :palm: the -160dB harmonics are probably Double (64bits) FP precision artifacts.
[Dirac pulse...]
why play with theoritical signal that never existed? here FFT from computer generated sin wave...
that need some work. but should be better than what i've shown from real 12bit DSO....Well, it would be interesting to quantize that sinewave to 16 bit and 12 bit level and then push those through FFT.......... Simulations are not useless if targeted.When I messed with FFT (in the stone age w/ Z80/68k in asm) I did shoot a Dirac pulse into it to see the floor :)why play with theoritical signal that never existed? here FFT from computer generated sin wave... -280dB noise floor :palm: the -160dB harmonics are probably Double (64bits) FP precision artifacts.
Certainly. But it would show theoretical numbers to have baseline...that need some work. but should be better than what i've shown from real 12bit DSO....Well, it would be interesting to quantize that sinewave to 16 bit and 12 bit level and then push those through FFT.......... Simulations are not useless if targeted.When I messed with FFT (in the stone age w/ Z80/68k in asm) I did shoot a Dirac pulse into it to see the floor :)why play with theoritical signal that never existed? here FFT from computer generated sin wave... -280dB noise floor :palm: the -160dB harmonics are probably Double (64bits) FP precision artifacts.
right! new information. so what does it tells? dont feed it a pulse? what happen if we feed it to a real SA? will it see something?[Dirac pulse...]Spot the contradiction! ;D
why play with theoritical signal that never existed? here FFT from computer generated sin wave...
You could of course research members posts and particularly their topics to seen how they fit into this forum.What is your link to Siglent? It does seem to go beyond "generally liking their products".Most folks watching this forum got it by now.
But you don't feel comfortable disclosing it when asked, let alone in your profile info? Well, you will have your reasons. But please be aware that it affects the reception of your posts once readers have realized that you have a hidden agenda or loyalty here.Quotethe only valid question would be: have I posted wrong facts anywhere? Or in this thread particularly?
It's not about posting wrong facts, but about posting selectively picked facts which make "your" product look good, and glossing over aspects where the competing product has advantages. That's what decent salesmen do, and it is certainly what tautech and you have been doing here.
AFAIK there are only a few resellers here [...]
Beta testers are many more [...]
You could of course research members posts and particularly their topics to seen how they fit into this forum. [...]
Those that can be bothered to do the research can easy discover these members that for whatever reason chose to fly below the radar rather than be attacked for brand preferences.
As a side note, one does not have to actually read the posts. It is sufficient to observe who's thanking whom on a regular basis to identify the members of the "Siglent mutual back-patting society". ::)
AFAIK there are only a few resellers here [...]
Beta testers are many more [...]
It does not matter to me whether someone is making money from customers by selling Siglent products, or is getting money and/or free stuff from Siglent directly. If the result is that they feel loyal to Siglent, and hence don't give balanced advice here but act as Siglent advocates, that's what I need to know and what I refer to as salesman behavior.QuoteYou could of course research members posts and particularly their topics to seen how they fit into this forum. [...]
As a side note, one does not have to actually read the posts. It is sufficient to observe who's thanking whom on a regular basis to identify the members of the "Siglent mutual back-patting society". ::)QuoteThose that can be bothered to do the research can easy discover these members that for whatever reason chose to fly below the radar rather than be attacked for brand preferences.
Why would it be more desirable to be perceived as someone with a brand preference (and a material interest) who is not upfront about it?
Problem is not who works for who or do they wear it on forehead.
Problem is staying on topic and dealing with facts.
We can't force it to disappear, so the next best thing in my mind would be transparency -- which is why I would encourage people to disclose their ties to Siglent (and other brands), as e.g. tautech does.Some link their website and that should be enough IMO.
Thank you!!You don't understand much do you?
Aaaaand.... we're done here.
Problem is not who works for who or do they wear it on forehead.
Problem is staying on topic and dealing with facts.
I partially agree.
Some users here generally like Siglent products, but nevertheless take a balanced approach -- Martin and you are prime examples in my mind. Some others have a strong tendency to advocate for Siglent, rub in "pro Siglent" facts which are unrelated to the discussion at hand, dismiss Rigol design aspects in unobjective and insolent ways etc. Those are the ones I have referred to as "salesmen" -- no need to name them here.
And there are a few users who push back. In contrast to the "Siglent circle", they don't seem to be affiliated with Rigol in any way, beyond having bought some equipment with their own money. I don't recall seeing them attacking Siglent in threads about Siglent TE, only pushing back against the undercurrent of Siglent advocates in the Rigol-related threads. And yes, sometimes their tone gets out of hand and becomes insolent as well.
Thank you!!You don't understand much do you?
Aaaaand.... we're done here.
Bottom line: The Rigol can do everything.
You want sliding window? It does it.
You want to manually reset every time? Set the window size to 10000000 and it's the same thing.
There is some mention of how stats can be reset but not how and where and no image.
I'm trying to figure out if my cheapo 150Mhz probes will keep me below Nyquist if I enable all 4 channels with 250Mhz bandwidth enabled. I just poked the probe into the BNC of my SigGen to see what I got.
This is my rise time with the crocodile clip:
This is my rise time with the little spring accessory:
There's quite a big difference between the two!
Conclusions...
Crocodile clip... yes.
Spring... not so much.
By using manual control of sampling on a scope we can simulate effects of aliasing so we can see how they look like. [...]
On 1.25 GS/s it looks pretty much perfect. on two lower sampling rates it goes down the hill. [...]
The answer to all these questions as well as the requested screenshots (and many more) can be found in the document at the end of the first posting in the following thread.By using manual control of sampling on a scope we can simulate effects of aliasing so we can see how they look like. [...]
On 1.25 GS/s it looks pretty much perfect. on two lower sampling rates it goes down the hill. [...]
Thanks for those screenshots! But they got me wondering: Is it really aliasing we see there, i.e. the presence of image frequencies, or just the effect of approximating the square wave with a limited number of harmonics? Would these look any different if you had a suitable analog low-pass at the input which blocks all frequency components above the Nyquist frequency?
Edit: For comparison, could you keep the high sample rate but add a digital low pass operation at Nyqist? Thanks!
The answer to all these questions as well as the requested screenshots (and many more) can be found in the document at the end of the first posting in the following thread.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2000x-plus-bandwidth-aliasing-application-note/msg3919544/#msg3919544 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2000x-plus-bandwidth-aliasing-application-note/msg3919544/#msg3919544)
The answer to all these questions as well as the requested screenshots (and many more) can be found in the document at the end of the first posting in the following thread.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2000x-plus-bandwidth-aliasing-application-note/msg3919544/#msg3919544 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/sds2000x-plus-bandwidth-aliasing-application-note/msg3919544/#msg3919544)
Thank you! That document deserves time to work through properly...
Upon quickly skimming it, I could not find screenshots which compare the effect of capturing a square wave with aliasing (due to a limited sampling rate 2F) with the effect of limited bandwidth (high sampling rate, but lowpass at cutoff frequency F). Could you point me to the right figures please?
And I could name few Rigolites(TM) (fans of Rigol :-DD) that were dropping in any discussion and when Siglent was mentioned they would simply just smash the party..I don't remember a single Siglent thread where that would be the case - but maybe I haven't noticed because I admit I don't have time to read them all. But ANY Rigol thread is always swarming full of Siglent shills. What business to they have to be there at all? When I read such threads, I want to get an objective information, not endless shilling and holy wars.
For instance whenever you mention that Siglent has always running segments (triggered capture memory) so you can always stop scope and go back if you wanted to, they would start attacking how that is stupid and useless. Because their favourite brand does not have it. Or when Siglent released 12 bit scope then it was all the rage how 12 bit is not important and that is just a elitistic bulshit to push expensive scopes. Then suddenly apparently 12 bit is all important. By same people. While now and then, 12 bit, like anything else, is important if you have use for it. If not you could be equally well served by 8 bit scope.. etc etc. And Rigol is here and reads it all..Again, didn't see that. But I do see Siglent shills preaching how 12 bit is not important at all :-DD
And then you have users like Performa01.Do you mean shills like Performa01, who don't disclaim their affiliation and try to pass up their shilling as "unbiased" opinion? Sorry, but I despise such folks. At least tautech has guts to openly admit his affiliation, and I respect him for that.
Based on my experience. So I will preferentially suggest something that Siglent has that I tried and it is proven to work well.Having biases is OK as long as they are known by people you talk too, so that they can keep it in mind when deciding if they should take your advice on a purchase or not. Because things one doesn't say are just as important (and telling) as things one does say.
look at the bright side! they are trying to help $400 scope to push boundary of $4000 scope ;D i really wish them success.And I could name few Rigolites(TM) (fans of Rigol :-DD) that were dropping in any discussion and when Siglent was mentioned they would simply just smash the party..I don't remember a single Siglent thread where that would be the case - but maybe I haven't noticed because I admit I don't have time to read them all. But ANY Rigol thread is always swarming full of Siglent shills. What business to they have to be there at all? When I read such threads, I want to get an objective information, not endless shilling and holy wars.
look at the bright side! they are trying to help $400 scope to push boundary of $4000 scope ;D i really wish them success.I don't know - to me in sounds like a guy who comes into topic about Toyota Corolla and goes on and on about his new Lexus ES. Not helpful nor interesting. If $400 scope will get all features of $4000 one, it won't be a $400 scope anymore. Everything has a price.
What business to they have to be there at all?
look at the bright side! they are trying to help $400 scope to push boundary of $4000 scope ;D i really wish them success.I don't know - to me in sounds like a guy who comes into topic about Toyota Corolla and goes on and on about his new Lexus ES. Not helpful nor interesting. If $400 scope will get all features of $4000 one, it won't be a $400 scope anymore. Everything has a price.
Dude, it is a comparison thread... :palm:Dude, I don't care. I want to hear opinions of normal users, not shills. They don't add anything useful to conversation.
Go back and read.. If made a critique of anything it was bugs and stuff that needs to fixed..But the only way to find this out is to spend ungodly amount of time going through flame wars and shilling, so that they can find 10-15 posts which are actually useful and informative. Nobody has time for that.
Nobody said they should add features..
Actually, in this very topic we documented all the good stuff that DHO800 has and is not very well documented or obvious.
And it is actually quite good feature wise, just needs a good debug..
So your complaints are unfounded.Yes they are and you know it. Don't even predend otherwise.
Go back and read.. If made a critique of anything it was bugs and stuff that needs to fixed..But the only way to find this out is to spend ungodly amount of time going through flame wars and shilling, so that they can find 10-15 posts which are actually useful and informative. Nobody has time for that.
Nobody said they should add features..
Actually, in this very topic we documented all the good stuff that DHO800 has and is not very well documented or obvious.
And it is actually quite good feature wise, just needs a good debug..So your complaints are unfounded.Yes they are and you know it. Don't even predend otherwise.
But the only way to find this out is to spend ungodly amount of time going through flame wars and shilling, so that they can find 10-15 posts which are actually useful and informative. Nobody has time for that.
You are wrong. I responded to trolling and shilling. Realtime scope that has nominal 200MHz+ BW and samples at 156,25 MSPS/s is crap and you know it (DHO900). I had argument about that.This thread is about DHO804 - it's right there in the title! What the hell are you doing here talking about different device? Why is it even here?
I also had argument here about facts.
Yet you would want me not to react when somebody writes complete nonsense.Your posts has already proven to me everything I needed to know. Now they add exactly zero new information. So please save us all from this noise and let's see if we can increase S/R ratio of this thread.
Why didn't you react and point out inaccuracies? And nonsensical things?
But you come after me because I dare to argue about facts..?
Your post alone just proves exactly my point...
I think it would be good if people here would finally get back to the subject and not to themselves and other people.I only have 4 or 5 posts here, other 22 pages are not mine, and yet their SNR is so low that even the best SA won't be able to make out of all the noise.
That fills pages here and then complains about the fact that you can hardly find the useful posts in it...Something bizarre. ::)
Yet you would want me not to react when somebody writes complete nonsense.yet when people react to you with informations/facts, you call them rude?
It could also be due to lack of real content 8) Perhaps it is better to collect a lot of data + measurements + images, write text in a text editor (go over it a few times) and once you are done, create 1 or more big posts with all your findings bundled together. That is how I typically approach posting equipment reviews / bigger projects. And these threads tend to stay very on-topic. Maybe consider starting a new thread.QuoteBut the only way to find this out is to spend ungodly amount of time going through flame wars and shilling, so that they can find 10-15 posts which are actually useful and informative. Nobody has time for that.
I think it would be good if people here would finally get back to the subject and not to themselves and other people.
That fills pages here and then complains about the fact that you can hardly find the useful posts in it...Something bizarre. ::)
You are wrong. I responded to trolling and shilling. Realtime scope that has nominal 200MHz+ BW and samples at 156,25 MSPS/s is crap and you know it (DHO900). I had argument about that.
I only have 4 or 5 posts here, other 22 pages are not mine, and yet their SNR is so low that even the best SA won't be able to make out of all the noise.
You are wrong. I responded to trolling and shilling. Realtime scope that has nominal 200MHz+ BW and samples at 156,25 MSPS/s is crap and you know it (DHO900). I had argument about that.Yes, but it DOESN'T sample at that rate, not when you use it sensibly.
Most buyers of this class of scope (low mid range) will understand the tradeoff of sampling rate vs frequency (aliasing) and select sufficient a sampling rate for their frequencies of interest or be quite aware to use just one channel on each ADC.
That FPGA could do happily 200-300MHz LA sampling with the 16(32) bits width.
Bold is incorrect.Most buyers of this class of scope (low mid range) will understand the tradeoff of sampling rate vs frequency (aliasing) and select sufficient a sampling rate for their frequencies of interest or be quite aware to use just one channel on each ADC.
Granted, the SDS2000X plus is an edge case (500 MHz bandwidth at 1 GSa/s), while Rigol is pushing things much further with the DHO924. Rigol should at the very least state clearly in the specs that using the LA costs you half the sampling rate in the analog channels. Very unusual to my knowledge, since in other DSOs the ADC is the bottleneck, while in the DHO800/900 it's apparently the FPGA's capacity to handle digital data streams.
That FPGA could do happily 200-300MHz LA sampling with the 16(32) bits width.
It even handles 625 MSa/s LA sampling in the DHO900. But then only a total of another 625 MSa/s is available for 1..4 analog channels.
I agree that we don't know which exact part of the digital section constitutes the bottleneck. It might well be the external RAM. There are those two extra RAMs which are only populated on the DHO900 series mainboard, which could be either for LA or AWG use -- I don't think that has been determined?
SDS2000X Plus while a 500 MHz design uses two 2GSa/s ADCs however when 3 channels are activated automatic BW limiters are engaged to ensure Nyquist remains met with sufficient sampling rates.
No it's the only proper solution when insufficient sampling is available for 4 channel operation.SDS2000X Plus while a 500 MHz design uses two 2GSa/s ADCs however when 3 channels are activated automatic BW limiters are engaged to ensure Nyquist remains met with sufficient sampling rates.
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. That is a clean solution;
Yes, but it DOESN'T sample at that rate, not when you use it sensibly.
Apparently that sensible use can only be expected from the more advanced users of more expensive oscilloscopes. Tautech explained this with reference to the SDS2000X plus series once: ;)
Apparently that sensible use can only be expected from the more advanced users of more expensive oscilloscopes. Tautech explained this with reference to the SDS2000X plus series once: ;)Rubbish.
Besides: It will only be a problem if the incoming signals are over Nyquist, which they won't be if they're coming from Arduinos and/or breadboards with dupont cables.
I can tell you're not going to let this go though so let's not argue that.
...
Thus it seems the max r/w bandwidth into those external drams is those ~625Mwords/sec (or the twice when interleaved r/w). That is somehow in sync with the ~667MHz max clock of the Zynq FPGA there (assuming the lowest grade FPGA).
