Author Topic: DSO Reliability  (Read 71120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2206
  • Country: ca
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #225 on: December 05, 2014, 06:09:35 pm »
Given my price range, the customer service comparisons effectively become reduced to Rigol vs. Siglent vs. Owon (and maybe a few more in the ~$400 area).
OK entry level models then.
Now it become a comparison of specs, value for money, required features and little else as it is not a large investment. Maybe the location of your supplier for support also.
Come back to us with your findings.

Recent discussions have been mostly about customer service, however much of this has had to do with comparisons between low priced manufacturers and several higher end makers (Tek, LeCroy, etc.).  Since I'm shopping only at around the $400 price point, unless I buy something used, I'm more interested in comparisons between the entry level scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, Owon, etc.  No one has mentioned Owon customer service, but comparisons have been made between Rigol and Siglent.  So while Rigol scopes (especially the DS1000Z series) may be great in many ways, if Rigol doesn't reply to emails, doesn't make firmware upgrades convenient to get, doesn't sell parts (did I understand that correctly?!), all this sure makes me hesitant about them.  And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas?  Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades).  If Siglent and maybe Owon do all the things which Rigol does not do, that's a ~major~ factor for me.  Thanks to those who brought up these factors....

Hard to compare apple to apples. If you are willing to hack the latest Rigol it will win by a long-shot. The fact that your old scope was not a dso screams that you would like the high waveform update rate of the new Rigol (even unmodified).   
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21461
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #226 on: December 05, 2014, 06:58:35 pm »
And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas?  Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades).
Customer Service quality is up to your local dealer.
Some pride themselves on CS like myself.
If you have the time research this matter, email the manufacturer to find your local guy.
If they then point you to your country distributor, contact them.
By doing this you will get a "feel" for supply chain responsiveness at each step you take. One might presume( hope) the reverse is replicated when service might be required. With our Asian suppliers we find ourselves as middle men by being familiar with the communication difficulties and knowing the people we have to deal with.
I dealt with other brands before I was offered Siglent but they have been the best to deal with.

Wrong assumption re firmware, if you asked me for it even in this forum, I would provide it. There are others here that would also. Or at least provide a link.
If you did not feel confident to do the upgrade, a reseller should provide that service at least for the equipment they have sold.
Many do not have the expertise so the "brand" local Service centre would be your next stop.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3075
  • Country: gb
  • Able to drop by occasionally only
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #227 on: December 06, 2014, 12:22:07 pm »
Since I'm shopping only at around the $400 price point, unless I buy something used, I'm more interested in comparisons between the entry level scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, Owon, etc.  No one has mentioned Owon customer service, but comparisons have been made between Rigol and Siglent.  So while Rigol scopes (especially the DS1000Z series) may be great in many ways, if Rigol doesn't reply to emails, doesn't make firmware upgrades convenient to get, doesn't sell parts (did I understand that correctly?!), all this sure makes me hesitant about them.  And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas?  Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades).  If Siglent and maybe Owon do all the things which Rigol does not do, that's a ~major~ factor for me.

Frankly, I think you have your priorities wrong. When you buy bottom-of-the-barrel kit then you'll find that all manufacturers offer the same, absolutely minimalistic support, which at the end of the day means you can get repairs while the thing is under warranty and the occasional firmware update which may or may not fix relevant bugs. Yes, Siglent used to sell you replacement parts directly from China, but really, there's little point as during the warranty period the scope is covered under warranty anyways, and after that technology will have moved on so that it's rarely economically sensible to repair it. And Siglent can stop selling spares any day (they might have already), as they nowhere gurantee the availability of spare parts.

Yes, Siglent does offer firmware updates for download on their website. With no changelog, though, which means you have to guess which of the many bugs will be fixed in this update. And there will be bugs, as Siglent tends to throw products to the market long before the software side is at a reasonable level, and even then many issues remain unfixed for a very long time. Rigol on the other side doesn't offer firmware updates on their website but tends to send them to customers only when they have a specific problem. But at least on their popular scopes (DS2k, DS1kz) the Rigol software seems to be more mature than what I've seen from Siglent (aside from the fact that Rigol has the much better UI). Funny enough their more expensive scopes (DS4k, DS6k) are mostly neglegted and suffer from many issues that have long been fixed in the smaller models, but then I guess only very few buy these larger scopes when they cost as much as a comparable scope from the big brands.

