Rigol DS1000Z now comes unlocked

[SkyMaster]

I just received one of these and installed the (official, "$350 equivalent value", now free) unlock code. Status now reports all *available* options as "official," and they do appear to work.

It does *not* now claim to be a DS1104Z, as a hacked/unlocked unit apparently would.

Yes, they show "DS1104Z" in the system info.

Installing the Rigol licence bundle does not turn the DS1054Z into a DS1104Z.

The Rigol licence bundle is installing all the available options, and the "100 MHz bandwidth hack" is not an option; it is a "hack". And this hack is not part of the Rigol licence bundle.

Installing the Rigol licence bundle to the DS1054Z give you a DS1054Z with all the available options (without any "100 MHz bandwidth hack").

 

[zike]

The bandwidth figures are quite conservative, 100MHz is lucky though. Have you tried all 4 channels?

(Imagine if you unlock it...!  )

Yep all 4 channels similar. Main aberration is about 1-1.5 ns  roundoff (what we used to call "dribble-up") on the last 25% of the rise (such that a 20-80% rise time would sound even more impressive...). I'm using a tunnel diode pulser with 50 ps intrinsic, and a feedthrough terminator measured at about 150 ps using a sampling rig.

Re: how much better it could get with unlocking, I may yet perform the experiment; but before we get too excited remember, filter rise times are not additive! (for simple cases they "RSS", but you get the point...).

[ebastler]

I just received one of these and installed the (official, "$350 equivalent value", now free) unlock code. Status now reports all *available* options as "official," and they do appear to work.
It does *not* now claim to be a DS1104Z, as a hacked/unlocked unit apparently would.

Yes, they show "DS1104Z" in the system info.

No, this is wrong. Installing the Rigol licence bundle does not turn the DS1054Z into a DS1104Z.

I think we are all on the same page here. Fungus' comment that "they" show a DS1104Z designation was referring to zike's last partial sentence, which mentioned the hacked, bandwidth-upgraded scopes. (Emphasis added in that quote.)

[SkyMaster]

I think we are all on the same page here. Fungus' comment that "they" show a DS1104Z designation was referring to zike's last partial sentence, which mentioned the hacked, bandwidth-upgraded scopes. (Emphasis added in that quote.)

ebastler, based on what you wrote, I modified my comment.

 

[zike]

Re: how much better it could get with unlocking, I may yet perform the experiment; but before we get too excited remember, filter rise times are not additive! (for simple cases they "RSS", but you get the point...).

And... down another rabbit hole I go. Will I never learn?

Turns out my stock 1054Z, and/or hacked/unlocked pseudo-1104Z, can have any 3dB bandwidth you like, from about 80 MHz to over 260 MHz, depending on input range. 

The test mentioned above used a tunnel diode pulser which is fixed at 200 mV step size. I switched to an Avtech AVO-E2 which delivers up to 50V steps with <500ps risetime. I used a Marconi 2022A and a Wavetek 1801C for CW. Test waveforms were confirmed with an HP5316B opt 003 (1 GHz) and a Tek 7904/7A24/7B85 analog scope (BW>400 MHz). A Tek 50? feedthru terminator was placed directly on the 1054Z input. This and all BNC and SMA 50? attenuators/adapters/cables employed were good > 2 GHz.

Rigol inputs DC coupled, probe x1, BW limit OFF (btw I confirmed it is actually 27 MHz when ON); acq mode NORMAL, 1 Gs/sec, anti-alias OFF.

I ran each test through all 4 channels. Channel 1 seems systematically a few % slower, if anything, so that is what I'll quote. This is in the pseudo-1104Z (hacked) mode:

range (V/div)	rise (ns)	f_3dB (MHz)
5 m	2.7	140
50 m	2.8	176
500 m	1.9	260
5	1.5	270

For comparison, in the standard (stock 1054Z) mode I did not bother with the 3dB bandwidth, but here are the corresponding risetimes:

range (V/div)	rise (ns)
5 m	4.5
50 m	4.4
500 m	2.1
5	1.8

Some may call freebie bandwidth a "feature", seeing as how it seems to be a $$ commodity, but in my view "variable" bandwidth is definitely a bug (or more accurately, poor engineering).

That said, I also do not understand how it comes about.

According to the teardown and "reverse engineering" blogs, there is one physical relay-switched x50 attenuator (which comes on between 200 mV and 500 mV/div). The remaining "attenuator" settings are all accomplished by throwing away bits post-conversion (inside the HMCAD1511 ADC chip). 

• Why would the bandwidth _increase_ when the physical attenuator is inserted?
• And within a range (with or without), why would the bandwidth change at all depending on digital gain settings?

Just to make this post the longest in history, here are screen shots of the "pseudo 1104Z" response at 5 V/div and 5 mV/div, respectively:

[Fungus]

Some may call freebie bandwidth a "feature", seeing as how it seems to be a $$ commodity, but in my view "variable" bandwidth is definitely a bug (or more accurately, poor engineering).