The other DSOs I saw have got usually 4x drams where you can share the r/w bandwidth even better.
[...] makes me wonder if the two additional RAM foorprints are actually populated in the DHO900 series
Haven't you found that it's a bit weird that most of Rigol's threads here look more like advertising of Siglent than a strict topic discussion?
Why in Siglent threads not always talking about Rigol?! :-DD
[...] makes me wonder if the two additional RAM foorprints are actually populated in the DHO900 series
They are, at least in @hubertyoung's DHO924 unit: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-teardown/msg4976278/#msg4976278 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigols-new-dho800-oscilloscope-unbox-teardown/msg4976278/#msg4976278)
That is an early unit from July though. It is also the donor of the vendor.bin which has been used by various '804 owners to upgrade their scopes, by the way.
Haven't you found that it's a bit weird that most of Rigol's threads here look more like advertising of Siglent than a strict topic discussion?
Why in Siglent threads not always talking about Rigol?! :-DD
You are in the wrong thread.
This is a comparison thread.
But apparently there should be no comparison or even discussing features and capabilities of different equipment ..
:-//
Haven't you found that it's a bit weird that most of Rigol's threads here look more like advertising of Siglent than a strict topic discussion?
Why in Siglent threads not always talking about Rigol?! :-DD
You are in the wrong thread.
This is a comparison thread.
But apparently there should be no comparison or even discussing features and capabilities of different equipment ..
:-//
He's talking about Rigol threads in general.
I don't remember a single Rigol thread ever which was any different.
Yes I'm aware of that. And the relatively early time that Hubert got his specimen makes it very likely that his was a pre-production unit.[...] makes me wonder if the two additional RAM foorprints are actually populated in the DHO900 seriesThey are, at least in @hubertyoung's DHO924 unit
Why in Siglent threads not always talking about Rigol?! :-DDif every Rigol owners are like me... i have to admit Siglent spec is somewhat better than Rigol, except some minor aspects (such as me insist on downloadable data through usb cable), so we cant argue in their thread otherwise we just shooting our own foot...but since Siglent are more expensive, because of the price alone, we tend stick to Rigol, or there is no real need to switch (upgrade) to Siglent because we can manage with our existing Rigol dso. to get a picture of what we (i) feel when i see new siglent dso model appearing is like... oh this scope is sooooo good, but when i look at the price... oooh ok, no wonder why that scope is soo good. when we look at new Rigol, ok this rigol is much better than previous one, and it cheapest bang per buck! lets go get it! and hack it to maximum spec it can be hacked to. i bought 804 is for a reason, 814 is just few dollar more expensive, i can afford if i want to but.... we know rigol's "tradition" since dave made this forum, and it seems it hasnt changed.
...
Would that imply that @hubertyoung's DHO924 can possibly sustain its analog sampling rate even when the LA is activated? (Provided that its current firmware and FPGA configuration can still detect and use the extra RAMs, which may be a long shot.)
I'll send him a PM and ask, in case he does not monitor all those DHO threads...
My take was that the two additional ram chips identical to the main sample memory chip were there to provide storage for sampling the 16 digital channels
The RAM that's used is specified at 2.133 GT/sRAM can work that fast, but memory controller in lower-end Zynqs can not. DDR3 can only go up to 533 MHz on a PS side (hard IP), and 400 or 533 MHz on PL (fabric) side (depending on the speed grade and if it's ran at 1.5 or 1.35 V).
The RAM that's used is specified at 2.133 GT/sRAM can work that fast, but memory controller in lower-end Zynqs can not. DDR3 can only go up to 533 MHz on a PS side (hard IP), and 400 or 533 MHz on PL (fabric) side (depending on the speed grade and if it's ran at 1.5 or 1.35 V).
There is a single dram populated (see the teardown thread) at the Zynq.You direct the question to the wrong person. How would I know? I'm not the one who designed it. 16 bit DDR interface at 533 MHz can theorerically push 533 * 2 * 16 = 17056 Mbit/s, while 1.25 GS/s @12 bit requires 15000 Mbit/s, so it looks to have enough margin for overhead. I wonder what kind of connection does it have to application processor, Zynq-015 has 4 multi-gigabit transceivers which allow implementing up to PCIE 2.0 x4 link, which should provide for 20 Gbps of link bandwidth.
2 dram pads are empty.
How they push 1.25Gsa/s into it then?
The results are really good for a scope...
I am just warming up the siglent sdm3065X, the rigol scope and the dmm ref.plus source...Just for the sake of my own sanity, the SDM3065X, was it NIST calibrated like I had asked or not?
Official statement:I am just warming up the siglent sdm3065X, the rigol scope and the dmm ref.plus source...Just for the sake of my own sanity, the SDM3065X, was it NIST calibrated like I had asked or not?
Official statement:"We swear on the Bible that our calibration is good! (since we're not Christians we can say whatever we want :box: )"
https://siglentna.com/service-and-support/calibration-certificate/
::)Official statement:"We swear on the Bible that our calibration is good! (since we're not Christians we can say whatever we want :box: )"
https://siglentna.com/service-and-support/calibration-certificate/
"Oh, actually, it's soooo goood that it's not only good on delivery, but also for up to 180 days". :-/O
"Hmm, nevermind 180 days - 18 months sounds even better! (it's still mostly BS but now we can sell even super-old crap for pennies that nobody wants to buy, so it collects the dust in the warehouse)."
Such are the realities of worldwide distribution chains or is that too complex to get your head around. :-//Wouldn't it be easier to perform calibration before sending out units to the end users? Most places which care about calibration will not accept any manufacturer's calibration anyway because who knows what happens to the unit during transport, storage, handling, etc, and will want to do a proper calibration anyway - and at some place which is independent of manufacturer. And for the rest of the buying public it doesn't matter anyway, so manufacturer can write whatever.
No.Such are the realities of worldwide distribution chains or is that too complex to get your head around. :-//Wouldn't it be easier to perform calibration before sending out units to the end users?
Most places which care about calibration will not accept any manufacturer's calibration anyway because who knows what happens to the unit during transport, storage, handling, etc, and will want to do a proper calibration anyway - and at some place which is independent of manufacturer. And for the rest of the buying public it doesn't matter anyway, so manufacturer can write whatever.Dunno what other brands do but every Siglent unit Cal sheet specifies the factory calibration equipment used, the model and SN# and its Cal expiry date.
At the end of the day cars to undergo a pre-delivery inspections, and some of the scope cost in the same ballpark as cars - so why not?Every end seller is different and may not do PD checks, but we do.
To do so would mean every reseller worldwide would require a Cal lab.Or have a contract with one.
Dunno what other brands do but every Siglent unit Cal sheet specifies the factory calibration equipment used, the model and SN# and its Cal expiry date.It doesn't guarantee that nothing happens to it between factory cal and actual delivery to the end user. And you should know better than most how shipping goes sometimes.
Is that not enough to convey accurate calibration that meets datasheet spec ?
Every end seller is different and may not do PD checks, but we do.If I would be the manufacturer I would require resellers to do it. Because I do care that my customers get what I advertise. Here in Canada we have an official Rigol rep which does all of this, but to my knowledge there is no Siglent rep in the country at all. Which is kind of annoying, and part of the reason why I opted for a Rigol scope many-many years ago (I think it was in 2016 or something like that) when I bought my MSO2022A, which still works to this day btw!
To add additional cost and delay to equipment supply ?To do so would mean every reseller worldwide would require a Cal lab.Or have a contract with one.
Don't have such issue here, however I trust border Customs far less.Dunno what other brands do but every Siglent unit Cal sheet specifies the factory calibration equipment used, the model and SN# and its Cal expiry date.It doesn't guarantee that nothing happens to it between factory cal and actual delivery to the end user. And you should know better than most how shipping goes sometimes.
Is that not enough to convey accurate calibration that meets datasheet spec ?
Of any/all brands ?Every end seller is different and may not do PD checks, but we do.If I would be the manufacturer I would require resellers to do it.
Because I do care that my customers get what I advertise.So do we however we have no reason to distrust Siglent Cal anymore than a Cal from any other TE producer.
Here in Canada we have an official Rigol rep which does all of this, but to my knowledge there is no Siglent rep in the country at all.You need update your knowledge.
To add additional cost and delay to equipment supply ?That depends on your organization of this process. You can forecast a demand and have some units pre-caled within a week let's say.
Don't have such issue here, however I trust border Customs far less.I've seen it all - from light damage all the way to near full destruction.
OTOH I have a 26.5 GHz VNA to deliver 1500km away which I will be doing in person where in some effort to minimise risk, airline baggage handlers are the only unknown.Unfortunately they are known. And not in a good way.
Of any/all brands ?Of my brand. Why would I care what they do to other products?
Fail to see advantage of such when gear has been tested to remain within spec for a considerable period post manufacture.I know how testing works all to well too believe that. Statistics don't work when we talk about one specific unit.
So do we however we have no reason to distrust Siglent Cal anymore than a Cal from any other TE producer.Those who care don't accept any mfg's cal for the same reason.
You need update your knowledge.This is what representative looks like: https://www.rigolcanada.com/ (https://www.rigolcanada.com/)
From the US 'Partners' map:
Canada
ACA TMetrix
800-665-7301
www.tmetrix.com (http://www.tmetrix.com)
info@tmetrix.com
RCC Electronics
800-668-6053
www.rcce.com (http://www.rcce.com)
sales@rcce.com
Techno-Test
450-681-5777
www.Techno-Test.com (http://www.Techno-Test.com)
info@techno-test.com
What you linked are resellers, not representatives.Then Siglent NA in Ohio are your reps.
Then Siglent NA in Ohio are your reps.Now you see the problem. Apparently Siglent is not interested in our market enough, unlike Rigol.
Just for the sake of my own sanity, the SDM3065X, was it NIST calibrated like I had asked or not?
i see tea'ism comes to the party now, after siglenism... ;D find Dave's video in the early age... DSO is not for Vdc accuracy... why this has to happen so many times? why? :palm:Agreed. A DMM is the wrong tool to measure oscilloscope accuracy anyway. For that you need a calibrated signal (AC) source which can also output tens to several hundred Volts.
Then Siglent NA in Ohio are your reps.Now you see the problem. Apparently Siglent is not interested in our market enough, unlike Rigol.
Agreed. A DMM is the wrong tool to measure oscilloscope accuracy anyway. For that you need a calibrated signal (AC) source which can also output tens to several hundred Volts.
It seems pointless to measure "AC accuracy" on a 'scope. If the DC accuracy is good then "AC accuracy" is down to the user settings.
On a DMM it makes sense because they have TRMS converter chips inside them and they don't work the same way oscilloscopes do.
i see tea'ism comes to the party now, after siglenism... ;D find Dave's video in the early age... DSO is not for Vdc accuracy... why this has to happen so many times? why? :palm:The selling point of 12bit DSOs is that they're more accurate than 8 bit DSOs. IIRC, Rigol marketing said 60%. So, it seemed to me that testing the accuracy would be interesting. I sought to determine if the DSO was truly accurate or just had improved dynamic range.
Gave a quick look at our clients 824 (we haven't delivered yet, as client is tied up) using our in-house derived squarewave generator (precision duty-cycle and amplitude squarewave derived from precision 5 volt reference).i see tea'ism comes to the party now, after siglenism... ;D find Dave's video in the early age... DSO is not for Vdc accuracy... why this has to happen so many times? why? :palm:The selling point of 12bit DSOs is that they're more accurate than 8 bit DSOs. IIRC, Rigol marketing said 60%. So, it seemed to me that testing the accuracy would be interesting. I sought to determine if the DSO was truly accurate or just had improved dynamic range.
No, resolution isn't accuracy.i see tea'ism comes to the party now, after siglenism... ;D find Dave's video in the early age... DSO is not for Vdc accuracy... why this has to happen so many times? why? :palm:The selling point of 12bit DSOs is that they're more accurate than 8 bit DSOs.
No, resolution isn't accuracy.
true, but probably he's not talking about 12bit is being accurate. he probably talk about self-cal algorithm and voltage/frequency reference used.No, resolution isn't accuracy.i see tea'ism comes to the party now, after siglenism... ;D find Dave's video in the early age... DSO is not for Vdc accuracy... why this has to happen so many times? why? :palm:The selling point of 12bit DSOs is that they're more accurate than 8 bit DSOs.
if its that important, then need to plot dso's frequency respond as well, it may accurate at DC but wobbly respond in frequency domain. if you get that kind of scope, i great you congratulation! ;Di see tea'ism comes to the party now, after siglenism... ;D find Dave's video in the early age... DSO is not for Vdc accuracy... why this has to happen so many times? why? :palm:The selling point of 12bit DSOs is that they're more accurate than 8 bit DSOs.
Needless to say we were impressed then as we are now with the Rigol DHO824 measurement capabilities, altho the FFT needs some polish, however our client isn't interested in the FFT (nor Bode Function) so for us a moot point in that respect.
Needless to say we were impressed then as we are now with the Rigol DHO824 measurement capabilities, altho the FFT needs some polish, however our client isn't interested in the FFT (nor Bode Function) so for us a moot point in that respect.
If you disregard FFT and the missing Bode, this is also a really nice entry-level scope.
Firmware-wise, FFT can be improved and Bode could at least be implemented with an external source to help, but I don't believe that rigol will change much in this regard.
But as you wrote, if there are people who do not need that, that can be the purchase decision in this price range.
Agree the 800 series is a good entry level DSO!!
Mine hasn't crashed on me even once
Ah, you mean the dash-dot line, right ?
Edit: It would be better if they disappeared when the measurement panel is off. I'll add that to the wish list thread...
QuoteMine hasn't crashed on me even once
I had a few crashes in the beginning, but after the firmware update not a single one - Except for the incompatibility of plugging in the usb-hub during operation.
If it does crash there's a daemon that starts it right back up again in the state it was at.That's an Android thing. All apps should be ready to be suspended/killed at any time, and then restore themselves to the way they were once re-launched. Because that's how OS works on cell phones when it starts running low on memory - it kills oldest used apps, and when you switch back to them, they are supposed to restore itself to whatever state they were when they were last interacted with.
Two Tone tests [...]
So, here are some pictures of various frequencies.
Oh well, I just don't like the color of the math channel, a selection palette would be a great thing.
In your early exploration of the DHO800, I seem to recall that you got a very messy list of apperently random peaks which the DHO had selected. It did not seem to prioritize them by peak height at all. Have you explored that any further? Is there a (higher than expected) minimum peak/background contrast required for reliable peak identification, or some other constraint?
In your early exploration of the DHO800, I seem to recall that you got a very messy list of apperently random peaks which the DHO had selected. It did not seem to prioritize them by peak height at all. Have you explored that any further? Is there a (higher than expected) minimum peak/background contrast required for reliable peak identification, or some other constraint?
You have four to choose from:
Here again the former post:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5122722/#msg5122722 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5122722/#msg5122722)
But that was also a bit "unfair", as noisy as the fundamental wave was and the rigol no FFT averaging function got.
The siglent had set most of the peaks there, but did not "forget" the other two harmonics.
I'll test this again.
Yes, you can order peaks by amplitude/frequency, set maximum number of peaks, set threshold and excursion values.
Yes, you can order peaks by amplitude/frequency, set maximum number of peaks, set threshold and excursion values.
In Martin's early measurement (link above), it looks like they are sorted by frequency, but only in a very narrow range around the fundamental. Why would the scope do that?
Press Excursion to specify the amplitude above the FFT waveform's noise floor necessary to be recognized as a peak.
That is quite neat (also the fact that it does not slow down the scope, as you mentioned in the other thread)! It does highlight the limitations of the small display though.