Both Rigol and Siglent say that they are working on fixing the bugs, but none of them will give you a definite date as to when the fixes will be available (and if they give you a date then you will find that they won't hit it). However, some bugs may never be fixed.

That's about what you can expect. You can't expect after warranty care, you can't expect being able to buy replacement parts, or even to have the scope repaired when its out of warranty.

Which means you should spend less time worrying about the manufacturer support and look closer into getting a good scope (and I'd rather get a Rigol scope over a Siglent and Owon any day, as in the el-cheapo class they offer the best build quality and the best user interface of all three). Decide on a scope, and find a good dealer that is likely to be around for the length of the warranty period and which offers dealing with warranty issues, and you're set.

If you expect big name support you have to be prepared to pay big name money for it. Simple as that.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 12:27:50 pm by Wuerstchenhund »
 

Offline J-D-H

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #228 on: December 07, 2014, 05:01:24 pm »
Given my price range, the customer service comparisons effectively become reduced to Rigol vs. Siglent vs. Owon (and maybe a few more in the ~$400 area).
OK entry level models then.
Now it become a comparison of specs, value for money, required features and little else as it is not a large investment. Maybe the location of your supplier for support also.
Come back to us with your findings.

Recent discussions have been mostly about customer service, however much of this has had to do with comparisons between low priced manufacturers and several higher end makers (Tek, LeCroy, etc.).  Since I'm shopping only at around the $400 price point, unless I buy something used, I'm more interested in comparisons between the entry level scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, Owon, etc.  No one has mentioned Owon customer service, but comparisons have been made between Rigol and Siglent.  So while Rigol scopes (especially the DS1000Z series) may be great in many ways, if Rigol doesn't reply to emails, doesn't make firmware upgrades convenient to get, doesn't sell parts (did I understand that correctly?!), all this sure makes me hesitant about them.  And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas?  Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades).  If Siglent and maybe Owon do all the things which Rigol does not do, that's a ~major~ factor for me.  Thanks to those who brought up these factors....

Hard to compare apple to apples. If you are willing to hack the latest Rigol it will win by a long-shot. The fact that your old scope was not a dso screams that you would like the high waveform update rate of the new Rigol (even unmodified).   

Hacking still interests me for obvious reasons, but from what I've learned here I'd want to wait until the warranty ends.
 

Offline J-D-H

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #229 on: December 07, 2014, 05:07:14 pm »
And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas?  Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades).
Customer Service quality is up to your local dealer.
Some pride themselves on CS like myself.
If you have the time research this matter, email the manufacturer to find your local guy.
If they then point you to your country distributor, contact them.
By doing this you will get a "feel" for supply chain responsiveness at each step you take. One might presume( hope) the reverse is replicated when service might be required. With our Asian suppliers we find ourselves as middle men by being familiar with the communication difficulties and knowing the people we have to deal with.
I dealt with other brands before I was offered Siglent but they have been the best to deal with.

Wrong assumption re firmware, if you asked me for it even in this forum, I would provide it. There are others here that would also. Or at least provide a link.
If you did not feel confident to do the upgrade, a reseller should provide that service at least for the equipment they have sold.
Many do not have the expertise so the "brand" local Service centre would be your next stop.

As anyone would, I'd certainly wish to buy from a dealer with good support in all respects.  However I believe that the cust svc of the OEM is a valid thing to consider as well.

Thanks for the info about getting firmware upgrades -- I had no idea that this might be available via this forum!
 

Offline J-D-H

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #230 on: December 07, 2014, 05:18:09 pm »
Since I'm shopping only at around the $400 price point, unless I buy something used, I'm more interested in comparisons between the entry level scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, Owon, etc.  No one has mentioned Owon customer service, but comparisons have been made between Rigol and Siglent.  So while Rigol scopes (especially the DS1000Z series) may be great in many ways, if Rigol doesn't reply to emails, doesn't make firmware upgrades convenient to get, doesn't sell parts (did I understand that correctly?!), all this sure makes me hesitant about them.  And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas?  Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades).  If Siglent and maybe Owon do all the things which Rigol does not do, that's a ~major~ factor for me.

