Rigol DS1074z vs DS1054z - any difference?

[drakke]

My distributor is offering to give me a 1074z for the same price as a 1054z?
They don't have any DS1054z's in stock and I already paid for it a couple of weeks ago.

If I have a Rigol DS1074z can I use the same codes to that people are using to 'unlock' the DS1054z?
Is there any difference between the two models? Other than bandwidth.

The 1054z, 1074z and 1104z are all hardware identical correct?

Thanks.

[Monkeh]

Absolutely identical. Have it before they change their minds.

[Howardlong]

Agreed, no brainer.

[dadler]

The 1074z has only one hardware difference, which is the sticker on the front panel.

[Dave Turner]

Monkeh - perhaps you could answer this question.

I have asked this before but haven't seen an answer.

Is the latest firmware for the 1054 00.04.02.07 compatible with the earlier boards?

[Monkeh]

Monkeh - perhaps you could answer this question.

I have asked this before but haven't seen an answer.

Is the latest firmware for the 1054 00.04.02.07 compatible with the earlier boards?

Should be. Ask Rigol, they should know about their hardware. Let me know if you get the same answer twice..

[Rick Law]

Absolutely identical. Have it before they change their minds.

If they are identical, what difference does it make if they do change their minds?  You would be getting the same thing anyway.

By the way...

If someone can enlighten me.  Any idea (speculation) why they have two identical products with different model number?  Geographic region?  Default power (110/220v)?  Managing more inventory for extra model numbers is not exactly cost free.  They must have a reason....I would hope.

[rf-loop]

My distributor is offering to give me a 1074z for the same price as a 1054z?
They don't have any DS1054z's in stock and I already paid for it a couple of weeks ago.

If I have a Rigol DS1074z can I use the same codes to that people are using to 'unlock' the DS1054z?
Is there any difference between the two models? Other than bandwidth.

The 1054z, 1074z and 1104z are all hardware identical correct?

Thanks.

I have  previously purchased DS1074Z for single special purpose  what need  cheap "what ever"  4 channel  (digital)scope when DS1054Z was not available from any known stock.

They are functionally equal.

If you are sure  this 1000Z model serie is for you and you can  get 1074 label on front panel with 1054 price, just take it before it is too late.

[rf-loop]

 Managing more inventory for extra model numbers is not exactly cost free.  They must have a reason....I would hope.

Can you think how much they sell with this marketing trick. They know human psychology.

Produce scope. 100MHz scope.   Model these all with 50, 70 and 100 label.
Then tell how much 70 and 100MHz model price is.
Then take care that 50M model is "hackable" to 100M model,

Peoples feel they get more they pay.

Without marketing trick.
Try make it as one model. Just 100M and nothing else. Also sell it with this price with all options. (no options but all as standard features. And so that nothing is hackable.
Price it just as 50M model now. (sidemark:  using China goverment subsidy and pushing distributors to sell these as "nice boxes" without enough income for real good support/customer care. Now distributors need fund these using income from other models and brands selling.)
Start selling.

Do you think it is still as famous as it is now using this marketing trick.

Accidentally (I think) they fast learn this in near history with DS1000E case.

[aargee]

No, the engineering model they use to design the hardware is common across all markets. Build the hardware to runs XYZ and charge a suitable price. Oh, you can buy the same hardware that only does X fort a discount and/or unlock the Y and Z for a fee (often more than buying it all up front).
Yes people will pay to get that top of the line badge and know/feel they are doing the right thing or get value for money.
It is not limited to Chinese companies, it is the way of the world. Look at the Flir E4-8 series, although I'm not sure they openly accept the hacking that goes on to make the E4 into an E8 like Rigol appears to for its devices.

As for marketing it is seen as it is in politics... Any publicity is good publicity.

[miguelvp]

It's more a production savings and not a marketing ploy, as Dave has stated in one of the threads (I believe it's in the jitter one) they are not really happy with the "upgrades".

Making 3 different boards and associated software will be too costly for them, so they did lump it all together in hopes that customers will play nice.

[Monkeh]

Absolutely identical. Have it before they change their minds.

If they are identical, what difference does it make if they do change their minds?  You would be getting the same thing anyway.

I somehow doubt the distributor gets the 70MHz model for the same price as the 50MHz model.

[BlueBill]

They're identical, even the -S versions are the same except they contain a two channel waveform generator.

[Rick Law]

 Managing more inventory for extra model numbers is not exactly cost free.  They must have a reason....I would hope.

Can you think how much they sell with this marketing trick. They know human psychology.

Produce scope. 100MHz scope.   Model these all with 50, 70 and 100 label.
Then tell how much 70 and 100MHz model price is.
Then take care that 50M model is "hackable" to 100M model,

Peoples feel they get more they pay.
...

Ah, I get it.  I did not know that they were sold as different capability (50/70/100mhz).  I thought they were sold without difference in spec.

Even while are hardware identical, I can see the advantage.  They can have lower quality (lower cost) manufacturer do the lower speed one with less quality requirement as cost delta determines.  Higher speed higher price boards may also go through additional QA to ensure proper function at higher speed.  So forth.

I wouldn't call it merely marketing ploy.  They are selling capabilities.  More capability = more $, that's fair.

[Dave Turner]

It's nothing new. I think it was ICL, who manufactured mainframes in the late '60 & '70s, whose base models had a jumper or so which could be removed which doubled the processing speed; for a price of course.

[michaelf]

Yeah I know it's an old thread. Just curious what do you get for $200+ when you buy the DS1104Z? I don't see a lot of difference.

thanks
Mike

[ebastler]

Yeah I know it's an old thread. Just curious what do you get for $200+ when you buy the DS1104Z? I don't see a lot of difference.

You get 100 MHz input bandwidth. Otherwise no difference in features compared to the 1054Z and 1074Z.

As you have probably gathered from other threads, the bandwidth limitation is firmware-based only. The scopes' hardware is exactly the same across all three models. While Rigol has chosen not to sell bandwidth upgrades as a field upgrade option, one can unlock the 100 MHz bandwidth using a "hacked" key generated by the "RIGLOL" key generator.

[David Hess]

As you have probably gathered from other threads, the bandwidth limitation is firmware-based only. The scopes' hardware is exactly the same across all three models.

I am not convinced that there is no difference.  The hardware is likely the same but Rigol may be grading them or there may be a subtle parts difference.

There was a video last year linked from EEVBlog which showed a transient response test using a reference flat pulse generator on various DSOs including a hacked Rigol DS1054z and it showed a flat 20 nanosecond slope after the rising edge which would indicate a problem like saturation or cutoff in the amplifier chain before the digitizer.  The question would be if the DS1074z displays the same behavior but nobody has tested both under objective conditions.

However for most users of the Rigol DS1000Z series DSOs, if this difference exists it will be irrelevant in typical applications and if it does matter, they should be using a higher bandwidth oscilloscope anyway.

As far as why they have separate models with the same hardware and different firmware based bandwidths, that is all price discrimination.

[Fungus]

Can you think how much they sell with this marketing trick. They know human psychology.

Produce scope. 100MHz scope.   Model these all with 50, 70 and 100 label.
Then tell how much 70 and 100MHz model price is.
Then take care that 50M model is "hackable" to 100M model,

Peoples feel they get more they pay.

Also: Cross fingers and hope that:

a) Companies and 'serious' users will pay full price because they worry about guarantees.
b) Hope that others will pay full price because they think there has to be a difference, eg.

I am not convinced that there is no difference.  The hardware is likely the same but Rigol may be grading them or there may be a subtle parts difference.

[Mechatrommer]

The 1054z, 1074z and 1104z are all hardware identical correct?

the difference are the stickers and serial number. that i know of...
about the hack. iirc i read 1074 can be as well upgraded just as the 1054...

[Fungus]

about the hack. iirc i read 1074 can be as well upgraded just as the 1054...

IIRC nervous people can go to 70MHz instead of the full 100MHz. You can't be too careful.

[David Hess]

I found the video on Youtube.  The Rigol test starts at 16:26.  If I saw that transient response, I would consider the oscilloscope broken or in need of calibration.

I remembered wrong though.  It is an actual MSO1074Z and not a hacked 1054 but that just makes the situation worse.

[Fungus]

I found the video on Youtube.  The Rigol test starts at 16:26.  If I saw that transient response, I would consider the oscilloscope broken or in need of calibration.

What on earth are you going on about?

[Fungus]

The 1054z, 1074z and 1104z are all hardware identical correct?

the difference are the stickers and serial number. that i know of...

Yep. The front end has been reverse-engineered and it's 100% clear how the bandwidth is artificially limited in the sub-100MHz models.

(by switching in some capacitors on the input)

[rstofer]

It's nothing new. I think it was ICL, who manufactured mainframes in the late '60 & '70s, whose base models had a jumper or so which could be removed which doubled the processing speed; for a price of course.

Nothing new...  Amdahl had a switch on some of their 470 mainframes that enabled increased throughput.  This allowed the customer to decide when to accept the high rent for higher throughput.  Pay for performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl_Corporation

[don.r]

It's nothing new. I think it was ICL, who manufactured mainframes in the late '60 & '70s, whose base models had a jumper or so which could be removed which doubled the processing speed; for a price of course.