Why "poor"? How exactly would you build it if you're an engineer who's been told to design a 100MHz, 4-channel oscilloscope which retails for $399?

For all you know it might be an extremely ingenious design, given that constraint.

[zike]

Why "poor"? How exactly would you build it if you're an engineer who's been told to design a 100MHz, 4-channel oscilloscope which retails for $399?

For all you know it might be an extremely ingenious design, given that constraint.

Very sorry, I chose the word "poorly". I did not intend insult; in fact I have to agree, the design is quite ingenious in many respects! The discrete 2N3904/6 front end truly warms my heart.

No, rather than call it "poor" I should instead say they appear to have overlooked a very important functional principle, and thereby missed an opportunity.

First, it could add no more than a few cents to the BOM to include a passive 150 MHz filter (simple or fancy) ahead of the ADC. Even a switchable filter section or two, presuming one wanted different compensation at different ranges, would be no more bother than they evidently found acceptable for software-gelding the low-end models.  I could sketch you something in a few minutes on DaveCad^TM and even tell you the BOM cost if you want, but again, I know Rigol could/would do a much better job.

The reason should be obvious, but to beat it to death: all test instruments have limits, and bandwidth is a fundamental one. Input voltage range should be a scalar, not a tensor.

A very typical 'scope application is checking signal integrity on either side of an attenuator, filter or amplifier. Invisibly calling up a factor of two different instrument bandwidth when you simply flip input ranges to account for the attenuation (gain) means you will see artifacts at the input (output) that are not seen at the output (input). You will make false conclusions about your DUT. Suppose you look with, and then without, a x10 probe. Is your probe bad? Were you loading the circuit? Or did simply dialing up the range for the probe factor just introduce a whole new set of sampling artifacts??

This is particularly egregious on a sampling instrument that has no protection against aliasing! The measured 3dB point at 5V/div evidently exceeds the sampling rate (not just Nyquist) when 3 or 4 channels are selected!! Even at 1 Gs/sec, in the 5V/div picture above, there are less than 2 samples in the pulse transition. The apparent pre- (!) and post- over/undershoot/ringing are obvious figments of sinc interpolation.

Back in the day Tektronix worked very hard to match attenuator bandwidth within 5 or 10% from top to bottom (I don't know what they do now). This is a fundamental property of a scope front end, it directly affects functional utility as a test instrument.  It is not "negotiable" for a few cents of profit margin.

They really did an amazing job with this machine, and I do really like it (as an old analog geezer I never thought I'd say such a thing!). It's  such a shame to miss this trick; I hope they (and you) take my comment constructively for next time :~)

Cheers,

Zike

[Fungus]

it could add no more than a few cents to the BOM to include a passive 150 MHz filter (simple or fancy) ahead of the ADC.

There's already a passive filter on the 50MHz (locked) version. 

[zike]

it could add no more than a few cents to the BOM to include a passive 150 MHz filter (simple or fancy) ahead of the ADC.

There's already a passive filter on the 50MHz (locked) version. 

Which only adds to the mystery: at 5V/div, the LOCKED (50 MHz) unit shows a rise time of 1.8 ns! That's 200 MHz.

Something else is going on here.  Anybody?

[2N3055]

it could add no more than a few cents to the BOM to include a passive 150 MHz filter (simple or fancy) ahead of the ADC.

There's already a passive filter on the 50MHz (locked) version. 

Which only adds to the mystery: at 5V/div, the LOCKED (50 MHz) unit shows a rise time of 1.8 ns! That's 200 MHz.

Something else is going on here.  Anybody?

You have to do frequency sweep with a frequency generator and look for a -3dB point.
Pulse measurements are deceptive..
What are specifications for the pulse you are using? 
Pulse generator must have fast edge, but then hast to settle without overshoot at top level, and stay there for at least 10-20 nsec.. longer is better..
Short,narrow pulses will show unrealistically fast response... Same with overshoot...

Regards,
Sinisa

[nctnico]

Some may call freebie bandwidth a "feature", seeing as how it seems to be a $$ commodity, but in my view "variable" bandwidth is definitely a bug (or more accurately, poor engineering).

That said, I also do not understand how it comes about.

The lower V/div ranges will need amplification in order to drive the ADC to full scale so what you are looking at is the limited bandwidth of the input amplifier.

[zike]

You have to do frequency sweep with a frequency generator and look for a -3dB point.
Pulse measurements are deceptive..
What are specifications for the pulse you are using? 
Pulse generator must have fast edge, but then hast to settle without overshoot at top level, and stay there for at least 10-20 nsec.. longer is better..
Short,narrow pulses will show unrealistically fast response... Same with overshoot...

Regards,
Sinisa

Thanks, yes indeed. As mentioned above, I separately confirmed the bandwidth and risetime are consistent in time and frequency domains.