Frankly, I think you have your priorities wrong. When you buy bottom-of-the-barrel kit then you'll find that all manufacturers offer the same, absolutely minimalistic support, which at the end of the day means you can get repairs while the thing is under warranty and the occasional firmware update which may or may not fix relevant bugs. Yes, Siglent used to sell you replacement parts directly from China, but really, there's little point as during the warranty period the scope is covered under warranty anyways, and after that technology will have moved on so that it's rarely economically sensible to repair it. And Siglent can stop selling spares any day (they might have already), as they nowhere gurantee the availability of spare parts.

Yes, Siglent does offer firmware updates for download on their website. With no changelog, though, which means you have to guess which of the many bugs will be fixed in this update. And there will be bugs, as Siglent tends to throw products to the market long before the software side is at a reasonable level, and even then many issues remain unfixed for a very long time. Rigol on the other side doesn't offer firmware updates on their website but tends to send them to customers only when they have a specific problem. But at least on their popular scopes (DS2k, DS1kz) the Rigol software seems to be more mature than what I've seen from Siglent (aside from the fact that Rigol has the much better UI). Funny enough their more expensive scopes (DS4k, DS6k) are mostly neglegted and suffer from many issues that have long been fixed in the smaller models, but then I guess only very few buy these larger scopes when they cost as much as a comparable scope from the big brands.

Both Rigol and Siglent say that they are working on fixing the bugs, but none of them will give you a definite date as to when the fixes will be available (and if they give you a date then you will find that they won't hit it). However, some bugs may never be fixed.

That's about what you can expect. You can't expect after warranty care, you can't expect being able to buy replacement parts, or even to have the scope repaired when its out of warranty.

Which means you should spend less time worrying about the manufacturer support and look closer into getting a good scope (and I'd rather get a Rigol scope over a Siglent and Owon any day, as in the el-cheapo class they offer the best build quality and the best user interface of all three). Decide on a scope, and find a good dealer that is likely to be around for the length of the warranty period and which offers dealing with warranty issues, and you're set.

If you expect big name support you have to be prepared to pay big name money for it. Simple as that.

While others here have made comparisons between the low cost scope makers and "big guys", I have never done this, not even once.  To me this is a totally apples to oranges comparison.  However it is valid to try to size up all the differences between the several major players in this low cost area -- this is all I'm trying to do.  You say that they all are similar in customer service.  If that's so, then I can eliminate this from the decision matrix and move on.  So far the Rigol DS1054Z is at the top of my short list, and the vendor I have in mind of TEquipment based on the few dealings I've had with them.  However, if all I can expect from this scope is to be able to use it for 3 years and then have to buy another, I may just say to heck with this whole idea and shift to looking at used gear.
 

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2206
  • Country: ca
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #231 on: December 07, 2014, 06:44:14 pm »
Given my price range, the customer service comparisons effectively become reduced to Rigol vs. Siglent vs. Owon (and maybe a few more in the ~$400 area).
OK entry level models then.
Now it become a comparison of specs, value for money, required features and little else as it is not a large investment. Maybe the location of your supplier for support also.
Come back to us with your findings.

Recent discussions have been mostly about customer service, however much of this has had to do with comparisons between low priced manufacturers and several higher end makers (Tek, LeCroy, etc.).  Since I'm shopping only at around the $400 price point, unless I buy something used, I'm more interested in comparisons between the entry level scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, Owon, etc.  No one has mentioned Owon customer service, but comparisons have been made between Rigol and Siglent.  So while Rigol scopes (especially the DS1000Z series) may be great in many ways, if Rigol doesn't reply to emails, doesn't make firmware upgrades convenient to get, doesn't sell parts (did I understand that correctly?!), all this sure makes me hesitant about them.  And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas?  Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades).  If Siglent and maybe Owon do all the things which Rigol does not do, that's a ~major~ factor for me.  Thanks to those who brought up these factors....

Hard to compare apple to apples. If you are willing to hack the latest Rigol it will win by a long-shot. The fact that your old scope was not a dso screams that you would like the high waveform update rate of the new Rigol (even unmodified).   

Hacking still interests me for obvious reasons, but from what I've learned here I'd want to wait until the warranty ends.