Nothing new...  Amdahl had a switch on some of their 470 mainframes that enabled increased throughput.  This allowed the customer to decide when to accept the high rent for higher throughput.  Pay for performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl_Corporation

IBM did this long before with their mechanical tabulating machines. They would mechanically retard the cheaper machine with a relay. When it was upgrade time, they flipped a switch and - bingo - faster machine. They also played games with pulleys and belts to achieve a similar effect.

[glarsson]

IBM did this long before with their mechanical tabulating machines. They would mechanically retard the cheaper machine with a relay. When it was upgrade time, they flipped a switch and - bingo - faster machine. They also played games with pulleys and belts to achieve a similar effect.

But this made perfect sense. You rented the machines from IBM and running at higher speed resulted in more wear and tear, i.e. higher maintenance costs for IBM. Later IBM did the same with rented printers.

Later some mainframes had a knob allowing the customer to adjust the speed themselves. Want end of month sales reports quicker? Turn up the speed and pay some extra. For the rest of the week turn down speed and save.

[michaelf]

Is there anything from Rigol about this? They just let it slide for sales reasons?

[vk6zgo]

I found the video on Youtube.  The Rigol test starts at 16:26.  If I saw that transient response, I would consider the oscilloscope broken or in need of calibration.

I remembered wrong though.  It is an actual MSO1074Z and not a hacked 1054 but that just makes the situation worse.

Please explain! (This is a very Oz " in joke", but take it literally).

I don't have a MS 1074Z, or a source of fast rise time signals, so can't reproduce the result, but the rise time looks reasonable to me, just "counting squares" on the pix, & the bit of pre ringing & overshoot aren't all that dire.

It is always difficult to know what the Rigol screen should look like, not having one---is the reading at "D"of 0.00000000ps the sticking point? 

[David Hess]

I found the video on Youtube.  The Rigol test starts at 16:26.  If I saw that transient response, I would consider the oscilloscope broken or in need of calibration.

I remembered wrong though.  It is an actual MSO1074Z and not a hacked 1054 but that just makes the situation worse.

I don't have a MS 1074Z, or a source of fast rise time signals, so can't reproduce the result, but the rise time looks reasonable to me, just "counting squares" on the pix, & the bit of pre ringing & overshoot aren't all that dire.

The problem is not the rise time although various users have reported a wide range of rise times at different signal levels which is consistent with the problem shown.  The rise time should be invariant with signal level.

The preshoot is normal for a DSO where sin(x)/x reconstruction is being used and aliasing is present.  You just have to live with it if the sample rate is insufficient for the bandwidth.  If this test was done with more channels active lowering the sample rate to 500 MS/s or 250 MS/s, then the preshoot would be worse.

The problem is that straight slope after the rising edge.  It indicates that the vertical amplifier chain is recovering from a signal which exceeded its full power bandwidth which should not be possible.

It would be instructive to test using rising and falling edges to see if that distortion is symmetrical.

I wonder if the 70 and 50 MHz models display the same behavior.

[MrW0lf]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1095201/#msg1095201
"I used 20%/80% as the step response is not OK of the rigol below 500mV/div. This means it does not have a Gaussian or flat frequency response in the 200mV range and below."

[David Hess]

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1054z-bandwidth/msg1095201/#msg1095201
"I used 20%/80% as the step response is not OK of the rigol below 500mV/div. This means it does not have a Gaussian or flat frequency response in the 200mV range and below."

Is there an explanation for why this would be?  If there is a change in frequency response, it is usually for the bandwidth to be lowered at the highest gain settings while preserving a the same Gaussian response.  Having a flat instead of Gaussian frequency response on a 100 MHz oscilloscope isn't very reassuring.

It is difficult to evaluate the transient response measurements in that discussion thread without knowing more about the pulse generator(s).  Almost all normal pulse generators are not suited for this measurement.  For instance I would not use a 250 MHz PG502 with is similar in performance to the 250 MHz E-H 122 for it unless I had first evaluated it using a sampling oscilloscope or a trusted high bandwidth oscilloscope.

[Fungus]

It is difficult to evaluate the transient response measurements in that discussion thread without knowing more about the pulse generator(s).

And the cables, the connectors, etc.

[David Hess]

It is difficult to evaluate the transient response measurements in that discussion thread without knowing more about the pulse generator(s).

And the cables, the connectors, etc.

That is true at higher bandwidths but unless something is broken, nothing except the pulse is critical at 100 MHz.

One of the things he did not do in the video I linked was use the feedthrough termination on a different oscilloscope.  But the type of distortion shown is not something I would expect from a bad feedthrough termination.

Which brings up a different question; how can a feedthrough termination be objectively tested?  The fastest vertical inputs are 50 ohms so they cannot be used, or can they?  What about with a VNA?  The best option I have thought of is to use a high impedance sampling oscilloscope but they are even rarer than 50 ohm sampling oscilloscopes.