Hopefully, in a future software release Rigol gives some thought to proper rounding in tables, and to the choice of meaningful increments and decimal places for the axis labels. Especially with the limited space on the display, it hurts to see all those "4.9..99 kHz" table entries and the awkward values on the vertical axes. ::)
I think the firmware was developed on the big-screen DHO40000. :popcorn:
so it could easily put the grid lines on even 10 or 20 dBV increments and label them accordingly with even numbers, right?
For the trace window, I see that the the signal's offset is adjusted by the user, and that drives the awkward odd values on the vertical axis. How do other scopes handle this? Is there a "snap to grid" option when adjusting the offset, say by pushing some button during or after offset adjustment?Offset = Reference position.
That is quite neat (also the fact that it does not slow down the scope, as you mentioned in the other thread)! It does highlight the limitations of the small display though.
For the trace window, I see that the the signal's offset is adjusted by the user, and that drives the awkward odd values on the vertical axis. How do other scopes handle this? Is there a "snap to grid" option when adjusting the offset, say by pushing some button during or after offset adjustment?Offset = Reference position.
When there is need to have accurate measurements engage a table, that might display frequency or amplitude or both. < that's how other brands do it.
Martin explains it well....the operators settings have the most influence on this.For the trace window, I see that the the signal's offset is adjusted by the user, and that drives the awkward odd values on the vertical axis. How do other scopes handle this? Is there a "snap to grid" option when adjusting the offset, say by pushing some button during or after offset adjustment?Offset = Reference position.
When there is need to have accurate measurements engage a table, that might display frequency or amplitude or both. < that's how other brands do it.
Thanks. I was referring to the labels the scope (optionally) puts on the vertical axes of the main trace display -- one value per grid line. And maybe I should have written "vertical position" instead of "offset"? I mean the value one adjusts via the fine adjustment knob in the vertical controls.
So what is the common way of letting these interact? Do all scopes show you odd values on the axis labels, unless you carefully adjust the position to an even grid line?
(I very often use the vertical position knob just to space signals apart on the screen. On my stupid old scope which does not label the grid lines at all, I typically try to roughly align the signal's 0V value with one of the grid lines, so I can use the grid to estimate amplitudes. But I would find it annoying to have to adjust the position very precisely, lest I see "2.004V", "3.004V" etc. as the axis labels. Is there a convenient way to get nice round label values -- besides setting the position to 0V by pushing the control knob, of course?)
Martin explains it well....the operators settings have the most influence on this.
However unless competent in using FFT and instead using auto setup then all bets are off. :horse:
Probably if you must have axis values displayed.Martin explains it well....the operators settings have the most influence on this.
However unless competent in using FFT and instead using auto setup then all bets are off. :horse:
Martin explained how the FFT windows are formatted, and that was helpful, thanks.
But I asked about the trace window, where the grid is fixed via the vertical V/div setting, and the traces can be shifted continuously via the vertical position knob. How do I ensure that I get "clean" numbers labelling the vertical axis there? Is tweaking the vertical position knob very carefully the only way?
Probably if you must have axis values displayed.
Like I mentioned, better measurements should be available from a FFT marker table or from a trace display, just the correct selection of measurements required.
Trouble is, on a little display things get crowded real quick.
How do I ensure that I get "clean" numbers labelling the vertical axis there? Is tweaking the vertical position knob very carefully the only way?
With the Siglent scopes, you can select whether the scale moves with or not.
Then the labeling remains "clean" and you must then orient yourself at the infobox, where the offset is numerically located (or, siglent also shows it directly on the screen, as long as you turn the vertical knob).
I have not yet found this function in the rigol, there you can only switch the labeling on or off.
Do they get just as awkward on the horizontal axis once you shift the trigger time?Not when you place it directly on a grid.
Do they get just as awkward on the horizontal axis once you shift the trigger time?Not when you place it directly on a grid.
Not that it matters much for us oldies that come from CRO days when all we had for measurements were graticules. :horse:
Decision time = turn axis labels ON or engage the measurements required OR continue eyeballing what we need take from a scope display.
Those labels on the vertical axis really make me gnash my teeth...
do this and glue it on top of built-in LCD and nobody can dick wave about small screen anymore.. you have $400+$100 scope with lcd larger than any $10K scope on earth.That is quite neat (also the fact that it does not slow down the scope, as you mentioned in the other thread)! It does highlight the limitations of the small display though.
Hopefully, in a future software release Rigol gives some thought to proper rounding in tables, and to the choice of meaningful increments and decimal places for the axis labels. Especially with the limited space on the display, it hurts to see all those "4.9..99 kHz" table entries and the awkward values on the vertical axes. ::)
I think the firmware was developed on the big-screen DHO40000. :popcorn:
Color graded FFTs... oooh!
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1914873;image)
Still -- couldn't pushing the fine-position knob (on either the horizontal or the vertical axis) first do a "snap to grid", and then only do a "snap to 0V" or "snap to 0µs" when you hold it a bit longer or press it a second time? Seems useful to me, even in eyeballing mode.
, i dont buy scope for entertainment...
btw whats missing in those multiple windows is resizable tab. when like 2 windows side by side, i wish i can make larger one windows than the other...
Still -- couldn't pushing the fine-position knob (on either the horizontal or the vertical axis) first do a "snap to grid", and then only do a "snap to 0V" or "snap to 0µs" when you hold it a bit longer or press it a second time? Seems useful to me, even in eyeballing mode.
The horizontal/vertical axis knobs don't move the FFT around, they still move the waveform.
The two multipurpose knobs change FFT center and span when an FFT is on screen.
If you push them they center and span to 1MHz. That doesn't seem useful. ???
do this and glue it on top of built-in LCD and nobody can dick wave about small screen anymore..
Not talking about FFT here, just regular display of waveforms. The grid labels (µs on the horizontal and V/mV on the vertical axis) take on these awkward, odd values as soon as you move the trigger delay or the channel's vertical position around. :rant:
I wish I could turn them off.
QuoteI wish I could turn them off.
Do it...
I have not yet found this function in the rigol, there you can only switch the labeling on or off.
I have not yet found this function in the rigol, there you can only switch the labeling on or off.
How do you switch it off?
How do you switch it off?See reply #649 from Martin just above, in response to your previous comment.
But it turns it off on the FFT as well.
Not talking about FFT here, just regular display of waveforms. The grid labels (µs on the horizontal and V/mV on the vertical axis) take on these awkward, odd values as soon as you move the trigger delay or the channel's vertical position around. :rant:For a Multipurpose Knob to become associated with a vertical channel offset, etc., you first have to open the respective channel menu window. E.g., by default, knob 2 becomes associated with Offset once the window opens (as indicated by the small yellow "2" hexagon), and you can just press the knob to set it to 0V. (Also, from there, by tapping the up/down buttons adjacent to the input field, you can quickly change it by integer values as needed...)...I am also getting used to just entering 0-OK quickly on the keypad for this purpose.
Not talking about FFT here, just regular display of waveforms. The grid labels (µs on the horizontal and V/mV on the vertical axis) take on these awkward, odd values as soon as you move the trigger delay or the channel's vertical position around. :rant:For a Multipurpose Knob to become associated with a vertical channel offset, etc., you first have to open the respective channel menu window. [...] I am also getting used to just entering 0-OK quickly on the keypad for this purpose.
Not talking about FFT here, just regular display of waveforms. The grid labels (µs on the horizontal and V/mV on the vertical axis) take on these awkward, odd values as soon as you move the trigger delay or the channel's vertical position around. :rant:For a Multipurpose Knob to become associated with a vertical channel offset, etc., you first have to open the respective channel menu window. [...] I am also getting used to just entering 0-OK quickly on the keypad for this purpose.
Oh, I was not talking about the multipurpose knobs. Rather about the dedicated "single purpose knobs" for controlling the horizontal and vertical position of traces on the screen.
I use these all the time to position traces on the screen such that I can tell them apart, see correlations between them, see the relevant section. While my current scope does not have a touch screen at all, I would still expect to use these knobs a lot with the DHO800 or another touch-enabled scope.
But as soon as you move your trace and trigger positions to odd values (i.e. practically all the time if you use these "analog" knobs), the on-screen scale labels for the horizontal and vertical grid will turn into rather messy, odd numbers. Hence my suggestion that there should be a quick way to snap these continuous position adjustments back to the grid.
Not a bug, just a feature or usability suggestion. As it stands, it seems to me that the axis labels do more harm than good in most situations, by taking up screen space and confusing the user with odd values. So switching them off is the workaround of choice, I guess.
Axis labeling is a good thing, but I had gotten by for 20 years before that.it wont help much if your signal offset is like 1.054887V try it and look at label and your signal is in between. if you familiar with interpolation, you'll have fun finding "points in between", esp for metrologists and tea'ism.
You don't have to count boxes anymore, that makes the scope for you. ;)
Axis labeling is a good thing, but I had gotten by for 20 years before that.it wont help much if your signal offset is like 1.054887V try it and look at label and your signal is in between. if you familiar with interpolation, you'll have fun finding "points in between", esp for metrologists and tea'ism.
You don't have to count boxes anymore, that makes the scope for you. ;)
On my scopes one brand have two display modes. [...]
On scopes I have here, offsets are not completely "analog", but in some discrete steps.
On my scopes one brand have two display modes. [...]On scopes I have here, offsets are not completely "analog", but in some discrete steps.
I appreciate the effort to avoid triggering people. But I hope we are back on a healthy track where we can mention "the brand which must not be named (in a Rigol thread)". ;)
Right -- having the position control work on an even sub-division of the grid, say steps of 1% or 2% of a division, would already help. Then one can adjust the position to an exact grid line with limited knob-tweaking, and the numbers on odd settings inbetween do not look too messy.
Not a bug, just a feature or usability suggestion. As it stands, it seems to me that the axis labels do more harm than good in most situations, by taking up screen space and confusing the user with odd values. So switching them off is the workaround of choice, I guess.
::)On my scopes one brand have two display modes. [...]On scopes I have here, offsets are not completely "analog", but in some discrete steps.
I appreciate the effort to avoid triggering people. But I hope we are back on a healthy track where we can mention "the brand which must not be named (in a Rigol thread)". ;)
Not a bug, just a feature or usability suggestion. As it stands, it seems to me that the axis labels do more harm than good in most situations, by taking up screen space and confusing the user with odd values. So switching them off is the workaround of choice, I guess.
Yep. I've never had them on other 'scopes and they don't add much IMHO.
They're useful on the FFT so I guess I have to enable them manually there. It would be nice if they could fix that.
Rigol imitates Keysight in concept how they implemented this feature.
But they didn't pay attention to how Keysight display numbers.
Rigol imitates Keysight in concept how they implemented this feature.
But they didn't pay attention to how Keysight display numbers.
Just using proper rounding would go a long way...
In the screenshot below (courtesy of Fungus), I think we can ignore the scales in the FFT windows, since these are set by the user via the FFT dialog. Just look at the table entries and the vertical scale of the yellow trace. ::)
Example of how it looks. On Keysight it is same as Fixed, including number formatting.
we admit drawbacks and bugs in rigol, thats why we very out loud on bug and wish lists. do you believe i wish all this bashings and complaints from you people will reach rigol? so they can do something about it to improve. we very welcome "constructive critisicm" (as long as its within "academic sanity"), there are many good things in siglent if you still remember my post, in fact i believe in this compare siglent vs rigol, siglent will win in most aspects, they have very good color grading, manual sampling rate etc. now rigol opted to enforce Sinc is a bad thing imho. and with this new android multi windows thing, there are certain things still can be improved, surely hope they listen. if only they have the spirit of "aeronautic engineering" that everything automatic must be able to switch back to "manual" (by default everything automatic for education/newbie purpose).::) 2N3055 also own HPAK, would you take offence if he told you all he thinks about it ?On my scopes one brand have two display modes. [...]On scopes I have here, offsets are not completely "analog", but in some discrete steps.I appreciate the effort to avoid triggering people. But I hope we are back on a healthy track where we can mention "the brand which must not be named (in a Rigol thread)". ;)
we admit drawbacks and bugs in rigol, thats why we very out loud on bug and wish lists. do you believe i wish all this bashings and complaints from you people will reach rigol? so they can do something about it to improve. we very welcome "constructive critisicm" (as long as its within "academic sanity"), there are many good things in siglent if you still remember my post, in fact i believe in this compare siglent vs rigol, siglent will win in most aspects, they have very good color grading, manual sampling rate etc. now rigol opted to enforce Sinc is a bad thing imho. and with this new android multi windows thing, there are certain things still can be improved, surely hope they listen. if only they have the spirit of "aeronautic engineering" that everything automatic must be able to switch back to "manual" (by default everything automatic for education/newbie purpose). imagine if Rigol enforce "proper design" according to our friend's definition, that requires probing at 1MSps need to cutoff analog BW to 500kHz, that will be a total screw up imho. we have things to go back to "manual" such as Peak Detect feature, dots etc. anyway to cut short, we are certain new rigol cheap 12bit provide much improvement compared to its predecessor, except the things that we cant do anymore. the more things we cant do the more hate we will have. comparison thread, be it old vs new rigol, or siglent vs rigol should be seen by manufacturers themselves for improvement to take place. we dont have much hope rigol will see. we just wait, maybe they only care about sales figure and dave's review. if they not see this thread, we are just mumbling around. we love toys, any brand of toys, but our pocket limited so we choose based on what we really need based on reviews made. cheers.
Just using proper rounding would go a long way...
imagine if Rigol enforce "proper design" according to our friend's definition, that requires probing at 1MSps need to cutoff analog BW to 500kHz, that will be a total screw up imho.
...nope! there is no one in the sky telling it must satifies Nyquist at 4 channels, its even mentioned in datasheet (4 channels 312.5MSps) and we have no problem with that, sometime we need 4 channels for low freq debugging, for max freq, turn them all off like 1 channel. the fact that there is no telling much about the 16ch LA, prepare for anything, get used to that, thats how china's metric works in general. cheers. ;)
My problem is not that DHO900 will sometimes undersample (like the rest of the scopes). Problem is that unless you use it like you have bought 2 ch scope, it CANNOT satisfy Nyquist at any setting of memory and time base.
That is either bad design (which it cannot be because Rigol does know better) or deliberate, very unsavoury, marketing scam.
...
Just using proper rounding would go a long way...
This! What human can really see the difference between the scales we are taking about. The slight reduction in displayed, not recorded, accuracy can't be seen and would be much easier to read.
Wait. What is proper rounding? There are so many choices! Round up, round down, half up, half down, even up... What about negatives, which way is up? It wasn't that many years ago that my mind was blown when reading a Javadoc which listed and explained the available rounding options. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding
Could you please try and add the occasional paragraph break (two carriage returns)?You could be a good Language Teacher ;) no offense, but thanks for advice.
It would make your posts much easier to read, by indicating where one train of thought ends and the next one begins, and also by giving the eye some orientation marks. Otherwise it's hard to do your posts justice and read them diligently.
Oh, and for even better orientation: Capitalizing the first letter of each sentence does help the reader too. 8)
Just using proper rounding would go a long way...you cannot satisfy everybody...
Is there possibility to show freq like 4.43361875 Mhz, my dho804 only shows like rounded to 4.4444 - only 4 digits after dot :(
...nope! there is no one in the sky telling it must satifies Nyquist at 4 channels, its even mentioned in datasheet (4 channels 312.5MSps) and we have no problem with that, sometime we need 4 channels for low freq debugging, for max freq, turn them all off like 1 channel. the fact that there is no telling much about the 16ch LA, prepare for anything, get used to that, thats how china's metric works in general. cheers. ;)
My problem is not that DHO900 will sometimes undersample (like the rest of the scopes). Problem is that unless you use it like you have bought 2 ch scope, it CANNOT satisfy Nyquist at any setting of memory and time base.