The 1054z hack is a code entry one, removal is possible if you connect directly to a computer and issue a command to remove all upgrades. Of course if a failure prevents this from happening that could be an issue.

Having said that, even at this early stage the operational shortcomings of the scope are fairly visible. That is a big plus when purchasing a scope, you need to now it's shortfalls. The Rigol has the potential to be a scope so examined that it may even have the firmware itself rewritten.

Don't take a lack of discussion about a bit of test gear to mean it has no problems.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21140
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #232 on: December 07, 2014, 07:44:15 pm »
Both Rigol and Siglent say that they are working on fixing the bugs, but none of them will give you a definite date as to when the fixes will be available (and if they give you a date then you will find that they won't hit it). However, some bugs may never be fixed.

That's about what you can expect. You can't expect after warranty care, you can't expect being able to buy replacement parts, or even to have the scope repaired when its out of warranty.
The same goes for the A-brands. Try to get parts from Tektronix or Keysight for old equipment. Companies typically write equipment off in 3 to 5 years. So support can stop after a few years without people complaining about it. The same goes for bugs. I've found some very annoying bugs in Tektronix equipment I have.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3075
  • Country: gb
  • Able to drop by occasionally only
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #233 on: December 08, 2014, 06:41:33 am »
That's about what you can expect. You can't expect after warranty care, you can't expect being able to buy replacement parts, or even to have the scope repaired when its out of warranty.
The same goes for the A-brands. Try to get parts from Tektronix or Keysight for old equipment. Companies typically write equipment off in 3 to 5 years. So support can stop after a few years without people complaining about it. The same goes for bugs. I've found some very annoying bugs in Tektronix equipment I have.

Agilent/Keysight regularly supports instruments that are 5+ years old, although on occasion we had problems for certain devices (not scopes) to get rarely used spares like housing parts after 4.5 years.

And as mentioned many times, LeCroy fully supports their scopes for 7 years after end of manufacture, and on a "best effort" basis long after that. I've recently ordered some parts for a 8 year old active probe, no problem whatsoever.

Hameg was the same before they were bought by R&S, and I'd expect that this hasn't changed much after the aquisition. R&S is awfully expensive, but I know that they also support their kit for many years after production stops.

As I said I don't know about Tektronix (the last time I used their scopes was a very long time ago) as their later scope product range wasn't attractive (and still isn't, aside maybe the DPO/MDO3k) anyways. Of course they're part of Danaher for a while now, and DBS (Danaher Business System) will without doubt have resulted not just in a decline in product attractiveness but also in support quality.

But you shouldn't make the mistake to extrapolate from a company like Tek which increasingly drifts into irrelevance to what you get from other A-brands.
 

Offline J-D-H

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #234 on: December 09, 2014, 11:39:51 pm »
Both Rigol and Siglent say that they are working on fixing the bugs, but none of them will give you a definite date as to when the fixes will be available (and if they give you a date then you will find that they won't hit it). However, some bugs may never be fixed.

That's about what you can expect. You can't expect after warranty care, you can't expect being able to buy replacement parts, or even to have the scope repaired when its out of warranty.
The same goes for the A-brands. Try to get parts from Tektronix or Keysight for old equipment. Companies typically write equipment off in 3 to 5 years. So support can stop after a few years without people complaining about it. The same goes for bugs. I've found some very annoying bugs in Tektronix equipment I have.

Right Tek themselves failed to be able to supply the parts I needed.  However, I found it easy to get those parts since there are a number of aftermarket parts sellers which came to the rescue.
 

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2206
  • Country: ca
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #235 on: December 10, 2014, 01:22:02 am »
And of course with low end gear, they will not sell you a component but a main board, power supply, case, display, knob set and so on. That's a pretty standard way of doing things.

Again having said that. Minor repair of a board (in the case of a scope) is well within the realm of possibility for most people that own them.

When you go to the low end you do so for a reason. From what I see the firmware is the biggest issue but it usually gets sorted out in time. The sellers want their products to have a good name so they can sell more product.