Also as mentioned, the pulse generator is an earlier version of this (50 volt version), set to 200 ns width and about 1 MHz rep rate. I've tested it on  much faster scopes (rise time is actually closer to 350 ps  ;^).  My unit happens to have a negative pulse output (dumpster divers can't be choosers!).  In particular, the Avtech has no measurable (physical) overshoot or ringing and a dead flat pulse top; the ringing seen in the first photo above is fabricated by the Rigol.

(By contrast, the small "dip" at 15ns after trigger is physical; it's a transmission line reflection of the impedance mismatch at the BNC x SMA adapter.)

[zike]

Some may call freebie bandwidth a "feature", seeing as how it seems to be a $$ commodity, but in my view "variable" bandwidth is definitely a bug (or more accurately, poor engineering).

That said, I also do not understand how it comes about.

The lower V/div ranges will need amplification in order to drive the ADC to full scale so what you are looking at is the limited bandwidth of the input amplifier.

I believe it works a different way. Look at Dave's video from 2014 and the links he provides below.

The only changeable analog element is the 50:1 input attenuator, which clicks in above 200 mV/div. The ADC chip has an internal "digital gain" from 1 to 50. This is selected by digitizing at >~14 bits and effectively throwing ~6 or so bits away, MSB for small signals and LSB for big. The point is the only analog element that changes between the BNC jack and code is that one 50:1 attenuator. Indeed, on Dave's diagram, everything in the fast signal path is fixed (except those transistor-operated bandwidth switches).

So to reiterate: 1) analog circuit has the same gain on all ranges, but the post-digitizer output somehow gets less responsive when you use the LSB (?); and 2) that 50:1 attenuator (when interposed above 200mV/div) appears to be faster than the straight wire that takes over at 200 mV/div and below (??). 

Oh and 3) those bandwidth-reduction switches  that are clearly doing "something" at low V/div are somehow doing "less of it" at high V/div () 

[simone.pignatti]

hello and Happy New Year, starting today the BND-DS/MSO1000Z is also free in Europe.
It includes:
- SA-DS1000Z (RS232, SPI, I2C serial decoding)
- AT-DS1000Z (advanced triggering)
- REC-DS1000Z (record function)
- MEM-DS1000Z (memory upgrade to 24Mpts)

[g0mgx]

I can confirm this; Telonic were selling this package to anyone who asked during December and officially from January.

Mark
G0MGX

[simone.pignatti]

I'm not sure yet if this promo will be more convenient for the users.
We had a discounted price as Xmas promo which was very well accepted.
This free bundle will definitely help all those who do not want to hack the unit.

[firewalker]

They should add CAN decoding.

Alexander.

[Zermalmer]

Batronix also offer upgrade now also, but i ordered my device on xmas.

Now I asked if they also give it to me or not.

Curious what they will answer.

[ebastler]

Batronix also offer upgrade now also, but i ordered my device on xmas.

Now I asked if they also give it to me or not.

Curious what they will answer.

I am pretty sure they will be able to provide you the upgrade. If they don't, you would simply return your scope after receipt and order a new one from them, right? (Assuming you ordered it as a consumer, not a business.)

[EEVblog]

Perhaps they gave up. Or saw the Siglent coming.

Yep, competition now, and a slightly long in the tooth product with which they have owned the market for a long time with.
It was either that, or a new model. Could still be a new model but I doubt it, it's still very competitive (if not still a bang-per-buck winner) with the options included.

[Zermalmer]

Batronix also offer upgrade now also, but i ordered my device on xmas.

Now I asked if they also give it to me or not.

Curious what they will answer.

I am pretty sure they will be able to provide you the upgrade. If they don't, you would simply return your scope after receipt and order a new one from them, right? (Assuming you ordered it as a consumer, not a business.)

Hi,
no need of returning it... Batronix answered me that they will provide me also the upgrade for free.    
The only thing is that they told me that they will need 7 days to send it to me...   

[Fungus]

it's still very competitive (if not still a bang-per-buck winner) with the options included.

If you buy the base model and unlock it then it's still maybe the bang-per-buck winner. They can be had for $350 now.

PS: Are you going to review the new Siglents? 

[Fungus]

Hi,
no need of returning it... Batronix answered me that they will provide me also the upgrade for free.    
The only thing is that they told me that they will need 7 days to send it to me...   

Just generate the keys yourself... 

[Zermalmer]

Hi,
no need of returning it... Batronix answered me that they will provide me also the upgrade for free.    
The only thing is that they told me that they will need 7 days to send it to me...   

Just generate the keys yourself... 

Already done  but to have it official sounds also ok to me 

[johnbrown]

Looks like to offer has now got to the UK, Telonic say
RIGOL SOFTWARE OPTIONS BND-MSO/DS1000Z (deeper memory, record & replay, advanced trigger functions and serial-bus analysis) are now included for FREE! with the purchase of a new DS1054Z
LINK REMOVED