That is either bad design (which it cannot be because Rigol does know better) or deliberate, very unsavoury, marketing scam.
...
https://beyondmeasure.rigoltech.com/acton/attachment/1579/f-c2b704a4-c02c-4b09-9748-7e41815c1fa9/0/-/-/-/-/DHO900_DataSheet_EN.pdf
200Mhz scope that samples at maximum of 156.25 MS/s when all channels are on.
1.25 GSa/s (single-channel[1]), 625 MSa/s (dual-channel[2]), 312.5 MSa/s (full-channel[3])
Note:
[1]: Single-channel mode: If any one of the channels is enabled, it is called single-channel mode.
[2]: Dual-channel mode: For four-channel models, if any two of the channels are enabled, it is called dual-channel mode.
[3]: Full-channel mode: For two-channel models, if all of the two channels are enabled, it is called full-channel mode; for four-
channel models, if any three channels or all of the four channels are enabled, it is called full-channel mode.
200Mhz scope that samples at maximum of 156.25 MS/s when all channels are on.
I think 156.25 MS/s is a mistake and should be 312.5 MSa/s, unless I am misunderstanding something?
Datasheet for DHO800 & 900 series states:Code: [Select]1.25 GSa/s (single-channel[1]), 625 MSa/s (dual-channel[2]), 312.5 MSa/s (full-channel[3])
Note:
[1]: Single-channel mode: If any one of the channels is enabled, it is called single-channel mode.
[2]: Dual-channel mode: For four-channel models, if any two of the channels are enabled, it is called dual-channel mode.
[3]: Full-channel mode: For two-channel models, if all of the two channels are enabled, it is called full-channel mode; for four-
channel models, if any three channels or all of the four channels are enabled, it is called full-channel mode.
Some dealer websites mistakingly state "1.25 GSa/s (divided by number of active hannels)"
With MSO drops to 156.25 MS/s
200Mhz scope that samples at maximum of 156.25 MS/s when all channels are on.
I think 156.25 MS/s is a mistake and should be 312.5 MSa/s, unless I am misunderstanding something?
That is your problem. There are industry standards. Way how things are being called for decades.this goes back to you. Rigol will make sales and we dont return it.. whether you like it or not ;)
World don't care that you, in your head live in different universe and have your own definition.
There is certain "code of conduct" between manufacturers for at least basic decency.
In my country we call that "I bought a cat in a bag".when we want to buy a cat, we expect a cat, no bag no problem, if we got bag, we are thankful. we bought NanoVNA and things thats not in conduct. you can buy industrial stuffs, free world..
People in general don't analyze datasheets in detail. Target market for these scopes are not professionals.another insult again. but i wont comment, just to let you know it is an insult, if you not already know. Rigol got ASICs :P
They will read on EEVBLOG how this "game changer" DHO900 stellar super duper hypersonic miracle for the money is so great.........yes it is game changer, miracle on the price. and we wont return it whether you like it or not. World don't care that you, in your head live in different universe and have your own definition.
By the time they realize it is not, they won't be able to return it.
I will tell you my prediction in a year or two. DHO800 will be good seller. It is cheap. And they will debug a thing or two, but not everything. But it will generally be brought to be working scope and will become DS1000Z of 12 bit world. OTOH DHO900 is going to bring lots of headache to Rigol.you prediction seems inline with me (if you can allow prediction (suspicion) as not an insult) but not because DHO900 is not properly designed, but because DHO800 is highly hackable to DHO900. similar to their predecessor.
With MSO drops to 156.25 MS/s
And that is, very unfortunately, not mentioned in Rigol's datasheet. :--
Thanks to them we don't all have to buy crew-cab pickup trucks or seven seat minivans.or buy cheaper DHO800, and cloned LA, or even legit one, still not hit £2K thanks to "them".
With MSO drops to 156.25 MS/s
And that is, very unfortunately, not mentioned in Rigol's datasheet. :--
I see it like one of those hatchback cars with fold-down rear seats.
Either you carry passengers in the back or you carry cargo. Not both at the same time.
I believe there's a lot of them out there and everybody thinks they're a good compromise. Thanks to them we don't all have to buy crew-cab pickup trucks or seven seat minivans.
I will tell you my prediction in a year or two. DHO800 will be good seller. It is cheap. And they will debug a thing or two, but not everything. But it will generally be brought to be working scope
I will tell you my prediction in a year or two. DHO800 will be good seller. It is cheap. And they will debug a thing or two, but not everything. But it will generally be brought to be working scope and will become DS1000Z of 12 bit world.
OTOH DHO900 is going to bring lots of headache to Rigol.
I don't think the LA will be a big selling point simply because of the price of the probes.
Thanks to them we don't all have to buy crew-cab pickup trucks or seven seat minivans.or buy cheaper DHO800, and cloned LA, or even legit one, still not hit £2K thanks to "them".
I will tell you my prediction in a year or two. DHO800 will be good seller. It is cheap. And they will debug a thing or two, but not everything. But it will generally be brought to be working scope
It's a working 'scope right now.
I only know of two bugs so far in the DHO800 that affect usage (ie. make me have to take an action). Neither is a showstopper, both seem easy to fix.
One of them needs fixing right away to avoid confusion but it seems like an easy fix in the firmware.I will tell you my prediction in a year or two. DHO800 will be good seller. It is cheap. And they will debug a thing or two, but not everything. But it will generally be brought to be working scope and will become DS1000Z of 12 bit world.
This thing blows away the DS1054Z in every possible way. It's great looking, it doesn't take up much space and it's fun to use! No twisty knob!!
It's exactly what hobbyists need. It already IS the "DS1000Z of 12 bit world"*
(*) Right now it's creating a 12 bit world. 8 bits is dead, and it's something the unmentionable brand has no answer for right now.OTOH DHO900 is going to bring lots of headache to Rigol.
Maybe. I think a lot of people will buy it for the signal generator, and a lot of those for the Bode plot. They need to fix the Bode plot ASAP.
I don't think the LA will be a big selling point simply because of the price of the probes.
People in general don't analyze datasheets in detail. Target market for these scopes are not professionals.another insult again. but i wont comment, just to let you know it is an insult, if you not already know. Rigol got ASICs :P
LeCroy created 12 bit world decade ago..
Rigol is bringing in to the masses.
LeCroy created 12 bit world decade ago..
It looks like Siglent is more closely on Rigol's tracks now with the SDS1000X HD
They are really not in the same class, I think. It doesn't look like Siglent is competing in the "true" entry level range with 12 bits. If it really costs close to 800€ it could fill a gap in the low-cost range, as almost all sensible offerings jump from 500 to 1000+ without any steps in between.
I don't follow Siglent threads...
QuoteI don't follow Siglent threads...You can tell, but in this case make an exception and check out the appropriate thread, otherwise this is getting too offtopic.
Does anybody have a price prediction or possible feature set yet? I don't follow Siglent threads...
It won't have AWG and LA hardware built in, and the frontend is 200 MHz. Maybe the additional harware, along with more than twice the bandwith separates them well enough, but I really don't know.They are really not in the same class, I think. It doesn't look like Siglent is competing in the "true" entry level range with 12 bits. If it really costs close to 800€ it could fill a gap in the low-cost range, as almost all sensible offerings jump from 500 to 1000+ without any steps in between.
Seems to me like they'll mainly be competing with their own SDS2000 series.
LeCroy created 12 bit world decade ago..thats why its game changer. we can talk about siglent and owon? 14bits? that came earlier. the game changer (to hobbiests community) is actually the price tag.
Rigol is bringing in to the masses.
I have no idea what does statement about ASIC mean and has to do ANTHING with previous sentence and why are you insulted by it...just for fun... you are a stiff one (we call here "straight" people with no sense of humor) ;D
If you feel insulted by me, that was not my intention. I'm sorry that you are.no offense taken. its only for public benefit and some parts are personal preferences. nothing personal really. and the same to my conclusions are general view by many people. if you feel insulted, then i'm sorry too. just next time dont call people babbon, babbon dont know how to read literatures carefully and dont remember what he said or people said to him before. and again i'm not insulted i'm all too familiar with this. cheers.
Heck, even the DS1052E is still available, so some people who follow old recommendations must still buy it...just few days ago someone PM me here asking how to fix his DS1052E, he bought it 2nd hand. unfortunately even my DS1052E cant be turned on anymore. i think it reached its service life where data in its ic/mcu/rom start to disintegrate.
QuoteI don't follow Siglent threads...You can tell, but in this case make an exception and check out the appropriate thread, otherwise this is getting too offtopic.
OK, I just noticed this in the second post of the "SDS1000X HD coming" thread.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-hd-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1751303;image)
Let's see... 200Mhz bandwidth, 250MSa/sec .... doesn't that break Nyquist? :-//
ENOB 8.4??? :scared:
It looks like Siglent is more closely on Rigol's tracks now with the SDS1000X HD
But can they compete on price? I doubt it. Not without an ASIC.
Does anybody have a price prediction or possible feature set yet? I don't follow Siglent threads...
QuoteI don't follow Siglent threads...You can tell, but in this case make an exception and check out the appropriate thread, otherwise this is getting too offtopic.
OK, I just noticed this in the second post of the "SDS1000X HD coming" thread.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1000x-hd-coming/?action=dlattach;attach=1751303;image)
Let's see... 200Mhz bandwidth, 250MSa/sec .... doesn't that break Nyquist? :-//
ENOB 8.4??? :scared:
These data do not seem real!
Based on the pictures in the topic linked above, 2Gs/s.
I may have overlooked it -- has anyone tested serial decoding with the DHO800/900 yet? I was wondering whether it does a better job than the old DS1000Z series, which always uses only the data on the screen for decoding.
In non-zoom mode it works like the DS1054Z. In zoomed mode it seems to do a full memory decode. If you enable a lot of memory then the screen update starts to get really slow (the first time I've noticed these slow down...)
Great -- thank you very much for testing this! Seems like a decent implementation, offering the user both options: Fast interactive navigation in non-zoom mode (but with possible decoding glitches at the left edge); and proper, robust decoding in zoom mode.
If any MSO5000 users happen to follow along: Is it the same there, or is the MSO5000 as limited as the DS1054Z (i.e. without the robust decoding in zoom mode)?
Maybe this could help:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2034745/#msg2034745 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2034745/#msg2034745)
Decoding table export:
Only what is currently on the screen is decoded and displayed in the table.
If you then export the table, only what was displayed is included and rigol could also think again about the correct formatting.
I guess you live in one of the countries where Microsoft decided the "Comma" part of "CSV" shouldn't be taken literally.
I think Excel has a special import option to fix it but don't ask me where.
Microsoft :palm:
Try it in zoom mode...
In zoom mode you should be able to set maximum memory depth then capture/decode a LOT of data.
Yeah, can't use a comma here to separate fields, because we use that to separate decimal places...
Can't blame Microsoft
It decodes OK but there's a limit
It decodes OK but there's a limit
But... I exported a CSV file and there's 3000 values in it.
Maybe the limit is only in the display.
I exported a CSV file and there's 3000 values in it.
but there´s a limit..
Is there a way to search in the results table (for a specific data value)
and then jump to that position in the trace by clicking the table entry? Or scroll through the table, click a line, and go to the right trace position that way?
Do the two "general purpose" encoders have detents?
(Or do you simply not push these knobs anymore, but rather tap somewhere on the touch screen to confirm data entry?)
You don't really push them. They just change numbers on screen when you turn them, no need to confirm anything.
Thanks! Thinking about it, you probably hardly use the encoders for "discrete" selections -- menu entries or virtual keyboards -- at all,
Edit: Does it support intensity grading in XY mode?
Not sure which Rigol thread to post this in. Just unboxed my DHO804 and trying a basic task, triggering off clocked data. I've got it in Normal trigger mode, on the clock line. Data comes in a burst, then nothing for a couple of seconds. I'd expect the scope to keep triggering on clocks until they stop, showing the last capture on trigger. Instead of overlays several captures on screen. In Gear->Display->Persistence I've got it set on Min (there's no Off). Is there no way to have it just show the most recent capture?
EDIT: I tried the same on my 1054Z and it worked as I expected, always showing only a single capture on screen at any given moment (there Persistence was also set to min., which is apparently off on that model).
Not sure which Rigol thread to post this in. Just unboxed my DHO804 and trying a basic task, triggering off clocked data. I've got it in Normal trigger mode, on the clock line. Data comes in a burst, then nothing for a couple of seconds. I'd expect the scope to keep triggering on clocks until they stop, showing the last capture on trigger. Instead of overlays several captures on screen. In Gear->Display->Persistence I've got it set on Min (there's no Off). Is there no way to have it just show the most recent capture?
EDIT: I tried the same on my 1054Z and it worked as I expected, always showing only a single capture on screen at any given moment (there Persistence was also set to min., which is apparently off on that model).
Do you press "STOP"?
Maybe you want the "freeze" setting at the bottom of the display settings.
Freeze only affects the display when it's stopped. In Run mode it still overlays multiple traces; the freeze switch has no effect there. I made a short video demonstrating. https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4 (https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4)
Freeze only affects the display when it's stopped. In Run mode it still overlays multiple traces; the freeze switch has no effect there. I made a short video demonstrating. https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4 (https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4)
Thanks for the video. The DHO800 captures all look strange to me, including the initial Single capture. What happened to the intensity grading?? ???
What happened to the intensity grading?? ???
What happened to the intensity grading?? ???
It's there, there just isn't much overlap. Screenshot attached.
Freeze only affects the display when it's stopped. In Run mode it still overlays multiple traces; the freeze switch has no effect there. I made a short video demonstrating. https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4 (https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4)
It's there, there just isn't much overlap. Screenshot attached.Regardless of everything, I would choose Auto memory, you still have 10k fixed as a setting(according to the screenshot)
[I made a short video demonstrating. https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4 (https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4)
[I made a short video demonstrating. https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4 (https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4)
I have one more question -- although it is probably unrelated to the effect under discussion: In the video, what are you doing to set the DHO to Single and Run mode, respectively? I see your hand operating the DS1054Z, and the status indicators on the DHO just seem to follow along "magically". What am I missing there?
I think he's pressing a "send some data" button somewhere off-camera.
Freeze only affects the display when it's stopped. In Run mode it still overlays multiple traces; the freeze switch has no effect there. I made a short video demonstrating. https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4 (https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4)
Maybe it's just that the capture rate is much higher on the DHO. Try setting set trigger holdoff so it triggers less often...
Technically speaking: The DHO is showing something closer to what you'd see on an analog 'scope. "Min" persistance doesn't mean there's no persistence.
[I made a short video demonstrating. https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4 (https://files.catbox.moe/jzlpc0.mp4)
I have one more question -- although it is probably unrelated to the effect under discussion: In the video, what are you doing to set the DHO to Single and Run mode, respectively? I see your hand operating the DS1054Z, and the status indicators on the DHO just seem to follow along "magically". What am I missing there?
Actually, I still like the intensity grading of the DS1000Z series better, not to speak of the higher models of this heritage...
I've got it in Normal trigger mode, on the clock line. Data comes in a burst, then nothing for a couple of seconds. I'd expect the scope to keep triggering on clocks until they stop, showing the last capture on trigger. Instead of overlays several captures on screen. In Gear->Display->Persistence I've got it set on Min (there's no Off). Is there no way to have it just show the most recent capture?
EDIT: I tried the same on my 1054Z and it worked as I expected, always showing only a single capture on screen at any given moment (there Persistence was also set to min., which is apparently off on that model).
This little persistence bug is not a show stopper but just one of the little quirks that Rigol is known to do sometimes.
I have no idea what the DHO800's "Waveform Freeze" option does in this mix. Does it somehow override the persistence setting and force it to zero -- but only when entering Stop mode?
I have no idea what the DHO800's "Waveform Freeze" option does in this mix. Does it somehow override the persistence setting and force it to zero -- but only when entering Stop mode?
Yes.
So, when the scope is waiting for a trigger in RUN mode, and showing the most recently acquired set of persistent traces on the screen -- can you press STOP, and it redraws the screen content from the acquisition buffer, showing just a single trace?
That would be another workaround for the "can't have zero persistence" limitation. But it seems that allowing a "persistence: none" setting would be the cleaner way from a UI perspective. I wonder whether there is some deep division-by-zero type limitation in the rendering engine for the intensity-graded display which does not allow this?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1922553;image)
Maybe a DHO owner can specifically confirm or refute this theory by looking at suitable test signals?
QuoteEdit: Does it support intensity grading in XY mode?
Will check this tomorrow..
Yes and No... ;)QuoteEdit: Does it support intensity grading in XY mode?Will check this tomorrow..
..But always a bit disappointing when a modern, more powerful product falls behind its predecessor.
But always a bit disappointing when a modern, more powerful product falls behind its predecessor.
..But always a bit disappointing when a modern, more powerful product falls behind its predecessor.
Hmm, not sure about that.. While looking at the DS1054Z mobo I can see an ADC FPGA with two rams (16b and 32b width) attached, then an FPGA for the display processing, a linux MCU with ram and the 3rd FPGA for the LA..
The DHO's display data are processed inside the android MCU, the DS1054Z display data are processed in a separate FPGA, afaik.. It seems to me the tricks with the persistance shading simply do not fit the android MCU performance (or data bandwidths somewhere)..
PS: the DS1054Z could be more performant than the DHO800 - the 1000Z's FPGA/MCU clocks might be slower (?), on the other hand it does "a distributed processing", with less bottlenecks, kind of..
Well we've been able to hang on to this 824 longer than expected (client has much more pressing issues to resolve, so doesn't need any distractions at this time), and decided to try and give the XY mode a whirl.
Here's a couple characteristic curve 2N3904 plots utilizing XY mode with an external AWG (OMG we utilized the forbidden "S" brand AWG!!!).
For those not familiar with silicon bipolar transistors, these are plots created by sweeping the collector emitter voltage Vce, while stepping the base current and plotting collector current.
The 2N3904_CTR0 curve shows the NPN bipolar operating in reverse (backwards, or upside down) mode as it's often called, where the collector and emitter are effectively interchanged by allow a negative Vce for the NPN type (also shows the forward direction, centered around 0 volts). Note the lower Beta (current gain) and breakdown (steeper collector current slope) in the reverse direction wrt to the forward normal operation mode. This reverse mode was often utilized way back due to the very low Vcesat voltage at low to modest currents.
Anyway, seems the little 824 can produce some nice XY plots!!
Best,
Pity -- no brightly glaring shots when playing Asteroids on this. ::)
I have no idea what the DHO800's "Waveform Freeze" option does in this mix. Does it somehow override the persistence setting and force it to zero -- but only when entering Stop mode?
Yes.
So, when the scope is waiting for a trigger in RUN mode, and showing the most recently acquired set of persistent traces on the screen -- can you press STOP, and it redraws the screen content from the acquisition buffer, showing just a single trace?
That would be another workaround for the "can't have zero persistence" limitation. But it seems that allowing a "persistence: none" setting would be the cleaner way from a UI perspective. I wonder whether there is some deep division-by-zero type limitation in the rendering engine for the intensity-graded display which does not allow this?
I'm enjoying using this scope with the mouse on its own screen (though it locks out the touch screen).
I thought I would be hooking this up to a monitor but the screen is quite readable despite the small fonts
In case this has been missed, you can enable the XY "Advanced Settings" switch on the XY setup window by turning on "Test Mode" first (3 taps on Utility/About).
In case this has been missed, you can enable the XY "Advanced Settings" switch on the XY setup window by turning on "Test Mode" first (3 taps on Utility/About).
In case this has been missed, you can enable the XY "Advanced Settings" switch on the XY setup window by turning on "Test Mode" first (3 taps on Utility/About).
Are there any other secret passageways which get unlocked in "Test Mode"?
Are there any other secret passageways which get unlocked in "Test Mode"?
Only in places that make sense.
(AFAIK)
My question was, where are these places? Any pleasant surprises -- like full control over FFT acquisition details, more control over the number format in axis labels, or such?
AFAIK: It only shows more system info, a self-test menu, an extended self-cal.
AFAIK: It only shows more system info, a self-test menu, an extended self-cal.
ie. Stuff you'd expect a "debug" mode to do.
plus extended, surprisingly detailed controls for XY mode, right?
I've just been messing around playing youtube videos into the 'scope in XY mode:How do you modulate (switch on/off, etc) the beam?
... plus extended, surprisingly detailed controls for XY mode, right?
I've just been messing around playing youtube videos into the 'scope in XY mode:How do you modulate (switch on/off, etc) the beam?
That's interesting, at least I hadn't noticed that until just now:
In the web server, the screen has a different resolution, 1280x800, as you can see in the two pictures from my previous post.
A direct screenshot saved on a usb stick has the resolution of the installed screen.
Are there any other secret passageways which get unlocked in "Test Mode"?There are some HDMI settings IIRC.
Are there any other secret passageways which get unlocked in "Test Mode"?There are some HDMI settings IIRC.
But the 1280x800 pictures don't look great -- more blurry fonts and some jagged edges.
Maybe a DHO owner can specifically confirm or refute this theory by looking at suitable test signals?
This is about the best I could get:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1922796;image)
What is absolutely annoying is this "waveform freeze"... ::)
If you stop the scope, you can't recognize the waveform because it is superimposed.
Freeze off is the solution and it will stay with me permanently.
What is absolutely annoying is this "waveform freeze"... ::)
If you stop the scope, you can't recognize the waveform because it is superimposed.
Just to be crystal clear for users of other brands: It's a user option.Freeze off is the solution and it will stay with me permanently.
It depends what you're looking at.
If it's data packets then it's bad. Analog signals? Not so much.
Let me stop you right there... This is one of the typical situations where a feature is handy or gets in the way. Tektronix DSOs (at least the older ones) operate in this way and that is where Rigol likely copied it from. It can be handy when dealing with slow signals so you can see the difference between the old and the new signal without needing slow or infinite persistence. On the Tektronix scopes you can press one of the channel buttons to make the previous acquisition dissapear.What is absolutely annoying is this "waveform freeze"... ::)
If you stop the scope, you can't recognize the waveform because it is superimposed.
Just to be crystal clear for users of other brands: It's a user option.Freeze off is the solution and it will stay with me permanently.
It depends what you're looking at.
If it's data packets then it's bad. Analog signals? Not so much.
It is good that you can shut it off.
It is equally useless for digital and analog signals.
Unless used with persistence. Which is why that option should be in persistence settings.
And should be coupled with persistence, and if persistence is off it should be automatically off.
That is logical, consistent and how it should have been done.
And to make it worse, it is not something that is problem with scope hardware.
Just a poor choice of function grouping and lack of understanding how it should be done.
I have now started to display and save the signals from the demo board step by step on the 804.
I have now started to display and save the signals from the demo board step by step on the 804.Just wondering: how is the 7" screen in terms of operator comfort?
Then another scope, another one.
Ah, ok.
So a screen-only decoding would not be able to do something like the following picture?
But only when it can be seen in full resolution (second picture), I think I have understood it now.
And does the DHO804 decode full memory or only the part of the signal shown on screen?
So basically it decodes only what is on screen which is not full memory.And does the DHO804 decode full memory or only the part of the signal shown on screen?
As mentioned earlier (referencing Fungus' findings), it seems to be "ful memory" when you are in Zoom mode, while it's only the part shown on the screen (but with the full resolution from memory!) in normal view.
So basically it decodes only what is on screen which is not full memory.And does the DHO804 decode full memory or only the part of the signal shown on screen?
As mentioned earlier (referencing Fungus' findings), it seems to be "ful memory" when you are in Zoom mode, while it's only the part shown on the screen (but with the full resolution from memory!) in normal view.
I wonder whether (and very much hope that!) there is similar progress in the "measurements" department. Again, the DS1054Z does these from the screen data: As soon as the relevant details are no longer resolved on screen, measurements show wrong values or indicate that they are unable to measure anything ('*****'). Does the DHO800 handle this better?
Example, 10khz sine wave...
Just wondering: how is the 7" screen in terms of operator comfort?Hard on the edge for people with thick sausage fingers... ;)
The arrows in the top right corner are impossible to hit without a mouse or stylus.One can just swipe that ribbon left/right (with momentum), without tapping on the arrows...
So basically it decodes only what is on screen which is not full memory.And does the DHO804 decode full memory or only the part of the signal shown on screen?
As mentioned earlier (referencing Fungus' findings), it seems to be "ful memory" when you are in Zoom mode, while it's only the part shown on the screen (but with the full resolution from memory!) in normal view.
How can you determine for sure whether it is from the complete memory?
This is a fundamental question.
Now try the same without needing the zoom window that ...
A) takes a lot of space and B) has a better purpose than selecting which part of the acquisition you want to decode
You can see it in this image (the line "B1" in the zoom area):
So my assertion is correct: the DHO804 decodes only what is on screen (which is in line with previous / other Rigol scopes).Now try the same without needing the zoom window that ...
We went through all this last week...
Start here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5152266/#msg5152266 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5152266/#msg5152266)
So my assertion is correct: the DHO804 decodes only what is on screen (which is in line with previous / other Rigol scopes).
I also like navigating from within the timebase/acquire menu to the vertical/tab menus and from there to the trigger or measurement menus, etc. Lots of entry points to all menus...)
Now try the same without needing the zoom window that ...
So my assertion is correct: the DHO804 decodes only what is on screen (which is in line with previous / other Rigol scopes).
How do you know the "measure" results (the sine wave in the replay #802) are made a) from all data in the memory, or, b) from the data visible on the screen only?
The DHO804 already goes beyond DS1000Z capabilities in regular view mode, because it accesses the deep memory to resolve and decode details not visible on-screen.
This worked quite well, but it is a bit annoying that you can only get back to the decoder menu via the menu button at the bottom left - unless you have activated the table, from there you can go directly to the menu.
A bit confusing and illogical.
No. I just wanted to have something clarified beyond any doubt about decoding behaviour through a very simple question which actually was not answered before.Now try the same without needing the zoom window that ...So my assertion is correct: the DHO804 decodes only what is on screen (which is in line with previous / other Rigol scopes).
Are you just not listening/reading, or are you actively trying to troll this thread?
Topic decode from memory or not:Try to figure how to drive the number of messages in that table display and you'll know it.
If it can only decode what is visible on the screen, then this(attached pic in run mode) shouldn't work at all...or should it?
Try to figure how to drive the number of messages in that table display and you'll know it.
See #825 and yes I've also tried with max memory (25Mpts because of 2 channels active).
Look at the amount of memory the siglent got(Automode), it doesn't matter at all.
If you zoom out (if there is off-screen data), you should be able to see more packets in the decoding table (up to the limit). And what happens with the number of packets in the decode table when you zoom in? Both in stop mode BTW so the acquisition record is fixed.QuoteTry to figure how to drive the number of messages in that table display and you'll know it.
Just tried it out, you can only change the number of decoded packages displayed via the time base.
If you set it to 50ms, you have15 packages.37 packages
If you set it to 10ms, you get 7.
If you now use the manual allocation of the memory and set it to e.g. 10Mpts, the number of packages displayed remains at 7, although the memory is now much more than in auto mode.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1926249;image)
No problem, its better than posting pics - But now to the interesting part:Yes. There is (acquired) data outside the visible area when you pressed stop. By zooming out, you increased the timespan and brought the packets which where invisible before into the visual 'range' so the DHO804 decided to try and decode that part of the acquisition as well.
Does it decode from the memory in the last part of the video ? :D
But now to the interesting part:
Does it decode from the memory in the last part of the video ? :D
But what I found really "scary" was that I took the scope out of the cupboard for the first time in a while - and compared to the DHO, it seems downright "antique" to me. 8)
I bet the non-touch Siglents aren't much different either.
This is no longer up to date, but you can forgive them, they are a bit older. ;)
This is no longer up to date, but you can forgive them, they are a bit older. ;)
Yes, but if you're going out to buy today... not even on the shortlist, right?
there are still many things DS1104X-E can do that DHO800 cannot.
there are still many things DS1104X-E can do that DHO800 cannot.
You mean things that require more hardware?
Like we said before many times, there are still many things DS1104X-E can do that DHO800 cannot.
It is only a question if that matters to you or not.
Facts are out there. Go back and read again.
Facts are out there. Go back and read again.
Fact: The DHO800 can do many things the SDS1000X-E cannot.
If you want Bode plots and/or MSO functionality, the DHO800 does not offer these at all. You would have to buy the DHO900, spending several hundred USD or EUR more.i hope soon DHO800 will be upgradable (hackable) to bode plot capable... hopefully at less than $100 cost...
here corrected for you ;) cheers.YouWe should start adding a new phrases toyourour vocabulary. It is :"to me." and "for me".
If you want Bode plots and/or MSO functionality, the DHO800 does not offer these at all. You would have to buy the DHO900, spending several hundred USD or EUR more.i hope soon DHO800 will be upgradable (hackable) to bode plot capable... hopefully at less than $100 cost...here corrected for you ;) cheers.YouWe should start adding a new phrases toyourour vocabulary. It is :"to me." and "for me".
Yes, but if you're going out to buy today... not even on the shortlist, right?
I agree. If you could modify the DH800 to have a bigger display, it would be more or less equal to the way more expensive DHO models.Yes, but if you're going out to buy today... not even on the shortlist, right?
As a main device, not a single 7" scope would be on my list, the small screen would be too tiring for me in the long run.
If that weren't the case and I had a tight budget and no scope yet, the SDS1104X-E and the DHO804 would remain.
However, since I need Bodeplot and the Rigol doesn't offer one, I would have to opt for the siglent.
That's quite a shame, because I like the DHO804 better in some areas (what exactly will follow).
And even if I had more money to spare, a DHO900S would be out of the question for me, as I consider it a rather superfluous model.
What can it do better than the 800, almost nothing.
If you don't need an LA, the device is a more expensive 800.
As things stand, I think the 800 series is the best of all the new Rigol scopes, no joke.
The "oddities" and the sometimes rather meager features can be forgiven for the cheap 800, as the owner of a DHO1000 or even 4000 I would feel a bit stultified in view of the fact that most of the hardware used there is also available for a quarter or eighth of the price with the 800 and the software and thus the operation is the same anyway.
However, since I need Bodeplot and the Rigol doesn't offer one, I would have to opt for the siglent.
And even if I had more money to spare, a DHO900S would be out of the question for me, as I consider it a rather superfluous model.
What can it do better than the 800, almost nothing.
If you don't need an LA, the device is a more expensive 800.
As things stand, I think the 800 series is the best of all the new Rigol scopes, no joke.
With the Siglent you have to add the cost and extra bench space of a signal generator.
I wouldn't have the "problem" with the Rigol, of course.
But then I wouldn't have a bode plot either. ;)
Was the Siglent Bode plot 100% perfect on launch?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Siglent's FFT problems shown in Dave's review of the DHO800...
QuoteI'm still waiting for an explanation of the Siglent's FFT problems shown in Dave's review of the DHO800...
What problem ?
That would be good if you could name it, because I have access to the scope at work.
I didn't follow that back then, I just know that when I got to know it (2018), it was really good.
Fuck off Fungus
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/)
DS2000
Regarding early scope issues: Sure, the "Yaigol" bug was disconcerting.
But it was fixed within six weeks by a firmware update (improving the PLL settings).DS1054Z
DS2000
DS1054Z
Not at all, quite busy actually.Fuck off Fungusyour sale hurts?
@Fungus:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5171130/#msg5171130 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5171130/#msg5171130)
I don't know where you're going with this... :-//
I wouldn't have the "problem" with the Rigol, of course.
But then I wouldn't have a bode plot either. ;)
Trouble in kindergarten test equipment land :popcorn: The toddlers are having a diaper fight.Fuck off Fungus
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/)
Come on, man, get a grip. What kind of tone is that?
Fungus assumed you were claiming that the DHO900 "does not have a Bode plot" since that functionality is not working properly yet.
So please forgive my scepticism that something bigger is happening.
I would be delighted if I were wrong, you can take my word for it. ;)
The few bugs that we've found in the DHO800
I will have a look at the ultra acquiremode, how to use it and then create a table from it.
First attempt was "unsuccessful", I also had max 20000wfms/s in ultra mode.
Can't be right, so I'll look for what went wrong.
See the video at 32:15:
Between 50ns and 500ns it remains in descending 6 digits and between 50µs and 100µs there is this dramatic drop again.You are probably well aware of this, but in case it helps others, keep in mind that the capture rate is limited by the time it takes to display the waveform on the screen. For example at 100µs/div and 10div, the capture rate can not be any faster than 1/(1000µs) or 1000 wfms/sec; at 1ms/div it can be at most 100 wfms/sec, etc.
Hi,However, it may be of interest to note that, whereas at 20ns/div, 42K wfms/sec captures only 0.84% of the 5M/sec max available; at 1ms/div, the 36 wfms/sec you've measured in normal mode captures 36% of the 100/sec max available...
This hard drop down I didn´t noticed on any other scope before, including the DHO4204.
I just did, it doesn't look nice, but I don't know the settings, nor are they revealed there.
This hard drop down I didn´t noticed on any other scope before, including the DHO4204.
It seems that a Black Friday for DHO1000 will start soon :
https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html (https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html)
with 40% discount it sounds interesting vs DHO800 ...
It costs 999, I think, It already has a 10% discount.It seems that a Black Friday for DHO1000 will start soon :
https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html (https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html)
with 40% discount it sounds interesting vs DHO800 ...
DHO1074 costs $899. With 40% off that's $539.
You get a bigger screen, 200MHz, 2GSa/sec., 100Mpts. (assuming a hack)
damned i bought dho800 too early :palm: as dave simply put it, they are going to play the market by themselves. someone must be "fuck me off" by this "die veneris nigrum" thing...It seems that a Black Friday for DHO1000 will start soon :DHO1074 costs $899. With 40% off that's $539.
https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html (https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html)
with 40% discount it sounds interesting vs DHO800 ...
You get a bigger screen, 200MHz, 2GSa/sec., 100Mpts. (assuming a hack)
You also get internal 50 Ohm termination.
Hardware it's the same as HDO4000.
Hardware it's the same as HDO4000.
I don't think so. The DHO4000 has dual ADCs too, and active probe interfaces.
You also get internal 50 Ohm termination.
Are you sure? I don't think the DHO1000 has that; the DHO4000 might.
You also get internal 50 Ohm termination.
Are you sure? I don't think the DHO1000 has that; the DHO4000 might.
Well, not really, as I haven't read the datasheet or manuals, but the images on Rigol.eu say so.
Can anyone comment on the web browser interface of the DHO814 versus the Siglent SDS1104X-E?
- Does it behave exactly the same as using the scope's touchscreen (or mouse) directly?
- What resolution does it support
Does it run at full speed, or is the update rate noticeably slower?
[background: I'm looking for a small quiet desktop scope for hobbyist use - generally 2-layer PCB debug, mostly digital with small amounts of analog conditioning circuits. I have a couple old LeCroy scopes in the closet if I need high bandwidth, but the LeCroys are big and noisy. Most of my debug time is spent in front of the PC on my bench - updating code, taking notes, viewing documentation, etc. Having good web based control of the scope makes the debug and documentation (screenshots) faster and easier.]
We already have a DHO1000/4000 Thread... ;)Indeed, and there has been said that the 50 ohm cand be activated with vendor.bin method as so the 800 MHz BW. But no real use without 2 ADC as the signal is halved and processed weird.
Can anyone comment on the web browser interface of the DHO814 versus the Siglent SDS1104X-E?
1- Does it behave exactly the same as using the scope's touchscreen (or mouse) directly?
2- What resolution does it support - just 1024x600 (or 800x480 for the Siglent) or is higher resolution available?
3- Does it run at full speed, or is the update rate noticeably slower?
It seems that a Black Friday for DHO1000 will start soon :
https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html (https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html)
with 40% discount it sounds interesting vs DHO800 ...
It seems that a Black Friday for DHO1000 will start soon :
https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html (https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html)
with 40% discount it sounds interesting vs DHO800 ...
RIGOL DHO1074 £620 on sale now it seems...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/DHO1074-Digital-Oscilloscope-channel-warranty/dp/B0BJ31PHLN (https://www.amazon.co.uk/DHO1074-Digital-Oscilloscope-channel-warranty/dp/B0BJ31PHLN)
See my post in the suitable thread, this is a sale of the old designations, I don't think it means anything more.
DHO800 it's OK as functionality, but the effective screen size is very small. The all-time active menus takes a lot of space. 10 inch is much better for this interface.Yep. the DHOxxx vertical-screen aspect is undermined quite a bit by menus & info boxes..
Also, the USB-C power supply connector it's not on my taste.
DHO800 it's OK as functionality, but the effective screen size is very small. The all-time active menus takes a lot of space.
From users-screenshots, it looks to be up around 35%?
That's a lot of your precious" vertical screen when you're dealing with a 7" that is in a 16/9 ratio that is already vertically cramped if you can't remove some of these top & bottom boxes.
t's easy to imagine that but I bet you won't even think about it after you use one for a few weeks.
See my post in the suitable thread, this is a sale of the old designations, I don't think it means anything more.
800/900 Pro? Would you have a link?
Can do it tomorrow with the batronix demoboard (I²C does not work onFTFY ;)themy siglent demoboard).
I tested it with 20kbit data rate.
20KSa/s is too low, nothing is decoded.
It has to be 50Ksa/s to display anything meaningful.
It has to be 50Ksa/s to display anything meaningful.
Working at 50kSa/s is quite impressive. It's only 20% above the minimum requirement.
(and the "minimum" still means you have to get lucky with the sample alignment)
How will you capture that with 20kSa/s?
Now the data rate has been increased from 20kbits to 200kbits.
[...]
2.5MSa/s flawless decoding
1.25MSa/s NO decoding
500KSa/s flawless decoding again.
Interesting....
An old friend has found his way here. ;)
Looks a bit yellowish-stained in comparison
UI elements that work well on the 10" screen (with 1280*800 pixels) still take up the same number of pixels, and hence a larger percentage of the screen.
Is there a switch somewhere where you can select the desired behavior?
QuoteIs there a switch somewhere where you can select the desired behavior?Good question, I´ll look for it.
QuoteIs there a switch somewhere where you can select the desired behavior?Good question, I´ll look for it.
There is nothing about this in the settings or in the manual.
which would make some sense given the different screen sizes.
The ultra acquire mode still leaves me baffled.
You can conjure up impressive images on the screen with it, but somehow that's about it.
The ultra acquire mode still leaves me baffled.
You can conjure up impressive images on the screen with it, but somehow that's about it.
I think the idea is to see events "in context", ie. you can see the event and what came before/after it all on the same screen (in 3D or whatever).
Today I tested the waveform updaterate.
Based on the first table of rf-loop measurements, with a sine of 600mVpp and frequencies from 1khz up to 40Mhz.
As you know, with rigol you can't make any settings regarding vector/dots or lin / sinx/x, it only works as it is.
Memory mode is set to Auto, beforehand I made sure that the aux output is actually set to trigger out.
The trigger out signal has an amplitude of 3.3V and a single pulse width of 100ns.
The updaterates appear as bursts with pauses in between, which was to be expected.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1929924;image)
Things worth noting:
from 5ns to 500ns the rate remains almost constant, between 1µs and 5µs it drops only slightly and between 5µs and 20µs it shows the halving at every timebase change that I know of.
But then from 50µs it drops drastically from 4 digits to 2 digits, for whatever reason.
The early minimisation of the sample rate is also interesting, it is already reduced from 100µs.
The memory points remain constant at 625 kpts from 50 µs - only at 500 µs does it rise again to 781.25 kpts and then drop again to 625 - whatever triggers this, especially as 781.25 is a rather crooked number.
I will have a look at the ultra acquiremode, how to use it and then create a table from it.
First attempt was "unsuccessful", I also had max 20000wfms/s in ultra mode.
Can't be right, so I'll look for what went wrong.
Setting was auto-memory management.Yes I know, but the point was to know how does it work with the advertised memory enabled. I think with a few kpoints the 1104x-e could also get to some astronomical numbers.
If I wanted to make a direct comparison, I would have to have the same circumstances, otherwise it makes no sense.
Been watching lots of write-ups and vids on DHO800 series.
Am I correct on this, getting the 804 to the 814 via "upgrades" is easy?
Also, if ch1 triggers from ch4, can you still get full 1.25Gsa/s on ch1 ?
Sorry if I missed it, what is the -3db of the 804 when brought up to 814 100MHz level? Is it near 185MHz?
Also, if ch1 triggers from ch4, can you still get full 1.25Gsa/s on ch1 ?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Siglent's FFT problems shown in Dave's review of the DHO800...It has been revealed Dave can't drive FFT properly.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Siglent's FFT problems shown in Dave's review of the DHO800...It has been revealed Dave can't drive FFT properly.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg5195079/#msg5195079 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1104x-e-in-depth-review/msg5195079/#msg5195079)
Hi Randy,Arrrrg.
Measured -3dB point lies on 200Mhz.QuoteAlso, if ch1 triggers from ch4, can you still get full 1.25Gsa/s on ch1 ?
Just tested it - samplerate will be then reduced to half although only one channel is active..
Why are you telling me? Take it up with Dave.
hardly anything can be set, no different modes, which is a particular pity that there is no averaging.
With Rigol it looks different when you switch from Hanning to Flattop.
Besides that, I am struggling with the "hardly anything can be set" complaint.
QuoteBesides that, I am struggling with the "hardly anything can be set" complaint.
Deepl translation error..
There is nothing to complain about in the menu operation, on the contrary, I think it is one of the most successful menu structures at the moment.
Working with the DS1054Z is like traveling backwards in time. ;)
I hadn't noticed this before, but now, with the DHO804 in direct comparison, I have to say:
Farewell and thank you for once arousing my interest in a private scope and fulfilling my wish to own one.
But your time is simply up, no one should buy you anymore, given the DHO800.
A small example of how it could not be more drastic.
50mV/div, then stop, then enlarged to 20mv/div.
As I said, time's up.
A hint for using FFT on DHO scopes: don't use auto sampling depth but rather choose a fairly high number (at least at 1MPts the FFT still utilizes the full memory). Only if very fast FFT update rate is required at reduced available RBW, it makes sense to select less sample memory since Rigol's FFT engine is pretty fast anyway.
Is there something in the FFT which you would like to adjust but can't?
color-grading FFT display nonsense (available on DHO1000 series, don't know if it's included in the DHO800 as well),
It is, and you can do it in multiple windows. :)
The absence of averaging is clearly a gap. Makes the FFT output so much cleaner, and makes signals clearly visible that you otherwise have to guess at -- and it should be easy to implement. I think it's catching up with Rigol here that they implemented Averaging as an acquisition mode (only), not as a math function. That's a nice solution when you want to use Averaging on time-domain signals: no overhead and conveniently activated. But it means that averaging is not available post-FFT. A dedicated option would be needed there.Average acquisition mode and/or math function are something completely different than averaging of an FFT trace.
Besides that, I am struggling with the "hardly anything can be set" complaint.I do not know what can be set in the DHO, maybe Martin will enlighten us. Yet there are other maybe even more important things.
Looks like the Flat-top window function is plainly broken on the Rigol. It is just that particular window function which gives the unexpected results, right? Maybe they don't deal with the negative weights properly? Looks like a bug.Who cares? As long as you can browse the web and play doom on it. You just need to get aware of the real priorities in T&M…
Average acquisition mode and/or math function are something completely different than averaging of an FFT trace.
Full featured DSOs have Average as
1. Acquisition mode, yet with reduced max. memory depth
2. Math function
3. Substitute for VBW setting of an SA for the FFT traces.
For instance, am I the only one who wonders how the “RBW” can always be “100” (without dimension), regardless of the window function?
From the sparse info on the screen we get that the FFT sample rate is 62.5 MSa/s. We don’t know the number of FFT points, so we can only assume it’s the same as the record length, which is displayed as 625.00 kpts. What a coincidence that the frequency step happens to be exactly 100 Hz in this case. And of course the frequency step is independent of the window function. The RBW on the other hand can be anything from 90 Hz to 380 Hz, hence the info on the FFT is not only misleading but plain wrong. Hardly a professional touch…
QuoteBesides that, I am struggling with the "hardly anything can be set" complaint.
Deepl translation error..
There is nothing to complain about in the menu operation, on the contrary, I think it is one of the most successful menu structures at the moment.
I didn't understand it as "it is hard to set anything", but as "there are not enough things which can be set". Is there something in the FFT which you would like to adjust but can't?
QuoteIs there something in the FFT which you would like to adjust but can't?
Number of points for example, I'm used to being able to manually set the number of memory points (which are also not displayed on the rigol).
1. FFT mode : Normal, Average, Max Hold (at least)
2. Number of points/bins
3. RBW cannot be set. It is displayed in window title (which by the way is not visible if you do multiple windows, negating the benefit) and is some kind of function of timease. You twiddle timebase left and right until you like how it looks.
As stated in my questions to TurboTom, a few posts above, I have been wondering that too. If the only flaw in the displayed "RBW" is that it is not actually an RBW but a frequency step, I can live with that (although Rigol should fix it, of course, and add a unit while they are at it). But I did see some screenshots or videos earlier where unexpected "RBW" values were displayed, which did not seem to make sense even as a frequency step and assuming a Hz unit. Maybe Tom or Martin can shed some light onto whether and when this happens?
1. I think we all agree that lacking Average mode is an annoying omission, as discussed separately above. I don't know about the relevance of Max Hold mode, but that's probably due to my lack of knowledge about some applications (regulatory/EMC maybe?).
2. As discussed, it's set via the acquisition memory size in my understanding. That way of doing it may be lacking something; see my questions to Martin just above.
3. Now I am confused. If you choose the window function, record length and sampling rate -- how can you set the RBW independently?
Basic problem is that this is a measurement instrument but nobody knows what it shows.
If it measures and shows kilobananas then say that so user knows.
If RBW is RBW in a SA sense then it should be configurable and documented how it does rescaling.
If they use RBW for frequency bin width, that is simply wrong.
Also since real FFT parameters are not shown, and RBW is aparently dimensionless number, how you know it is correct in what it shows.
2. Number of bins can be separate from sample rate and acquistion length.
Unless you do a piecewise FFT of partial segments of the time series, or preprocess the time series by averaging etc., of course.
I’m not sure if I understand correctly what you mean. Of course there is a difference whether we average the records, i.e. the waveform in the time domain, which are the basis for the FFT, or the converted math result (FFT) which is now in the frequency domain.Average acquisition mode and/or math function are something completely different than averaging of an FFT trace.
Full featured DSOs have Average as
1. Acquisition mode, yet with reduced max. memory depth
2. Math function
3. Substitute for VBW setting of an SA for the FFT traces.
But if a Math function 2. were available which averages over successive sweeps, couldn't it be be applied to the FFT to obtain 3.?
As stated in my questions to TurboTom, a few posts above, I have been wondering that too. If the only flaw in the displayed "RBW" is that it is not actually an RBW but a frequency step, I can live with that (although Rigol should fix it, of course, and add a unit while they are at it). But I did see some screenshots or videos earlier where unexpected "RBW" values were displayed, which did not seem to make sense even as a frequency step and assuming a Hz unit. Maybe Tom or Martin can shed some light onto whether and when this happens?Yes, you can live with it – once you know what it actually means. It’s annoying nevertheless – and up to now, you only know what I have found out by accident. Rght now you’re expressing doubts what this dimensionless number actually is. I can only tell what I see in a few screenshots, so others will have to verify it.
Yes, this is one possibility, but can’t you imagine situations, where you have to capture long records, exceeding 1 Mpts, yet want a shorter FFT, maybe to get a wider RBW?QuoteIs there something in the FFT which you would like to adjust but can't?
Number of points for example, I'm used to being able to manually set the number of memory points (which are also not displayed on the rigol).
I thought that's set via the acquisition memory setting (up to 1 MPts)? Is the issue that it's not in the FFT dialog, or that the available steps are too coarse? Or does that setting not actually set the number of FFT points at all?
Ad 2: see above.1. FFT mode : Normal, Average, Max Hold (at least)
2. Number of points/bins
3. RBW cannot be set. It is displayed in window title (which by the way is not visible if you do multiple windows, negating the benefit) and is some kind of function of timease. You twiddle timebase left and right until you like how it looks.
1. I think we all agree that lacking Average mode is an annoying omission, as discussed separately above. I don't know about the relevance of Max Hold mode, but that's probably due to my lack of knowledge about some applications (regulatory/EMC maybe?).
2. As discussed, it's set via the acquisition memory size in my understanding. That way of doing it may be lacking something; see my questions to Martin just above.
3. Now I am confused. If you choose the window function, record length and sampling rate -- how can you set the RBW independently?
RBW value that gets displayed on DHO1000 FFT screen is 3dB reolution bandwidth in units kHz. To me it appears that on the DHO800 screen, the RBW value is in units Hz but I may wrong.
Of course there is a difference whether we average the records, i.e. the waveform in the time domain, which are the basis for the FFT, or the converted math result (FFT) which is now in the frequency domain.
The attached screenshot shows an example of a measurement graph demonstrating the frequency response of an SDS2000X Plus in 10 bit mode, that could not be produced otherwise.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1941765)
SDS2354X Plus_FR_BFull_1GSa_500MHz_10bit
In DHO800 image by @Martin72 (Reply #956) it looks that it is simply sample frequency / FFT length. (62500000/625000=100)
If you mean an advanced scope with math on math, where you want to apply averaging on the FFT result, either by two math traces where one acts as input for the other, or defined in a formula in a single channel. I’ve never tried it, but would not be surprised if FFT (which delivers a frequency domain result after all) would be about the only math function that cannot act as a source for other (time domain) functions.
Since Averaging is included in the FFT package anyway, why bother.
[...] can’t you imagine situations, where you have to capture long records, exceeding 1 Mpts, yet want a shorter FFT, maybe to get a wider RBW?
Ad 3: Max Hold is at least as important as Averaging. It allows the scope to do frequency response plots. Other then Bode Plot, this can use the full bandwidth up to half the sample rate and it can plot the frequency response of the scope itself. The attached screenshot shows an example of a measurement graph demonstrating the frequency response of an SDS2000X Plus in 10 bit mode, that could not be produced otherwise.
I'm just wondering: When does it make sense to average in the time domain instead of averaging the spectral power of the FFT bins?Of course it makes no sense to average the acquisitions before an FFT is applied. It kills all modulation and other dynamic effects.
I would always prefer the latter.
The former suffers from trigger jitter due to noise, which slightly misaligns the traces to be averaged.
OTOH, the sampling phase (or IOW the trigger point of the traces) does not matter at all for spectral power averaging.
What is the blue "Ref" trace?That is the frequency response in the 2nd Nyquist zone, i.e. from 1 GHz – 500 MHz 😉
Don’t make it more complicated than it is. We can of course just select the record length so that it makes for the desired FFT length.Quote[...] can’t you imagine situations, where you have to capture long records, exceeding 1 Mpts, yet want a shorter FFT, maybe to get a wider RBW?
But what would the FFT operation do then? Split the long record into multiple segments, Fourier-transform them individually, and combine them via Averaging or Max Hold? If so, isn't that equivalent to setting a shorter record length in the first place and keeping the operation running?
(Honest question; I might be missing something.)
OK, thanks. So Max Hold would be used in scenarios where you sweep the input signal, as 2N3055 also suggested? It's a bit counter-intuitive to me that you would always do a full FFT during such a scan, rather than a Bode-plot style detection of the known fundamental frequency. If a system has strong distortion, say due to clipping, at a low input frequency, that might appear as an apparent response at a higher harmonic?Just because we can always find a scenario where something might not work well, this doesn’t make a certain feature less valuable. In my example it worked just perfect.
The discussion about FFT has been very interesting and made me fire up my DHO804 to see what it can do. I was disappointed when I couldn't select any of the math operations as a source. I checked and according to the manual FFT on the DHO800 only works with one of the 4 channels as the source. It doesn't work from either a math or reference source.It cannot do an FFT on reference traces, because these are heavily decimated (maybe even screen) data. You would need so called Memory Traces for this, which are similar to Reference traces, but with the the original data, hence original sample rate.
Wouldn't worry too much about this since the most relevant window functions von Hann, Blackman-Harris and rectangular are available and appear to work correctly.
Don’t make it more complicated than it is. We can of course just select the record length so that it makes for the desired FFT length.
We can also take the freedom to select the record length using one criterion and a different criterion for the FFT length. What’s wrong with that?
I hope they do that sooner rather than later...
Apart from that, if you can't set the number of points, it would be great if the rigol could at least show how many points are currently available.istr when i ordered my dho804 few weeks ago, someone keep complaining about dho800/900, how 900 (same HW as 800) can easily aliased (by struggling hard enough to show gibbs effect phenomenon as aliasing etc) how bad things including its fft, so i let him find the formula by himself. usually if people think he is clever i'll let him find the formula himself... not sure if he already figure that out... the formula is very simple..
number of FFT point (bins you saw plotted on screen)
When trying to sound smart, people should at least post correct information.i may mixed up / confusing what a specific DSO brand refering to "FFT points" (sampled points? or bin points? i dont own "THAT brand" DSO) but...
That includes not using points and bins as synonym first, and making contradicting statements later by (accidentally?) stating something that sounds right, namely that FFT bins are half the FFT points.
One should also not confuse frequency step (df) with resolution bandwidth (RBW).
One should also understand the vast difference between a traditional swept SA and the FFT on a DSO – or even a combination of both to form a powerful realtime SA…
When in doubt, one can always look up the fundamentals in this old post (reply #23):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rohde-schwarz-rtb2002-vs-siglent-sds2104x-plus/msg3239832/#msg3239832 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rohde-schwarz-rtb2002-vs-siglent-sds2104x-plus/msg3239832/#msg3239832)
i may mixed up / confusing what a specific DSO brand refering to "FFT points" (sampled points? or bin points? i dont own "THAT brand" DSO) but... what a waste lengthy talk about -3dB points of FFT Windowing function that looks like smart but in fact a "more than necessary" a complicated misinformation... better refer to "known brand"'s definition, than one guys' own definition from an unknown location ;)
If we distrust the numbers displayed on the screen, ist it possible to export the FFT math trace to a text file?
You wouldn't be so much in the dark if there was something like this - and it can't be difficult to implement.if you are depending on that figure, then good for you, you dont have to know formula... (my program also provides such figure) i know rigol is a bit behind in this, but now its catching up... "the traditional way", which somehow bring back nostalgic emotion.. but please dont argue smart like some people.. only providing own's definition without being backed up by industrial name's definition. cheers.
But so far I haven't seen a Rigol that does it, neither expensive nor cheap.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/?action=dlattach;attach=1942365;image)
When I see screenshots showing 62.5MSa/s, 625000 points, and RBW 100 (assuming that 100Hz is not really the -3dB RBW, but actually the frequency bin spacing), then I get the impression that the FFT size is the full record length of 625000 points, which would also imply that this FFT implementation can handle sizes that are not a power of two. Of course, there has to be a limit to the maximum FFT size, so the question remains what happens if the acquired records are longer than the limit. What subset of samples is selected? Start of the record? Center? Or are long records even split into multiple chunks of the maximum FFT size?you people maybe right about bin size vs RBW, but that probably due to some advanced feature of FFT that may not accessible to normal people, such as spectrum leakage and varying window function effect on actual spectrum power, until you people can provide more reliable materials to read, i think rigol refering RBW as bin spacing as defined by link i provided. if rigol implementing your peole's definition of RBW, then there is no way of knowing how many points. but then... what practical benefit to know how many points? other than swinging dick contest this brand is lower points than the other. just read the goat damned FFT/SA the like old people did it... no need number of pts or question this brand is more reliable than others... ymmv.
If we distrust the numbers displayed on the screen, ist it possible to export the FFT math trace to a text file? If yes, how many points does it export if full span (0...fs/2) is selected? The number of saved points and the difference between adjacent frequencies should give an indication for the actual FFT size and frequency bin spacing (unless only decimated screen data are saved :( - that's useless, of course).
QuoteIf we distrust the numbers displayed on the screen, ist it possible to export the FFT math trace to a text file?
Directly from the FFT menu not, only the peak/marker table.
But I'll try another thing, maybe that works.
When I see screenshots showing 62.5MSa/s, 625000 points, and RBW 100 (assuming that 100Hz is not really the -3dB RBW, but actually the frequency bin spacing), then I get the impression that the FFT size is the full record length of 625000 points, which would also imply that this FFT implementation can handle sizes that are not a power of two. Of course, there has to be a limit to the maximum FFT size, so the question remains what happens if the acquired records are longer than the limit. What subset of samples is selected? Start of the record? Center? Or are long records even split into multiple chunks of the maximum FFT size?you people maybe right about bin size vs RBW, but that probably due to some advanced feature of FFT that may not accessible to normal people, such as spectrum leakage and varying window function effect on actual spectrum power, until you people can provide more reliable materials to read, i think rigol refering RBW as bin spacing as defined by link i provided. if rigol implementing your peole's definition of RBW, then there is no way of knowing how many points. but then... what practical benefit to know how many points? other than swinging dick contest this brand is lower points than the other. just read the goat damned FFT/SA the like old people did it... no need number of pts or question this brand is more reliable than others... ymmv.
If we distrust the numbers displayed on the screen, ist it possible to export the FFT math trace to a text file? If yes, how many points does it export if full span (0...fs/2) is selected? The number of saved points and the difference between adjacent frequencies should give an indication for the actual FFT size and frequency bin spacing (unless only decimated screen data are saved :( - that's useless, of course).
(attached image is for illustration or amusement only, dont be too serious! life is short. name erased to avoid swinging dick contest, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=S8jrpCoZyx8&t=1953s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=S8jrpCoZyx8&t=1953s)) i cannot erase voice sorry ;D
But how could you find out how many points are currently being used if this value is not displayed?
I don't understand the values at 500µs, these "crooked" values in the FFT, nor the memory, which is 625Kpt before and after, but 781.25kpt in this time base.
FFT again, going through several times/div.
Right here and now, just shooting from the hip:
500µs Auto Memory, 500µs 10Mpts.
Note the FFT sampling rate.
10Mpts.png
Wouldn't worry too much about this since the most relevant window functions von Hann, Blackman-Harris and rectangular are available and appear to work correctly.
I would. A flattop window is important to get good amplitude accuracy for frequencies that are not integer multiples of the bin spacing. The maximum amplitude error of the flattop window 1) is only 0.016 dB. Hann, Blackman and various others still have significant scalopping loss for frequencies that fall in the middle between two bins. Blackman-Harris has also ~0.83 dB. And a rectangular window leaks as hell if the frequency is not an integer multiple of the bin spacing.
1) I consider the Matlab variant here, but there exist several other variants too
Nevertheless, this should have been Rigol's job.
I just generated a new Flat Top window file as per the formula described here (https://www.mathworks.com/help/signal/ref/flattopwin.html). The result looks much better than the original but there's still some side lobes emerging from the noise. I cannot tell for sure how flat the top actually is, but if someone wants to try, here's the download link (https://easyupload.io/sd8t6v). :D
See attached screenshot: UR - FlatTop; LL - Blackman-Harris; LR - von Hann
See attached screenshot: UR - FlatTop; LL - Blackman-Harris; LR - von Hann
Wait a second...von Hann....2GSa/s....What scopemodel do you have... ;)
Earlier I took the 1khz reference signal as the source and went through all the windows.
See attached screenshot: UR - FlatTop; LL - Blackman-Harris; LR - von Hann
Wait a second...von Hann....2GSa/s....What scopemodel do you have... ;)
Of course, it's a DHO1k, but the flattop window is equally broken as on DHO800 / 900 instruments. Moreover, I simply don't call the "Hanning" window function this way since the man behind this mathematics was the Austrian meteorologist Julius von Hann, so the window function should be correctly called "von Hann" or "Hann" window. Maybe I'm pathetic but IMO we don't need to "americanize" every scientist's name... ;)
Maybe I'm pathetic but IMO we don't need to "americanize" every scientist's name... ;)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-tZ8Y7MO0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-tZ8Y7MO0)
Stopband rejection is > 68 dB. I'm surprised that you seem to get more :-//
Stopband rejection is > 68 dB. I'm surprised that you seem to get more :-//
Well, it rolls off to -80 dB or a bit better in your MatLab plot as you move further away from the peak. And that's about what TurboTom's screenshot also shows, right?
FOr the SDS2000X Plus, this has already been done a while ago (reply #3561):Earlier I took the 1khz reference signal as the source and went through all the windows.
Looks broken on your Rigol. And not just Flattop, the others look weird, too.
In order to show maximum leakage, don't choose exactly 1kHz, but rather 997.5 Hz in conjunction with your Rigol settings, and 998.97 Hz with your Siglent settings. IOW, us a frequency f = (N+0.5)*delta_f, where N is an integer. Calculate with enough decimal places, i.e. delta_f = 4.76837 and not just 4.77 for your Siglent settings.
Btw, the Siglent flattop window is possibly a different variant, having lower side lobes (handbook sais -93 dB; due to lack of the hardware I can't verify). This would also imply a wider main lobe.Indeed. The RBW of the Flattop window is 3.73 times the frequency step.
FOr the SDS2000X Plus, this has already been done a while ago (reply #3561):
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg4318822/#msg4318822 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-plus-coming/msg4318822/#msg4318822)
Oops, forget to switch off my DHO804, now it´s (nearly)24h burn-in proofed... ;)
Earlier I took the 1khz reference signal as the source and went through all the windows.
Then I did the same with the Siglent SDS1104X-E, but of course I checked the 1khz reference again to see if there were any differences.
Here are the pictures.
Oops, forget to switch off my DHO804, now it´s (nearly)24h burn-in proofed... ;)i recommend you need to work more and have enough sleep to get better view/comparison... cheers.
In order to show maximum leakage, don't choose exactly 1kHz, but rather 997.5 Hz in conjunction with your Rigol settings, and 998.97 Hz with your Siglent settings.
Is this the broken Rigol Flat Top or the fixed Flat Top? ;D
Btw flat top...
Here a siglent flat top pic with drastically reduced FFT-points.
I find the similarity with rigol's amazing.
To me, looking at (original) Rigol FFT windows, it looks like Flattop and Rectangular windows look pretty much the same.
My 804 just arrived from Aliexpress, it has firmware v00.01.02 dated Nov 9 2023.
It's not available as download on Rigol site.
What's new and/or fixed in 01.02 ?
v00.01.02.00.00 2023/11/2
1. Self calibration optimization update
2. Solve the problem of UltraLab startup connection failure
3. Solve the problem of failure to save waveform in wfm format
4. Add education model equivalent settings
5. Solve the problem of unresponsive touch on startup screen
v00.01.01.00.02 2023/09/12
1. Self calibration optimization update
2. Update Help Documents
v00.01.01.00.01 2023/08/10
1. Remove all time-related displays on the instrument
2. To modify the vertical interface, click the wiring diagram to modify the AC coupling function
3. Modify the delayed scan Chinese display as Zoom
4. Modify the order of the menu in the upper right corner, put the measurement in the front and Default in the back
5. The probe ratio interface is removed, and the probe ratio option is added to the vertical first-level menu
v00.01.00.00.19 2023/07/24
1. The first version is released
My 804 just arrived from Aliexpress, it has firmware v00.01.02 dated Nov 9 2023.
It's not available as download on Rigol site.
What's new and/or fixed in 01.02 ?
Not much.Code: [Select]
v00.01.02.00.00 2023/11/2
1. Self calibration optimization update
2. Solve the problem of UltraLab startup connection failure
3. Solve the problem of failure to save waveform in wfm format
4. Add education model equivalent settings
5. Solve the problem of unresponsive touch on startup screen
v00.01.01.00.02 2023/09/12
1. Self calibration optimization update
2. Update Help Documents
v00.01.01.00.01 2023/08/10
1. Remove all time-related displays on the instrument
2. To modify the vertical interface, click the wiring diagram to modify the AC coupling function
3. Modify the delayed scan Chinese display as Zoom
4. Modify the order of the menu in the upper right corner, put the measurement in the front and Default in the back
5. The probe ratio interface is removed, and the probe ratio option is added to the vertical first-level menu
v00.01.00.00.19 2023/07/24
1. The first version is released
What's the meaning of v00.01.02.00.00 2023/11/2 date "Nov 2 2023"? Is that when the release note was made, or something other. My 804 shows one week later.
Note that you can set the channel labels to show the FFT window function in screenshots....
Is it possible that this messed-up Flat Top window has been a Rigol tradition forever? My old DS1054Z shows very similar "leaky" spectral lines when using the Flat Top window. No easy way to swap out the window function on that scope, I'm afraid...
Hi,The 804 I got with 01.02 firmware takes 54sec to get to the ready-for-use state.
Just for fun, the boot times of the three little pi...no, scopes. ;)
I was comparing something else and thought to myself, oh, just make a clip.
I personally don't care about the boot time, I hate it with multimeters and recently also with power supplies.
I wanted to measure the noise level, today I prepared something, but I have to realise that it's too loud in my study during the day.
So I'll do it all again(with different settings like more resolution) in the later evening or night, but I'll show the first results here anyway.
As I said before, the DHO804 is not the loudest scope I have here... 8)
It's actually the quietest of the three. ;)
(Software: REW, Microphone: UMIK-2, calibrated, 96khz samplerate)
I also took measurements on the SDS2504X HD - somewhat unfair, because unlike the other four scopes, my HD no longer has the original fan - but it wasn't any louder.These measurements also show how meaningless the dB figures of the "far-field" measurements are, as they indicate only 2.21 dB difference between the SDS2504X HD and the DHO804. Since I know from experience that the SDS2504X HD is barely audible even with the original fan, while on the other hand some people have complained about the fan noise of the DHO804, it's quite obvious that the actual difference must be much more than that.
These measurements also show how meaningless the dB figures of the "far-field" measurements are, as they incicate only 2.21 dB difference between the SDS2504X HD and the DHO804
I think that the noise spectra are hard to interpret and compare in general. Predicting from the spectra how annoying a particular fan sound will be perceived will only be possible with a lot of experience, at best.Why do you think so? I happen to have some experience in the audio field, but even without that the fundamentals of human hearing together with a look at the Fletcher-Munson curves would be enough to interpret an audio spectrum correctly:
I think that the noise spectra are hard to interpret and compare in general. Predicting from the spectra how annoying a particular fan sound will be perceived will only be possible with a lot of experience, at best.Why do you think so? I happen to have some experience in the audio field, but even without that the fundamentals of human hearing together with a look at the Fletcher-Munson curves would be enough to interpret an audio spectrum correctly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
We are talking about SPL (sound pressure levels) between 30 and 40 dB here. The threshold of human hearing at 50 Hz is at about 42 dB.
So why should I not be able to safely state that 32 dB @ 49 Hz is inaudible for the mere mortal?
34 dB @ 590 Hz on the other hand is equivalent to at least 30 phon – quite audible, independent from the age of a person.
"Inaudible" is fine, of course, and knowing or looking up a threshold for that is no problem. Having a good feel for how much more noticeable +3dB are (at various absolute levels) may already be less clear.Quite clear if one sticks to the fundamentals: an increase in 10 phone (above some 40 phone) is equivalent to a perceived doubling of the sound volume. Once again, the Fletcher-Munson curves help us to find the correlation of SPL and the loudness measured in phon. There’s usually no scaling, i.e. a 10 dB increase in the phon measure will correspond to 10 dB more SPL, but there is a frequency dependent shift in sensitivity.
But what I was mainly thinking about are deviations from white or pink noise. We frequently read descriptions of (and complaints about) noise that is perceived as "whiny", "high pitched", "with a clicking noise" etc. To recognize the signatures of such noise components in the spectra is where I think a lot of experience is needed. And to assess from looking at the spectrum how obnoxious the noise will sound is probably impossible, since it is a rather subjective perception anyway.I don’t even believe that it’s that subjective. Yes, white (and even more so pink) noise should be quite unobtrusive – and it shows, since it’s used for medical purposes in noise masker systems for tinnitus treatment.
Personally, I would not change a fan without knowing that the new one does not have at least the same airflow or without comparing the measured temperature with a thermal imaging camera.
Unless there are enough internal sensors available that can be displayed.
Is this the case and how do you do it?
Aha, will check this...Now.
That's a bit meagre, actually too little.
That was a good one. ;)edit post was removed from user
There were some thermal images posted earlier showing the CPU is the hotspot so that should be enough info with this big uni-heatsink.
Let's see if I feel like voiding the warranty and getting an impression with my Flir.
That's a bit meagre, actually too little.
Personally, I would not change a fan without knowing that the new one does not have at least the same airflow or without comparing the measured temperature with a thermal imaging camera.
These have a single heatsink and can show their internal system temperature on screen. Thermal camera isn't really needed.
That's a bit meagre, actually too little.
Indeed, that's less than I expected. The DHO1000 dialog shows much more info.
Depends. If there is a buck power supply outside the single heatsink and the airflow in the case is too low, an overheat and a fault in this regulator will cause a major malfunction. The voltage at the input can reach the output. I have seen laptops in this situation.
Indeed, that's less than I expected. The DHO1000 dialog shows much more info.
Not really. All it says is that "ambient temp" is a degree or two less than chip temp.
What's "ambient temp" anyway? was that screenshot taken in a room at 45 Celsius?
Indeed, that's less than I expected. The DHO1000 dialog shows much more info.
Not really. All it says is that "ambient temp" is a degree or two less than chip temp.
What's "ambient temp" anyway? was that screenshot taken in a room at 45 Celsius?
Umm -- when I look at the dialog, I also see temperature measurements for the ADC and (presumably) the leftmost and rightmost front-end amplifier?
The "ambient temperature" readings are obviously not room temperature, but apparently the immediate environment of the respective chips. I have wondered about those too: Did Rigol actually populate NTCs next to each of these four chips? It's the first model using the new chipset, so maybe they wanted to play it safe?
Not my own screenshot, btw. I took it from another thread (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4619431/#msg4619431) which discusses tweaking the DHO1000 fan via its PWM control.
Most chips with any complexity have built in temp measurements. Otherwise, mostly diodes are used as measurement sensors on PCBs.
It does push air out the top and bottom vents on my 804, can noticebly feel air being forced out.Depends. If there is a buck power supply outside the single heatsink and the airflow in the case is too low, an overheat and a fault in this regulator will cause a major malfunction. The voltage at the input can reach the output. I have seen laptops in this situation.
A 100mm fan stuck to the back is going to have far more overall airflow than that little fan stuck to the heatsink.
(which isn't directly moving any air in/out of the case at all, it just moves it across the heatsink and convection does the rest)
It does push air out the top and bottom vents on my 804, can noticebly feel air being forced out.
Most chips with any complexity have built in temp measurements. Otherwise, mostly diodes are used as measurement sensors on PCBs.
Did you look at the screenshot? For each chip there's an internal temperature readout (obvioulsy from a built-in sensor) plus an "ambient" temperature. It's the latter which we were discussing.
Whether it's a diode or a temperature-dependent resistor, it looks like Rigol went to the effort of populating four of them (plus providing some readout), so they can monitor all chips attached to the central heat spreader. Looks like they planned for a nice, temperature-controlled cooling solution for the DHO1000 and 4000, since PWM control for the fans has also been prepared. Unfortunately it is not enabled in software so far; the fans run at a constant and relatively high speed.
I may have missed it, what was the end-user fix to get FFT flattop working correctly?
I'm in trouble..
Should i get a DH804 (hacked) or a DHO1074 mated to my MSO5354?
I know there is the discount for the DHO1074 currently, but still then it is nearly 1/3 more on top..
And my desk is space limited.. The size of the DHO804 is really nice / fitable ..
And i think it is enough for a MSO5k addition..? I only need / would like to have it for power supply checking / using with my current clamps..
The stuff where 12bit are nice (but do i really need it ?? )... For my main work (mostly digital stuff) i like the >350MHz BW / 8GS.
Sure but i can use my PC Monitor / i'm using a HDMI Grabber on my 5k for documentation purpose..
And i can use the webserver.
The 8" from MSO5k are enough.. My Hameg HMO3524 which maybe has to leave (shelf space for DHO804) has less than 7".
So Display size is not a concern for me i think..
I only need / would like to have it for power supply checking / using with my current clamps.
And regarding DHO1k hacking.. I think unless you get a spare ADC everything is squeezed out of the DHO1k until now..
And it looks like DHO1k is phasing out? So maybe it will be dropped from rigol? DHO800 will be a better "cash cow"?
Two points pro DHO1K are the 14/16bit mode which the DHO800 not has?
And the 10MHz ref in is nice to be used with my GPSDO but would this be a big advantage?? I don't know.. on the MSO5k it would probably more helpfull..?
The recent hacking approach (patching some "which functions are supported here?" calls in the Auklet Android app) has been able to unlock the 50 Ohm inputs and other features normally reserved for the DHO4000, without the unwanted side effects of assuming the dual-ADC configuration of the 4000.
Once with 50ohm termination, once blank 1Mohm, full bandwidth (200Mhz), 20Mhz limited.
Then once at 1µs/div, 1ms/div.
1µs/div as opposed to 1ms/div i would presume, not the sampling rate itself?Once with 50ohm termination, once blank 1Mohm, full bandwidth (200Mhz), 20Mhz limited.
Then once at 1µs/div, 1ms/div.
Hmmm... Why is there so much difference between 1.25GSa/s and 625MSa/s?
Hmmm... Why is there so much difference between 1.25GSa/s and 625MSa/s?If I reduce it from 1.25GSa/s to 312MSa/s(by adding channels) at 1µs/div, nothing happens.
As the memory depth increases, so does the noise, see pictures
On the DHO804, why does the scope lose signal sync if the vertical scale is increased?
Example;
Ch1 on the internal 1kHz 3v peak signal, set trigger to 1v, but then dial up the scale to 10v/div. The trigger does not change, so why the scope lose sync on the square wave (dancing signal)?
The standard deviation of noise samples should not depend significantly on the memory depth (except when the number of samples is very small).
The differences come from the very pronounced 1/f noise characteristic of scope frontends. Faster time base setting rises the lower bandwidth limit, thus cutting off a significant portion of the LF noise.As the memory depth increases, so does the noise, see pictures
Very strange. The standard deviation of noise samples should not depend significantly on the memory depth (except when the number of samples is very small).
Could this be related to the mapping of the samples to the screen?
Are the measurements taken directly from the captured samples or from the screen data?
The differences come from the very pronounced 1/f noise characteristic of scope frontends.
The differences come from the very pronounced 1/f noise characteristic of scope frontends.
Oh sh*t, I didn't expect it to be that much :phew:
Your explanation makes sense, of course.
If the Rigol front end chip is implemented in pure CMOS then likely a relatively high 1/f corner. Scope front ends don't/can't take advantage of signal processing like CAZ and Chopping which help reduce 1/f noise as well as offsets.This is only the harmless part of the story.
I have started to "play through" the Batronix demo board again with the rigol.
I will probably upload the results to googledrive.
I already have a few pictures in the box today.
Note to self: In the pass/fail menu do not activate the screenshot at fail, but save it yourself - otherwise the save message will be included in the picture.
DS17: Demo Acquisitionmode Normal/Average (16x)
DS18/19: Demo Acquisitionmode Normal/Peak
DS20: Demo cursors
DS21-DS24: Demo measurements, several modes
DS25: Demo persistence 1sec
DS26/DS27: Demo Pass/Fail
Trigger is based on the display? If the signal is 3v and the trigger is 1v, why should it matter what the V/div is set to?On the DHO804, why does the scope lose signal sync if the vertical scale is increased?
Example;
Ch1 on the internal 1kHz 3v peak signal, set trigger to 1v, but then dial up the scale to 10v/div. The trigger does not change, so why the scope lose sync on the square wave (dancing signal)?
Have a look at the data sheet under "Trigger Sensivity".
It says 0.5div, at 10V/div and a 3V signal it is no wonder why it no longer triggers.
Trigger is based on the display? If the signal is 3v and the trigger is 1v, why should it matter what the V/div is set to?
Trigger is based on the display? If the signal is 3v and the trigger is 1v, why should it matter what the V/div is set to?On the DHO804, why does the scope lose signal sync if the vertical scale is increased?
Example;
Ch1 on the internal 1kHz 3v peak signal, set trigger to 1v, but then dial up the scale to 10v/div. The trigger does not change, so why the scope lose sync on the square wave (dancing signal)?
Have a look at the data sheet under "Trigger Sensivity".
It says 0.5div, at 10V/div and a 3V signal it is no wonder why it no longer triggers.
I have just tried this on the 1104X-E and it is exactly the same.Try 5V/div 1V trigger, which fails to sync on the Rigol.
But it makes no sense, you can hardly see anything of the 3V signal at 10V/div.
The signal is the signal in the front-end, trigger setting is relative to signal, so why can't it display it, even if squashed in the display, a 10V/div makes a 3v signal look almost flat on a small 7" screen. What if the actual screen size was 14" with same number of div boxes making a div box physically bigger on the screen, that squashed line on 7" screen suddenly is not so squashed on a 14" screen.
Is it just that it did actually trigger but the device can't paint it to the screen?
-Touch function in the screen size can no longer be used only with fingers
-No hires mode (14, 16 bit)
-Sample rate drops to 312.5 MSa/s from 3 active channels, must be kept in mind when displaying high-frequency signals
-No bodeplot
-Memory drops to a meager 1Mpt when all channels are active(original state)
-Few decoding functions
-No upgradeable options(original state)
-Relatively useless "ultra acquisition" mode
-Poorly equipped FFT function, also error-prone
-Various inconsistencies in the software in general
-Only one usb port
-Somewhat high-frequency sounding fan
-Limited window functions
I couldn't resist to get one of the DHO804 at the current bargain price (~370€, VAT included)
Is 370 with or without VAT?
Where did you found DHO804 at 300€ + VAT, please?
"Spurlos" in the invoice, like "Spurlos verschwunden".. Luckily you got it.. :D
You will notice this when you register the product online and/or check the warranty.
It went as low as 358,05€ weeks ago, and 350,57€ last May from Banggood. Is there a downside though? How can Banggod offer such a discount? Does Rigol know or support this?