I wonder what would happen if a newer dso (for example) had the firmware reflashed? Like what happened with the Canon dslr's. http://www.magiclantern.fm/
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21140
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #236 on: December 10, 2014, 01:59:12 am »
And of course with low end gear, they will not sell you a component but a main board, power supply, case, display, knob set and so on. That's a pretty standard way of doing things.
For that past two decades that is the way the big brands do 'repairs' as well.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3075
  • Country: gb
  • Able to drop by occasionally only
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #237 on: December 10, 2014, 04:07:33 am »
And of course with low end gear, they will not sell you a component but a main board, power supply, case, display, knob set and so on. That's a pretty standard way of doing things.
For that past two decades that is the way the big brands do 'repairs' as well.

Of course big brands do proper board repairs, It's however often (especially for low-end kit) more economical to simply replace the board than to individually repair it. Most A-brand collect defective boards and repair them at central locations (where they have ATEs to quickly diagnose faults), and the repaired boards go back into the spare part supply. That is pretty standard.

That doesn't mean you can't get your board repaired, though. A while ago we had the acquisition board of an Agilent MSO9k repaired. And as mentioned many times, LeCroy does board repairs on their newer and older scopes.

I don't know what Tek does but then who's buying Tek scopes these days anyways.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 04:10:08 am by Wuerstchenhund »
 

Offline TunerSandwich

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 386
  • Country: us
  • I kiss on the first date
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #238 on: December 10, 2014, 07:57:22 am »
I don't know what Tek does but then who's buying Tek scopes these days anyways.

Actually I think the MDO range is doing well?  I see them popping up everywhere.  Amazing that a "unique" feature can sell a grossly under-performing "scope" as something other than a digital storage oscilloscope....and yet the same thing could be easily solved, by providing a sample clock and timebase output...to lock a separate (external) spec an....which would perform better anyhow, and free up memory in the actual scope application....to make the thing even a half-assed modern scope.... :-//
In Soviet Russia, scope probes YOU.....
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3075
  • Country: gb
  • Able to drop by occasionally only
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #239 on: December 10, 2014, 12:15:06 pm »
I don't know what Tek does but then who's buying Tek scopes these days anyways.

Actually I think the MDO range is doing well? 

From what I heard the MDO3k does relatively well compared to other Tek models.

Quote
I see them popping up everywhere.  Amazing that a "unique" feature can sell a grossly under-performing "scope" as something other than a digital storage oscilloscope....and yet the same thing could be easily solved, by providing a sample clock and timebase output...to lock a separate (external) spec an....which would perform better anyhow, and free up memory in the actual scope application....to make the thing even a half-assed modern scope.... :-//

I guess it attracts the typical corporate buyer who thinks he can get two instruments for the price of one. I wouldn't be surprised if it even was specifically developed for that audience.
 

Offline TunerSandwich

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 386
  • Country: us
  • I kiss on the first date
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #240 on: December 10, 2014, 01:11:07 pm »
I don't know what Tek does but then who's buying Tek scopes these days anyways.

Actually I think the MDO range is doing well? 

From what I heard the MDO3k does relatively well compared to other Tek models.

Quote
I see them popping up everywhere.  Amazing that a "unique" feature can sell a grossly under-performing "scope" as something other than a digital storage oscilloscope....and yet the same thing could be easily solved, by providing a sample clock and timebase output...to lock a separate (external) spec an....which would perform better anyhow, and free up memory in the actual scope application....to make the thing even a half-assed modern scope.... :-//

I guess it attracts the typical corporate buyer who thinks he can get two instruments for the price of one. I wouldn't be surprised if it even was specifically developed for that audience.

Probably....but it seems they even failed in that idea.  The screen is utterly "unusable" with all the domains up on it.  You would think that the easiest way to sell this thing to non-engineers, would be to stick a massive screen on it.

Meh...even with a bigger screen, and the much needed memory/horsepower...it's still nowhere on any of my "want" lists.  I'll take a proper, isolated RF analyzer in a separate lunchbox please....I think the spec an option in my MXi outclasses the MDO, for usability (obviously minus the RF input....).  The MDO I played with was so painfully slow, it actually made me nervous (yeah I know it's a lot of processing to do....BUT.....)
In Soviet Russia, scope probes YOU.....
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3075
  • Country: gb
  • Able to drop by occasionally only
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #241 on: December 10, 2014, 01:45:06 pm »
I guess it attracts the typical corporate buyer who thinks he can get two instruments for the price of one. I wouldn't be surprised if it even was specifically developed for that audience.

Probably....but it seems they even failed in that idea.  The screen is utterly "unusable" with all the domains up on it.  You would think that the easiest way to sell this thing to non-engineers, would be to stick a massive screen on it.[/quote]

Well, they do have the MDO4k which has a 10.4" XGA screen. But yes, 9" WVGA is a bit of a joke these days on such a scope. Especially when larger displays are cheap as chips.

Quote
The MDO I played with was so painfully slow, it actually made me nervous (yeah I know it's a lot of processing to do....BUT.....)

Being slow like wading through molasses seems to be a hallmark of Tek scopes. A while ago I had the chance to witness the performance (or lack of) of a DPO7k. Disappointing for a modern high end scope.
 

Offline David Hess

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12900
  • Country: us
  • DavidH
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #242 on: December 13, 2014, 02:21:56 pm »
There is another issue.  The transient response calibration is done digitally and may not have been calibrated at alternate input bandwidths.  If this is the case, then raising the bandwidth limit can result in poor transient response.  On one hand, most users are not going to be equipped to test for this problem but on the other hand, the same users are also unlikely to notice it.

This is also an issue if the calibration data is lost somehow which is a common problem on old DSOs which use battery backed up memory to store the calibration data.

To say that cal data can be lost implies that backup wasn't possible?  What about modern DSOs?  If they allow firmware updates via the USB port, I certainly hope they also allow a full backup of all internal data prior to attempting the update....  Yes?

Where I have encountered this is with the Tektronix TDS series of DSOs and certain older Tektronix oscilloscopes; they store the calibration data in Dallas NVRAMs which are soldered to the boards.  The embedded lithium batteries die after somewhere between 10 and 20 years and in the case of the TDS models, the software required for calibration is unavailable.  It might be possible to back this data up through an interface but doing so is an onerous procedure.

I personally had this happen with my Tektronix 2440 but at least its calibration procedures are built in and relatively easy to do.  I have also run across this problem with certain personal computer motherboards which also relied on NVRAM that included an embedded lithium cell.  Once the battery died, the motherboards would no longer even start POST.

Needless to say, I am not a fan of NVRAM which uses embedded lithium cells and I suspect in some cases products were deliberately designed to use them as a form of timed kill switch.

 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21140
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #243 on: December 13, 2014, 03:31:35 pm »
The software for the TDS models is available but you also need some other equipment like a DC source and RF generator. The easiest way is to unsolder the NVRAM and make a copy of the contents. If the NVRAM dies all it takes is replacing the battery (that is possible with some Dremel skills) and put the data back in.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4359
  • Country: gb
  • Electron Fiddler, FPGA Hacker, Embedded Systems EE
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #244 on: December 13, 2014, 03:48:15 pm »
I've used the sister to the MDO3000, the MSO3000 and the DSO3000.

I quite liked the xxx3000 for the trigger functions, but couldn't stand that it was so slow, and the user interface was too cluttered and hard to work out. For example how to set the trace intensity? Good luck...
 

Offline Hydrawerk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2417
  • Country: 00
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #245 on: December 13, 2014, 07:52:37 pm »
Isn't there a dedicated button called Intensity on MSO3000 scopes?
http://imexshop.co.uk/contents/media/01_mso3054_front_000.jpg
Amazing machines. https://www.youtube.com/user/denha (It is not me...)
 

Offline Pjotr

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 461
  • Country: nl
Re: DSO Reliability
« Reply #246 on: January 01, 2015, 04:50:50 pm »

The PSU design, and component selection....as well as the internal shielding in my DSO2000A-s is some of the best I have seen.  It's not "over-engineered", in the sense that a bridge could never be over-engineered.  It's just more than is necessary to meet the bare minimum specs, to actually make the scope work.  I applaud the quality or Rigol engineering and implementation.

Can second that. Looking at the PSU board of my DS2102, it is a low power stdby PSU + main PSU using a NXP TEA1750 GreenChip III SMPS control IC (PFC + flyback controller). Capacitors are decent Epcos ones, although I can't judge how they are current rated, they do not run hot. Also the heat sinks do not run very hot. Seems pretty ok and neat neat designed for the purpose. Measured power consumption (at 230V mains) was 31 watts and PF measured 0.86, not bad for a small PSU
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf