EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: Domitronic on July 20, 2022, 08:10:48 am
-
On Batterfly i saw that Rigol has also launched oscilloscopes with 12 bit resolution. Right now only available in China:
https://www.batterfly.com/shop/en/blog-posts/rigol-hdo4000-hdo1000-launch-domestic-market (https://www.batterfly.com/shop/en/blog-posts/rigol-hdo4000-hdo1000-launch-domestic-market)
Rigol Homepage HDO1000:
https://mall.rigol.com/item.html?item_id=1427 (https://mall.rigol.com/item.html?item_id=1427)
Rigol Homepage HDO4000:
https://mall.rigol.com/item.html?item_id=1432 (https://mall.rigol.com/item.html?item_id=1432)
Chinese datasheet of HDO4000:
https://rigol.com/Images/HDO4000_DataSheet_PDF_zh%20_tcm4-4912.pdf (https://rigol.com/Images/HDO4000_DataSheet_PDF_zh%20_tcm4-4912.pdf)
-
I am very excited. 8)
-
Interesting, from this video, is that a detachable battery pack at the back of the scope ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-23DTwP_7g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-23DTwP_7g)
-
I hope these step up the bar for everyone.
BUT those buttons layout... even my microwave oven looks sexier.
-
Good looking pricing, some pressure on the SDS2000 HD
Interesting, from this video, is that a detachable battery pack at the back of the scope ?
Google translate says its a battery.
-
Chinese datasheet of HDO4000
Why will the samplerate drops down to 1GSa/s when using all channels?
Would expect 2GSsa/s then.
-
Why will the samplerate drops down to 1GSa/s when using all channels?
This would mean that 800MHz is not possible with all 4 channels active.
Lets wait for international prices and see if Rigol wants to place the HDO4000 as competitor to SDS2000x HD. HDO1000 should have lower price i guess.
-
Why will the samplerate drops down to 1GSa/s when using all channels?
This would mean that 800MHz is not possible with all 4 channels active.
Lets wait for international prices and see if Rigol wants to place the HDO4000 as competitor to SDS2000x HD. HDO1000 should have lower price i guess.
Only 500MHz Bandwidth @ 1M Ω
Bandwidth (-3 dB) @ 50 Ω : 800MHz
Bandwidth (-3 dB) @ 1M Ω : 500MHz
-
I hope these step up the bar for everyone.
BUT those buttons layout... even my microwave oven looks sexier.
I dont mind the looks and layout but compared to DP800-series this is admittedly conservative.
So this was the shady survey about few weeks back. "Do you prefer western reputable brand with VESA-mount or cheap 12-bitter which can be riglolled?"
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-customer-research/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-customer-research/)
-
Why will the samplerate drops down to 1GSa/s when using all channels?
This would mean that 800MHz is not possible with all 4 channels active.
Lets wait for international prices and see if Rigol wants to place the HDO4000 as competitor to SDS2000x HD. HDO1000 should have lower price i guess.
Only 500MHz Bandwidth @ 1M Ω
Bandwidth (-3 dB) @ 50 Ω : 800MHz
Bandwidth (-3 dB) @ 1M Ω : 500MHz
A better BW with 50 ohms mode suggsets that they may have actually different input amplifiers and not just an 50 Ohms resistor to ground, which is good.
Probes for the 1 M input impedance are usually limited in the BW anyway, rarely more than 300 MHz and even whan the input is no longer really high impedance at 500 MHz.
With a single ADC for all 4 inputs, or all ADCs combined to get the full 4 GSPS it is normal that the maximum sampling rate will go down to 1/4.
For the highest BW one would need active probes and not many would buy 4 active probes. I would still be nice to have 2x2 GSPS even of the 3rd channel is used as a trigger.
12 bit resolution for the ADC naturally does not come with very high sampling rate.
It was a disign decision (possibly due to the available ADCs) that some of the 4 channel DSOs can't combine all power to one channel and thus only have 2 steps like 1 or 2 GSPS depending on the number of channels used. This was kind of 2 x 2 channels and the 4 channel version not directly included with the ADC. 2 ADCs does however add to the costs - may still come in the future.
-
I took the chinese datasheet of the HDO1000 and put it through DeepL translator. Below are some screenshots.
A european supplier told me this morning that the new Rigol devices will also be available here soon. Though i'm not sure if all of them or only some models.
-
More screenshots
-
It was a disign decision (possibly due to the available ADCs) that some of the 4 channel DSOs can't combine all power to one channel and thus only have 2 steps like 1 or 2 GSPS depending on the number of channels used. This was kind of 2 x 2 channels and the 4 channel version not directly included with the ADC. 2 ADCs does however add to the costs - may still come in the future.
Could also be memory or FPGA/ASIC fabric bandwidth. 2GSa/s * (12 bits + 4 bits padding assumed) * 4 channels active = 16GB/s memory bandwidth. Or 128Gbit/s. That is not insignificant. If it is an x32 DDR(4/5) interface then it is running at ca. 2GHz. Which is quite fast for an embedded application :)
-
I wonder if lecroy will be happy with the choosen model names, especially with the HDO4000.... ;)
-
Could also be memory or FPGA/ASIC fabric bandwidth. 2GSa/s * (12 bits + 4 bits padding assumed) * 4 channels active = 16GB/s memory bandwidth. Or 128Gbit/s. That is not insignificant. If it is an x32 DDR(4/5) interface then it is running at ca. 2GHz. Which is quite fast for an embedded application
Pretty stupid argument with that if condition, scopes use wide memory busses. The memory is the cheap bit. ADCs are the expensive bit that is usually limiting sample rate performance. There is a very remote possibility that the ADC -> FPGA/ASIC/SoC bus is the limit but not likely.
-
Chinese HDO4000 datasheet translated by DeepL
-
more Screenshots
-
The price of HDO4804 without taxes in China is ￥29999. It's over $4000.
-
The price of HDO4804 without taxes in China is ￥29999. It's over $4000.
Yes? That is 1/4 of the price of a Leroy HDO4054A or Tek MSO44
12bits with high speed is was expensive
-
Could also be memory or FPGA/ASIC fabric bandwidth. 2GSa/s * (12 bits + 4 bits padding assumed) * 4 channels active = 16GB/s memory bandwidth. Or 128Gbit/s. That is not insignificant. If it is an x32 DDR(4/5) interface then it is running at ca. 2GHz. Which is quite fast for an embedded application
Pretty stupid argument with that if condition, scopes use wide memory busses. The memory is the cheap bit. ADCs are the expensive bit that is usually limiting sample rate performance. There is a very remote possibility that the ADC -> FPGA/ASIC/SoC bus is the limit but not likely.
I don't think it's a stupid argument at all ;) or I would not have made it. x64 interface could be used but that limits FPGA choices to ones with the package size to support 64-bit DDR. Don't forget you need RAS/CAS timing and readout too, so even at x64 you might be looking at 1.25 - 1.5GHz clock for instance to have comfortable timing margin. Which is pushing FPGA choices to high end, $1000 per chip territory (Kintex, Virtex etc., you can just about get x64 on Artix but you will not go above 1GHz.)
If the architecture supports MSO function on other products it also has to have sufficient memory to capture the MSO data likely on the same bus.
I am not sure if Rigol's ASICs support the 12-bit products yet, anyone know?
-
The price of HDO4804 without taxes in China is ￥29999. It's over $4000.
Yes? That is 1/4 of the price of a Leroy HDO4054A or Tek MSO44
12bits with high speed is was expensive
For a company thats still not really expensivce i guess and the hobbyists usually hope that the base model can be "enhanced".
Interesting that both datasheets say that it is running on Android. Do other Rigol scopes also use Android?
-
Afaik no, before it was linux.(5000, 7000..( 8000 idk))
-
As far as I know, since the DS70000 series oscilloscopes, they started switching to the Android platform. I'm guessing part of the reason is the availability of high-performance processors on the market that run the Android platform. Part of the reason may be that they are not supported by the X86 platform due to the trade entity list.
If you look at the description of the processor system in the HDO4000 datasheet "Cortex-A72, 1.8 GHz, Hexa Core", it seems they use ARM processor such as the Rockchip's RK3399. The processor receives the data collected by the FPGA through the PCIe bus, which may be a feasible way.
-
Could also be memory or FPGA/ASIC fabric bandwidth. 2GSa/s * (12 bits + 4 bits padding assumed) * 4 channels active = 16GB/s memory bandwidth. Or 128Gbit/s. That is not insignificant. If it is an x32 DDR(4/5) interface then it is running at ca. 2GHz. Which is quite fast for an embedded application
Pretty stupid argument with that if condition, scopes use wide memory busses. The memory is the cheap bit. ADCs are the expensive bit that is usually limiting sample rate performance. There is a very remote possibility that the ADC -> FPGA/ASIC/SoC bus is the limit but not likely.
I don't think it's a stupid argument at all ;) or I would not have made it. x64 interface could be used but that limits FPGA choices to ones with the package size to support 64-bit DDR. Don't forget you need RAS/CAS timing and readout too, so even at x64 you might be looking at 1.25 - 1.5GHz clock for instance to have comfortable timing margin. Which is pushing FPGA choices to high end, $1000 per chip territory (Kintex, Virtex etc., you can just about get x64 on Artix but you will not go above 1GHz.)
If the architecture supports MSO function on other products it also has to have sufficient memory to capture the MSO data likely on the same bus.
I am not sure if Rigol's ASICs support the 12-bit products yet, anyone know?
It sure is stupid, like saying but what if a car maker puts a poorly chosen gearbox in a vehicle, it will be redlining the engine past 12k rpm and still wont go fast! Well you know, they probably know what they are doing and wouldnt make bone-headed choices....
Pure imaginary "argument", strawman, nonsense. Wide buses dont need expensive FPGA's, just packages with more pins. Acquisition memory on a scope has predictable and steady access patterns, its not general purpose random access memory.
How about wait until its actually known whats inside the device? Commentary based on creative guesswork intentionally misleading hypotheticals isnt adding much.
-
How about wait until its actually known whats inside the device?
Exactly, let´s wait a while...
As someone who bought actually siglents new 12 bit scope, I don´t get upset about this what I´ve seen in the specs, more the opposite.
-
The HDO1000 looks like its the long awaited replacement for the current DS1000z series. I assume the price point will be around the $400 mark, and most likely will be hackable to 200MHz.
HDO4000 would likely be replacement for DS4000 series and would be way more expensive that MSO5000 series. Possible starting in the $2000+ range. These prices I would guess would be after a year on the market, I am only guessing. Siglent is always on the move so expect to see some new scopes from them in response.
-
The HDO1000 looks like its the long awaited replacement for the current DS1000z series. I assume the price point will be around the $400 mark, and most likely will be hackable to 200MHz.
HDO4000 would likely be replacement for DS4000 series and would be way more expensive that MSO5000 series. Possible starting in the $2000+ range. These prices I would guess would be after a year on the market, I am only guessing. Siglent is always on the move so expect to see some new scopes from them in response.
I doubt that HDO1000 is in the price range of DS1000z. The prices for China are already much higher. And i would guess it will be even more in US/EU:
HDO1074: 5999 RMB = 889 USD = 869 EUR
HDO1104: 7999 RMB = 1185 USD = 1159 EUR
HDO1204: 9999 RMB = 1481 USD = 1449 EUR
All prices plus tax.
-
I saw those prices, but we clearly know that a replacement for the DS1000Z is needed, so they may come out with 50MHz version and the launch prices are always well above the final sale prices. Rigol has always been revolutionary in producing low cost scopes with high end features.
DS1052E first low cost "real scope", this is still being sold.
DS1000Z first low cost 4 Channel Scope
MDO5000 first relatively low cost 8G/s scope.
So what ever they are launching has to come with something extra.
-
DS1052E first low cost "real scope", this is still being sold.
And still outselling all the Siglents on Batronix:
https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/DSO.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/DSO.html) (list sorted by sales rank)
(Ducks under table...)
nb. It was also outselling the Rigol DS1054Z until quite recently.
-
DS1052E first low cost "real scope", this is still being sold.
And still outselling all the Siglents on Batronix:
https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/DSO.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/DSO.html) (list sorted by sales rank)
(Ducks under table...)
nb. It was also outselling the Rigol DS1054Z until quite recently.
How do you know this list is sorted by sales rank? To me it doesn't look like it is.
-
How do you know this list is sorted by sales rank? To me it doesn't look like it is.
It says "Position" at the top, to the right of "Sorting".
Other choices are "Price", "Manufacturer"... etc.
-
Yes, exactly, but position is not sales rank. Do you really believe every single DS1000 is sold more often than any other brand? Or that the full-package special offer RTB-2k COM4 from R&S is the one which has the least quantity even though standard models have less features for higher price? I'm sure this is not sorted by sales rank.
-
Maybe tomorrow we will know it - I´ve simply asked them a few hours ago.
-
Yes, exactly, but position is not sales rank.
Says who?
What else could it be? They certainly aren't ordered by manufacturer or price.
It's a German company so "position" could be the translation.
Do you really believe every single DS1000 is sold more often than any other brand?
Sure, why not? It's famous and it's the cheapest one.
I wouldn't presume to predict what the average person buys. Not everybody reads EEVBLOG or knows the difference beyond price/channels/bandwidth. I'd bet that price is the most important factor.
Plus: I know for a fact that the list changes. The DS1052E has been at the top for the last 10 years or so but the DS1054Z has been cheaper for the last few months so it makes sense it would finally overtake it.
-
Maybe tomorrow we will know it - I´ve simply asked them a few hours ago.
Let's see... :-+
(although I really don't know what else it could be)
-
I think all 12bit scope should have an fft average.
Rigol right?
-
Yes, exactly, but position is not sales rank.
Says who?
What else could it be? They certainly aren't ordered by manufacturer or price.
It's a German company so "position" could be the translation.
Do you really believe every single DS1000 is sold more often than any other brand?
Sure, why not? It's famous and it's the cheapest one.
I wouldn't presume to predict what the average person buys. Not everybody reads EEVBLOG or knows the difference beyond price/channels/bandwidth. I'd bet that price is the most important factor.
Plus: I know for a fact that the list changes. The DS1052E has been at the top for the last 10 years or so but the DS1054Z has been cheaper for the last few months so it makes sense it would finally overtake it.
According to your compelling logic, then there must be for instance more people buying a € 28.560,- R&S RTE1204 than any of the Micsigs - even though we've just learnt (from you) that price is paramount. In fact, this would also mean that anything except the R&S Scope Riders sells better than the Micsigs. Interesting view :palm:
-
It looks like the sorting is combination of portability and bragging factor. What comes to bragging factor emphasis is on western brand. That why Scope Rider is placed last.
-
According to your compelling logic, then there must be for instance more people buying a € 28.560,- R&S RTE1204 than any of the Micsigs - even though we've just learnt (from you) that price is paramount. In fact, this would also mean that anything except the R&S Scope Riders sells better than the Micsigs. Interesting view :palm:
You have a better theory? Please post it.
Note that the TEquipment list isn't radically different and it actually says "Best Sellers" on that one:
https://www.tequipment.net/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/#/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/features_best-seller/?F_Sort=10 (https://www.tequipment.net/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/#/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/features_best-seller/?F_Sort=10)
-
According to your compelling logic, then there must be for instance more people buying a € 28.560,- R&S RTE1204 than any of the Micsigs - even though we've just learnt (from you) that price is paramount. In fact, this would also mean that anything except the R&S Scope Riders sells better than the Micsigs. Interesting view :palm:
You have a better theory? Please post it.
Note that the TEquipment list isn't radically different and it actually says "Best Sellers" on that one:
https://www.tequipment.net/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/#/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/features_best-seller/?F_Sort=10 (https://www.tequipment.net/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/#/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/features_best-seller/?F_Sort=10)
And you believe everything they say in commercials?
Sort on position means: sort on the order in which the items are in a database. So for sure you get the oldest entries on top.
Bestsellers means: what we would like to get rid of.
Both are intended to sucker people into believing a product is popular.
Look at the number of reviews when using your link. Two products which sell well, should have an almost equal number of reviews. Now go and look at the number of reviews versus the 'bestseller' ranking. There is a huge difference!
-
The question was this: "Do you really believe every single DS1000 is sold more often than any other brand?"
Yes, I absolutely do. It's famous, it's cheap, it ticks all the boxes.
Look at the number of reviews when using your link. Two products which sell well, should have an almost equal number of reviews.
OK, let's take a random sample and see:
Rigol DS1054Z - 514 reviews
Rigol DS1104Z - 16 reviews (you'd be insane to buy this, right? It's the same as a DS1054Z but as expensive as a Siglent SDS1104X-E!)
Siglent SDS1104X-E - 5 reviews (which I'm frequently told is the only one of these three worth owning! :-// )
By your own math the Rigol is outselling the Siglent by a factor of 100. Even the stupid DS1104Z is outselling it by a factor of 3.
-
On the welectron page, you can sort explicit by bestsellers.
But it makes less sense as they only sell siglent scopes.. ;)
And it´s no surprise that the cheaper models are on top.
What rigol concerns I have no doubt about it, that the DS1000Z series are the most selling ones on the planet. ;)
Under hobbyists.
Afaik it was the first cheap AND usable 4-ch scope, this you can´t beat normally even when other brands models do some things better.
Same with the MSO5000 from rigol what features and samplerate/memory concerns.
Same with the RTB2000 from R&S, as the first "cheap" hi-res scope.
When you can choose between models with nearly the same price, you will choose the "better" one (for you).
Otherwise the price itself will decide.
So it won´t be a surprise when the forthcoming rigol hdo1000 will be selling better than the hdo 4000 or the siglent sds2000hd.
-
The question was this: "Do you really believe every single DS1000 is sold more often than any other brand?"
Yes, I absolutely do. It's famous, it's cheap, it ticks all the boxes.
Look at the number of reviews when using your link. Two products which sell well, should have an almost equal number of reviews.
OK, let's take a random sample and see:
Rigol DS1054Z - 514 reviews
Rigol DS1104Z - 16 reviews (you'd be insane to buy this, right? It's the same as a DS1054Z but as expensive as a Siglent SDS1104X-E!)
Siglent SDS1104X-E - 5 reviews (which I'm frequently told is the only one of these three worth owning! :-// )
By your own math the Rigol is outselling the Siglent by a factor of 100. Even the stupid DS1104Z is outselling it by a factor of 3.
Quite possible. A lot of people don't check specs but just buy what others are recommending based on old data. Just look at how often the outdated ds1054z is still recommended on this forum.
Also consider that there might be places where gear from other brands is cheaper so 'bestsellers' still gives you no actual information at all.
-
'bestsellers' still gives you no actual information at all.
I never said it did.
All I said was that the Rigol DS1052E is still selling in large quantities, eg. Batronix appears to sell more of them than any Siglent and until very recently it was the #1 seller on Batronix.
-
Photoelectric encoders, 1.5Mwfms, and 10" screen feels a bit too premium to be on their lowest cost scope. But the limitations of 250MS/s, no probe detect, and no 50 ohm aren't amazing.
Its probably going to be at that $899 USD price for a long time, like the MSO5074 has been at $999.
Maybe makes some sense to differentiate their mid market, which scope to get: what are you mostly working on? Analog = HDO1000, Digital = MSO5000.
Photoelectric encoder
Standard photoelectric encoder, 34 years long service life, protect your fixed assets.
-
...the limitations of 250MS/s
Surely they must limit the bandwidth of the 200MHz model when you turn on 4 channels.
250MS/s isn't enough.
-
https://ecmobile.rigol.com/goods/detail?goods_id=153
Price of 200MHz sans 13% VAT: 2,372.26 USD / 15999 CNY
https://ecmobile.rigol.com/goods-154.html
Price of 70MHz HDO1072 : 3999 CNY = 593 USD
They are going for the throat. Building your own ADC chipset has its perks.
-
Price of 70MHz HDO1072 : 3999 CNY = 593 USD
If the firmware is good and it can be hacked then they could take the entire sub-$1500 market with that.
-
Turns out I had an email from Rigol that I missed about this new scope.
I now have one on the way.
-
According to your compelling logic, then there must be for instance more people buying a € 28.560,- R&S RTE1204 than any of the Micsigs - even though we've just learnt (from you) that price is paramount. In fact, this would also mean that anything except the R&S Scope Riders sells better than the Micsigs. Interesting view :palm:
You have a better theory? Please post it.
Note that the TEquipment list isn't radically different and it actually says "Best Sellers" on that one:
https://www.tequipment.net/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/#/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/features_best-seller/?F_Sort=10 (https://www.tequipment.net/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/#/oscilloscopes/digital-oscilloscopes/features_best-seller/?F_Sort=10)
And you believe everything they say in commercials?
Sort on position means: sort on the order in which the items are in a database. So for sure you get the oldest entries on top.
Bestsellers means: what we would like to get rid of.
Both are intended to sucker people into believing a product is popular.
Look at the number of reviews when using your link. Two products which sell well, should have an almost equal number of reviews. Now go and look at the number of reviews versus the 'bestseller' ranking. There is a huge difference!
Also could be lifetime sales. The 1054E has been around for over a decade, and was absolutely the best selling entry level digital scope for a long time. It actually pioneered the market.
-
https://ecmobile.rigol.com/goods-154.html
Price of 70MHz HDO1072 : 3999 CNY = 593 USD
They are going for the throat. Building your own ADC chipset has its perks.
Under US$600 for a 12bit 1.5Mwfm/s 100Mpt 10" 1280x800 screen scope that almost certainly will be hackable to 200MHz :o
They'll have the market to themselves.
-
Turns out I had an email from Rigol that I missed about this new scope.
I now have one on the way.
Which one, the 1000 ?
-
Turns out I had an email from Rigol that I missed about this new scope.
I now have one on the way.
Have you get your new HDO toy? How is the performance? How is the high definition measurement works? and also the low noise background actrually performs?
-
I'm also interested in this oscilloscope, do you have something to tell us Dave?
-
I'm looking forward to it, too.
In Korea, the HDO product will be released in mid-November.
-
Posted on Rigol North America website now:
https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/HDO1000/ (https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/HDO1000/)
https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/HDO4000/ (https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/HDO4000/)
-
$999 for the 1074? If that's hackable then we may have a new champion.
One thing that looks dodgy though is a 200Mhz, 4-channel option with only 1GSample/sec.
Let's hope that version can turn on an internal 100MHz bandwidth limiter when you turn on more than 2 channels.
-
If that's hackable then we may have a new champion.
Hm-hm....
The specs of the 1000 left me a little bit confused.
The resolution of the screen and the 12 bit are truly a blast for this price, no doubt.
But the rest...MSO5000 owners musn´t get nervous.
Don´t know what rigols ideas were to give this puppy 1GSa/s MAX, with all channels active it drops down to "ancient" 250MSa/s.... :palm:
-
Yeah the price increase over the Chinese price we saw makes it slightly less appealing. Still good if you are into low level analog stuff though.
They are clearly using one ADC/ASIC on this, and then 4 ADCs for the HDO4000.
The wfm/s is 50,000 in "vector" mode but then there is another mode for the 1.5 million?
Max. Waveform Capture Rate
50,000 wfms/s (Vector Mode)
1,500,000 wfms/s (UltraAcquire Mode)
Does this mean there is some heavy processing going on, that is required for regular sampling. Or something else I'm missing.
-
But the rest...MSO5000 owners musn´t get nervous.
It's the Siglent owners who should be nervous. They won't be able to say "But...noise!" any more. :box:
-
Did they forget the digital channels?
-
Did they forget the digital channels?
LOL, seems they did.
-
Don´t know what rigols ideas were to give this puppy 1GSa/s MAX, with all channels active it drops down to "ancient" 250MSa/s.... :palm:
That's plenty for a 100Mhz 'scope.
For 200MHz? Not so much, hence my previous comment.
It's OK if you're aware that it's there and can adjust your expectations but I bet a lot of buyers/hackers won't be that clued in.
Then again... it's not an uncommon situation in practice. A "100Mhz" SDS1104-XE has a measured analog bandwidth (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2389089/#msg2389089) of about 200Mhz, so same thing... - not quite true, my bad. See below...
The trick is to be aware and limit yourself to two channels for the high frequency stuff. :)
-
Did they forget the digital channels?
LOL, seems they did.
But you get 12 bits in return. :-//
-
They are clearly using one ADC/ASIC on this, and then 4 ADCs for the HDO4000.
Maybe it's a case of the boss saying "Can we build an entry-level 'scope with just one of those chips?"
-
It's the Siglent owners who should be nervous. They won't be able to say "But...noise!" any more. :box:
It´s more than only the noise... ;)
Much more.
-
A "100Mhz" SDS1104-XE has a measured analog bandwidth (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2389089/#msg2389089) of about 200Mhz, so same thing...
Garbage ! :bullshit:
It might seem you don't know the difference between real -3dB BW and what frequencies a DSO can detect, trigger on and display !
A SDS1104X-E real -3dB BW is ~120 MHz some 20% above its rated BW which is the norm for the industry but it can be down at just 10% above rated BW or in the case of a SDS2104X Plus ~85% above rated BW.
We must get this stuff correct for the viewers that come along later only to be confused by conflicting info. :horse:
-
Did they forget the digital channels?
I constantly point out that you can get a better PC based logic analyzer for less than half the cost of the logic option on a Siglent or a Rigol ($3-400+). Yes yes, I get that its not integrated and there are examples you can point out where it was useful. But PC based is better in terms of software, triggering, measuring, day to day design use, for me.
I would love to see the sales numbers for logic option on low end scopes though.
And yes, would be good if they could just pipe the data over USB to a probe, then no need for an extra hardware cost inside the scope.
-
$999 for the 1074? If that's hackable then we may have a new champion.
One thing that looks dodgy though is a 200Mhz, 4-channel option with only 1GSample/sec.
Let's hope that version can turn on an internal 100MHz bandwidth limiter when you turn on more than 2 channels.
HDO1000 doesn't look so much better than Owon XDS3000 series that has been around for a number of years. But HDO4000 is indeed quite promising. Even without hacking 800 MHz scope for less than $5k and with 12 bit resolution is a great deal. But I wouldn't hold by breath about the update rate until I see it tested. With Rigol's marketing 1.5M waveforms/sec probably applies for exactly one signal when the scope is oriented in north-south direction.
-
A "100Mhz" SDS1104-XE has a measured analog bandwidth (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2389089/#msg2389089) of about 200Mhz, so same thing...
Garbage ! :bullshit:
Yep, I was mixing up your images. My bad.
The standard 100MHz model as supplied has about 140MHz bandwidth, it's only the hacked 'scopes that are getting over 200MHz.
( eg. here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2387379/#msg2387379 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2387379/#msg2387379) )
OTOH being able to hack it to 200MHz is a big selling point for that model... Nyquist be damned! >:D
-
A "100Mhz" SDS1104-XE has a measured analog bandwidth (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2389089/#msg2389089) of about 200Mhz, so same thing...
Garbage ! :bullshit:
Yep, I was mixing up your images. My bad.
The standard 100MHz model as supplied has about 140MHz bandwidth, it's only the hacked 'scopes that are getting over 200MHz.
( eg. here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2387379/#msg2387379 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dso-bandwidth-test-sds1104x-e-dsox1102g-to1104-gds1054b/msg2387379/#msg2387379) )
OTOH being able to hack it to 200MHz is a big selling point for that model... Nyquist be damned! >:D
Thanks for admitting your oversight. :-+
Yet because SDS1204X-E uses twin 1 GSa/s ADC's we can still obtain 5x oversampling with 2 active channels and maintain the magic 2.5 with all channels active to rated frequency therefore inviting neither Nyquist or Murphy to the party. ;)
-
Don´t know what rigols ideas were to give this puppy 1GSa/s MAX, with all channels active it drops down to "ancient" 250MSa/s.... :palm:
That's plenty for a 100Mhz 'scope.
Yep. But the HDO4000 drops to 1Gs/s with all channels enabled and that isn't enough to support 800MHz bandwidth. And no digital channels. WTF is Rigol doing here? It will be another bug-fest anyway for the foreseable future so 'meh'.
-
Did they forget the digital channels?
I constantly point out that you can get a better PC based logic analyzer for less than half the cost of the logic option on a Siglent or a Rigol ($3-400+). Yes yes, I get that its not integrated and there are examples you can point out where it was useful. But PC based is better in terms of software, triggering, measuring, day to day design use, for me.
I would love to see the sales numbers for logic option on low end scopes though.
And yes, would be good if they could just pipe the data over USB to a probe, then no need for an extra hardware cost inside the scope.
And I keep repeating that PC based protocol analysers (popular USB types) are very good if you are debugging content of datagrams, i.e. debugging software side.
Triggering and measuring, signal integrity and precise timing correlation needs MSO. That is their whole reason for existence. Triggering on protocols (or anything else) is superb on even cheapest scopes compared to what most USB protocol analysers have.
If you are only working the software protocol stack on a hardware that is verified working on hardware side, yes, then USB protocol analyser is best tool by far...
If you are verifying timing and message content in relation to some real world event, then MSO...
And to repeat, popular Saleae USB devices that cost as much as MSO5000 have just basic level+simple digital combine trigger. They can't even trigger on a simple message..
MSO is useful. Very.
-
And to repeat, popular Saleae USB devices that cost as much as MSO5000 have just basic level+simple digital combine trigger. They can't even trigger on a simple message..
How does a Saleae cost the same as an MSO5000?
Aaaand then I checked, and damn, yeah, close. The MSO5000 is a bit more with the LA probe option, but the MSO5000 base model is US$1090 and the Saleae Pro 16CH is $1399 :o
BTW, there is a HDO4000 on the plane.
-
Did they forget the digital channels?
I constantly point out that you can get a better PC based logic analyzer for less than half the cost of the logic option on a Siglent or a Rigol ($3-400+). Yes yes, I get that its not integrated and there are examples you can point out where it was useful. But PC based is better in terms of software, triggering, measuring, day to day design use, for me.
I would love to see the sales numbers for logic option on low end scopes though.
And yes, would be good if they could just pipe the data over USB to a probe, then no need for an extra hardware cost inside the scope.
Those are not really an option if you want to debug a mixed signal system with your mixed signal oscilloscope. For example ADC settling times. Or an RS485 transceiver. You can connect TX, RX , D and just one of the differential signals to a 4 channel scope. Or any interface, which uses higher voltages than those USB thingies can accept. Or anything with ECL logic. Or an Ethernet interface. Or an NFC communication, which can be debugged even with a low end Keysight scope. Probably we could come up with another 50 use cases where an MSO is needed.
-
BTW, there is a HDO4000 on the plane.
Ah, excellent.. :D
-
Just a general comment.
In, say, last half year, I was getting many invitations by Rigol for an online market research.. Stuff like ABC questions what would you prefer 12Bit 500MHz scope or 8Bit 1GHz scope. etc etc. These market research questions are usually weird because they are meant to be synthetic data points, and they make sense only after being combined together and analysed.
But it felt like they are doing soul searching, i.e. not having clear sense of direction. Like they really wanted to make a great new products but having no real understanding what that should be.
Jump to today, they released these two new products, and they feel and have featureset like they used that market research directly... These 2 scopes read like they were literally designed by marketing. All the buzzwords are here:
- New chipset (Developed by RIGOL) - They are really giving this a lot of priority. Kudos to them for this.
- Very low noise (for cleaner signals, measuring small signals accurately... Yet to see the numbers before judging)
- 12 bit resolution (16 bit with hires so that number can also be put in datasheet).
- 500uV/div (still a software magnification, but improved one)
- Large Touch screen (they had that before, complaint was responsiveness not size)
- user friendly knobs (whatever that means)
- Deep memory (that is same or less than 8 bit devices from previous gen)
- UltraAcquire mode (meaning they couldn't make it fast so special limited acquisition mode was introduced)
Most of these are very vague with no details of implementation.
HDO1000 is not an alternative to MSO5000 in any way.
It looks good next to DS1000Z but at 3x the price.
It is max 100MHz scope with these sampling rates.
These two scopes feels like someone compiled the datasheet from all the buzzwords, erased all stuff that didn't sound cool and then gave that to engineering to make that. Which they dutifully did. Without any kind of purposefulness of the device.. If we look at the datasheet: it has 12 Bit so it is easy to test power.. It has 12 Bit so it is good for education.. It has large screen and Autoscale so that makes it good for embedded design (even without digital channels, and fact it has no longer memory than older devices that had large screen too). Like wise, it has CAN and LIN so it is good for automotive... Well it doesn't work that way...
To me, previous MSO5000/7000 and these two HDO1000/4000 in reality feel like prototype devices made for testing their chipsets more than device line with clear vision and purpose.
That being said, if we disregard noise debate, MSO5000/MSO7000 had quite well defined featureset. They had right set of features, just implementation was not perfect. I hoped these new 12 bit scopes would be "fixed" MSO5000/7000, same featureset, better analog performance. New GUI looks much better to me though.
Their previous DS1000/2000/4000/6000 line also had clear purpose and was well defined product line. Right now, they have no scope I would buy.. Except maybe DS1000Z if I really needed cheap scope but wanted something that really works. Rest is all kind of confused..
I see a lot of effort, but weird confused devices.. I hope they get it together. I know they can do much better than this. They have the technology and know how in technical department, but they have to find sense of direction..
-
How does a Saleae cost the same as an MSO5000?
Aaaand then I checked, and damn, yeah, close. The MSO5000 is a bit more with the LA probe option, but the MSO5000 base model is US$1090 and the Saleae Pro 16CH is $1399 :o
Yeah, I was pretty confused too..
BTW, there is a HDO4000 on the plane.
Excellente!!
-
Yep. But the HDO4000 drops to 1Gs/s with all channels enabled and that isn't enough to support 800MHz bandwidth. And no digital channels. WTF is Rigol doing here? It will be another bug-fest anyway for the foreseable future so 'meh'.
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now and assume that they limit the bandwidth sufficiently when all channels are active. With a custom ADC design it is entirely possible that they are oversampling and decimating internally anyway. 12 bits at 4 GSa/s will take up a lot of silicon, even setting aside the NRE costs that is going to be an expensive chip. So not surprising that they are trying to get away with just one. Still, the fact that there doesn't even seem to be a footnote about this in the datasheet is a lot less excusable.
Yet because SDS1204X-E uses twin 1 GSa/s ADC's we can still obtain 5x oversampling with 2 active channels and maintain the magic 2.5 with all channels active to rated frequency therefore inviting neither Nyquist or Murphy to the party. ;)
Well, from the link it looks like with all channels active the attenuation at f_s/2 (at 250 MHz) is a bit less than 3dB. That's not exactly an effective anti-aliasing filter. :-// At 1 GSa/s things are looking better with ~20dB stopband rejection which I guess is acceptable at the price point, even though for an 8 bit system you would ideally like to see > 40dB.
-
The new "Chip Set" developed by Rigol is likely not silicon designed by Rigol but commissioned out to a 3rd party fabless design house that specializes in this sort of IP design effort. The design folks capable of this sort of effort and performance likely aren't going to be employed by Rigol or Siglent, maybe at Keysight and LeCroy tho. The simple reason is they are too expensive (valued at over $1/2M per year when we were involved before retiring ~5 years ago) unless kept fully employed ~100% designing such, and the tool cost is enormous, just look at the cost of Cadence and other tools on a per seat per year basis!!! The NRE for this custom chip set design is going to be/was very high, so they must be "banking" on selling lots of these chip sets, otherwise the NRE investment makes no sense.
Let's hope Rigol gets a little better performing custom 12 bit chip set than their previous 8 bit attempt, and the new input stage doesn't degrade the ADC very much. The ADC is the best you can do, and everything in front of it degrades overall performance, so getting a high performance ADC is paramount and then not degrading it is the next major task!!
Anyway, a interesting new DSO is arriving and hopefully taking advantage of the new small feature CMOS with a custom chip effort!!
Best,
-
They have the technology and know how in technical department, but they have to find sense of direction..
Good point. I also think Rigol got lost a bit. It's a pity because since buying the DS1054Z I have been a bit attached to them, and now I have switched to Siglenta's equipment, which I think is a bit better thought out.
-
The new "Chip Set" developed by Rigol is likely not silicon designed by Rigol but commissioned out to a 3rd party fabless design house that specializes in this sort of IP design effort. The design folks capable of this sort of effort and performance likely aren't going to be employed by Rigol or Siglent, maybe at Keysight and LeCroy tho. The simple reason is they are too expensive (valued at over $1/2M per year when we were involved before retiring ~5 years ago) unless kept fully employed ~100% designing such, and the tool cost is enormous, just look at the cost of Cadence and other tools on a per seat per year basis!!! The NRE for this custom chip set design is going to be/was very high, so they must be "banking" on selling lots of these chip sets, otherwise the NRE investment makes no sense.
If we were talking about a similar-sized western company, I'd say that probably makes sense. But I know very little about how the Chinese T&M industry operates. :-// I would expect the Chinese state to push for (and probably fund) the domestic development of high-end test equipment. If Rigol manage to break even by selling a lot of cheap scopes to international customers they probably won't mind. But surely the strategic goal has to be rolling their own mmWave stuff, even if it is not strictly viable from a purely commercial perspective. What's more, oscillscopes aren't really the only application that comes to mind when we talk about high-resolution, high-speed ADCs. That technology is very much "dual-use".
-
New GUI looks much better to me though.
The sales brochure says it's Android based, that implies a complete rewrite of the UI.
Maybe that's why the MSO5000 hasn't had many updates lately.
-
The new "Chip Set" developed by Rigol is likely not silicon designed by Rigol but commissioned out to a 3rd party fabless design house that specializes in this sort of IP design effort. The design folks capable of this sort of effort and performance likely aren't going to be employed by Rigol or Siglent
Why not? Rigol has money. It seems like all their focus has been on "ASIC" since the DS1054Z was launched. The first one wasn't quite there in terms of noise but they seem to have taken that to heart with this one.
ASICs are very expensive to develop but dirt cheap to mass produce afterwards. If they can get a good ASIC into the market then they have a chance of owning it for many years.
AFIAK Siglent hasn't tried an ASIC design yet.
-
The new "Chip Set" developed by Rigol is likely not silicon designed by Rigol but commissioned out to a 3rd party fabless design house that specializes in this sort of IP design effort. The design folks capable of this sort of effort and performance likely aren't going to be employed by Rigol or Siglent
Why not? Rigol has money. It seems like all their focus has been on "ASIC" since the DS1054Z was launched. The first one wasn't quite there in terms of noise but they seem to have taken that to heart with this one.
ASICs are very expensive to develop but dirt cheap to mass produce afterwards. If they can get a good ASIC into the market then they have a chance of owning it for many years.
AFIAK Siglent hasn't tried an ASIC design yet.
The answer is simple, they likely don't have the specialized skilled folks that are capable of developing chips like these. This is not programming an FPGA then a custom digital chip to render such after all the bugs are worked out, but a highly specialized and extremely demanding discipline. The folks that can actually develop this type of high performance silicon have a long career doing such and likely learned from others during their career. Few instrument companies outside Keysight, Tektronix and LeCroy have such a long history of developing this sort of talent and IP chip sets. Other companies that specialized in developing this type high performance silicon IP such as Analog Devices, LT and TI also have a long history in this specialized field, which creates opportunities within for extremely bright youngsters to learn from the masters of this technology, and the tide rolls on.
A few smaller specialized fabless silicon IP companies offer design services for this type of development and if you dig deep you'll find a highly specialized engineering core/gurus with a long history of such and likely originated with some of those companies already mentioned. It's not like a come along John or Jane Doe is going to successfully roll one of these chips, they'll need extensive long term guidance/tutoring before they'll be allowed to design and risk a multi-million $ chip, otherwise you'll just end up with a massive NRE cost and nothing workable to show.
Many companies, even large ones, thought they could get into advanced mixed signal high speed/analogish chip design, many tried and few succeeded. This was the very reason our small research company got acquired by a larger firm back in 2006, they realized the long term cost and time it would take to develop custom SOTA silicon chips and they already had a fab and GaAs design group beforehand.
BTW if think we're joking, just take a look at the Cadence, Mentor and Synopsis CAD tool cost, then check out just the mask set cost at TSMC, GF or Samsung for a leading CMOS process....staggering indeed!!
Anyway, the message is this is not trivial pursuit but a very involved and expensive venture. So hat's off to Rigol for coming thru with another custom chip development, even if it was purchased IP.
Best,
-
The answer is simple, they likely don't have the specialized skilled folks that are capable of developing chips like these.
That's pure speculation.
There are engineers in China. Rigol has money, they can hire people.
-
They have the technology and know how in technical department, but they have to find sense of direction..
Or like I´ve said it for "years" (about the MSO5000), they made raw diamonds and forgot the polishing... 8)
-
The answer is simple, they likely don't have the specialized skilled folks that are capable of developing chips like these.
That's pure speculation.
There are engineers in China. Rigol has money, they can hire people.
You seem to miss the point, this discipline requires more than being just an "Engineer". Kind of like saying; Well we have quite a few doctors over here, we'll just pay some more and call them Neurosurgeons ;)
We happen to spend the later part of our career in this field and don't recall ever finding a China based mainland company capable of this sort of in-house design. They are quite good at many engineering disciplines but SOTA silicon IC design wasn't one at that time. Knew quite a few very talented Chinese IC designers here in the US, most at universities, and they had decided to stay here after they got their PhDs here.
Just look at the leading IEEE papers on advanced SOTA ADC designs, and you can guess what AD, TI, as well as KS and LeCroy are up too!! Also take look at the $ premium AD and TI get for their multiple GSPS 12 bit ADCs, these chips aren't that big but wow they are expensive!! Guess why? Yep, it's the massively expensive NRE for the development of these advanced chips, and these folks are the world leading experts of such and should be able to do this more cost effective than others since they already have developed the "secret sauce"!!
Would like to believe that Rigol has developed this type of talent in-house, would certainly light a fire under Siglent :) , but seriously doubt such.
Best,
-
I'm not into the precise details but I have the feeling Siglent is getting their ADCs from Lecroy or uses off-the-shelve parts and gets very good results with this strategy. IMHO Siglent is the company that has a leg up here compared to Rigol. I feel that Rigol's chip development has put Rigol behind instead of ahead; a bridge too far.
-
It´s no secret/surprise, that siglent would benefit from the "partnership" with lecroy, IMHO the touchscreen series (2k+, 5k+, 6k A, 2KHD) is one of the results and it´s very possible they use parts from lecroy for them.
What the rest of your post concerns:
+1
-
Yeah that's another way of looking at Rigol's path. I'm sure if done in-house totally, or farmed out for the core ADC IP, or farmed out for the entire chip (set) IP, this cost some serious $ either way.....and took away some "to market" time!!
Agree Siglent has the advantage of leveraging LeCroy ADC IP, which they've shown with the new SDS2000 HD.
Anyway, any of the Rigol approaches likely cost some NRE $, while Siglent's approach leveraged off LeCroy IP investments.
Best,
-
The new "Chip Set" developed by Rigol is likely not silicon designed by Rigol but commissioned out to a 3rd party fabless design house that specializes in this sort of IP design effort. The design folks capable of this sort of effort and performance likely aren't going to be employed by Rigol or Siglent, maybe at Keysight and LeCroy tho. The
If Rigol indeed outsource chip design work to folks who are at Keysight/LeCroy level，then Rigol would have closed gap with Keysight/LeCroy already. But they didn't，there is still a huge gap between them. So I think Rigol have their own design team to do the work，and performance of the chip still lag far behind the likes of Keysight/LeCroy，precisely because their engineers lack experience in designing these kind of specialized chips.
-
Agree Siglent has the advantage of leveraging LeCroy ADC IP, which they've shown with the new SDS2000 HD.
I am pretty sure Siglent is using an off-the-shelf (TI/National) ADC. And I doubt Lecroy is willing to share their ADC IP. That's the thing though, if the goal is to compete in the high-end segment eventually, that road leads nowhere. AFAIK you can't just buy 64 GSa/s ADCs. That's not saying Rigol is necessary going to succeed there but if that is the plan then I guess it makes sense.
-
Thinking further about nicos last post, some things are now making sense to me.
The MSO 5000 for example.
Soon my verdict was, it got a lot of horsepower but didn´t get them on the road.
Full packed with tons of features, deep memory, 8GSa/s max, 2-Ch awg, and so on and so on.
Now over 3yrs are gone and this model seems still to me as it was a kind of prototype.
Same with the 7000.
It seems they (rigol) are so busy with developing hardware, that there are no capabilities for design ( ;)), Software, UI...
Therefore I´m very curious about the HDO4000 (Lecroy already got this name..), not for the HDO1000.
-
And I keep repeating that PC based protocol analysers (popular USB types) are very good if you are debugging content of datagrams, i.e. debugging software side.
Triggering and measuring, signal integrity and precise timing correlation needs MSO. That is their whole reason for existence. Triggering on protocols (or anything else) is superb on even cheapest scopes compared to what most USB protocol analysers have.
If you are only working the software protocol stack on a hardware that is verified working on hardware side, yes, then USB protocol analyser is best tool by far...
If you are verifying timing and message content in relation to some real world event, then MSO...
And to repeat, popular Saleae USB devices that cost as much as MSO5000 have just basic level+simple digital combine trigger. They can't even trigger on a simple message..
MSO is useful. Very.
Yes, and software side is where most of the work is done, for beginners and those with low end scopes, IMO.
DSlogic has multichannel and serial data trigger, trigger out that can be tied to a scope. Don't really care what Saleae has as they are overpriced.
At no point did I say MSO is not useful.
Those are not really an option if you want to debug a mixed signal system with your mixed signal oscilloscope. For example ADC settling times. Or an RS485 transceiver. You can connect TX, RX , D and just one of the differential signals to a 4 channel scope. Or any interface, which uses higher voltages than those USB thingies can accept. Or anything with ECL logic. Or an Ethernet interface. Or an NFC communication, which can be debugged even with a low end Keysight scope. Probably we could come up with another 50 use cases where an MSO is needed.
I think there is some confusion here as I'm agreeing with you that a 4 channel scope is "good enough" for most cases, and the LA extension isn't needed on that scope for the majority of people.
Anyway, do low end scopes even support NFC and ethernet decoding?
-
It´s no secret/surprise, that siglent would benefit from the "partnership" with lecroy
Keysight hugely regretted their technical partnership Rigol 8)
-
If Rigol indeed outsource chip design work to folks who are at Keysight/LeCroy level，then Rigol would have closed gap with Keysight/LeCroy already. But they didn't，there is still a huge gap between them. So I think Rigol have their own design team to do the work，and performance of the chip still lag far behind the likes of Keysight/LeCroy，precisely because their engineers lack experience in designing these kind of specialized chips.
https://jobs.51job.com/all/coCWhcOl80VGoGZQFhVTI.html
Digital Integrated Engineer (Shanghai)
Digital Verification Engineer (Shanghai)
FPGA Engineer (Beijing)
RF IC Engineer (Suzhou)
Analog IC Engineer (Beijing)
Chip Test Engineer (Suzhou)
Semiconductor Equipment Engineer (Suzhou)
Support ASIC design and implementation of digital circuits such as signal processing, data interface and control algorithm
Must have some development in house yeah.
-
It´s no secret/surprise, that siglent would benefit from the "partnership" with lecroy
Keysight hugely regretted their technical partnership Rigol 8)
But is Lecroy happy with partnering with Siglent? It would not surprise me if Siglent buys Lecroy just to get their high-end market share. Siglent likely dumps all Lecroy designed hardware when that happens though.
-
The new "Chip Set" developed by Rigol is likely not silicon designed by Rigol but commissioned out to a 3rd party fabless design house that specializes in this sort of IP design effort. The design folks capable of this sort of effort and performance likely aren't going to be employed by Rigol or Siglent, maybe at Keysight and LeCroy tho. The
If Rigol indeed outsource chip design work to folks who are at Keysight/LeCroy level，then Rigol would have closed gap with Keysight/LeCroy already. But they didn't，there is still a huge gap between them. So I think Rigol have their own design team to do the work，and performance of the chip still lag far behind the likes of Keysight/LeCroy，precisely because their engineers lack experience in designing these kind of specialized chips.
Not saying there are design houses that can produce the SOTA efforts in High Speed ADC design like Keysight or LeCroy, and certainly KS and LeCroy would not commit their top in-house ADC design resources to Rigol or anyone else, these teams are the Crown Jewels within the company. The available 3rd party design houses available when we were still involved were well below the capabilities of these KS and LeCroy teams which have had a very long history of working successfully together in this area. They were and likely still are right up there with the advanced AD and TI design teams, very specialized and technacially demanding fields.
If Rigol did actually do the 1st chip set design in-house without any outside help or guidance, they certainly did a very credible job!! Would not wager any $ on that serenio tho!!
Anyway, will be very interesting to see the actual performance & design of this new DSO when Dave has a chance to do his review and teardown.
Best,
-
The answer is simple, they likely don't have the specialized skilled folks that are capable of developing chips like these.
That's pure speculation.
There are engineers in China. Rigol has money, they can hire people.
You seem to miss the point, this discipline requires more than being just an "Engineer". Kind of like saying; Well we have quite a few doctors over here, we'll just pay some more and call them Neurosurgeons ;)
We happen to spend the later part of our career in this field and don't recall ever finding a China based mainland company capable of this sort of in-house design.
While the knowledge is old/slow, the people and companies move/reorganise quite quickly.
There is an adjacent volume (profitable) market in CMOS image sensors, which china now has fully domestic capability end to end. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine the industrial/military businesses working with those same design houses to come up with GS/s ADC. A few iterations and they'll catch up, and those iterations are likely to come much quicker than the ASIC lifecycle of say HP/Agilent/Keysight.
-
There is an adjacent volume (profitable) market in CMOS image sensors, which china now has fully domestic capability end to end. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine the industrial/military businesses working with those same design houses to come up with GS/s ADC. A few iterations and they'll catch up, and those iterations are likely to come much quicker than the ASIC lifecycle of say HP/Agilent/Keysight.
CMOS image sensors are made by just about every CMOS fab house worldwide, these are routine today. However, the higher performance CMOS image sensors come from a few sources like Sony and Samsung but not any Chinese sources we are aware of. Sure some of the leading performance cameras from Sony, Canon, Nikon are assembled in China but the sensors are from the outside. Same goes for CMOS ADCs, various flavors of ADCs are available from many sources worldwide, however the highest performance high speed high resolution ADCs come from AD and TI, and captivity within Keysight and LeCroy. We can't find any Chinese sourced high performance HS HR ADCs that are competitive with those companies mentioned, and they've had ample time to study, reverse engineer and copy such designs which hints at the extreme difficulty of creating such!!
Recall some time ago when Fujitsu Microelectronics shocked the IC design world with their amazing 56 GSPS 8 bit ADC back in ~2009, that was the last we've seen of any significant ADC surprises, maybe there are others lurking in China that we aren't aware of!!
Anyway, think it'll take China more than a few iterations to catch up, and meanwhile the ASIC lifecycle at KS may slow down but don't count on AD or TI to become stagnate ;)
Best,
-
Anyway, think it'll take China more than a few iterations to catch up, and meanwhile the ASIC lifecycle at KS may slow down but don't count on AD or TI to become stagnate ;)
The Keysight Megazoom IV ASIC is now 11.5 years old! :o
It's still the standard ASIC in the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 seriees scopes.
-
It´s no secret/surprise, that siglent would benefit from the "partnership" with lecroy
Keysight hugely regretted their technical partnership Rigol 8)
But is Lecroy happy with partnering with Siglent? It would not surprise me if Siglent buys Lecroy just to get their high-end market share. Siglent likely dumps all Lecroy designed hardware when that happens though.
Not sure that would be allowd to happen, a Chinese company buying a high end (maybe even strategic?) US tech company. AFAIK Lecroy do military and other exotic stuff.
-
Yep,
Try to buy a scope from them directly..
You get a form to fill out back where you have to declare who you are, what you do and for what you will use the product.
And then it must be signed from the one who is responsible for the security of the company.
No joke... 8)
-
Recall some time ago when Fujitsu Microelectronics shocked the IC design world with their amazing 56 GSPS 8 bit ADC back in ~2009, that was the last we've seen of any significant ADC surprises, maybe there are others lurking in China that we aren't aware of!!
Lurking is probably the right word, much of the Chinese talent/engineering is busy/fully utilised by domestic demand so they have no reason to reach outside. When you have Chinese nationals go looking, all sorts of interesting businesses appear that have zero english/foreign exposure. The Rigol ASICs are likely fully domestic as these world "super powers" know the value of maintaining access to dual-use technologies.
But is Lecroy happy with partnering with Siglent? It would not surprise me if Siglent buys Lecroy just to get their high-end market share. Siglent likely dumps all Lecroy designed hardware when that happens though.
Not sure that would be allowd to happen, a Chinese company buying a high end (maybe even strategic?) US tech company. AFAIK Lecroy do military and other exotic stuff.
This is it, the US holds much of the worlds semiconductor "pixie dust" on the side of design and partnered with Taiwan to scale up production. Japan has standalone domestic capability, aggregate EU has design and technology but lacks scale to meet consumer demand. China is continuing building up to be less dependent on US whims/effects of sanctions.
-
Yep,
Try to buy a scope from them directly..
You get a form to fill out back where you have to declare who you are, what you do and for what you will use the product.
And then it must be signed from the one who is responsible for the security of the company.
No joke... 8)
That used to be the case with thermal cameras. Once there were suppliers popping up around the world the difficulty in buying them evaporated (even at the US based companies).... after the horse has bolted etc.
-
CMOS image sensors are made by just about every CMOS fab house worldwide, these are routine today. However, the higher performance CMOS image sensors come from a few sources like Sony and Samsung but not any Chinese sources we are aware of.
OmniVision，GalaxyCore，SmartSens are all Chinese CIS manufactures. OmniVision and SmartSens are fabless，most of their chips are fabricated in SMIC.
GalaxyCore used to be fabless as well，and outsourced their CMOS chips to Samsung. Later they break up with Samsung，because Samsung deliberately delay the chip delivery to GalaxyCore，as they felt that GalaxyCore was taking market share from Samsung. So now GalaxyCore build their own 12-inch fab in Shanghai, thus become an IDM.
(https://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2-2.png)
-
I've been informed that the HDO4000 is on the DHL plane, and the HDO1000 with come two weeks later.
-
I'm looking forward to Rigol's UltraVision iii.
The advantage of 12-bit is the higher dynamic range, the smaller noise floor.
Users who need 12 bits will carefully observe the fft function.
The difference between 8-bit and 12-bit is because the dynamic range of fft can be easily distinguished.
I want max-hold and average in the fft view.
-
https://ecmobile.rigol.com/goods-154.html
Price of 70MHz HDO1072 : 3999 CNY = 593 USD
They are going for the throat. Building your own ADC chipset has its perks.
Under US$600 for a 12bit 1.5Mwfm/s 100Mpt 10" 1280x800 screen scope that almost certainly will be hackable to 200MHz :o
They'll have the market to themselves.
I wonder if there'll be any grey imports? Maybe the Chinese version can be had on Aliexpress and changed to English.
-
I'm looking forward to Rigol's UltraVision iii.
The advantage of 12-bit is the higher dynamic range, the smaller noise floor.
Users who need 12 bits will carefully observe the fft function.
The difference between 8-bit and 12-bit is because the dynamic range of fft can be easily distinguished.
I want max-hold and average in the fft view.
As it was said before, 12 Bit doesn't mean less noise implicitly.. First, 12 bit is only ADC specification, and you can pair it with front end that is noisy and you still get suboptimal results. Second, you can have 12 Bit converter that has 5 bits of noise.
Of course I'm not saying Rigol did that. I'm just saying that just looking at 12Bit specification is misleading. Scope is a system, and should be evaluated as such.
But you made interesting point, that adds to my previous posts on this topic. Just having good front end means nothing if you can just look at nice waveforms. Like one poster said, there is Owon hires scope on a market for few years now. Apart from hires ADC it has no capabilities to speak of. And it seems not really a bestseller.
So even if Rigol did it right this time, hardware wise, they have to fix many things in their analysis package and measurements for these scopes to play in market segment. You can't make DS1000Z a 12 Bit with big touchscreen and say it is now same as RTB2000 or SDS2000X HD. It's not, it's missing lots of other stuff that make difference to usability and capabilities. So they either have to upgrade software to parity, or they will have to drop prices. They do seem to have made completely new touch GUI/OS/scope application platform, so maybe they are working on software side too..
Interesting times..
-
I'm looking forward to Rigol's UltraVision iii.
The advantage of 12-bit is the higher dynamic range, the smaller noise floor.
Users who need 12 bits will carefully observe the fft function.
The difference between 8-bit and 12-bit is because the dynamic range of fft can be easily distinguished.
I want max-hold and average in the fft view.
As it was said before, 12 Bit doesn't mean less noise implicitly.. First, 12 bit is only ADC specification, and you can pair it with front end that is noisy and you still get suboptimal results. Second, you can have 12 Bit converter that has 5 bits of noise.
Of course I'm not saying Rigol did that. I'm just saying that just looking at 12Bit specification is misleading. Scope is a system, and should be evaluated as such.
But you made interesting point, that adds to my previous posts on this topic. Just having good front end means nothing if you can just look at nice waveforms. Like one poster said, there is Owon hires scope on a market for few years now. Apart from hires ADC it has no capabilities to speak of. And it seems not really a bestseller.
So even if Rigol did it right this time, hardware wise, they have to fix many things in their analysis package and measurements for these scopes to play in market segment. You can't make DS1000Z a 12 Bit with big touchscreen and say it is now same as RTB2000 or SDS2000X HD. It's not, it's missing lots of other stuff that make difference to usability and capabilities. So they either have to upgrade software to parity, or they will have to drop prices. They do seem to have made completely new touch GUI/OS/scope application platform, so maybe they are working on software side too..
Interesting times..
You're right.
It is also true that the Rigol mso5000 and 7000 have more noise than the competing models.
We'll see what the 12-bit performance is like in two weeks.
-
As it was said before, 12 Bit doesn't mean less noise implicitly.. First, 12 bit is only ADC specification, and you can pair it with front end that is noisy and you still get suboptimal results. Second, you can have 12 Bit converter that has 5 bits of noise.
Of course I'm not saying Rigol did that. I'm just saying that just looking at 12Bit specification is misleading. Scope is a system, and should be evaluated as such.
"Low noise" is a bullet point for this one:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1592581;image)
-
As it was said before, 12 Bit doesn't mean less noise implicitly.. First, 12 bit is only ADC specification, and you can pair it with front end that is noisy and you still get suboptimal results. Second, you can have 12 Bit converter that has 5 bits of noise.
The core ADC is as good as it gets and everything in front will degrade the performance as you said it's a System and must be designed and considered as a System.
Best,
Edit: Remember a Keysight Engineering Fellow telling us 10 years ago that the Measuring Instrument needs to be more than 10dB better than the measurement, and the Instrument Components need to be more than 10dB better than the Instrument!! This is why they were designing all the critical chips in-house and many on there own fabs in various technologies, because nothing commercially available was even close to what they needed!! Good example is the Griffin 14 bit DAC from ~2009. Unbelievable NPR back then, over 74dB and we witnessed this performance first hand back then!! BTW the core design team had been together working toward these goals well over a decade!!
-
5 times better... that is little over 2 bits. IIRC the ENOB of the Rigol MSO5000 is around 5 or so. So this new '12 bit' scope would have an ENOB around 7 to 8 bit.
-
I would suggest the Rigol should able to match the Siglent 12 bit noise performnace, although this may well be with the 20Mhz BW limiter engaged.
A 4000 rigol will be heading this way as well in the not distant furture.
-
5 times better... that is little over 2 bits. IIRC the ENOB of the Rigol MSO5000 is around 5 or so. So this new '12 bit' scope would have an ENOB around 7 to 8 bit.
Let's hope they do much better than just a 7~8 bit ENOB, they should perform on par with ADCs from LeCroy, KS, AD & TI. If they don't then this may lead some credence that this new chip set design was done in-house as some believe.
Best,
-
5 times better... that is little over 2 bits.
Says who? How do you know what they mean by "5 times"?
IIRC the ENOB of the Rigol MSO5000 is around 5 or so.
Maybe it's 25 bits... :)
-
5 times better... that is little over 2 bits.
Says who? How do you know what they mean by "5 times"?
That is very obvious ofcourse! 5 times better means they are seeing a noise level that is 5 times lower. As usual with datasheets this will be a very optimistic number so very likely it is measured with 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled using RMS calculation over a sweet spot where it comes to memory depth / sampling rate.
-
Recall some time ago when Fujitsu Microelectronics shocked the IC design world with their amazing 56 GSPS 8 bit ADC back in ~2009, that was the last we've seen of any significant ADC surprises, maybe there are others lurking in China that we aren't aware of!!
If you look at the presentation material for that device you'll see the actual ADC was not much of a technical challenge. All the complexity in the device is handling the huge flood of data.
-
Know little something about that chip, and the 64GSPS version. They employed ~400 SAR ADCs of higher resolution that ran at ~200MSPS, each individual ADC had quite a few error correction DACs (recall 17 per ADC), so something like 400 ADCs with 13,000 error correction DACs. These chips were quite good and recall had a very respectable ENOB at Nyquist. The chips were specifically developed for the high end Fiber Optic Communication market and Fujitsu imposed a "Not for Military Use" requirement on any potential customer, and this really ticked some folks off!!
So don't think you can discount the chips complexity as "just handing the data flow", there was quite a bit of clever engineering within these chips not to mention getting all these ADCs and the input charge redistribution network to work together. Also this early chips were implement in-house with 65nm CMOS, they really did a masterful job of squeezing the performance from that in-house process!!
Best,
-
5 times better... that is little over 2 bits. IIRC the ENOB of the Rigol MSO5000 is around 5 or so. So this new '12 bit' scope would have an ENOB around 7 to 8 bit.
Specsheet of the 4000 claims greater 8 bits, without any details, not very professionel.
-
Specsheet of the 4000 claims greater 8 bits
It also mentions a 16-bit "high resolution" mode. :)
-
Recall some time ago when Fujitsu Microelectronics shocked the IC design world with their amazing 56 GSPS 8 bit ADC back in ~2009, that was the last we've seen of any significant ADC surprises, maybe there are others lurking in China that we aren't aware of!!
If you look at the presentation material for that device you'll see the actual ADC was not much of a technical challenge. All the complexity in the device is handling the huge flood of data.
I guess it's no big secret that if you want to build a very high-speed ADC, you probably need an RF sampler up front, a massive demux stage and then you just interleave a couple hundred slower ADCs. You can draw the basic architecture on a napkin. Well, and then you just need to solve the endless practical problems that come with it... :-/O Like mismatch (gain, offset, timing) calibration, clock distribution/alignment, the concrete demux/subsampling/buffering topology. I think one of the current Keysight ADCs has a secondary SiGe die that is mostly buffers for signal distribution. Power/thermal budget will be also a big concern all the time. A lot of small things have to go right in order to have a low-noise, low-distortion output instead of a complete mess. Sadly, marketing material tends to focus on impressing potential customers, not on providing interesting technical details to would-be-competitors. :popcorn:
-
Recall some time ago when Fujitsu Microelectronics shocked the IC design world with their amazing 56 GSPS 8 bit ADC back in ~2009, that was the last we've seen of any significant ADC surprises, maybe there are others lurking in China that we aren't aware of!!
If you look at the presentation material for that device you'll see the actual ADC was not much of a technical challenge. All the complexity in the device is handling the huge flood of data.
I guess it's no big secret that if you want to build a very high-speed ADC, you probably need an RF sampler up front, a massive demux stage and then you just interleave a couple hundred slower ADCs. You can draw the basic architecture on a napkin. Well, and then you just need to solve the endless practical problems that come with it... :-/O Like mismatch (gain, offset, timing) calibration, clock distribution/alignment, the concrete demux/subsampling/buffering topology. I think one of the current Keysight ADCs has a secondary SiGe die that is mostly buffers for signal distribution. Power/thermal budget will be also a big concern all the time. A lot of small things have to go right in order to have a low-noise, low-distortion output instead of a complete mess. Sadly, marketing material tends to focus on impressing potential customers, not on providing interesting technical details to would-be-competitors. :popcorn:
Although retired from IC design/layout mawyatt is still bound by NDA's. :-X
Sad it is too as there is so much to learn of his experiences in crafting the silicon we all use. :(
-
It also mentions a 16-bit "high resolution" mode. :)
Yepp, with the common known restrictions (every scope have, to be fair).
12 Bit is enough... ;)
The benefit you can see in this short video, really simple example made but the more it gets obvious:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvn4mzTLlnA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvn4mzTLlnA)
Starting at 2:47
-
Recall some time ago when Fujitsu Microelectronics shocked the IC design world with their amazing 56 GSPS 8 bit ADC back in ~2009, that was the last we've seen of any significant ADC surprises, maybe there are others lurking in China that we aren't aware of!!
If you look at the presentation material for that device you'll see the actual ADC was not much of a technical challenge. All the complexity in the device is handling the huge flood of data.
I guess it's no big secret that if you want to build a very high-speed ADC, you probably need an RF sampler up front, a massive demux stage and then you just interleave a couple hundred slower ADCs. You can draw the basic architecture on a napkin. Well, and then you just need to solve the endless practical problems that come with it... :-/O Like mismatch (gain, offset, timing) calibration, clock distribution/alignment, the concrete demux/subsampling/buffering topology. I think one of the current Keysight ADCs has a secondary SiGe die that is mostly buffers for signal distribution. Power/thermal budget will be also a big concern all the time. A lot of small things have to go right in order to have a low-noise, low-distortion output instead of a complete mess. Sadly, marketing material tends to focus on impressing potential customers, not on providing interesting technical details to would-be-competitors. :popcorn:
At one point there was a detailed presentation on the web about the internals of that device. I seem to remember the weird thing was that they describe the ADCs as being SAR converters. I would expect them to be pipelined. Pipelined ADCs do perform a successive approximation, but they are usually described as pipelined, rather than SAR.
-
They used the capacitive ratio based SAR kind of like we had developed back in ~80 but much faster.
We had developed probably the 1st Capacitive Ratio DAC back then based upon charge redistribution in capacitor ratios, earlier DACs were based upon ratio resistors (classic R 2R) or ratio current sources, or both.
After the DAC development, we realized we could use the DAC in a SAR based ADC. Since we had a customer that wanted an ultra low power ADC, we utilized sub-threshold logic for the SA logic and created a somewhat unique ADC. It was floating point with 8 bit mantissa and 3 bit exponent (these were 10dB steps) and included a clock tracking anti-aliasing filter as well as a special low noise preamp and biasing network for a dedicated sensor. Analog Devices got wind of this development and wanted to license the core Capacitive Ratio SAR ADC, but our company wasn't interested in licensing (long story). Later this technique became useful in the CMOS imager ADCs, they are Capacitive Ratio SAR based, very effective and small area ADC which is exactly what was needed in CMOS sensors because they use one ADC per column on the sensor.
Fuji did something similar but instead of operating all the ADCs in parallel on the columns like the imagers, they operated them sequentially in a staggered fashion every ~15ps!!
This was quite a feat they pulled off back then, so hat's off to them in spite of the usage restrictions!!
Best,
-
Recall some time ago when Fujitsu Microelectronics shocked the IC design world with their amazing 56 GSPS 8 bit ADC back in ~2009, that was the last we've seen of any significant ADC surprises, maybe there are others lurking in China that we aren't aware of!!
If you look at the presentation material for that device you'll see the actual ADC was not much of a technical challenge. All the complexity in the device is handling the huge flood of data.
I guess it's no big secret that if you want to build a very high-speed ADC, you probably need an RF sampler up front, a massive demux stage and then you just interleave a couple hundred slower ADCs. You can draw the basic architecture on a napkin. Well, and then you just need to solve the endless practical problems that come with it... :-/O Like mismatch (gain, offset, timing) calibration, clock distribution/alignment, the concrete demux/subsampling/buffering topology. I think one of the current Keysight ADCs has a secondary SiGe die that is mostly buffers for signal distribution. Power/thermal budget will be also a big concern all the time. A lot of small things have to go right in order to have a low-noise, low-distortion output instead of a complete mess. Sadly, marketing material tends to focus on impressing potential customers, not on providing interesting technical details to would-be-competitors. :popcorn:
Although retired from IC design/layout mawyatt is still bound by NDA's. :-X
Sad it is too as there is so much to learn of his experiences in crafting the silicon we all use. :(
Probably will forget anything the NDAs cover anyway, memory is fading fast ???
Well I can say that if you have hind sight of a decade and half, and have never designed an ADC chip, or a chip of this level, then sure it looks easy to one that doesn't have to actually do it or be responsible for such (read put up your own $). Landing a man on the Moon happened long long ago, and today everyone knows how to do it, and yet nobody's been back!! That was a incredibly difficult task back in the late 60s and still is today, in spite of all the advancements and "know how".
Same goes for the Fuji 64GSPS ADC, I know Keysight did it and what it took and they didn't do it in 65nm :o
BTW they did develop a custom SiGe BiCMOS chip front end for the DSO, because the pure CMOS wasn't good enough!!
Anyway, this is a little off topic, so let's all hope Rigol's new HD DSO is a jewel. Dave has one now, so soon we'll get a glimpse of this puppy and how well it performs, hopefully he'll perform a 2 tone IMD test ;)
Best,
-
With all the "speculations" throwing around ...
.. question is, why it is so hard to wait & see, until Dave tested and bench-marked this thingy ? :-//
-
With all the "speculations" throwing around ...
.. question is, why it is so hard to wait & see, until Dave tested and bench-marked this thingy ? :-//
Because people have little patience and talk is cheap? ^-^
People like speculating.
-
Probably will forget anything the NDAs cover anyway, memory is fading fast ???
We need to do that Amp Hour episode!
-
.. question is, why it is so hard to wait & see, until Dave tested and bench-marked this thingy ? :-//
Scheduled for delivery tomorrow.
Am I the only one who's got one?
-
Probably will forget anything the NDAs cover anyway, memory is fading fast ???
We need to do that Amp Hour episode!
Yep, like I emailed you a year ago !
Very pleased to witness you can now see what we have in mawyatt here.
IIRC I sent you his contact details.
-
.. question is, why it is so hard to wait & see, until Dave tested and bench-marked this thingy ? :-//
Scheduled for delivery tomorrow.
Am I the only one who's got one?
Well Dave, do a quick and short video of unboxing and do a brief noise test, and resolution too, that hopefully will be easy and fast (compared to full test & teardown), this will cool down the not so patience audiences. ;D
-
Probably will forget anything the NDAs cover anyway, memory is fading fast ???
We need to do that Amp Hour episode!
Yes know we're delinquent :-\
Certain "things" around here have prevented such and hopefully will be able to accommodate our commitment soon!!
Best,
-
Probably will forget anything the NDAs cover anyway, memory is fading fast ???
We need to do that Amp Hour episode!
Yep, like I emailed you a year ago !
Very pleased to witness you can now see what we have in mawyatt here.
IIRC I sent you his contact details.
We've committed to do such sometime ago, but things out of our immediate control have prevented this. As mentioned to Dave above, hopefully we'll be able to honor that commitment soon.
We've had such a great time discussing technology related things here, with such informative and knowledgable folks, that the commitment has now become an obligation ;)
Best,
-
Well Dave, do a quick and short video of unboxing and do a brief noise test, and resolution too, that hopefully will be easy and fast (compared to full test & teardown), this will cool down the not so patience audiences. ;D
Nah, just post a hint.
"Can confirm it's very low noise"
or
"Can confirm it's very, very low noise"
-
Well Dave, do a quick and short video of unboxing and do a brief noise test, and resolution too, that hopefully will be easy and fast (compared to full test & teardown), this will cool down the not so patience audiences. ;D
Nah, just post a hint.
"Can confirm it's very low noise"
or
"Can confirm it's very, very low noise"
Those are meaningless statements without numbers and test methodology described.. How would he know without testing?
-
How would he know without testing?
Dave? He just sticks his tongue out at the right angle and looks at it.
-
Well Dave, do a quick and short video of unboxing and do a brief noise test, and resolution too, that hopefully will be easy and fast (compared to full test & teardown), this will cool down the not so patience audiences. ;D
Nah, just post a hint.
"Can confirm it's very low noise"
or
"Can confirm it's very, very low noise"
Those are meaningless statements without numbers and test methodology described.. How would he know without testing?
Just arrived.
Another video conveniently has a snag, so can't progress on that right now.
Will unbox today and test before a teardown.
Noise would be measured with a 50ohm shunt on input, 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled, maximum memory depth and RMS and pk-pk measurements at say 1ms timebase.
Adjust to flavour.
-
Just arrived.
Another video conveniently has a snag, so can't progress on that right now.
Will unbox today and test before a teardown.
Noise would be measured with a 50ohm shunt on input, 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled, maximum memory depth and RMS and pk-pk measurements at say 1ms timebase.
Adjust to flavour.
:-//
No input Gnd coupling ?
-
Just arrived.
Another video conveniently has a snag, so can't progress on that right now.
Will unbox today and test before a teardown.
Noise would be measured with a 50ohm shunt on input, 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled, maximum memory depth and RMS and pk-pk measurements at say 1ms timebase.
Adjust to flavour.
:-//
No input Gnd coupling ?
Don't know yet.
But in any case I think the noise should be input-referred as ultimately that's all that matters.
-
It would be better to adjust memory depth to what just fits on the screen at maximum sample rate, say 10 msec @4GS/sec gives 40MSamples. Otherwise there is ambiguity how the scope calculates RMS (probably just screen range, not whole memory) and the effects of 1/f noise. Even better would be to download raw data so one can calculate the spectrum in noise density units.
18 uV rms at 20 MHz bandwidth corresponds to 4 nV/Hz^(1/2) - a good but not remarkable of level of noise, similar to Lecroy HDO4000 and not as good as R&S RTM3000, https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-input-noise-comparison/msg1967915/#msg1967915. (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-input-noise-comparison/msg1967915/#msg1967915) For reference, a good LNA would have <2 nV/Hz^(1/2)
Another quick test would be to slowly increase vertical full-range scale until RMS noise begins to increase- this would test ENOB of the ADC.
-
Just arrived.
Another video conveniently has a snag, so can't progress on that right now.
Will unbox today and test before a teardown.
Noise would be measured with a 50ohm shunt on input, 20MHz bandwidth limit enabled, maximum memory depth and RMS and pk-pk measurements at say 1ms timebase.
Adjust to flavour.
:-//
No input Gnd coupling ?
Don't know yet.
But in any case I think the noise should be input-referred as ultimately that's all that matters.
Yes well there's input noise and system noise so you need examine both. ;)
-
Yes well there's input noise and system noise so you need examine both. ;)
Just tested it. System grounding software flat lines the display, no meaurement to be had.
As I suspected, the 100uV/div range is a 500uV/div range with the 12bit goodness. Under 1mV is bandwidth limited to 20MHz, again, no surprise there.
-
21uV AC RMS noise at full 250M memory 100uV range 1ms/div. No difference on 200uV and 500uV ranges because they are physically the same.
17uV at 1M memory which meets the 18uV spec.
Attached plot is with input internal 50ohm terminated. Same with 1M and external 50ohm terminator.
Curiously the measurement stats stop at 1000 samples.
-
Found a couple of quirks when zooming in the vertical, you'll see in the video, but it can lead to inaccurate screen and cursor measurements.
-
Annoyingly, I can't seem to find a way to turn of sinx/x interpolation, and it does it based on the stopped displayed data. So when you freeze waveform and then attempt to zoom in you can't get to see the quantisation level like I can on my R&S2000 I used a comparison >:(
-
21uV AC RMS noise at full 250M memory 100uV range 1ms/div. No difference on 200uV and 500uV ranges because they are physically the same.
Seems like they knocked it out of the park then.
(so far out that they added a 100uV range)
-
21uV AC RMS noise at full 250M memory 100uV range 1ms/div. No difference on 200uV and 500uV ranges because they are physically the same.
17uV at 1M memory which meets the 18uV spec.
Attached plot is with input internal 50ohm terminated. Same with 1M and external 50ohm terminator.
Curiously the measurement stats stop at 1000 samples.
From datasheet:
[4]: 100 μV/div, 200 μV/div, and 500 μV/div are a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical
accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV for sensitivity setting.
also you said : Under 1mV is bandwidth limited to 20MHz ....
That is interesting. SDS2000X HS is NOT BW limited at 500uV /div. Could it be that Rigol is doing some kind of eres for those 3 magnified ranges? That would be clever trick but trick nevertheless.
-
21uV AC RMS noise at full 250M memory 100uV range 1ms/div. No difference on 200uV and 500uV ranges because they are physically the same.
Seems like they knocked it out of the park then.
(so far out that they added a 100uV range)
[4]: 100 μV/div, 200 μV/div, and 500 μV/div are a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical
accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV for sensitivity setting.
Naturally Siglent can vertical zoom. And down to 1µV/div - if someone think it is somehow fun in this park... (only difference is that we do not have full screen zoom but splitted)
But still it looks like Rigol is not bad if look low frequency "1/f" noise based to now displayed picture..
-
21uV AC RMS noise at full 250M memory 100uV range 1ms/div. No difference on 200uV and 500uV ranges because they are physically the same.
Seems like they knocked it out of the park then.
(so far out that they added a 100uV range)
Rigol is doing some kind of interpolation/eres below 1mV/DIV. Clever and looks to be working OK.
But, they didn't knock anything out of the park. SDS2000X HD noise figures are for 500 MHz BW.
With only 20MHz limiter on, it has 22uV of RMS noise at 1mV/div
If I do the same trick on SDS200X HD and add ERES3 I get 18.5uV RMS at 500uV/div.
And since SDS2000X HD supports vertical zoom, here is 2uV/div display in all of it useless glory...
Anyways, it looks quite decent noise vise. Good job Rigol, finally. Now you need to do all of them with that frontend.
I'm looking forward to see how scope (as a whole) actually works. Maybe they are on the right track this time, looks promising..
-
From datasheet:
[4]: 100 μV/div, 200 μV/div, and 500 μV/div are a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical
accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV for sensitivity setting.
That doesn't explain why the noise floor is very different on the 1mV range vs 500u/200u/100u.
-
From datasheet:
[4]: 100 μV/div, 200 μV/div, and 500 μV/div are a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical
accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV for sensitivity setting.
That doesn't explain why the noise floor is very different on the 1mV range vs 500u/200u/100u.
What was the noise floor at 1mV/div if I may ask? 85-95uV RMS full bandwidth and 25-30uV RMS with 20MHz BW?
My second comment might explain it: 100,200 and 500uV is interpolated from 1mV. And BW limited at 20MHz. You can do both if you do ERES kind of interpolating/filter transform. That would explain both and numbers are really close to what I can simulate here with other scope.
That would be considered a trick, but a very usable one. They just need to explain what are they doing in datasheet.
Dave, could I make a suggestion? In datasheet I read spec about dynamic range of instrument that is very confusing. One thing to test would be overdrive recovery, i.e what is non distorted range "outside screen" vertically. Old MSO5000 chipset had decent overdrive recovery and range, hope they didn't compromise that here to squeeze as little noise as they can.
Best,
Sinisa
-
Annoyingly, I can't seem to find a way to turn of sinx/x interpolation, and it does it based on the stopped displayed data. So when you freeze waveform and then attempt to zoom in you can't get to see the quantisation level like I can on my R&S2000 I used a comparison >:(
Could have something to do with the UltraAcquire mode? Maybe that turns off sinx/x.
Max. Waveform Capture Rate
50,000 wfms/s (Vector Mode)
1,500,000 wfms/s (UltraAcquire Mode)
-
5 times better... that is little over 2 bits. IIRC the ENOB of the Rigol MSO5000 is around 5 or so. So this new '12 bit' scope would have an ENOB around 7 to 8 bit.
FWIW the datasheet specifically claims more than 8
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1595182;image)
-
From datasheet:
[4]: 100 μV/div, 200 μV/div, and 500 μV/div are a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical
accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV for sensitivity setting.
That doesn't explain why the noise floor is very different on the 1mV range vs 500u/200u/100u.
What was the noise floor at 1mV/div if I may ask? 85-95uV RMS full bandwidth and 25-30uV RMS with 20MHz BW?
Sorry, I goofed that due to an annoyign bug that switches off 20MHz BW when you switch from 1mV to 500uV and then back again. So the BW limit was switched off.
1ms/div 1Mpoint, 1mV/div 20MHz BW noise is 17.8uV AC RMS
No BW limit is 55uV AC RMS
-
FYI 1mV range has 240MHz bandwidth on the 200MHz model.
-
Unboxing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4pXtCKxsjg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4pXtCKxsjg)
-
From datasheet:
[4]: 100 μV/div, 200 μV/div, and 500 μV/div are a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical
accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV for sensitivity setting.
That doesn't explain why the noise floor is very different on the 1mV range vs 500u/200u/100u.
What was the noise floor at 1mV/div if I may ask? 85-95uV RMS full bandwidth and 25-30uV RMS with 20MHz BW?
Sorry, I goofed that due to an annoyign bug that switches off 20MHz BW when you switch from 1mV to 500uV and then back again. So the BW limit was switched off.
1ms/div 1Mpoint, 1mV/div 20MHz BW noise is 17.8uV AC RMS
No BW limit is 55uV AC RMS
Thanks a lot for for answering.. That is a decent result.
P.S: my estimates were for full BW on 800Mhz version...
-
P.S: my estimates were for full BW on 800Mhz version...
I only have the 200MHz version. I don't know of any hack for this yet.
-
I totally missed that this has a battery pack connector sliding door on the back!
-
I totally missed that this has a battery pack connector sliding door on the back!
I was sure you were going to mention those slide out feet/supports on the back as well. You usually go for that sort of thing.
Looks like they've done a LOT of work on the UI. This is a complete rewrite/change of OS.
Can't wait to see the 1000 series. It definitely looks like it could be the new champion, the start of a new whole generation of sub-$1000 'scopes.
-
Dave, fact check, you are wrong on memory management, SDS2000X HD has manual memory management. "zoom out" comment is incorrect..
-
It looks like the statistics keeps the last 1000 readings, not that it "stops" after 1000. The numbers on screen are still updating even though the counter is stopped at 1000.
That's quite handy - you don't have to keep resetting so much. It also fits with the "stats are always on" philosophy of the 'scope. At any time you can just open up the stats display and the numbers will be there instantly. No need to wait or hit reset.
They've thought about it...
Is there a way to change the "1000" to a different value? I could see myself wanting a bit less, eg. stats over the last two seconds.
-
I enjoyed the video.
Input dc bias and offset adjustment are separate. It's very good.
-
There is nothing wrong with using the BW limit and Eres (digital averaging/filtering of consecutive samples) for the < 1mV/div modes. The noise makes those ranges without the BW limit hardly usefull.
It is also OK to have only the 20 MHz limit in hardware - though the higher BW modes could make good use of enabling the 200 / 400 MHz limit to reduce aliasing. Fine adjustables filtering could be done in the digital domain with "Eres" mode.
The settings menue shows the block diagram with a seprate amplifier for the 50 ohms input. It would be interesting if this is really the case, or just a 50 ohms termination. A different amplifier may be lower noise. So the noise test could show a difference between internal 50 ohms mode and an external 50 ohm termination.
-
That's quite handy - you don't have to keep resetting so much. It also fits with the "stats are always on" philosophy of the 'scope. At any time you can just open up the stats display and the numbers will be there instantly. No need to wait or hit reset.
Yes, I remarked how I liked that it just there ready to pull down. The font changing to a larger one when minimised was a nice touch.
Is there a way to change the "1000" to a different value? I could see myself wanting a bit less, eg. stats over the last two seconds.
Not that I could find.
A "last n seconds" rolling stats would be a very nice function, with the number changing based on the sample rate and memory depth that changes the capture rate. I don't think any scope has this?
-
Dave, fact check, you are wrong on memory management, SDS2000X HD has manual memory management. "zoom out" comment is incorrect..
They must have changed it on the HD model then, because that wasn't the case for previous Siglents I've looked at, as seen in my video on the topic. In fact it was the inspiration for the video at the time.
-
I totally missed that this has a battery pack connector sliding door on the back!
I was sure you were going to mention those slide out feet/supports on the back as well. You usually go for that sort of thing.
I actually did but cut that part out in the edit when I was trying to get the video under 30min.
Looks like they've done a LOT of work on the UI. This is a complete rewrite/change of OS.
Can't wait to see the 1000 series. It definitely looks like it could be the new champion, the start of a new whole generation of sub-$1000 'scopes.
I haven't been keeping up to date with the Rigols, is this different to the other high end units that have came out recently? Is it entirely new?
In any case I rather like it.
-
The settings menue shows the block diagram with a seprate amplifier for the 50 ohms input. It would be interesting if this is really the case, or just a 50 ohms termination. A different amplifier may be lower noise. So the noise test could show a difference between internal 50 ohms mode and an external 50 ohm termination.
That would be interesting. Should be obvious on the teardown.
-
... there's a lot of little touches in there.
eg. The little "slide across to the next channel's parameters" animation when you change between channels at 6:12.
Totally unnecessary, but nice... :-+
(just watching the video again)
I also like the trigger slope indicator on the front panel. Done with LEDs!
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1595623;image)
Plus you get a special button to switch between rising/falling trigger.
Again: Totally unnecessary (just look at the wave on screen to see if it's rising or falling!), but...
-
It looks like the statistics keeps the last 1000 readings, not that it "stops" after 1000. The numbers on screen are still updating even though the counter is stopped at 1000.
That's quite handy - you don't have to keep resetting so much. It also fits with the "stats are always on" philosophy of the 'scope. At any time you can just open up the stats display and the numbers will be there instantly. No need to wait or hit reset.
They've thought about it...
Is there a way to change the "1000" to a different value? I could see myself wanting a bit less, eg. stats over the last two seconds.
Statistics should be configurable, probably is. 1000 points is arbitrary number, sometimes too large, sometimes too small. Most scopes are doing running stats (i.e. last x measurements) that's nothing special, but how it should be.
More interesting is how they do measurements.
-
Dave, fact check, you are wrong on memory management, SDS2000X HD has manual memory management. "zoom out" comment is incorrect..
They must have changed it on the HD model then, because that wasn't the case for previous Siglents I've looked at, as seen in my video on the topic. In fact it was the inspiration for the video at the time.
Yes that was added later.. But have been so for some time. That video is more that 2 years old now.... Time flies...!!
-
Unboxing
Thank you for this first impression.
At last a rigol with low noise input... ;)
Optically I don´t like it, but the rest seems to be nice.
And the price is very hot, no question.
They must have changed it on the HD model then, because that wasn't the case for previous Siglents I've looked at
The 6000A and the 2000HD got it from the beginning, on the SDS5000 it´s "new" with firmware update.
-
Why can't they just copycat the UI from R&S or Keysight, I don't know..
It seems they greatly value the somewhat videogame-ish appearance.
-
When you´re growing up with a (android) smartphone in your hand, this could be the result when you have to design the UI.
-
Why can't they just copycat the UI from R&S or Keysight, I don't know..
Some people dont like those UI's! Scopes are products that still have not settled on the "right" way to do a touchscreen.
-
Rigol have confirmed that you cannot turn off the Sin x/x interpolation.
-
Hello,
Maybe we can make a noise comparison between Rigol and Siglent 12 bit scope. For this purpose, 8 files (binary) per device would be useful.
Each with 50 Ohm and 1 MOhm
1 mV/div with 200MHz and 20 MHz with the largest possible memory and highest sampling rate.
And
1 V/div with 200MHz and 20 MHz with the largest possible memory and highest sampling rate.
The files would probably be quite large. But there are file hosters with free access and hopefully enough storage space.
Best regards
egonotto
-
5:50 in the video I totally missed that bias is actually different to position offset. You can actually DC bias the input to any level required which is pretty cool.
-
Maybe we can make a noise comparison between Rigol and Siglent 12 bit scope. For this purpose, 8 files (binary) per device would be useful.
Each with 50 Ohm and 1 MOhm
1 mV/div with 200MHz and 20 MHz with the largest possible memory and highest sampling rate.
And
1 V/div with 200MHz and 20 MHz with the largest possible memory and highest sampling rate.
The files would probably be quite large. But there are file hosters with free access and hopefully enough storage space.
Getting those now.
Maybe 1M memory is better as a standard?
-
Noise data for 1M memory depth, 1mV/1V, 20M/200M, and 50ohm/1Mopen all at 1ms/DIV, all at 50MS/s
https://eevblog.com/files/RigolHDO4000data.zip
-
Noise data for 1M memory depth, 1mV/1V, 20M/200M, and 50ohm/1Mopen all at 1ms/DIV
https://eevblog.com/files/RigolHDO4000data.zip
And 250M memory data for 50ohm input at 4GS/s 1ms timebase
https://eevblog.org/files/RigolHDO4000-250M-data.zip
-
Thanks! Can you confirm the LSB scaling? For RigolDS1-50ohm1mV20M.bin I am getting STD=19.8uV assuming full scale of 10 mV in 2^16 bits.
Also need to know sampling rate to calculate PSD.
-
....
Getting those now.
Maybe 1M memory is better as a standard?
With max memory an max sample rate than with Rigol one get 62.5 ms, With Siglent one get 100 ms.
This allows you to observe the noise over a large frequency range.
And you can try hires algorithms.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Thanks! Can you confirm the LSB scaling? For RigolDS1-50ohm1mV20M.bin I am getting STD=19.8uV assuming full scale of 10 mV in 2^16 bits.
Also need to know sampling rate to calculate PSD.
4GS/s for all files.
For actual LSB I don't know if there is a way to actually get this exact figure?
As I showed in my video there is some extra dynamic range outside of the displayed window. So it's at least 8 divisions + whatever extra there is. Maybe 10V full scale?
EDIT: Hang on, I think I know how to get this.
-
For 1 M Sample files it can't be 4GS/sec and 1 msec/div.
Actually checking your video, it seems sometime the horizontal scale is 10 divisions and sometimes it is 20 divisions.
But the spectra are looking nice... Just want to confirm scaling.
-
Thanks! Can you confirm the LSB scaling? For RigolDS1-50ohm1mV20M.bin I am getting STD=19.8uV assuming full scale of 10 mV in 2^16 bits.
Also need to know sampling rate to calculate PSD.
4GS/s for all files.
For actual LSB I don't know if there is a way to actually get this exact figure?
As I showed in my video there is some extra dynamic range outside of the displayed window. So it's at least 8 divisions + whatever extra there is. Maybe 10V full scale?
EDIT: Hang on, I think I know how to get this.
I have confirmed on the 100mV range that the dynamic signal acquisition range is about 960mVpp (assuming my Keysight 3000 sig gen is accurate.
I did this by feeding in a triange wave, capturing, and seeing where it clips. 970mVpp definitely clipped.
I assume the same on the 1V and 1mV ranges, so call it 9.60Vpp/4096 = 2.34mV/bit
-
For 1 M Sample files it can't be 4GS/sec and 1 msec/div.
Oops, it's 50MS/s on the 1M memory captures. 4GS/s on the 250M samples.
-
I have confirmed on the 100mV range that the dynamic signal acquisition range is about 960mVpp (assuming my Keysight 3000 sig gen is accurate.
I did this by feeding in a triange wave, capturing, and seeing where it clips. 970mVpp definitely clipped.
I assume the same on the 1V and 1mV ranges, so call it 9.60Vpp/4096 = 2.34mV/bit
It could be clipping before reaching full ADC range. Also the binary numbers are encoded in 16 bit unsigned integer. There should be some meta file saved along with binary data that would specify it. But 10 divisions full scale is probably fairly accurate.
-
I have confirmed on the 100mV range that the dynamic signal acquisition range is about 960mVpp (assuming my Keysight 3000 sig gen is accurate.
I did this by feeding in a triange wave, capturing, and seeing where it clips. 970mVpp definitely clipped.
I assume the same on the 1V and 1mV ranges, so call it 9.60Vpp/4096 = 2.34mV/bit
It could be clipping before reaching full ADC range. Also the binary numbers are encoded in 16 bit unsigned integer. There should be some meta file saved along with binary data that would specify it. But 10 divisions full scale is probably fairly accurate.
There is no extra file saved.
Yes it could be clipping before the ADC, but there is no easy way to know this?
I confirmed the 200mV range is the same FS ratio.
-
I have confirmed on the 100mV range that the dynamic signal acquisition range is about 960mVpp (assuming my Keysight 3000 sig gen is accurate.
I did this by feeding in a triange wave, capturing, and seeing where it clips. 970mVpp definitely clipped.
I assume the same on the 1V and 1mV ranges, so call it 9.60Vpp/4096 = 2.34mV/bit
It could be clipping before reaching full ADC range. Also the binary numbers are encoded in 16 bit unsigned integer. There should be some meta file saved along with binary data that would specify it. But 10 divisions full scale is probably fairly accurate.
The 1V range is different, 8.75Vpp. At 8.8V I can see the clipping.
-
Here is the noise spectrum using 250Msample files and assuming 10 div full scale. Looks very clean up to 200 MHz!
On 1 V/div (10V full scale) the white noise level is 240 nV/Hz^(1/2), I think that corresponds to almost 10 ENOB. If I actually use proper equations instead of just "thinking", it comes out to 8.3 ENOB.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1596241)
-
Hello maxwell3e10,
How do you make your graphics?
Best regards
egonotto
-
The noise looks very low.
1mv, 50ohm, 14bit mode.
1M poit fft, 0 ~ 2Mhz span, 100Msa/s.
If you show me the fft noise screen, I appreciate it.
There's no fft average view, right?
-
Quick video on getting the dynamic range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qjqhnQiQXQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qjqhnQiQXQ)
-
It looks like it has a different amplifier path for 50 Ohm, giving lower noise at low frequency.
The ffts and plots are made with Matlab.
EDIT:
Actually, to be sure, was the scope input grounded externally when on 1 MOhm setting, Dave? Because it gives std=48 uV, instead of 19 uV. I think you mentioned in the video it does not make a difference when using on-screen rms measurements.
1M tests used an open input. If I used an external 50ohm termination then that's effectively the same as the 50 ohm mode, unless there is actually different paths for the 50ohm and 1M input which is usually not the case for scopes.
So that graph you just posted in correct. I thought you wanted an open input?
-
Some scopes do have a different amplifier path, for example RTM3k and other higher-end scopes. One can tell if there is any difference in spectrum between 50 Ohm external short and internal 50 Ohm. It looks like there is not in this case, at least based on RMS measurements.
I am not sure how interesting is the spectrum with 1 MOhm open input. It might get better if one puts a shielding BNC cup (with no central pin) over the input.
-
The 1 M input open noise should be what is relevant when using a 10:1 probe. The 9 M and some 5 pf to the input should not have very much effect on the noise. So the open input case has some justification.
The noise with a shorted input would be more what matters for the 1:1 probe. For really noise sensitive measurements the 1:1 probe may be attractive depite the BW limitations.
The shorted input case is also less effect from noise of the 1 M resistance at low frequencies that may swamp the actual amplifier noise. The 1/f noise cross over in the curves about corresponds to the input RC time constant.
One should get the scaling from measuring a known signal in the same range, not just the clipping points.
Normally there should be a known scale factor for the data formats to make good use of them. If not in file or manual, one should make such a table.
The noise curve with the 20 MHz filter enabled suggests that at least some of the filtering is done digital: the role off is quite steep and there is a regular stop band ripple that is rare for an analog solution.
For the comparison of the RMS noise with the 20 MHz filter enables the type of filter can make a difference, as the noise BW is different from the -3dB BW.
How comes that the noise spectrum extends to beyound 125 MHz with the data at 250 Ms/s ?
-
Here is the noise spectrum using 250Msample files and assuming 10 div full scale. Looks very clean up to 200 MHz!
On 1 V/div (10V full scale) the white noise level is 240 nV/Hz^(1/2), I think that corresponds to almost 10 ENOB.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1596241)
1. What is the sample rate?
2. Do you apply FFT for all 250Msamples or you use signal stacking tecniques
3. Do you apply any FFT window function -e.g. Hamming, Tukey, Blackman
-
Here is the open input spectrum, a little higher than Johnson noise on 1 mV/div scale but could be explained by typical input amplifier current noise. It's not so clear where the extra noise on 1 V/div scale is coming from.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1596436;image)
-
It looks like it has a different amplifier path for 50 Ohm, giving lower noise at low frequency.
The ffts and plots are made with Matlab.
EDIT:
Actually, to be sure, was the scope input grounded externally when on 1 MOhm setting, Dave? Because it gives std=48 uV, instead of 19 uV. I think you mentioned in the video it does not make a difference when using on-screen rms measurements.
1M tests used an open input. If I used an external 50ohm termination then that's effectively the same as the 50 ohm mode, unless there is actually different paths for the 50ohm and 1M input which is usually not the case for scopes.
Not quite. From what I've seen it is about 50/50 up 1 GHz whether there is a shared or seperate path.
-
...I think that corresponds to almost 10 ENOB.
It's certainly looking like Rigol has delivered the goods this time.
-
...I think that corresponds to almost 10 ENOB.
It's certainly looking like Rigol has delivered the goods this time.
Well, this is actually wrong, ENOB equations always mess me up! Full range 10Vpp sine wave has only 3.5V rms, so SNR=20*log(3.5/0.009)=52 dB. So ENOB=(52-1.76)/6.02=8.3 bits.
For comparison Lecroy HDO4024 has 3.4 mV rms noise on 1 V/div scale, compared with 9 mV for Rigol.
https://teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/hdo4000a-high-definition-oscilloscopes/hdo4024a
-
Batronix have now listed the HDO4000:
https://www.batronix.com/shop/rigol/HDO4000.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/rigol/HDO4000.html)
User manual:
https://www.batronix.com/files/Rigol/Oszilloskope/HDO4000/0908-HDO4000_UserGuide_EN.pdf (https://www.batronix.com/files/Rigol/Oszilloskope/HDO4000/0908-HDO4000_UserGuide_EN.pdf)
-
Batronix have now listed the HDO4000:
Interesting competitor to the Siglent. At least if you don't need digital channels or function generator.
Lets see if an "easy hack" will be available for one of them.
The battery option seems not to be ready yet. Neither in Daves unboxing nor in the accessories at Batronix.
-
Well, this is actually wrong, ENOB equations always mess me up! Full range 10Vpp sine wave has only 3.5V rms, so SNR=20*log(3.5/0.009)=52 dB. So ENOB=(52-1.76)/6.02=8.3 bits.
It may be worth noting that ENOB is usually defined in terms of SINAD which also includes distortion though. Of course, this needs to be measured with a signal present.
I do not mean to imply that the calculation itself is not valid. But it cannot be readily compared with ENOB values found in manufacturers' datasheets (and maybe should be called something else).
-
As I suspected, Ultra Acquire mode is simply segmented acquisition mode.
That, according to manual has many limits:
The UltraAcquire mode is not available when any of the following functions is enabled:
cursors, decoding, Search, Zoom, Pass/Fail test, waveform recording, power analysis,
reference waveform, XY. To switch to the UltraAcquire mode, please ensure that all of
those functions are disabled.
So with such segmented mode all you can do is to display nice graphs (there are several different display modes). That has very limited use.
Also there is no mention of Zone triggers..
They have sort of real segmented mode that they call Record mode (like in previous models). It is unclear what you can do with it.
It has very eclectic featureset that seems disconnected and like designed by committee. Let's hope that is because platform is so new they didn't finish it yet.
-
Hello,
Maybe we can make a noise comparison between Rigol and Siglent 12 bit scope.
I got a 12bit siglent... ;)
They were several settings mentioned on the side before, which settings should I use for compare?
-
The HDO4000 doesn’t have bode plot option, nor sin(x)/x :(
In my opinion the SDS2104X HD from Siglent is better choice than the HDO4204 and it's worth the $581 extra.
I’m sure that earlier, or later somebody will figure out how to hack the SDS2104X HD :)
-
somebody will figure out how to hack the SDS2104X HD :)
You mean the HDO4204, right? :-DD
-
In my opinion the SDS2104X HD from Siglent is better choice than the HDO4204 and it's worth the $581 extra.
In my opinion it´s too early to say which is the better choice.
Nevertheless, what I saw on Daves video doesn´t make me weeping in the cushion. ;)
I very much welcome the fact that there is now a second affordable 12-bit scope, which will be a nice head-to-head race that will spur both to peak performance, for the favor of customers what features and polished software concerns.
-
In my opinion it´s too early to say which is the better choice.
Nevertheless, what I saw on Daves video doesn´t make weeping in the cushion. ;)
Wait 'til the sub-$1000 version of this 'scope arrives before you decide to weep or not. >:D
-
somebody will figure out how to hack the SDS2104X HD :)
You mean the HDO4204, right? :-DD
No, I meant the Siglent…
Did anybody liberate the SDS2104X HD already?
-
In my opinion the SDS2104X HD from Siglent is better choice than the HDO4204 and it's worth the $581 extra.
In my opinion it´s too early to say which is the better choice.
Nevertheless, what I saw on Daves video doesn´t make weeping in the cushion. ;)
I very much welcome the fact that there is now a second affordable 12-bit scope, which will be a nice head-to-head race that will spur both to peak performance, for the favor of customers what features and polished software concerns.
Yes, I agree with you.
I should say “in my case” because for me no bode plot is deal breaker.
-
The new rigols didn´t got internal awgs, maybe that´s the reason why there is no bode plot implemented.
They should do it like siglent and allow external awgs for - A question of the software.
Therefore my statement what too early concerns.
-
The HDO4000 doesn’t have bode plot option, nor sin(x)/x :(
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
-
somebody will figure out how to hack the SDS2104X HD :)
You mean the HDO4204, right? :-DD
No, I meant the Siglent…
Did anybody liberate the SDS2104X HD already?
Pretty darn sure the chap that posted these screenshots didn't shell out for a SDS2354X HD and then apply the $ $ 500 MHz BW license ;)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-12bit-(published-for-chinese-domestic-market-only)/msg4422598/#msg4422598 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-12bit-(published-for-chinese-domestic-market-only)/msg4422598/#msg4422598)
-
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Turning it off would produce a mathematically incorrect display.
-
Hello,
Maybe we can make a noise comparison between Rigol and Siglent 12 bit scope.
I got a 12bit siglent... ;)
They were several settings mentioned on the side before, which settings should I use for compare?
Hallo,
If I remember correctly, you have the SDS2104X HD.
We just have to consider the difference in bandwidth when assessing it.
(According to tautech's hint, perhaps 200 MHz bandwidth would also be possible?)
Maybe you should not use the first channel, because with my RTA4000 the display there also disturbs something.
All 8 measurements with 200 MSa memory and 2 GSa/s sampling rate
1 mV/div 50 Ohm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz)
1 mV/div 50 Ohm 20 MHz bandwidth
1 mV/div 1 MOhm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz) open input (deepl say open entrance)
1 mV/div 1 MOhm 20 MHz bandwidth open input
1 V/div 50 Ohm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz)
1 V/div 50 Ohm 20 MHz bandwidth
1 V/div 1 MOhm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz) open input
1 V/div 1 MOhm 20 MHz bandwidth open input
Thanks in advance.
Best regards
egonotto
-
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Turning it off would produce a mathematically incorrect display.
A mathematically incorrect display is one where the claimed maths is not correctly implemented. If the maths is correctly implemented as claimed then any display is correct. Some are more useful than others, and some are useful for specific purposes, but they are all mathematically correct.
-
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Turning it off would produce a mathematically incorrect display.
A mathematically incorrect display is one where the claimed maths is not correctly implemented.
I meant a display where the signal isn't being represented using signal theory math.
(or, at least, the best approximation to it which can be done within the constraints of the device)
If you turn off sin(x)/x then what do you use to display the signal? Linear interpolation?
-
The HDO4000 doesn’t have bode plot option, nor sin(x)/x :(
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Referring to the user guide this scope doesn’t have sin(x)/x interpolation and the display mode is vector only, to my knowledge it’s the same as in the MSO5000 scopes.
Check section 19.1, page 238 in the user guide.
[attach=1]
-
Referring to the user guide this scope doesn’t have sin(x)/x interpolation and the display mode is vector only, to my knowledge it’s the same as in the MSO5000 scopes.
Check section 19.1, page 238 in the user guide.
(Attachment Link)
Did you even watch Daves video? :palm:
I meant a display where the signal isn't being represented using signal theory math.
(or, at least, the best approximation to it which can be done within the constraints of the device)
If you turn off sin(x)/x then what do you use to display the signal? Linear interpolation?
Old school dot mode.
edit: can find some examples here https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope/msg1174881/#msg1174881 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-rigol-ds1054z-oscilloscope/msg1174881/#msg1174881)
-
1M tests used an open input. If I used an external 50ohm termination then that's effectively the same as the 50 ohm mode, unless there is actually different paths for the 50ohm and 1M input which is usually not the case for scopes.
So that graph you just posted in correct. I thought you wanted an open input?
In a good design, noise is dominated by the impedance converter at the input, but there are several noise sources there. The input FET has its inherent voltage noise, and usually horrible flicker noise because it is a UHF part.
In series with the FET gate as part of the protection circuit is a roughly 470 kilohm series resistance bypassed with like 1000 picofarads, so the thermal noise from this resistor has bandwidth of about 340 Hz which is likely obscured by flicker noise from the FET. The shunt 1 megohm resistance is in parallel with about 15 picofarads, so its noise bandwdith is about 10 KHz and it contributes considerable low frequency noise; that is the increase in noise that you see when the 50 ohm termination is not present.
As far as "low noise", I measured Tektronix 7000 series 200 MHz vertical amplifiers from the 1970s and 1980s with 18 microvolts RMS noise over 100 MHz, which is considerably better than the same noise level over 20 MHz. They perform better than most modern instruments because they use JFET instead of CMOS impedance converters, and have the advantage of being designed for a lower bandwidth; software bandwidth upgrades were for the future. Besides the use of CMOS, an 800 MHz design will be higher noise even with bandwidth limiting because of the required parts selection.
The bandwidth is automatically switched at higher sensitivity volts/div settings because high noise levels lead to a largely meaningless display. (1) This feature is hardly a new thing, and it was common in old oscilloscopes that supported x10 vertical magnification; activating the vertical magnification deliberately engaged the bandwidth limit to control noise. (2) Another example of controlling noise is the Tektronix 7A13 differential comparator. It necessarily has high input noise, like 100 microvolts over 100 MHz, because of its bootstrapped differential input configuration, so to support even a 1 mV/div sensitivity, it has a 5 MHz bandwidth limit; even 20 MHz would have been too high for its noise level.
Some early DSOs had noise levels approaching the quantization noise of their 8-bit digitizer, which is a little weird when you first see it. It looks like the DSO is broken when there is just a straight line with an occasional peak-to-peak "bump" in it.
(1) This is also why you do not find vertical sensitivities greater than about 1 mV/div without bandwidth limiting or some type of noise reduction; the input noise is too high for it to make any sense. In the past they considered even 2mV/div questionable.
(2) Instruments like these did not even *have* a separate bandwidth control. If you wanted to limit the bandwidth, then you activated the x10 vertical magnification.
-
For the comparison of the RMS noise with the 20 MHz filter enables the type of filter can make a difference, as the noise BW is different from the -3dB BW.
The noise bandwidth is always different from the -3-dB bandwidth because of the shape factor of the filter, unless you manage a brick wall. A single pole rolloff, which will be typical for a 20 MHz filter, yields a noise bandwidth 1.6 times the -3dB bandwidth. Even some old oscilloscopes use higher order filters, but it was pretty rare. DSOs could of course do all kinds of weird things, but it is important to have a physical filter to prevent aliasing of the noise unless filtering is done during decimation.
-
Referring to the user guide this scope doesn’t have sin(x)/x interpolation and the display mode is vector only, to my knowledge it’s the same as in the MSO5000 scopes.
Check section 19.1, page 238 in the user guide.
(Attachment Link)
Did you even watch Daves video? :palm:
Yes, I did. In min. 20:53 he mentioned that he can’t turn off sin(x)/x mode…
The reason is that the sin(x)/x interpolation is not implemented in this scopes.
vector != sin(x)/x
Please check the user guide as I mentioned in my message.
-
The HDO4000 doesn’t have bode plot option, nor sin(x)/x :(
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Referring to the user guide this scope doesn’t have sin(x)/x interpolation and the display mode is vector only, to my knowledge it’s the same as in the MSO5000 scopes.
Check section 19.1, page 238 in the user guide.
(Attachment Link)
Dave:
Could you try 100MHz square wave on this scope? The scope is 200MHz, and if it’s sin(x)/x interpolation you should see sine wave.
Maybe you’re correct and the user guide suck (?)
Edited:
I forgot it’s 4GS/s scope. Maybe decreasing sample rate to 1GS/s and 200 MHz square wave would be more adequate for this test.
I’m guessing decreasing sample rate in Rigol scopes can be accomplished by decreasing memory depth.
-
Can anyone explain to me what Agilent/Keysight does differently than anyone else that lets their scopes have highly responsive UIs? I watched Dave's video of the Rigol, and I'm just immensely disappointed by how clunky the UI seemed to operate. Input lag on the touchscreen, moving waveforms around causes all of the updating to stop, and the UI seems to slow to to like 8 FPS, and so on.
...then you go watch Dave's video of the Agilent 3000 series from 11 years ago, and the UI is consistently fast/responsive. The scope keeps updating even when moving things around on the screen, and the whole thing seems to run at a constant 30 (60?) FPS.
11 years later, and other scopes still don't match it. What's the deal here? You'd think 11 years of embedded CPU improvements (I saw the Rigol has a 6-core CPU!) would allow other manufactures to catch up. Does Keysight just do something inherently different with their architecture compared to everyone else?
-
Can anyone explain to me what Agilent/Keysight does differently than anyone else that lets their scopes have highly responsive UIs? I watched Dave's video of the Rigol, and I'm just immensely disappointed by how clunky the UI seemed to operate. Input lag on the touchscreen, moving waveforms around causes all of the updating to stop, and the UI seems to slow to to like 8 FPS, and so on.
...then you go watch Dave's video of the Agilent 3000 series from 11 years ago, and the UI is consistently fast/responsive. The scope keeps updating even when moving things around on the screen, and the whole thing seems to run at a constant 30 (60?) FPS.
11 years later, and other scopes still don't match it. What's the deal here? You'd think 11 years of embedded CPU improvements (I saw the Rigol has a 6-core CPU!) would allow other manufactures to catch up. Does Keysight just do something inherently different with their architecture compared to everyone else?
IMHO, I will not consider this as an "ability" issue. As a product manager, I guess the requirement of "keep updating waveform when moving it around" is just not list in product requirement document ...
-
Can anyone explain to me what Agilent/Keysight does differently than anyone else that lets their scopes have highly responsive UIs? I watched Dave's video of the Rigol, and I'm just immensely disappointed by how clunky the UI seemed to operate. Input lag on the touchscreen, moving waveforms around causes all of the updating to stop, and the UI seems to slow to to like 8 FPS, and so on.
...then you go watch Dave's video of the Agilent 3000 series from 11 years ago, and the UI is consistently fast/responsive. The scope keeps updating even when moving things around on the screen, and the whole thing seems to run at a constant 30 (60?) FPS.
11 years later, and other scopes still don't match it. What's the deal here? You'd think 11 years of embedded CPU improvements (I saw the Rigol has a 6-core CPU!) would allow other manufactures to catch up. Does Keysight just do something inherently different with their architecture compared to everyone else?
The waveforms on those Agilent/Keysight scopes are drawn to the screen with an ASIC in hardware, so the CPU is just doing UI stuff. But even the Keysight stuff can be a little slow to respond some times and will stop acquisitions while moving traces. Other brands have done the same path with ASICs (R&S) and while the FPGA platforms that Rigol and Siglent use dont quite have the same throughput capabilities it is just a programming/system design choice that they feel slower/lag more, they could be very snappy with some work on the software side.
-
Can anyone explain to me what Agilent/Keysight does differently than anyone else that lets their scopes have highly responsive UIs? I watched Dave's video of the Rigol, and I'm just immensely disappointed by how clunky the UI seemed to operate. Input lag on the touchscreen, moving waveforms around causes all of the updating to stop, and the UI seems to slow to to like 8 FPS, and so on.
...then you go watch Dave's video of the Agilent 3000 series from 11 years ago, and the UI is consistently fast/responsive. The scope keeps updating even when moving things around on the screen, and the whole thing seems to run at a constant 30 (60?) FPS.
11 years later, and other scopes still don't match it. What's the deal here? You'd think 11 years of embedded CPU improvements (I saw the Rigol has a 6-core CPU!) would allow other manufactures to catch up. Does Keysight just do something inherently different with their architecture compared to everyone else?
The Keysight MegaZoom IV ASIC does the dedicated work drawing the screen:
(https://www.embedded.com/wp-content/uploads/media-1113967-2011-02-15-crh-agilent-infini-2000-3000-2.jpg)
The only thing that Keysight are "stuck" with is the internal 4M sample memory.
If the Megazoom V just had external memory it would still be a killer today.
-
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Turning it off would produce a mathematically incorrect display.
Turning it off allows you to see what and where the actual samples are.
Digital scope have had switchable Linear and Sinx/x interpolation and also dot/line mode since time immortal for this very reason.
And Sinx/x isn't "mathematically correct", it's simply a way to get a closer approximation to what the actual signal might be doing between samples. And there are also right and wrogn ways to implement the display of sinx/x data too. Not being able to turn it off or turn on dot mode means you can't see how exactly they have implemented sinx/x on the display.
-
Can anyone explain to me what Agilent/Keysight does differently than anyone else that lets their scopes have highly responsive UIs? I watched Dave's video of the Rigol, and I'm just immensely disappointed by how clunky the UI seemed to operate. Input lag on the touchscreen, moving waveforms around causes all of the updating to stop, and the UI seems to slow to to like 8 FPS, and so on.
...then you go watch Dave's video of the Agilent 3000 series from 11 years ago, and the UI is consistently fast/responsive. The scope keeps updating even when moving things around on the screen, and the whole thing seems to run at a constant 30 (60?) FPS.
11 years later, and other scopes still don't match it. What's the deal here? You'd think 11 years of embedded CPU improvements (I saw the Rigol has a 6-core CPU!) would allow other manufactures to catch up. Does Keysight just do something inherently different with their architecture compared to everyone else?
The Keysight MegaZoom IV ASIC does the dedicated work drawing the screen:
(https://www.embedded.com/wp-content/uploads/media-1113967-2011-02-15-crh-agilent-infini-2000-3000-2.jpg)
The only thing that Keysight are "stuck" with is the internal 4M sample memory.
If the Megazoom V just had external memory it would still be a killer today.
Yes an no. Megazoom scopes render waveform on tiny screens on even tinier screen area.They would need to to make a new one with higher resolution. Megazoom 4 screen would look like a thumbnail photo on screens of any of new touchscreen scopes. It's hard coded plotting area is 640x400. It would need to quadruple pixel count (screen area). Megazoom is fast because it deals with little data and because what it does is hardcoded. It calculates on decimated data, has very limited FFT points etc.. What many people say are virtues (fast response time for people who think that is most important feature) was made by sacrificing other capabilities. While there are many other people out there who think large memory, advanced measurements of full data etc.. are more important. Market seems to need both and both are being sold. Tool for the job.
-
As long as the scope works with the full 4 GSPS the interpolation is not really critical and it is also hard to tell if the interpolation is sinx/s or linear, as the sampling rate is much higher than the BW limit.
It can become relevant when the sampling rate is reduced. With the rather large memory and good ADC speed the cases where the sinx/x makes a difference are rare - so maybe they skipt it in favor of speed.
For the comparison of the RMS noise with the 20 MHz filter enables the type of filter can make a difference, as the noise BW is different from the -3dB BW.
The noise bandwidth is always different from the -3-dB bandwidth because of the shape factor of the filter, unless you manage a brick wall. A single pole rolloff, which will be typical for a 20 MHz filter, yields a noise bandwidth 1.6 times the -3dB bandwidth. Even some old oscilloscopes use higher order filters, but it was pretty rare. DSOs could of course do all kinds of weird things, but it is important to have a physical filter to prevent aliasing of the noise unless filtering is done during decimation.
The noise curve with the 20 MHz filter shows a rather steep edge suggests that there is digital filterings. Not so sure that there is an actual analog fitler, as there are ranges where the noise comes up again, which is possible as an artifact from a simple digital filter. An analog fitler could reduce such artifacts of a simple (for performance reasons) digital filter.
Using the 20 MHz BW linit does not necessary mean a reduced sampling / data set. This was traditionally common when memory was limited, but with plenty of memory they could still keep the full data, or alt least more than absolutely needed. Using filtering during decimation is the logical method, especially for a low noise design.
-
Can anyone explain to me what Agilent/Keysight does differently than anyone else that lets their scopes have highly responsive UIs? I watched Dave's video of the Rigol, and I'm just immensely disappointed by how clunky the UI seemed to operate. Input lag on the touchscreen, moving waveforms around causes all of the updating to stop, and the UI seems to slow to to like 8 FPS, and so on.
...then you go watch Dave's video of the Agilent 3000 series from 11 years ago, and the UI is consistently fast/responsive. The scope keeps updating even when moving things around on the screen, and the whole thing seems to run at a constant 30 (60?) FPS.
11 years later, and other scopes still don't match it. What's the deal here? You'd think 11 years of embedded CPU improvements (I saw the Rigol has a 6-core CPU!) would allow other manufactures to catch up. Does Keysight just do something inherently different with their architecture compared to everyone else?
The Keysight MegaZoom IV ASIC does the dedicated work drawing the screen:
(https://www.embedded.com/wp-content/uploads/media-1113967-2011-02-15-crh-agilent-infini-2000-3000-2.jpg)
The only thing that Keysight are "stuck" with is the internal 4M sample memory.
If the Megazoom V just had external memory it would still be a killer today.
Yes an no. Megazoom scopes render waveform on tiny screens on even tinier screen area.They would need to to make a new one with higher resolution.
Yes, that too, and whatever newer features are around. The point being that they probably wouldn't have to radically change the underlying structure, or try and go to 10Mwfm/c or something. The 1Mwfm/s is still industry leading stuff 11.5 years later.
-
Out of curiosity: Where is the noise floor (dB) in FFT mode on this 'scope?
-
Can anyone explain to me what Agilent/Keysight does differently than anyone else that lets their scopes have highly responsive UIs? I watched Dave's video of the Rigol, and I'm just immensely disappointed by how clunky the UI seemed to operate. Input lag on the touchscreen, moving waveforms around causes all of the updating to stop, and the UI seems to slow to to like 8 FPS, and so on.
...then you go watch Dave's video of the Agilent 3000 series from 11 years ago, and the UI is consistently fast/responsive. The scope keeps updating even when moving things around on the screen, and the whole thing seems to run at a constant 30 (60?) FPS.
11 years later, and other scopes still don't match it. What's the deal here? You'd think 11 years of embedded CPU improvements (I saw the Rigol has a 6-core CPU!) would allow other manufactures to catch up. Does Keysight just do something inherently different with their architecture compared to everyone else?
The Keysight MegaZoom IV ASIC does the dedicated work drawing the screen:
(https://www.embedded.com/wp-content/uploads/media-1113967-2011-02-15-crh-agilent-infini-2000-3000-2.jpg)
The only thing that Keysight are "stuck" with is the internal 4M sample memory.
If the Megazoom V just had external memory it would still be a killer today.
Yes an no. Megazoom scopes render waveform on tiny screens on even tinier screen area.They would need to to make a new one with higher resolution. Megazoom 4 screen would look like a thumbnail photo on screens of any of new touchscreen scopes. It's hard coded plotting area is 640x400. It would need to quadruple pixel count (screen area). Megazoom is fast because it deals with little data and because what it does is hardcoded. It calculates on decimated data, has very limited FFT points etc.. What many people say are virtues (fast response time for people who think that is most important feature) was made by sacrificing other capabilities. While there are many other people out there who think large memory, advanced measurements of full data etc.. are more important. Market seems to need both and both are being sold. Tool for the job.
And it (IV) do not have digital trigger engine at all. (afaik ... Correct if I'm wrong.)
-
The HDO4000 doesn’t have bode plot option, nor sin(x)/x :(
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Referring to the user guide this scope doesn’t have sin(x)/x interpolation and the display mode is vector only, to my knowledge it’s the same as in the MSO5000 scopes.
Check section 19.1, page 238 in the user guide.
(Attachment Link)
Have you watched my video?
The zoomed in waveform in not linear vector based, it's sinx/x
I asked Rigol if I could turn off Sinx/x and they said no I can't.
I do know what that manual is showing, but that's not how the scope i have actually works.
-
I meant a display where the signal isn't being represented using signal theory math.
(or, at least, the best approximation to it which can be done within the constraints of the device)
If you turn off sin(x)/x then what do you use to display the signal? Linear interpolation?
WTF is signal theory math?
If you turn off sin(x)/x you get the raw samples, to treat how you will. If you turn on sin(x)/x you get one filtered version of the samples, which is probably the best kind of filter for a broad range of applications. However, like all filters it has plus and minus points, especially with regard to how the phase get mangled. There is nothing magically "correct" about sin(x)/x.
-
I meant a display where the signal isn't being represented using signal theory math.
(or, at least, the best approximation to it which can be done within the constraints of the device)
If you turn off sin(x)/x then what do you use to display the signal? Linear interpolation?
WTF is signal theory math?
If you turn off sin(x)/x you get the raw samples, to treat how you will. If you turn on sin(x)/x you get one filtered version of the samples, which is probably the best kind of filter for a broad range of applications. However, like all filters it has plus and minus points, especially with regard to how the phase get mangled. There is nothing magically "correct" about sin(x)/x.
No, sin x/ x is not a filter! sin x/x is a method for constructing a visible signal from samples. By definition, the trace you get from sin x/x reconstruction goes through all the sample points. There is no phase mangling, no adding fictional information or whatever.
-
I meant a display where the signal isn't being represented using signal theory math.
(or, at least, the best approximation to it which can be done within the constraints of the device)
If you turn off sin(x)/x then what do you use to display the signal? Linear interpolation?
WTF is signal theory math?
If you turn off sin(x)/x you get the raw samples, to treat how you will. If you turn on sin(x)/x you get one filtered version of the samples, which is probably the best kind of filter for a broad range of applications. However, like all filters it has plus and minus points, especially with regard to how the phase get mangled. There is nothing magically "correct" about sin(x)/x.
No, sin x/ x is not a filter! sin x/x is a method for constructing a visible signal from samples. By definition, the trace you get from sin x/x reconstruction goes through all the sample points. There is no phase mangling, adding fictional information or whatever.
At low frequencies it works really well. The closer you get to the Shannon rate the more fiction occurs between the actual samples, and most displays don't even highlight where the actual samples are. You can get very misleading images.
-
WTF is signal theory math?
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_processing
-
I meant a display where the signal isn't being represented using signal theory math.
(or, at least, the best approximation to it which can be done within the constraints of the device)
If you turn off sin(x)/x then what do you use to display the signal? Linear interpolation?
WTF is signal theory math?
If you turn off sin(x)/x you get the raw samples, to treat how you will. If you turn on sin(x)/x you get one filtered version of the samples, which is probably the best kind of filter for a broad range of applications. However, like all filters it has plus and minus points, especially with regard to how the phase get mangled. There is nothing magically "correct" about sin(x)/x.
No, sin x/ x is not a filter! sin x/x is a method for constructing a visible signal from samples. By definition, the trace you get from sin x/x reconstruction goes through all the sample points. There is no phase mangling, adding fictional information or whatever.
At low frequencies it works really well. The closer you get to the Shannon rate the more fiction occurs between the actual samples, and most displays don't even highlight where the actual samples are. You can get very misleading images.
Again no. There is a limit where sin x/x stops working and that is slightly over fs / 2.5 . IOW: sin x/x works for cases where the samplerate is 2.5 times the bandwidth of the signal. There is no fiction involved.
-
At low frequencies it works really well. The closer you get to the Shannon rate the more fiction occurs between the actual samples, and most displays don't even highlight where the actual samples are. You can get very misleading images.
I'm not sure what "Shannon rate" has to do with it but with sin(x)/x you know the curve passes through all the sample points. There will be no points outside the displayed curve.
Maybe you can explain how seeing the sample points would lead to less "misleading" images. Do you have a better reconstruction filter in your head? One that can deal with aliasing, etc.?
I'd be very surprised is this 'scope doesn't have a "dot" mode so you can use it.
The manual that was posted earlier appears unfinished, I wouldn't rely on it for a complete+accurate list of features.
-
The interpolation filter can not deal with aliasing. This happens during display, not during taking the data. The interpoation gets more important when the bandwidth is relatively large compared to the sampling rate. The sinx/x way is trying to get a smooth curve without sharp peaks that does not contain much frequency content high then fs/2, as there is not way to know how the part beyound fs/2 is. Essentially not amplitude is somewhat safe bet.
With the 200 MHz version and 4 GSPS the interpolation is not critical as there is essentially no aliasing or need to reconstruct the part close to the limit. One may get something close to a sinx/x reconstruction if part the 200 MHz BW limit is actually realized digital and not analog. The curve may than look quite a bit like a sinx/x interpolated signal, though with more points than one would have with sinx/x.
For looking at the details of the scope performance it would help to also get the raw dot mode. For normal use it should not really matter with the relatively high sampling rate. This may be a bit different with 4 channels and thus 1 GSPS and than the top 800 MHz BW version. In this case the interpolation makes a difference. Here not really.
-
The interpolation filter can not deal with aliasing.
Hence ntnico's statement that: "sin x/x works for cases where the samplerate is 2.5 times the bandwidth of the signal."
One may get something close to a sinx/x reconstruction if part the 200 MHz BW limit is actually realized digital and not analog.
This sure looks like a digital filter to me...
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1597318;image)
-
The manual that was posted earlier appears unfinished, I wouldn't rely on it for a complete+accurate list of features.
I am not sure if it's the manual or the scope that is unfinished. For example, the manual talks about a header in the binary file. But the files Dave posted contained no such header (assuming they come directly from saving on scope).
-
The waveforms on those Agilent/Keysight scopes are drawn to the screen with an ASIC in hardware, so the CPU is just doing UI stuff. But even the Keysight stuff can be a little slow to respond some times and will stop acquisitions while moving traces. Other brands have done the same path with ASICs (R&S) and while the FPGA platforms that Rigol and Siglent use dont quite have the same throughput capabilities it is just a programming/system design choice that they feel slower/lag more, they could be very snappy with some work on the software side.
Fast response has more to do with the software design than the hardware. Old DSOs had very limited processing power and the designers knew it, so the software was designed to keep the user interface updated in real time. Wordstar played the same game to provide real time response over a serial link to a terminal. Commands entered during screen updates interrupt the screen update to update characters and lines, and then the screen update continues where it left off.
One method I have used is to implement the user interface functions in real time, while the processing tasks use the remaining processor resources cooperatively. This gets a little weird, and useful, when the main processing task crashes, yet the user interface continues to operate as usual allowing diagnostics to be performed.
If modern instrument has poor user interface performance, then it is because of sloppy programming. The designers just did not care.
-
Out of curiosity: Where is the noise floor (dB) in FFT mode on this 'scope?
I would rather know the SFDR (spurious free dynamic range) which would reveal the linearity. Noise can be removed but spurs from non-linearity hide the true signal components.
Settling time and overload recovery of a 12 bit signal path would be useful to know, but these are difficult to test without a suitable signal source.
-
No, sin x/ x is not a filter! sin x/x is a method for constructing a visible signal from samples. By definition, the trace you get from sin x/x reconstruction goes through all the sample points. There is no phase mangling, no adding fictional information or whatever.
Sin(x)/x is implemented as a finite impulse response filter with coefficients from the Sinc function applied to a sample record which has been sample stuffed. It is a low pass filter which removes the high frequency components from the sample stuffing.
-
Hallo,
If I remember correctly, you have the SDS2104X HD.
Yepp, but with 500Mhz bandwith.
We just have to consider the difference in bandwidth when assessing it.
(According to tautech's hint, perhaps 200 MHz bandwidth would also be possible?)
Got bandwithlimiter on 20Mhz AND 200Mhz, should activate the 200 for this.
All 8 measurements with 200 MSa memory and 2 GSa/s sampling rate
No problem, but didn´t Dave used 1M ?
1 mV/div 50 Ohm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz)
1 mV/div 50 Ohm 20 MHz bandwidth
1 mV/div 1 MOhm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz) open input (deepl say open entrance)
1 mV/div 1 MOhm 20 MHz bandwidth open input
1 V/div 50 Ohm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz)
1 V/div 50 Ohm 20 MHz bandwidth
1 V/div 1 MOhm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz) open input
1 V/div 1 MOhm 20 MHz bandwidth open input
Open input is clear, but what´s the other, switched to GND ?
Martin
-
No, sin x/ x is not a filter! sin x/x is a method for constructing a visible signal from samples. By definition, the trace you get from sin x/x reconstruction goes through all the sample points. There is no phase mangling, no adding fictional information or whatever.
Sin(x)/x is implemented as a finite impulse response filter with coefficients from the Sinc function applied to a sample record which has been sample stuffed. It is a low pass filter which removes the high frequency components from the sample stuffing.
Technically correct but in the end it doesn't matter for the original signal. From a filter theory standpoint creating a visible waveform is an upsampling operation which needs a filter to remove the steps indeed. But this filter isn't removing any frequency content from the original signal. So for the acquired signal itself, nothing changes. That is what I wanted to point out (without going deep into implementation details).
-
The manual that was posted earlier appears unfinished, I wouldn't rely on it for a complete+accurate list of features.
I am not sure if it's the manual or the scope that is unfinished. For example, the manual talks about a header in the binary file. But the files Dave posted contained no such header (assuming they come directly from saving on scope).
Yes they came direct form the scope using the Quick save button
-
Hallo,
If I remember correctly, you have the SDS2104X HD.
Yepp, but with 500Mhz bandwith.
We just have to consider the difference in bandwidth when assessing it.
(According to tautech's hint, perhaps 200 MHz bandwidth would also be possible?)
Got bandwithlimiter on 20Mhz AND 200Mhz, should activate the 200 for this.
All 8 measurements with 200 MSa memory and 2 GSa/s sampling rate
No problem, but didn´t Dave used 1M ?
1 mV/div 50 Ohm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz)
1 mV/div 50 Ohm 20 MHz bandwidth
1 mV/div 1 MOhm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz) open input (deepl say open entrance)
1 mV/div 1 MOhm 20 MHz bandwidth open input
1 V/div 50 Ohm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz)
1 V/div 50 Ohm 20 MHz bandwidth
1 V/div 1 MOhm maximum bandwidth (100 MHz or 200 MHz) open input
1 V/div 1 MOhm 20 MHz bandwidth open input
Open input is clear, but what´s the other, switched to GND ?
The other is switched to 50ohm internal.
-
No, sin x/ x is not a filter! sin x/x is a method for constructing a visible signal from samples. By definition, the trace you get from sin x/x reconstruction goes through all the sample points. There is no phase mangling, no adding fictional information or whatever.
... from the sample stuffing.
Öhh... Can you explain perfectly - just with your own words - what is this: "...removes the high frequency components from the sample stuffing.".
Do you mean it remove or destroy sampled data - yes Rigol can do it, it is proofed in history - but I think you do not mean it. So what is this.
Afaik, in scopes what I have used (except two old Rigols) Sinc draw throung every true raw sampled point - and exactly - least every time what I have inspected these..
-
In its most basic form, sin x/x interpolation works by inserting ("stuffing") zeroes between each of your samples. In the frequency domain this creates multiple copies of your original spectrum which you then remove using (an approximation to) a brickwall filter, i.e. filter it with a sin x/x kernel. The resulting signal retains the original samples and interpolates between them in such a way that no higher frequency components are added.
Note: If you look at a practical implementation, you may not actually see the zero stuffing explicitly. But that is only because the equations have been rewritten in a way that is faster to compute but less clear to understand (polyphase representation).
-
So whats the difference between a DSO that can trigger on, and decode logic protocols, and an MSO again ??
-
So whats the difference between a DSO that can trigger on, and decode logic protocols, and an MSO again ??
Total number of channels.
A mix of analog and digital channels, typically 4 and 16.
-
Hello,
Martin72: "Got bandwithlimiter on 20Mhz AND 200Mhz, should activate the 200 for this."
Yes.
Martin72: "No problem, but didn´t Dave used 1M ?"
Dave post the 50 Ohm Data with 1 MSa and 250 MSa but the 1 MOhm only with 1 MSa. I hope he will post the 1 MOhm files with 250 MSa too.
Martin72: "Open input is clear, but what´s the other, switched to GND ?"
Sorry my mistake, somehow I implicitly assumed that the input is already terminated by the 50 ohms. At 50 ohms, of course, also open.
Best regards
egonotto
-
CMOS image sensor ADCs do not need GS/s speed. Instead they rely on special architectures which minimize area and use less power because they need to fit into the remain border space of the image area. Stacked is the new more technology game to give high performance and sell high.
-
Hello maxwell3e10,
How do you make your graphics?
Best regards
egonotto
Yes, I'm curious too. @maxvell3e10, would you be so kind to quickly explain how you calculate and get the plots?
Looks nice and maybe we could replicate results..
Thanks!!
Sinisa
-
I was using MATLAB for these, specifically pwelch function. The precise window function does not matter. To reduce fluctuations in the spectrum at high frequency one can either decimate the fft power spectrum or use a shorter window in pwelch. Also I subtracted the mean before doing the fft.
-
Öhh... Can you explain perfectly - just with your own words - what is this: "...removes the high frequency components from the sample stuffing.".
Do you mean it remove or destroy sampled data - yes Rigol can do it, it is proofed in history - but I think you do not mean it. So what is this.
Afaik, in scopes what I have used (except two old Rigols) Sinc draw throung every true raw sampled point - and exactly - least every time what I have inspected these..
Switchabl covered it as well as I could. The sample stuffing creates copies of the original spectrum which the sin(x)/x filter removes, leaving the original sample points and the new ones connecting them with the original frequency spectrum.
Rigol on their earlier DSOs messed it up somehow, but most DSOs manage to do it correctly.
So whats the difference between a DSO that can trigger on, and decode logic protocols, and an MSO again ??
Usually the difference is that the MSO inputs have only 1 bit resolution, produced using a comparator as a 1-bit ADC, and are lower input impedance, typically 100 kilohms. The MSO inputs often but not always has lower timing resolution than the oscilloscope inputs; modern instruments tend to use the FPGA clock for the MSO inputs.
-
The HDO4000 doesn’t have bode plot option, nor sin(x)/x :(
It's got Sinx/x, but you can't turn it off.
Referring to the user guide this scope doesn’t have sin(x)/x interpolation and the display mode is vector only, to my knowledge it’s the same as in the MSO5000 scopes.
Check section 19.1, page 238 in the user guide.
(Attachment Link)
Have you watched my video?
The zoomed in waveform in not linear vector based, it's sinx/x
I asked Rigol if I could turn off Sinx/x and they said no I can't.
I do know what that manual is showing, but that's not how the scope i have actually works.
Yes, I did, twice before I posted my message.
After when you pointed me to “The zoomed in waveform in not linear vector based, it's sinx/x” I watched the video few times (min 18:05 – 25:00) ... I do agree with you, for sure there is interpolation involved. I was suggested by the user guide and it’s the reason why I pointed the sin(x)/x topic.
Is it possible to switch to dot mode before “stop” and later zoom it and repeat the test?
Dave, thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and experience with the community.
I was not trying to start an argue/war conversation, I’m only trying to understand this topic.
Personally, I don’t care much for sin(x)/ interpolation, sometimes it comes handy. If I analyze anything besides RF, I use dot, or vector mode and I prefer min 20 samples per period.
I truly appreciate your contribution to the EE community.
-
I want to get a SDS2104x+, then I see these rigol 12bit models and the sds HD 12bit scopes. But they would cost over 2x as much, at least the Siglent would.
I'd love if the rigol are closer to 2k, than 3-5k
-
I want to get a SDS2104x+, then I see these rigol 12bit models and the sds HD 12bit scopes. But they would cost over 2x as much, at least the Siglent would.
I'd love if the rigol are closer to 2k, than 3-5k
I believe the 2104X+ it's great choice, probably you will be satisfied with it for next decade. If you work with audio, you should check Rightmark + descend ADC/DAC solution like the Scarlet or MOTU, both below $200.
-
I want to get a SDS2104x+, then I see these rigol 12bit models and the sds HD 12bit scopes. But they would cost over 2x as much, at least the Siglent would.
I'd love if the rigol are closer to 2k, than 3-5k
The HDO1000 series will start at $699, still 12bit, but doesn't have the 100uV-500uV software expanded ranges.
-
I was using MATLAB for these, specifically pwelch function. The precise window function does not matter. To reduce fluctuations in the spectrum at high frequency one can either decimate the fft power spectrum or use a shorter window in pwelch. Also I subtracted the mean before doing the fft.
A short tutorial video on doing this would be cool.
-
I want to get a SDS2104x+, then I see these rigol 12bit models and the sds HD 12bit scopes. But they would cost over 2x as much, at least the Siglent would.
I'd love if the rigol are closer to 2k, than 3-5k
The HDO1000 series will start at $699, still 12bit, but doesn't have the 100uV-500uV software expanded ranges.
Different class of instrument Dave, you are comparing apples and oranges.
SDS2000X Plus is a 500 MHz design vs 200 MHz, it also has 2x 2GSa/s, 200 Mpts x2 mem depth, inbuilt AWG, MSO, 10x probe sense.....need I go on ? :-//
-
I was using MATLAB for these, specifically pwelch function. The precise window function does not matter. To reduce fluctuations in the spectrum at high frequency one can either decimate the fft power spectrum or use a shorter window in pwelch. Also I subtracted the mean before doing the fft.
A short tutorial video on doing this would be cool.
Could be useful to have a video on FFT and power spectral density. There is also scipy.signal.welch package that does PSD estimation in Python. In Matlab it is just a few commands:
fileID = fopen('RigolDS3-50Ohm1V20M.bin')
data3 = (fread(fileID,'uint16')-2^15)/2^16*10;
data3=data3-mean(data3);
[fdata3,fl3]=pwelch(data3,[],[],[],50e6,'psd');
loglog(fl3,sqrt(fdata3),'r');
-
The sample stuffing creates copies of the original spectrum which the sin(x)/x filter removes, leaving the original sample points and the new ones connecting them with the original frequency spectrum.
Rigol on their earlier DSOs messed it up somehow.
Citation needed.
-
The sample stuffing creates copies of the original spectrum which the sin(x)/x filter removes, leaving the original sample points and the new ones connecting them with the original frequency spectrum.
Rigol on their earlier DSOs messed it up somehow.
Citation needed.
David was replying to rf_loop and if you look back at his earliest posts rf_loop brings to this forum the errors Rigol makes bringing sample points to the display…..now over a decade ago.
Like rf_loop, sample stuffing is the first I have heard of such a term.
-
Hello,
Martin72: "Got bandwithlimiter on 20Mhz AND 200Mhz, should activate the 200 for this."
Yes.
Martin72: "No problem, but didn´t Dave used 1M ?"
Dave post the 50 Ohm Data with 1 MSa and 250 MSa but the 1 MOhm only with 1 MSa. I hope he will post the 1 MOhm files with 250 MSa too.
Martin72: "Open input is clear, but what´s the other, switched to GND ?"
Sorry my mistake, somehow I implicitly assumed that the input is already terminated by the 50 ohms. At 50 ohms, of course, also open.
Best regards
egonotto
Actually I save the second file - with 200Mpts it last a while...
I´ve choose "matlab" format.
-
Gentlemen, are you sure to want 200Mpts ?
One file is 2.2Gb :o
what is the practical benefit?
Maybe you remember the cardgame "Quartett" from your childhood? 8)
-
Like rf_loop, sample stuffing is the first I have heard of such a term.
There is no shame in that. It is part of digital signal processing theory (more precisely on the subject of upsampling a signal in order to increase the samplerate).
-
Link to the 1Mpts files, zipped:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KhZinD7F7LsLM8fBEr32mpLP14MEC_ea/view?usp=sharing
200Mpts....Must see how, maybe for an hour 4 files up, then the next 4...
-
Here is a comparison with the RTB2000 and the 1 MSa/1 MOhm data.
But what do the graphics actually show, what is the practical benefit?
Peter
Thanks, it's great to see them plotted together! I would say the main point to take from these plots is that for 1V scale, 20 MHz bandwidth, HDO is doing better than RTB because of higher ADC resolution.
But I personally don't agree with the set of parameter choices proposed here earlier for recording such data:
a) For 1 M Sample files the sample rate is low (50 MS/sec), so full bandwidth data are meaningless because of aliasing. Even 20 MHz data can have some aliasing depending on how steep the filter is.
b) Open input data to me are not that interesting or useful. It's sensitive to interference and only practically relevant example is when using 10X probe for weak signals, which is a bad combination.
When we did this exercise a few years ago (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-input-noise-comparison/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-input-noise-comparison/)) I suggested always taking data with 50 Ohm terminator on input and comparing 50 Ohm and 1 MOhm scope settings. This shows if the amplifier paths are different and is relevant when recording most relatively-low output impedance signals.
Also I suggested always using maximum scope sampling rate. Perhaps there is a middle ground where the files are ~10-30 Mbyte and still manageable but don't go to low frequency. For investigating low-frequency 1/f noise one could take data at 100 MS/sec with 20 MHz bandwidth filter.
-
There is some sense in also doing a test with reduced sampling rate, especially for scopes with limited memory. The way how the reduced sampling rate is realized may vary: they could have some kind of digital filtering befrore downsampling (so aliasing may not be an issue) or they may just skip samples for more noise and aliasing.
The 1 V/div range seems to use a divider of some 1:100 before the amplifier. This is often done with an additional resistor to get the same output impedance and this resistor does contribute to the noise. So the 1V/div range may not be the bet range to really judge about the ADC. Some of the ranges may well be limited by the amplifier (or divider) and not the ADC. This is not just the 1 mV/div and lower, were this is expected, but also other high ranges with a divider. For most test a shorter data section (e.g. 1/10 the points) should be sufficient - the low frequency noise is usually not that important.
-
There is some sense in also doing a test with reduced sampling rate, especially for scopes with limited memory. The way how the reduced sampling rate is realized may vary: they could have some kind of digital filtering befrore downsampling (so aliasing may not be an issue) or they may just skip samples for more noise and aliasing.
By definition a scope is supposed to have full bandwidth unless a low-pass filter is specifically selected or Eres is used. Aliasing is a useful feature that allows one to detect, for example, high-frequency oscillations where one might not expect them.
But I have been wondering why more scopes don't have an adjustable low-pass filter. Since many scopes now have software bandwidth limit and upgrade path, it seems one could turn it into an adjustable low-pass filter without much additional overhead.
-
But I have been wondering why more scopes don't have an adjustable low-pass filter. Since many scopes now have software bandwidth limit and upgrade path, it seems one could turn it into an adjustable low-pass filter without much additional overhead.
+1
This is one of the feature requests I put in on the RTB2k thread - even would be very useful to have a _discrete_ extra step or two of low-pass filter available to reduce noise etc when you need >20MHz but less than the scope's maximum. They already have it built in for the SW upgradeable bandwidth options, so all it would need is a few bits flipped in the software and some extra menu entries.
-
But I have been wondering why more scopes don't have an adjustable low-pass filter. Since many scopes now have software bandwidth limit and upgrade path, it seems one could turn it into an adjustable low-pass filter without much additional overhead.
+1
This is one of the feature requests I put in on the RTB2k thread - even would be very useful to have a _discrete_ extra step or two of low-pass filter available to reduce noise etc when you need >20MHz but less than the scope's maximum. They already have it built in for the SW upgradeable bandwidth options, so all it would need is a few bits flipped in the software and some extra menu entries.
IIRC the chips used to switch between bandwidth aren't continuously variable. From what I've seen you can select a few bandwidths and that's it.
-
I sniffed the bus going to the VGA/BW filter chip in my RTB2k and if I recall correctly it was in the highest bandwidth mode, i.e. higher than the scope was capable of (I think even when the 20MHz filter was enabled). The steps available didn't really match the BW options either, so it seemed like it was done in SW rather than on the front end.
In any case even the limited options available in the front end ICs used would be better than nothing!
-
Gentlemen, are you sure to want 200Mpts ?
One file is 2.2Gb :o
what is the practical benefit?
Maybe you remember the cardgame "Quartett" from your childhood? 8)
Hello,
please yes. With the maximum sampling rate, the devices can not dizzy. In addition, I plan to try out different smoothing methods with the data.
Best regards
egonotto
-
OK,
upload it in a couple of hours, say early afternoon..
-
But I have been wondering why more scopes don't have an adjustable low-pass filter. Since many scopes now have software bandwidth limit and upgrade path, it seems one could turn it into an adjustable low-pass filter without much additional overhead.
+1
This is one of the feature requests I put in on the RTB2k thread - even would be very useful to have a _discrete_ extra step or two of low-pass filter available to reduce noise etc when you need >20MHz but less than the scope's maximum. They already have it built in for the SW upgradeable bandwidth options, so all it would need is a few bits flipped in the software and some extra menu entries.
Higher end DSOs often do have more than the standard 20 MHz bandwidth limit. Even some old analog oscilloscopes have more than one.
-
Like rf_loop, sample stuffing is the first I have heard of such a term.
We called it Zero Filling back in 80!! Used in all sorts of DSP back then.
Best,
-
Like rf_loop, sample stuffing is the first I have heard of such a term.
We called it Zero Filling back in 80!! Used in all sorts of DSP back then.
Best,
Its used in just as much DSP today. People use various terms for it, but filling and stuffing are probably the commonest. Stuffing tends to be a more generic term for that kind of infill - e.g. bit stuffing in plesiochronous comms protocols.
-
This is one of the feature requests I put in on the RTB2k thread - even would be very useful to have a _discrete_ extra step or two of low-pass filter available to reduce noise etc when you need >20MHz but less than the scope's maximum. They already have it built in for the SW upgradeable bandwidth options, so all it would need is a few bits flipped in the software and some extra menu entries.
Most DSOs have a "hi-res" mode for that... :)
-
Here is a comparison of the noise for Martin72's SDS2000X HD and Rigol HDO4000. I would say each scope camp will have something good to point to and something to criticize.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1599370;image)
-
Here is a comparison of the noise for Martin72's SDS2000X HD and Rigol HDO4000. I would say each scope camp will have something good to point to and something to criticize.
Rigol wins!
Can't wait to see the results for the sub-$1000 model. :popcorn:
-
For comparison I also added the data I had for Lecroy HDO4032 scope ( https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-input-noise-comparison/msg1966586/#msg1966586 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/oscilloscope-input-noise-comparison/msg1966586/#msg1966586))
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1599403;image)
I don't have 1V/div data for HD Lecroy, would someone be able to contribute?
-
Like rf_loop, sample stuffing is the first I have heard of such a term.
We called it Zero Filling back in 80!! Used in all sorts of DSP back then.
Best,
Yess!
I don't know why one have to use all kinds of slang when there are available also "right" terms.
I too have been scammed by selling a chicken stuffed with small stones. :-DD
-
Hello,
maxwell3e10 wrote: "For comparison I also added the data I had for Lecroy HDO4032 scope"
It would be interesting to see the Lecroy HDO4032 with 1V/div, because here Lecroy HDO4032 should be very good.
Best regards
egonotto
-
I want to get a SDS2104x+, then I see these rigol 12bit models and the sds HD 12bit scopes. But they would cost over 2x as much, at least the Siglent would.
I'd love if the rigol are closer to 2k, than 3-5k
The HDO1000 series will start at $699, still 12bit, but doesn't have the 100uV-500uV software expanded ranges.
Different class of instrument Dave, you are comparing apples and oranges.
SDS2000X Plus is a 500 MHz design vs 200 MHz, it also has 2x 2GSa/s, 200 Mpts x2 mem depth, inbuilt AWG, MSO, 10x probe sense.....need I go on ? :-//
Yes, but MathWizard seems excited by the 12bit architecture, but it put off by the price. The HDO1000 series is going to get you 12bit capability from $699.
As always YMMV.
-
Rigol wins!
:-DD
Anyway...
I don't have 1V/div data for HD Lecroy, would someone be able to contribute?
Tomorrow at work, from a Lecroy HDO6034A ?
Btw, file format matters ? Bin. file, Mat.file.....
-
Why is there such a big difference between the two diagrams on the Rigol HD4000? I think the curve of the Rigol is very smooth in the second diagram.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1596241)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1599370;image)
-
Ok, I just noticed it myself.
-
I have asked the poster earlier , but I did not get the answer.
1. What is the sample rate?
2. Do you apply FFT for all 250Msamples or you use signal stacking tecniques
3. Do you apply any FFT window function -e.g. Hamming, Tukey, Blackman
The reason why I asking is that I want to make apple to apple comparison.
It suspected that Rigol and Siglent used at least different FFT size. Lecroy data shows even higher difference in fft parameters. It looks to me that lecroy data uses 7...10 lower fft size. Confirmation/Discofirmtion from poster wail help me to understand such differences.
-
Different class of instrument Dave, you are comparing apples and oranges.
SDS2000X Plus is a 500 MHz design vs 200 MHz, it also has 2x 2GSa/s, 200 Mpts x2 mem depth, inbuilt AWG, MSO, 10x probe sense.....need I go on ? :-//
Yes, but MathWizard seems excited by the 12bit architecture, but it put off by the price. The HDO1000 series is going to get you 12bit capability from $699.
Plus a huge touch screen, modern UI, etc.
All of which will have far more impact on daily use than 10x probe sense and a little bit more memory.
-
Gentlemen, are you sure to want 200Mpts ?
One file is 2.2Gb :o
what is the practical benefit?
Maybe you remember the cardgame "Quartett" from your childhood? 8)
Hello,
please yes. With the maximum sampling rate, the devices can not dizzy. In addition, I plan to try out different smoothing methods with the data.
Best regards
egonotto
Hi,
After recognizing that Bin. format was really small (appx 400M vs 2.3GB) in comparison (thx to maxwell), I´ll repeat all records from yesterday in the later afternoon and upload it.
Meanwhile something to play for:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hoIWdt6K9MwJI5_JtyPjtvrhNytx3rWA?usp=sharing
1mV 50R and FULL bandwith, then 1V and full bandwith.
Settings:
2GSa/s, 200Mpt, Full BW (500Mhz), 10ms/div.
-
Why is there such a big difference between the two diagrams on the Rigol HD4000? I think the curve of the Rigol is very smooth in the second diagram.
I agree. Something looks off here.
-
Why is there such a big difference between the two diagrams on the Rigol HD4000? I think the curve of the Rigol is very smooth in the second diagram.
I agree. Something looks off here.
The "noise" on the noise spectral density is just a function of data length and chosen frequency resolution. The same file can be analyzed to get smoother plot at high frequency or "noisier" plot that goes to lower frequency. You can see that I combined two different settings in the original plot. For comparison to Siglent I used even coarser frequency resolution for Rigol to match the frequency range of Siglent while still using all the 250M of Rigol's data. For Lecroy the file I have is only 100k points, that is why it has even more fluctuations.
The general property of the noise spectral density is that the average level does not depend on the number of points, sampling rate (if no aliasing) or on the frequency resolution. This is not the case with FFT power spectrum since the noise power in each bin depends on the width of the bin. On the other hand when looking at discrete peaks, it is better to use power spectrum.
I have asked the poster earlier , but I did not get the answer.
1. What is the sample rate?
2. Do you apply FFT for all 250Msamples or you use signal stacking tecniques
3. Do you apply any FFT window function -e.g. Hamming, Tukey, Blackman
The sampling rate can be found as twice the maximum frequency for each curve, I did not cut off the edge of the plot.
I mentioned that I used pwelch that breaks data into overlapping segments, and then averages resulting FFTs
The default window in pwelch is Hamming. It does not matter what is used because there are no strong peaks, I also checked rectangular window and Kaiser window. I subtract the mean to eliminate the spectral leakage from DC offset.
-
So...
All files now in bin and here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/131Emjp_wYU-4GgpRH-F4gD1O9Wdr1GKu?usp=sharing
Martin
-
Here is a graph with the same settings for the HDO and SDS. But I only used the first megabyte from the HDO data, my PC can't handle the whole 250 MSamples. Attached also my Matlab code.
Peter
Thanks to sharing. Great job. Explanation, together with source code make the picture complete
-
I have asked the poster earlier , but I did not get the answer.
1. What is the sample rate?
2. Do you apply FFT for all 250Msamples or you use signal stacking tecniques
3. Do you apply any FFT window function -e.g. Hamming, Tukey, Blackman
The sampling rate can be found as twice the maximum frequency for each curve, I did not cut off the edge of the plot.
I mentioned that I used pwelch that breaks data into overlapping segments, and then averages resulting FFTs
The default window in pwelch is Hamming. It does not matter what is used because there are no strong peaks, I also checked rectangular window and Kaiser window. I subtract the mean to eliminate the spectral leakage from DC offset.
Thanks for the fast answer.
I think that the best way is to provide the source code as PeDre did few posts earlier.
I still dont know what is sown in your graphs
- What is the data size /total number of processed samples/ used in every scope?
- What is FFT length used by pwelch method?
- Did you use overlapping in pwelch methog? If yes how much
- how did you make coarser the frequency resolution for Rigol ?
-
Here is a graph with the same settings for the HDO and SDS. But I only used the first megabyte from the HDO data, my PC can't handle the whole 250 MSamples. Attached also my Matlab code.
Peter
Edit: The labeling is wrong, the SDS data also has a bandwidth of 200 MHz.
Could you provide me with the matlab code used?
I might be able to run it on the full lenght data and send you the results.
-
Hi,
LeCroy HDO6034A waveform files:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BCH2zIp6f3t7KPxH5UuOqc3yRbgkhu44?usp=sharing
Files ending with trc (for trace), just remane them in bin - If this don´t work, I´ll choose another format tomorrow.
Pic shows "byte" as sub-format, these files have "word" as sub-format ("byte" I also got here).
Settings: 10GSa/s, 50Mpts.
-
I can read the data, but I am not sure what the vertical scaling is. If I read raw 16 bit numbers for the file 1V_50R_200Mhz.trc, their standard deviation is 6724 counts and their mean is -1515 counts. This should be scaled so it matches to the standard deviation and average reported by the scope. If possible, turn on full-waveform math.
-
If possible, turn on full-waveform math.
What do you mean with this ?
-
Some scopes calculate statistics based on reduced dataset to speed it up, can be anywhere from 1k to 1M points. I think a fancy scope would have an option to calculate statistics (like mean and std) on the whole datasets. But it's not a big deal, since std and mean should be roughly the same for a fraction of the dataset.
-
For me the filelength seems with appx 100Mb plausible, as the Memory is set to its maximum of 50Mpts.
But I can dive deeper in the menus of the HDO tomorrow..
-
The problem is not the file length, but vertical scaling. Without it there is no way to calculate the spectrum. One has to compare statistics on scope and in the file. Or you can record a real signal and measure its p-p value to compare with saved data. Or one can go through the documentation, it would specify the scaling or the format of the heater in the beginning of the binary file.
-
Hi,
LeCroy HDO6034A waveform files:
Settings: 10GSa/s, 50Mpts.
Hello,
thank you. There is a function for Matlab (to download) ReadLeCroyBinaryWaveform with the help of which you can read the files.
The files are 50000002 words long.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Well, this is a good example why RMS noise numbers don't tell the whole story. On the surface Lecroy HDO has 3 times less RMS noise for 1V/div scale and full bandwidth than Rigol (3mV vs 9 mV). But in reality, it is worse in many ways:
Much worse 1/f noise
More spurious noise peaks
Insufficiently steep 20 MHz low-pass filter on 1V/div scale
Brick wall 1 GHz filter - I can see why it would be there since these models go up to 1 GHz, but it means that claimed 10GS/sec speed is totally useless, just takes disk space.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1600960;image)
So Rigol is looking pretty good compared to a nearly 10 times more expensive scope! They could still make it better if they implemented an additional sharp 200 MHz (or adjustable) digital filter.
-
Some scopes calculate statistics based on reduced dataset to speed it up, can be anywhere from 1k to 1M points. I think a fancy scope would have an option to calculate statistics (like mean and std) on the whole datasets. But it's not a big deal, since std and mean should be roughly the same for a fraction of the dataset.
Lecroys calculate on full data set by default.
-
I have contacted with batronix and the can´t sell the HDO1000 series. Rigol don´t allow them to do it because they sell siglent scopes too. A really dirty behavior from Rigol, a shame of company.
-
I have contacted with batronix and the can´t sell the HDO1000 series. Rigol don´t allow them to do it because they sell siglent scopes too. A really dirty behavior from Rigol, a shame of company.
By email? What exactly did they say? Can you post the email here?
-
I have contacted with batronix and the can´t sell the HDO1000 series. Rigol don´t allow them to do it because they sell siglent scopes too. A really dirty behavior from Rigol, a shame of company.
By email? What exactly did they say? Can you post the email here?
And the point you wanna make is ? :-//
Manufacturers or resellers have every right to dictate who/what brands they sell.
-
I have contacted with batronix and the can´t sell the HDO1000 series. Rigol don´t allow them to do it because they sell siglent scopes too. A really dirty behavior from Rigol, a shame of company.
That is well within their rights but sounds weird.
What would they (Rigol) gain by it?
-
And the point you wanna make is ? :-//
None. I just wanted to see the exact wording.
Batronix sells a lot of Rigol 'scopes, including the HDO4000.
https://www.batronix.com/shop/rigol/HDO4000.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/rigol/HDO4000.html)
It's weird that they'd single out the HDO1000 for special treatment, especially as it's going to be a Siglent killer (assuming it performs anything like the HDO4000).
-
And the point you wanna make is ? :-//
None. I just wanted to see the exact wording.
Batronix sells a lot of Rigol 'scopes, including the HDO4000.
https://www.batronix.com/shop/rigol/HDO4000.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/rigol/HDO4000.html)
It's weird that they'd single out the HDO1000 for special treatment, especially as it's going to be a Siglent killer (assuming it performs anything like the HDO4000).
There’s 5 Rigol authorised resellers in Germany so if we are to believe ojete’s claim which other of those sellers that also sell other brands have also been forbid access to HDO1k ? :popcorn:
-
I contacted by email:
Hi,
thank you for your enquiry. We are distributor for Rigol AND Siglent. Therefore Rigol doesn`t allow us to sell the HDO series as long we are also working with Siglent. I am very sorry for no better news.
Phillip von Würzen
and my second email:
You are selling now the HDO4000 series. I think you mean the HDO1000 only. Is this right?
reply:
Hi,
correct. We are allowed to sell HDO4000 but not HDO1000.
Phillip von Würzen
I was very surprised of this, I'm interested in buying the HDO1000 but I don't like this kind of things from any company. For me this is a dirty trick and yes, Rigol can do whatever they want and choose the resellers they want and dictate them everything they want.
-
... I don't like this kind of things from any company. For me this is a dirty trick ...
For your own sake of sanity , and also your principal and pride, you should avoid Rigol like a disease, problem solved.
-
I checked Batterfly and they only have the HDO4000.
rigolshop.eu has both but the HDO1000 says "over one month" for delivery:
https://rigolshop.eu/hdo1074.html
I was under the impression the HDO1000 wasn't available yet, that's why it wasn't on those sites.
Edit: Does anybody know of a place that has them in stock? Tequipment isn't listing them.
-
correct. We are allowed to sell HDO4000 but not HDO1000.
Makes no sense to me. It's not as if Batronix are going to stop selling Siglents.
If Rigol only want to sell them via rigolshop.eu then they could just do that without mentioning Siglent.
:-//
-
Conrad Electronic have listed the "Killer", but only for commercial customers, not for privates.
-
Makes no sense to me. It's not as if Batronix are going to stop selling Siglents.
If Rigol only want to sell them via rigolshop.eu then they could just do that without mentioning Siglent.
:-//
Understand your questions but there may be plenty of reasons. One of them: margins.
-
If Rigol only want to sell them via rigolshop.eu then they could just do that without mentioning Siglent.
Understand your questions but there may be plenty of reasons. One of them: margins.
Yes, but why bring Siglent into it?
-
Here is a histogram of the 1 mV/div data. The data from the Rigol HDO looks different. Which effect can this be?
Peter
This is differential non-linearity, called DNL.
Less than -1LSB means non-monotonic and more than +1LSB mean missing code.
-
Here is a histogram of the 1 mV/div data. The data from the Rigol HDO looks different. Which effect can this be?
Peter
Weird histogram, like rf-design says, can be some kind of nonlinearity..
Looking at it, it looks that parallel ADCs are either not calibrated or they don't contribute to the noise equally. You can see interlacing of several converters there..
A clean sinewave should be applied to scope and histogram of that should be taken.
If that one shows same grouping then ADC calibration is not right..
And that indeed would make this ADC non-monotonic and having not so good INL and DNL..
If sinewave shows better behaving histogram, then noise contribution of separate ADCs is not uniform, which would have no direct implication to performance, except weird noise distribution...
-
Conrad Electronic have listed the "Killer", but only for commercial customers, not for privates.
Also the HDO4000....Mysterious thing.
Nevertheless, the prices for the HDO 1000 there, incl. VAT:
HDO1072 831.81€
HDO1102 1188.81€
HDO1202 1664.81€
HDO1074 1188.81€
HDO1104 1664.81€
HDO1204 2021.81€
2-Ch models I think no one wants to have in this days(you can´t grade them up to 4), so only 4-ch are interesting.
The nearest scope model to compare would be one of their own, the MSO5000.
Actually you can get the 5074 with optionbundle included for only 950€ incl. VAT (Batronix).
If you don´t need low noise measurement capability you would take this one instead.
Pros of the new hdo are 12 bit of course and the (here proofed) very low noise, maybe additional the 1" bigger display.
But the rest goes to the MSO5074 including MSO functionality, max samplerate, max memory, max bandwith, internal 2-ch awg, bode plot and so on.
For me the case would be clear, I would take the hdo regardless of it´s limitations.
Having true 12 bits is sexier than 8. 8)
-
In the US the HDO1000 are less expensive, HDO1072 $699.
The MSO5074 is on sale for $799.
https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/hdo1000/ (https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/hdo1000/)
[attach=1]
https://www.globaltestsupply.com/product/rigol-hdo1072-digital-oscilloscope (https://www.globaltestsupply.com/product/rigol-hdo1072-digital-oscilloscope)
[attach=2]
-
I contacted by email:
Hi,
thank you for your enquiry. We are distributor for Rigol AND Siglent. Therefore Rigol doesn`t allow us to sell the HDO series as long we are also working with Siglent. I am very sorry for no better news.
Phillip von Würzen
and my second email:
You are selling now the HDO4000 series. I think you mean the HDO1000 only. Is this right?
reply:
Hi,
correct. We are allowed to sell HDO4000 but not HDO1000.
Phillip von Würzen
I was very surprised of this, I'm interested in buying the HDO1000 but I don't like this kind of things from any company. For me this is a dirty trick and yes, Rigol can do whatever they want and choose the resellers they want and dictate them everything they want.
Try Brymen!
They will not allow me to sell any meter that is available from another (and only?) Australian dealer Cabac. They literally have the create entirely new models for me.
Same in other countries, this is why Brymens are hard to get in some contries. It's nuts.
-
Front end ;D
-
Fashionable Dave.
1mv, 50ohm, 20M BW, 100M point, 5ms.
1M point fft, 50Ms/s, 0~20M span.
In a similar setting to the above
I want to see the fft screen of hdo4000 for us.
Thank you always. ^______^
-
The front end has a few confusing details:
there are 2, maybe 3 pi type attenuators, but there are no visible compensation capacitors for these.
I somewhat miss a relatively high power 50 ohms resistor for the termination.
The histogram looks indeed strange. With a regular pattern that repeats after 5 steps this looks more like an effect of rounding and numerical scaling than an effect of interleaving multiple ADCs or some bit value errors, as these would more like repeat after 4 or 8 codes. The higher peaks also look quite exact at 2 x the hight compared to the others. So this could be from some 13 -> 12 Bit reduction in internal resolution.
It this is a scaling effect it may well change (different pattern) whent changing the range.
-
I somewhat miss a relatively high power 50 ohms resistor for the termination.
It's the 45A just above the bottom relay, and the 50ohm path is the one on the left.
Yeah, it's wimpy.
And seems like they get hot. The front end ASIC and the new Centaur ADC ASIC are under a massive cast heatsink.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Jl0rMRGSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1Jl0rMRGSg)
-
So the thing most worth seeing inside is ... that there's really not much to see. Even an advanced Oscilloscope like this has been reduced to less than a dozen chips on a PCB and a minimal amount of discrete components.
PS: The bird on the PCB looks like a puffin to me. I wonder where the centaur went.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1602331;image)
https://www.google.com/search?q=puffin&tbm=isch (https://www.google.com/search?q=puffin&tbm=isch)
-
This would be probably the last what me interest in a teardown...
-
So the thing most worth seeing inside is ... that there's really not much to see. Even an advanced Oscilloscope like this has been reduced to less than a dozen chips on a PCB and a minimal amount of small components.
Sadly, yep. Although that's that good for prices I guess.
PS: The bird on the PCB looks like a puffin to me. I wonder where the centaur went.
Depending on where oyu look it's also called Centaurus
-
The front end chips are coolded by the large heat sink, but this does not mean they actually produce much heat. It is one shared heat sink, that also does the shielding.
For the ADCs it makes sense that they have 4 inputs, so they can use them with a cheaper 4 channel scope.
Why they are using 2 paths to the front ends is still odd. For a single signal this does not make much sense, except maybe as a dealy for interleaving 2 ADCs.
From the resistor values in the attenuators both of the 2 paths visible on the left side are for the 50 ohms input, just with different attenuation. The resistors are too low to be of much use in the 1 M input path.
The termination may be shared from multiple resistors, including the attenuators.
The active probe PCB may be shared with other scopes (or at least planed to do so). To really make use of very low noise also for the higher frequencies an active probe really helps as can get away with less than a 1:10 divider at the input.
-
So the thing most worth seeing inside is ... that there's really not much to see.
Sadly, yep.
Why sad? No mechanical marvels or little riser boards to pull out?
-
For the ADCs it makes sense that they have 4 inputs, so they can use them with a cheaper 4 channel scope.
Why they are using 2 paths to the front ends is still odd. For a single signal this does not make much sense, except maybe as a dealy for interleaving 2 ADCs.
The 50ohm path provides 800Mhz bandwidth vs 500MHz for the 1M path.
-
Ah ok so they HDO4000 is $3600 or whatever, but there is the HDO1000, starting at $700. I missed that in Dave's video, I thought 12-bit resolution was out of my price range but it's not.
I was going to get a SDS2104Xplus next spring and hack it to max BW. So I look forward to the reviews and any hacking of the HDO1000's.
If I want higher BW and 12-bit, I think getting both scopes would still be cheaper than the HDO4000 or Siglent 12bit scopes, and 2x the channels
-
So the HDO1204 is listed as $1700, about 1/2 the price of the SDS2104X HD. Besides the Rigol has lower waveforms/s and less memory, whats the difference ? Looks like I'll be getting a Rigol
-
Maybe the most difference is that Rigol HDO1000 and HDO4000 doesn't have logic analyzer.
-
So the HDO1000 series only goes down to 500uV/div ? I expected from Dave's video they went to 100uV/div like the hdo4000. My sds1104 can do 500uV/div on some settings.
IDK, it's not like I new a better scope, but I don't want to be missing any uV's or ns 's, so I want a faster, higher resolution one, or 2.
-
Besides the Rigol has lower waveforms/s and less memory, whats the difference ?
- 50 Ohms Input
- Input sense
- 2Mpt FFT (HDO4000 didn´t got also)
- AWG (HDO4000 didn´t got also)
- Bodeplot(HDO4000 didn´t got also)
- MSO (HDO4000 didn´t got also)
- Math formular editor (HDO4000 didn´t got also)
- Free chooseable channel colours (HDO4000 didn´t got also)
- Bandwith up to 500Mhz
- Minimum samplerate 1GSa/s (HDO1000: 500MSa/s)
- Really silent, pwm controlled fan
- "Pro" building quality in general
And so on, and so on.
HDO1000 is not really compareable to the HD from siglent.
Except 12bit and low noise, the rigol mso5000 would be "better", if you can live with 9" instead of 10" screen.
But:
Apart from this, the HDO1000 would be surely the cheapest true 12 bit scope ever released.
-
Apart from this, the HDO1000 would be surely the cheapest true 12 bit scope ever released.
Owon had 12-bit scopes for a long time, the cheapest now XDS2102A is under $400 for 2 channel. They are true 12 bit with 500MS/sec maximum sampling rate. When Dave gets data from HDO1000, we'll see how they compare.
-
OK, I forgot Owon..
But for 400 bucks, is it really worth to compare..
-
The Rigol HDO that is head-to-head with the Siglent SDS2000X HD is the 4000 model. Interesting times. :box:
The HDO 1000 doesn't compare with the Siglent.
Time will tell which is the preference of the users (between the first 2) but Rigol starts with a more competitive price. I bet Siglent will end up lowering their new flagship price a little.
-
Ah ok so they HDO4000 is $3600 or whatever, but there is the HDO1000, starting at $700. I missed that in Dave's video, I thought 12-bit resolution was out of my price range but it's not.
I was going to get a SDS2104Xplus next spring and hack it to max BW. So I look forward to the reviews and any hacking of the HDO1000's.
If I want higher BW and 12-bit, I think getting both scopes would still be cheaper than the HDO4000 or Siglent 12bit scopes, and 2x the channels
Just first check which is a 500 MHz design. ;)
-
I bet Siglent will end up lowering their new flagship price a little.
Grr.... ;)
-
Just first check which is a 500 MHz design. ;)
Then check which one has 800Mhz option.
-
The HDO1024 is on the DHL truck somewhere in China
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muMjiao5i0k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muMjiao5i0k)
-
Some of those of the shelf power bricks are really cheap - more like saving by using a series part, if they can get away with the performance (EMI).
With only a single 12 V voltage it is easy to get a standard part. Many other scopes get more voltages, like +-12 and +5 or 3.3 V from the supply and there it gets more tricky to find a suitable part.
The supply still looks like it is a simple one, without extra power factor correction.
I don't consider the common more choke a good one - more like a bit boarderline with creapage distances to the core.
Safty wise is looks like a well isolated one (Class 2 or similar) though it is used with ground connected to the seconday (the BNC inputs and case).
-
Single +12V supply may be something to do with the ability for battery power?
Best,
-
For the ADCs it makes sense that they have 4 inputs, so they can use them with a cheaper 4 channel scope.
Why they are using 2 paths to the front ends is still odd. For a single signal this does not make much sense, except maybe as a dealy for interleaving 2 ADCs.
The 50ohm path provides 800Mhz bandwidth vs 500MHz for the 1M path.
It is very difficult to provide faster than 500 MHz bandwidth with a 1 megohm input. Tektronix and I think Keysight has managed it, but it requires an exotic transistor for the input buffer, and is of questionable utility.
The figure of merit for a transistor in this application is frequency = Gm/(2 Pi C), so it requires low capacitance and high transconductance.
-
Single +12V supply may be something to do with the ability for battery power?
Yes, if youwere designing a scope for battery operation then you wouldn't want to dick around with multiple supplies form the PSU, you just want a single voltage to switch and match.
All other regulation gets shunted to the main board.
If you don't need battery supply then you can likely save some cost by shunting 5V and maybe 3.3V regulation off to the main PSU.
-
@tv84 I haven't read this whole thread yet (will do now!) but anything we can get excited about again? :p
-
@tv84 I haven't read this whole thread yet (will do now!) but anything we can get excited about again? :p
Yes.
-
Yes ?
-
@tv84 I haven't read this whole thread yet (will do now!) but anything we can get excited about again? :p
;D When you get yours, we can play a little in the Android world.
Yes ?
:D
-
Single +12V supply may be something to do with the ability for battery power?
Yes, if youwere designing a scope for battery operation then you wouldn't want to dick around with multiple supplies form the PSU, you just want a single voltage to switch and match.
All other regulation gets shunted to the main board.
If you don't need battery supply then you can likely save some cost by shunting 5V and maybe 3.3V regulation off to the main PSU.
Single output voltage power supplies for computing devices are becoming more common even without support for operation from a battery, like the Intel ATX12VO standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATX#ATX12VO). In many cases tolerance requirements of the low voltage power supplies requires regulation at the point-of-load, so there is no reason not to use a single higher voltage main supply for better efficiency, and with all of the demand for point-of-load ASICs and parts, costs have come down making this an economical solution.
-
Dave! you could check on the HDO1000 when you get it, FFT capabilities ?
-
Yes.
Yes ?
Ah, but you see, this is a different kind of excitement :)
@tv84 I haven't read this whole thread yet (will do now!) but anything we can get excited about again? :p
;D When you get yours, we can play a little in the Android world.
I saw that its based on android, no more complex FPGA inside of the SoC and no more FPGA to do SPI routing. Didn't see the 'finger' port though, but I know these android SoC's tend to support USB boot mode. And since it is Android based, those two buttons @eevblog found on the PCB, are likely the reset and 'wake'/'ok' button, usually used for various things a phone needs those for, but also to trigger 'recovery mode' most likely :)
Starting post on hacking these things :) but nothing concrete yet obviously: p https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4446907/#msg4446907 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4446907/#msg4446907) (dave didn't even give us a serial bootlog!! :p)
Dave never did a teardown of an MSO8000 or the DS70000 (those extra zero's are on the MAX, so not the DS7000) did he? I wonder if that DS70000 uses the same architecture, with an android/Rockchip in place. We know the MSO8000 is based on a 64bit zynq-mp. I bet that front-panel PCB is the same as the MSO8000/DS7000/DS70000 though; reuse where you can, and since they want to re-use their probes, this makes of course a lot of sense there.
From a spec pov, we also know that the MSO5000/MSO8000 certainly differ in hardware and capabilities, as did the DS7000. So hacking an MSO5000 to a DS7000 was never possible, e.g. MSO5000 had 350Mhz max bandwith, the DS7000 500Mhz, 8GSa/s vs 10GSa/s etc. Likewise we see that the HDO1000 is lower spec (2GSa/s max vs 2GSa/s) Memory is also different (less chips, less cost obviously). So unlocking will be a thing, but only to enable the 'top spec' in range, not to make an HDO1000 into a HDO4000.
With this in mind, as mentioned before, yes, 12bit ADC, low noise; but the MSO5000 (especially unlocked/max spec) still beats the HDO4000, IF you do not need 12 bit precision.
Btw, anybody notice this (rigolna, so vendor pricing probably is even lower) 799 for the 4 chan variant, 909 for the 2 chan variant? lol! (did we ever see the PCB of a 2 chan variant btw? is it identical with just some chips missing?
-
For the ADCs it makes sense that they have 4 inputs, so they can use them with a cheaper 4 channel scope.
Why they are using 2 paths to the front ends is still odd. For a single signal this does not make much sense, except maybe as a dealy for interleaving 2 ADCs.
The 50ohm path provides 800Mhz bandwidth vs 500MHz for the 1M path.
You can study the faster Tektronix 7000 series oscilloscopes from the 1980s to get an idea of what is required to merge two 500+ MHz paths back into one. Rigol is essentially doing this on the ADC itself which makes a lot of sense. Tektronix usually but not always did it outside of the ICs on their 500 MHz and slower oscilloscopes, and used a very custom IC to combine two channels above 500 MHz.
I always find it fascinating that oscilloscopes of the past were implementing analog multiplexing, and addition and subtraction, to 100s of MHz with discrete parts, yet even now that is not a trivial problem. It has actually become more difficult because so many fast high performance transistors are no longer available.
-
HDO1000 series 50ohm terminated. No internal 50ohm, but it says that on the front panel, LOL!
-
HDO1000 series 50ohm terminated 1M point, 1ms, 500uV/1mV/1V
-
HDO1000 series 50ohm terminated. No internal 50ohm, but it says that on the front panel, LOL!
Dave, could you please confirm that is HDO1024? Nominal scope BW of 200MHz ?
Yeah, stupid me, it is in a screen shot.. Sorry and thanks anyways !
-
Screenshots overlay says HDO1204
-
Screenshots overlay says HDO1204
|O
I didn't register it... I need more coffee...
Thanks!!
-
HDO1000 series 50ohm terminated. No internal 50ohm, but it says that on the front panel, LOL!
So... it's awesome, but about 3x worse than the HD4000. :popcorn:
I wonder where the difference is between the two. Is it internal vs. external 50 Ohm?
(or maybe it's done on purpose to sell more HD4000s >:D )
-
So the question is: How long before we see a new 2000 series with AWG, digital logic and this front end?
I guess they'll need some time to implement all the other stuff on the new Android OS.
PS: I just noticed this on their web site - a 3D view to show the captured waveforms over time. Replay them in 3D? Scroll through them to find the runts...?
(https://rigolshop.eu/pub/media/wysiwyg/product_pic/hdo1000/feature/UltraAcquire.png)
-
PS: I just noticed this on their web site - a 3D view to show the captured waveforms over time. Replay them in 3D? Scroll through them to find the runts...?
(https://rigolshop.eu/pub/media/wysiwyg/product_pic/hdo1000/feature/UltraAcquire.png)
No you cannot do anything with it. Not even measurement can be enabled in that mode according to manual.. That is only visual mode..
-
HDO1000 series 50ohm terminated 1M point, 1ms, 500uV/1mV/1V
All files in the archive have .bin extension. Is it mistake?
RigolHDO1000-50ohm-1ms-1M-1V.bin
RigolHDO1000-50ohm-1ms-1M-1mV.bin
RigolHDO1000-50ohm-1ms-1M-500uV.bin
-
Dave, thanks, but I think this is without 20 MHz filter, so 50 MS/sec sample rate will get a lot of aliasing. Can you take data at full sample rate?
-
It looks a lot like th 20 MHz BW filter is just a digital / software thing (rather steep initial drop and than stop band ripple) . Chances are a reduces sampling rate could as well go along with appropriate digital filtering. Chances are high the ADC would still run at it's maximum rate and the data are decimated in some way. The question is how the data rate is reduced. Especially with a low noise design it absolutely makes sense to have more than just sample skipping.
Besides the nose it many interresting to check if aliasing happens. A possible test would be with a test signal (e.g. 40 MHz) that would cause aliasing if no extra measures are taken when the data rate is reduced.
One may see some aliasing and higher noise when the actual sampling rate is reduced because more input channels are used.
-
HDO1000 series 50ohm terminated. No internal 50ohm, but it says that on the front panel, LOL!
Damn, you´re right... :-DD
A teardown could show if there is a preparation for it in the layout...
-
So... it's awesome, but about 3x worse than the HD4000. :popcorn:
I wonder where the difference is between the two. Is it internal vs. external 50 Ohm?
The HDO1000 won't have a 50ohm path, so I need to compare both on the 1M path with external 50ohm. Will do that today.
-
I guess they'll need some time to implement all the other stuff on the new Android OS.
Let´s hope so.
In the last years since I got my first rigol it seems to me that they´re leaving their models "unfinished" and hurrying to their next project.
PS: I just noticed this on their web site - a 3D view to show the captured waveforms over time. Replay them in 3D? Scroll through them to find the runts...?
Some of our newer lecroys got this too, I could have a look what else you can do with it except it´s looking cool... ;)
-
PS: I just noticed this on their web site - a 3D view to show the captured waveforms over time. Replay them in 3D? Scroll through them to find the runts...?
Some of our newer lecroys got this too, I could have a look what else you can do with it except it´s looking cool... ;)
Define new... The Lecroy Wavepro 7k I have can already create a 3D view of a signal. I can't imagine a use for it but no doubt Lecroy has a video that shows how and why a 3D view can be useful.
-
We got Waverunners and HDOs with this "function", ordered 2019 therefore "newer".
(In comparison with our other waverunners they´re bloody young..)
-
FYI R&S have offered an MXO4 series, who wants to see inside it?
-
Confirmed, HDO1000 noise is the same as HDO4000 noise on 1mV (17uV) and 1V ranges.
-
It looks a lot like th 20 MHz BW filter is just a digital / software thing (rather steep initial drop and than stop band ripple) . Chances are a reduces sampling rate could as well go along with appropriate digital filtering. Chances are high the ADC would still run at it's maximum rate and the data are decimated in some way. The question is how the data rate is reduced. Especially with a low noise design it absolutely makes sense to have more than just sample skipping.
Besides the nose it many interresting to check if aliasing happens. A possible test would be with a test signal (e.g. 40 MHz) that would cause aliasing if no extra measures are taken when the data rate is reduced.
One may see some aliasing and higher noise when the actual sampling rate is reduced because more input channels are used.
40MHz input wiht 20MHz bandwidth limit just shows a reduced amplitude 40MHz signal.
No anti-aliasing though as a 10MHz input will show (and measure) 1Hz if you slow the timebase down enough.
For funsies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0HQJIPcDYs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0HQJIPcDYs)
-
40MHz input wiht 20MHz bandwidth limit just shows a reduced amplitude 40MHz signal.
No anti-aliasing though as a 10MHz input will show (and measure) 1Hz if you slow the timebase down enough.
The filter has to be done in hardware. It would break all sorts of things if it was in software.
-
40MHz input wiht 20MHz bandwidth limit just shows a reduced amplitude 40MHz signal.
No anti-aliasing though as a 10MHz input will show (and measure) 1Hz if you slow the timebase down enough.
The filter has to be done in hardware. It would break all sorts of things if it was in software.
It has to be done in hardware for it to be useful. If the goal is simply to have a 20MHz mode for compliance with a customer's requirements list, well any old garbage will do.
-
40MHz input wiht 20MHz bandwidth limit just shows a reduced amplitude 40MHz signal.
No anti-aliasing though as a 10MHz input will show (and measure) 1Hz if you slow the timebase down enough.
The filter has to be done in hardware. It would break all sorts of things if it was in software.
One needs some anti aliasing filter in hardware. However this does not have to follow a reduced data rate or the standard 20 MHz. Only aliasing for actual sampling rate of the ADC is to be avoided. The actual conversion rate of the ADC and the number of samples stored don't have to be the same. It is well possible to keep the ADC running at the nominal speed (e.g. 2/4 GSps) and do the filtering to avoid aliasing from a lower data rate digitally on the high speed data together with decimation. This does need quite some computational power however (could be part of the ADC chip or in the main FPGA). So it is not clear if and when this is used. Some scopes offer this as averaging over consecutive samples as extended resolution mode. So it could depend on how the reduced data rate (shown as samples per second) is set. There may be a mode with aliasing and a different setting without aliasing.
If they incluse digital filtering, they could as well also use it for the 20 MHz and maybe the limited BW versions.
-
For reference, here is what the noise spectrum looks like using Dave's 50MS/sec data. It's about a factor of 3 higher than it should be because of aliasing from 10 times larger bandwidth. For HDO4000 data taken at 50M/sec but with 20 MHz bandwidth had approximately correct noise level, which indicates that filtering is done properly.
-
What about the "enormous" peaks between 10khz and 100khz, where did they come from ?
-
What about the "enormous" peaks between 10khz and 100khz, where did they come from ?
Anywhere from n*25MHz
-
40MHz input wiht 20MHz bandwidth limit just shows a reduced amplitude 40MHz signal.
No anti-aliasing though as a 10MHz input will show (and measure) 1Hz if you slow the timebase down enough.
The filter has to be done in hardware. It would break all sorts of things if it was in software.
It has to be done in hardware for it to be useful. If the goal is simply to have a 20MHz mode for compliance with a customer's requirements list, well any old garbage will do.
Are you serious? A hardware low pass filter is incredibly cheap to do - it's just a capacitor (plus a MOSFET to connect it to the input).
-
40MHz input wiht 20MHz bandwidth limit just shows a reduced amplitude 40MHz signal.
No anti-aliasing though as a 10MHz input will show (and measure) 1Hz if you slow the timebase down enough.
The filter has to be done in hardware. It would break all sorts of things if it was in software.
One needs some anti aliasing filter in hardware. However this does not have to follow a reduced data rate or the standard 20 MHz. Only aliasing for actual sampling rate of the ADC is to be avoided. The actual conversion rate of the ADC and the number of samples stored don't have to be the same. It is well possible to keep the ADC running at the nominal speed (e.g. 2/4 GSps) and do the filtering to avoid aliasing from a lower data rate digitally on the high speed data together with decimation. This does need quite some computational power however (could be part of the ADC chip or in the main FPGA). So it is not clear if and when this is used. Some scopes offer this as averaging over consecutive samples as extended resolution mode. So it could depend on how the reduced data rate (shown as samples per second) is set. There may be a mode with aliasing and a different setting without aliasing.
If they incluse digital filtering, they could as well also use it for the 20 MHz and maybe the limited BW versions.
Tektronix does it that way on their older DSOs and MSOs. The bandwidth limit function includes both hardware and DSP options, and they perform slightly differently. As far as I know the software bandwidth limiting occurs during decimation so the digitizers always runs at full speed, which is normal for all DSOs. Filtering before decimation in real time requires considerable hardware computing resources, but that is getting cheaper all the time.
Doing the filtering in DSP before decimation is a variation of "high resolution" mode available on many DSOs. High resolution mode is just boxcar averaging which is trivial to implement with shifts and adds at high speed, but makes for a poorly performing filter. A finite impulse response (FIR) bandwidth filter requires multiply-accumulate. Individual multipliers are not usually fast enough even now, but a parallel implementation of a FIR filter solves this.
-
Looking at Dave's hdo1000 video, it shows 2Gs/s when it's a single channel.
The data sheet was announced as 1Gs/s.
Did Dave upgrade it?
-
Looking at Dave's hdo1000 video, it shows 2Gs/s when it's a single channel.
The data sheet was announced as 1Gs/s.
Did Dave upgrade it?
Nope, out of the box, and on the label.
-
Looking at Dave's hdo1000 video, it shows 2Gs/s when it's a single channel.
The data sheet was announced as 1Gs/s.
Did Dave upgrade it?
Nope, out of the box, and on the label.
Oh~. I looked at the datasheet again and it changed.
Obviously, it was written as 1Gs/s - single channel.
It is now 2Gs/s - single channel.
Thank you.
-
Looking at Dave's hdo1000 video...
Did Dave do the HDO1000?
-
Looking at Dave's hdo1000 video...
Did Dave do the HDO1000?
Only partially shot. Small snippet made it onto the 2nd channel.
-
I guess the 2Gs/s upgrade is extra bonus for initial release.
-
It' would be really stupid to sell the first ones with 2Gs/s and then go down to 1Gs/s.
I think they wanted to sell a scope not "too good" and if you want more buy the HDO4000 and spend your money.
Maybe they saw the reaction of the people and realize that 1Gs/s is too low... or maybe the sales were not as good as they expected.
-
From the hacking thread (we should leave it on topic):
Just did the HDO1000 teardown, and :o
It's EXACTLY the same PCB as the HDO4000, minus one ADC!
Yes, that means full 800MHz front end with 50ohm even though the software doesn't support it.
Absolutely minor production changes, but it's clear they intend to use idenitical boards and parts. The profit margin on the HDO4000 must be really something.
So in theory you could get a 4CH 800MHz bandwidth 12bit 2GS/s scope for US$999
As I´ve saw the two scopes for the first time, I got a feeling it will be exactly this.
Reminds me hard on the MSO5000 - A solid "heart" surrounded by cheapest possible parts.
Display, fans, supply, pcb....all the same like the 4000, no matter if you spend 999 or more than double.
And it won´t wonder me if rigol will release the 50Ohms in a future update when it´s already displayed on the frontpanel...
And as Dave said, it´s a dream for hackers.
So my opnion is:
When you can live with one adc for all channels, and I bet most could live with this, when you don´t need the external sensors, most don´t need them, there is no reason to spend more than 999 bucks.
Everything is the same....
The HDO4000 is dead before they really starting to sell it.
-
When you can live with one adc for all channels, and I bet most could live with this, when you don´t need the external sensors, most don´t need them, there is no reason to spend more than 999 bucks.
You mean if there's a simple firmware hack to get all the HDO4000 features running on the HDO1000? Yeah, they'll clean up in the hobby market.
Siglent fanboys should be nervous. Even I might buy one.
I still haven't seen a review of the 'scope itself though: What's like to use? How are the serial decoders? How are the FFTs? Does it have remote control? etc.
-
When you can live with one adc for all channels, and I bet most could live with this, when you don´t need the external sensors, most don´t need them, there is no reason to spend more than 999 bucks.
You mean if there's a simple firmware hack to get all the HDO4000 features running on the HDO1000? Yeah, they'll clean up in the hobby market.
Siglent fanboys should be nervous. Even I might buy one.
I still haven't seen a review of the 'scope itself though: What's like to use? How are the serial decoders? How are the FFTs? Does it have remote control? etc.
Just think a bit...
First there cannot be "simple hack". If there is no 2nd ADC you cannot make it think it is 4000 by simple model switch in software. Also there is no interface for active probes. If you enable "4000 mode" software might get confused depending on how it was made.
FPGA probably has slightly different bitstream because of 4ch and 1 ADC. So you would need to keep 1000 FPGA bitstream and enable 4000 features.. That might be possible but not with a simple model number change like in 800/900 signal gen.
These two scopes are a one race ponies. Siglent scopes are much better rounded offerings. We already had discussion about this. These scopes, if they end up working well and if they end up being nice to use, might be good for strictly analog type work. But prices will have to be right.
And then after you claim you might buy one and Siglent fanboys should be nervous (I'm curious why they should be, if they are fanboys, then they have irrational liking of the brand regardless of real qualities, so they couldn't care less about what other brands have), then you start asking real questions whether these new HDO scopes are any good at all... Are you a Rigol fanboy?
I know I wouldn't buy any scope before I'm sure it works for me. Siglent, Keysight, Rigol whatever..
And why do you say would buy one? As far as I remember, you don't need low noise, high precision and high sensitivity scope. Actually, according to you, there is no need for these kinds of scopes at all. It is all a scam by scope salesmen to sell you more expensive scope than you need. By your own claims all you need is 5 USD amplifier.
So I think you should start writing that in this topic too, just to be consistent. Tell everyone how Rigol is scamming us all and how they should boycott these treacherous devices devised to part fools from their money. And don't forget to mention 5 USD amplifiers. :-DD
Back to serious talk.. My speculation is that hacking HDO1000 to HDO4000 with simple model number switch probably won't work or will work partially and with weird caveats. Critical part of hardware is missing (one ADC) which probably means FPGA has different bitstream, or if bitstream is common, it has different modes for two versions.
Someone might be able to "Frankenstein" the application/FPGA layer to a hybrid, but it is not a simple hack, like generation of licenses, model number swaps, or other simple stuff.
Looking forward to see what our gurus here will do to it ... :popcorn:
-
Just think a bit...
First there cannot be "simple hack". If there is no 2nd ADC you cannot make it think it is 4000 by simple model switch in software.
Of course there can.
All the ADC does is get data into sample memory. Nothing downstream from that acquisition step depends on having the ADC present.
There's probably a simple switch in the firmware to choose single or dual ADC acquisition mode.
Firmware is probably identical, selected by something physical on the PCB. Maybe a resistor, maybe even the ADC itself.
Think: Even if you need the second ADC it's still cheaper to buy two HDO1000s than to buy a single HDO4000. :popcorn:
Also there is no interface for active probes. If you enable "4000 mode" software might get confused depending on how it was made.
The HDO4000 is sold with non-active, switchable probes.
https://www.batronix.com/shop/measurement/probes/Rigol-PVP2350.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/measurement/probes/Rigol-PVP2350.html)
Actually, according to you, there is no need for these kinds of scopes at all. It is all a scam by scope salesmen to sell you more expensive scope than you need.
You need to stalk me more closely, you missed posts like these:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4481770/#msg4481770 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4481770/#msg4481770)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4483612/#msg4483612 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4483612/#msg4483612)
-
You mean if there's a simple firmware hack to get all the HDO4000 features running on the HDO1000?
Comparing the two specs, there is only ONE difference.
The HDO4000 offers optional more decoding types and that was it.
Everything else is the same, what software concerns.
No additional features.
Hardware is the same except the amount of ADCs, what will cost samplerate and (maybe) bandwith.
Dave showed that there is even the 50Ohm part inside the HDO1000.
And as I´ve already said, that could be a feature released in a future firmware update.
So basically you can get the same scope with "slightly" limitations against the 4000.
So why buying a 4000...
Siglent fanboys should be nervous
Why should they...
For under 1000 bucks siglent got the SDS1000X-E series which are no competition against the HDO for understable reasons.
Above 1000 the SDS2000X+ got LA, AWG, Bodeplot, PA, 2Mpt FFT, more decodings and double of memory.
So no competition against HDO, but in other direction.
Even I might buy one.
Then start and save your pennies, this thing will cost more than a micsig tablet.
-
The HDO4000 offers optional more decoding types and that was it.
Everything else is the same, what software concerns.
Really? I thought the HDO4000 allows you to go down to 100uV/div and the HDO1000 doesn't. It's the HDO4000's big selling point.
Strange that you'd miss that detail... isn't volts/div all you guys live for? :-//
Siglent fanboys should be nervous
Why should they...
100uV/div sensitivity.
For under 1000 bucks siglent got the SDS1000X-E series which are no competition against the HDO for understable reasons.
Above 1000 the SDS2000X+ got LA, AWG, Bodeplot, PA, 2Mpt FFT, more decodings and double of memory.
They certainly seem to be getting all defensive.
-
These two scopes are a one race ponies. Siglent scopes are much better rounded offerings. We already had discussion about this. These scopes, if they end up working well and if they end up being nice to use, might be good for strictly analog type work. But prices will have to be right.
Correct.
They are 12bit scopes, and lack mixed signal and siggen capability deliberately to offer 12bit analog performance at a low price and that's it.
It you want bells and whistles for an everyday use scope they have the 5000 series.
-
The HDO4000 is dead before they really starting to sell it.
Nope. Us nerds on the forum and other hobbyists are only a small subset of the market for these scopes.
-
The HDO4000 offers optional more decoding types and that was it.
Everything else is the same, what software concerns.
Really? I thought the HDO4000 allows you to go down to 100uV/div and the HDO1000 doesn't. It's the HDO4000's big selling point.
Strange that you'd miss that detail... isn't volts/div all you guys live for? :-//
Why should they...
100uV/div sensitivity.
There is not at all real 100uV/div sensitivity.
[4]: 100 μV/div, 200 μV/div, and 500 μV/div are a magnification of 1 mV/div setting. For vertical
accuracy calculations, use full scale of 8 mV for sensitivity setting.
Example Siglent 2kXHD have full scale 4mV sensitivity. 500uV/div is not magnification of 1mV/div as is in Rigol HDO4k
And more. After this 500uV/div it have (run time) vertical zoom (magnification of 500uV/div) - 2uV/div. Not only 100uV/div. Is this 2uV/div useful... it is then other question.
Do I, or example Siglent, now claim that Siglent have 2uV/div sensitivity because there can find 2uV/div scale. Never. Only biased fanboys or morons can do that.
-
Just think a bit...
First there cannot be "simple hack". If there is no 2nd ADC you cannot make it think it is 4000 by simple model switch in software.
Of course there can.
All the ADC does is get data into sample memory. Nothing downstream from that acquisition step depends on having the ADC present.
There's probably a simple switch in the firmware to choose single or dual ADC acquisition mode.
Firmware is probably identical, selected by something physical on the PCB. Maybe a resistor, maybe even the ADC itself.
Think: Even if you need the second ADC it's still cheaper to buy two HDO1000s than to buy a single HDO4000. :popcorn:
Also there is no interface for active probes. If you enable "4000 mode" software might get confused depending on how it was made.
The HDO4000 is sold with non-active, switchable probes.
https://www.batronix.com/shop/measurement/probes/Rigol-PVP2350.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/measurement/probes/Rigol-PVP2350.html)
Actually, according to you, there is no need for these kinds of scopes at all. It is all a scam by scope salesmen to sell you more expensive scope than you need.
You need to stalk me more closely, you missed posts like these:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4481770/#msg4481770 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4481770/#msg4481770)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4483612/#msg4483612 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4483612/#msg4483612)
How do you survive with such reading comprehension? Do you only see green light on the street crossing when it is convenient to you?
Hardware is NOT the same. PCB used is the same, as is most of components. But, and pay attention now, lack of ADC and a contents of FPGA is the key here. I explained it. If there is no second ADC, you need to reassemble data differently. What do you think ADC data ends up magically where it needs to be by magic wand of Harry Potter? FPGA (Field Programable Gate Array) is basically logic block where you define internal "schematics" (logic functions and interconnect really) by bitstream. It is virtual hardware. You change something inside and your PCB suddenly becomes quite different hardware.
Maybe Rigol deliberately and with additional effort created firmware that can work in any combination and with a simple hack. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't really know how they are going to release it (in what combinations) so they did an really universal one. Maybe.
If not, what I said stands. If they did, then it will indeed be great news for hackers.
Or maybe not.
What is really better with 4000? Additional ADC, better BW, 50Ω and active probes. Right there is several thousands of dollars worth of difference according to Rigol.
If I don't have active probes and additional ADC what is left to hack? Nothing really. 50Ω inputs. For usual 12bit work (analog stuff, power etc) 200 Mhz is mostly enough. Even for pro work. In fact only thing I would like if they enabled would be 50Ω on HDO1000. So hacking, meh.. If It proves to be good working scope without software problems, just buy HDO1000. If someone makes a hack, then just make a hack from HDO1000 70MHz to HDO1000 200MHz and call it a day.
As for this statement :
************************************************************
Think: Even if you need the second ADC it's still cheaper to buy two HDO1000s than to buy a single HDO4000. :popcorn:
**********************************************************
WTF does that even mean? Seriously, how does that work? What do you mean by it?
Also, do you really don't know what active probe interface means? I think you do, and this is a deliberate misdirect.
And me stalking you? LOL, we all know who is a stalker here..
And those two posts just show how you have no shame. Since quite some time now you keep repeating this "amplifier fix" nonsense as a reason why scopes with low noise, high resolution and high sensitivity are not better, with specific attacks on single brand. And after Rigol releases scope that specifically targets that, and after you have been called out by more members here to show and demonstrate your claims, then overnight you switch the side and now you pretend you didn't say it.
Which might not be a bad thing, maybe you finally learned you were wrong and corrected your opinion. But for that to happen, you need to say it out loud that you were wrong and that you finally get it now and that you apologize to all for wasting their time. And by that I mean not to me, but others..
-
How do you survive with such reading comprehension?
************************************************************
Think: Even if you need the second ADC it's still cheaper to buy two HDO1000s than to buy a single HDO4000. :popcorn:
**********************************************************
WTF does that even mean?
It means you can get your hands on a second ADC chip for $700.
(Not that I think it will be necessary)
(snip rabid personal attack)
I honestly think you need to stay away from the forums for a while. Maybe a week or two. For your own good.
-
I honestly think you need to stay away from the forums for a while. Maybe a week or two.
LOL
-
How do you survive with such reading comprehension?
************************************************************
Think: Even if you need the second ADC it's still cheaper to buy two HDO1000s than to buy a single HDO4000. :popcorn:
**********************************************************
WTF does that even mean?
It means you can get your hands on a second ADC chip for $700.
(Not that I think it will be necessary)
(snip rabid personal attack)
I honestly think you need to stay away from the forums for a while. Maybe a week or two. For your own good.
We bow to you o supreme intelligence !!
We are not worthy !!
You know what: You are advocating people to buy more than 2000 € worth two scopes, then chop them up (and loose warranty on two perfectly functional scopes), extract needed chips from one and install them into another one (without damaging anything), and then also perform all necessary software hacking. And saying how easy and fun it will be.
I have an idea. Since nobody on planet did this so far, and nobody even knows where to start, I think this is great opportunity for you to show your knowledge, courage, leadership and be the first one to do it. You should lead by example. Just imagine all the praise and how famous you will be... Go out, buy those two scopes and start. Make a blog too. Document the progress for posterity.
I know I wouldn't dare but I'm just lowly me, not a supreme being of omnipotent intelligence and infinite awesomeness like you.
I apologize for even speaking up in your presence, forgive us, your omnipotence!!
.... and he quietly slips into corner of the room, whispering prayers for forgiveness....
-
OK, can we get away from personal and brand attacks and go back to look at the data, let the data speak for themselves!
It would be useful to have shorted input noise data from HDM1000 with maximum sample rate for just one channel (2 GS/s) and all channels active (0.5GS/sec). The question is if they do anti-aliasing filter properly. Also, comparing noise spectra for 200 MHz HDO4000 and 200 MHz HDO1000 will tell if there are any small differences in the analog paths.
-
OK, can we get away from personal and brand attacks and go back to look at the data, let the data speak for themselves!
It would be useful to have shorted input noise data from HDM1000 with maximum sample rate for just one channel (2 GS/s) and all channels active (0.5GS/sec). The question is if they do anti-aliasing filter properly. Also, comparing noise spectra for 200 MHz HDO4000 and 200 MHz HDO1000 will tell if there are any small differences in the analog paths.
I presume you are referring to HDO1204 noise as opposed to HDO4204 noise.
If you look at teardown photos, front ends seem identical. There will be no differences in analog paths, maybe different programming in DSP code. HDO1000 might even get a bit less distortion (better ADC linearity) in sampled signal because it won't be interleaving 2 discrete, separate ADCs. Interleaving on chip can be taken care of by running calibration..
-
You know what: You are advocating people to buy more than 2000 € worth two scopes, then chop them up (and loose warranty on two perfectly functional scopes), extract needed chips from one and install them into another one (without damaging anything), and then also perform all necessary software hacking. And saying how easy and fun it will be.
Not just me. A guy called "hans" suggested the same thing but he didn't get my treatment from you.
And ... it's not me trying to derail yet another thread with personal attacks.
PS: There's dozens of threads on here with people adding "missing" components to 'scopes. Maybe you lack the skills but other people think nothing of it.
eg. Here's one that requires installing/replacing/removing 168 separate components on a 'scope that cost far more money.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/keysight-3000t-scope-1-ghz-hardware-upgrade-mod/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/keysight-3000t-scope-1-ghz-hardware-upgrade-mod/)
Upgrading an HDO1000 will be a doddle compared to that.
-
You know what: You are advocating people to buy more than 2000 € worth two scopes, then chop them up (and loose warranty on two perfectly functional scopes), extract needed chips from one and install them into another one (without damaging anything), and then also perform all necessary software hacking. And saying how easy and fun it will be.
Not just me. A guy called "hans" suggested the same thing but he didn't get my treatment from you.
And ... it's not me trying to derail yet another thread with personal attacks.
PS: There's dozens of threads on here with people adding "missing" components to 'scopes. Maybe you lack the skills but other people think nothing of it.
eg. Here's one that requires installing/replacing/removing 168 separate components on a 'scope that cost far more money.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/keysight-3000t-scope-1-ghz-hardware-upgrade-mod/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/keysight-3000t-scope-1-ghz-hardware-upgrade-mod/)
Upgrading an HDO1000 will be a doddle compared to that.
Are you seriously comparing your hand waving with what Hans wrote.. He basically confirmed everything I wrote.
And like I said, if hack is possible there are always going to be daredevils that will risk 2000 € worth of equipment just to prove something is possible. That doesn't make it viable strategy for common user. It is not the same as typing in a license from Riglol, with zero risk.
And those Keysight home made upgrade threads are exactly proving my point: there were maybe half a dozen people that did it and that is it. It is not something 99.99 % of people can do at home. And it is irresponsible to encourage people to do it: those that are capable of doing it know it (they have necessary equipment, knowledge and experience) and don't need encouragement. Those that need encouragement don't know enough or don't have necessary equipment and should not do it. It is expensive game to play if there is not at least decent chance of success. I would not recommend it.
If you or anybody else want to do it, please by all means go for. Far be it from me to make that decision for you. But I won't be endorsing it.
And even then there will very few people that are prepared to make such large investment and accept that risk.
It won't make any difference to average users. But they would benefit from DS1000Z like license upgrade. For the price of cheapest one getting a 12 bit 200Mhz 4ch scope with big screen. That would make a difference.
That is all I'm saying.
-
It is not something 99.99 % of people can do at home. And it is irresponsible to encourage people to do it: those that are capable of doing it know it (they have necessary equipment, knowledge and experience) and don't need encouragement.
I'm so happy... :)
2N3055 believes I have the power to post things in forums that will make people to go out and buy two oscilloscopes and start trying to desolder the ASICS inside them using pliers and 6" nails they heated up on their gas stoves.
-
Just found in Germany:
Bandwidth extension 70 to 200 MHz about 891 € (incl. VAT)
https://www.conrad.de/de/p/rigol-hdo1000-bwu7t20-optionscode-bandbreitenerweiterung-hdo1000-von-70-mhz-auf-200-mhz-1-st-2625980.html (https://www.conrad.de/de/p/rigol-hdo1000-bwu7t20-optionscode-bandbreitenerweiterung-hdo1000-von-70-mhz-auf-200-mhz-1-st-2625980.html)
Available in 2 weeks.
-
Like the hdo1000 itself, only for non-private customers avaible.
-
It seems that from the beginning no private license purchases are expected. :-DD
edit:
ELESHOP.EU sells the scope.
https://eleshop.eu/rigol-hdo1074-oscilloscope.html
-
ELESHOP.EU sells the scope.
https://eleshop.eu/rigol-hdo1074-oscilloscope.html
For some definition of "sell".
It doesn't look like they actually have any yet.
-
They sell it but I didn't claim that they deliver it (now). :phew:
But Eleshop is serious, I got a lot of stuff from them.
-
Rigol USA told me 3 weeks ago that scope will be in stock in 6 weeks, so 3 more weeks from now.
Valuetronics "sells" it, told me 2 weeks ago that they can ship in 3 weeks... waiting on confirmation if they will be able to ship in 1 week from today...
-
Rigol USA told me 3 weeks ago that scope will be in stock in 6 weeks, so 3 more weeks from now.
Valuetronics "sells" it, told me 2 weeks ago that they can ship in 3 weeks... waiting on confirmation if they will be able to ship in 1 week from today...
Rigol (USA) shows "in stock" for all models: https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/hdo1000/ (https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/hdo1000/)
-
HDO1000 in stock in Europe as well. Expected delivery time 1 month, though.
Meanwhile, Siglent preemptively strikes the '1000 with its 2K+'s promotion.
-
Hello
I was wondering if someone has thaught about replacing the fans in the scope
To me they sound relatively loud
The type is a
MGA6012MR-O15
Can't find a spec sheet for them
!edit!
Model No. Bearing Voltage Current Power Speed Air Flow Pressure Noise Weight
(V) (A) (W) (rpm) (CFM) (inchAq) dB(A) (g)
MG(1)6012MR-(2)15 B.R 12 0.18 2.16 3600 16.03 0.109 30.1 39
!edit2!
CUI CFM-6015V-130-213 seems like a possible alternative
-
I have contacted with batronix and the can´t sell the HDO1000 series. Rigol don´t allow them to do it because they sell siglent scopes too. A really dirty behavior from Rigol, a shame of company.
By email? What exactly did they say? Can you post the email here?
And the point you wanna make is ? :-//
Manufacturers or resellers have every right to dictate who/what brands they sell.
Exactly the same reason why Dave can't sell certain Brymen models, since there is a authorised reseller in Australia.
-
Hello
I was wondering if someone has thaught about replacing the fans in the scope
To me they sound relatively loud
The type is a
MGA6012MR-O15
Can't find a spec sheet for them
!edit!
Model No. Bearing Voltage Current Power Speed Air Flow Pressure Noise Weight
(V) (A) (W) (rpm) (CFM) (inchAq) dB(A) (g)
MG(1)6012MR-(2)15 B.R 12 0.18 2.16 3600 16.03 0.109 30.1 39
!edit2!
CUI CFM-6015V-130-213 seems like a possible alternative
Yes, https://tsuzuki.jp/dl/protechnic/dcaxialfan/606015B.pdf, second page. These are nasty fans. 60x15, 3600 rpm. Not only small diameter, but just 15mm thickness as well.
Difficult to achieve comfortable acoustics even with replacements.
Why do they have to engineer stuff that way?
-
Meanwhile, Siglent preemptively strikes the '1000 with its 2K+'s promotion.
They've seen the writing on the wall?
-
Has anyone already tried UART decoding with these new scopes ?
I use this feature a lot and i'm wondering how does it work with HDO line in comparison to mso5000, especially in conjunction with zoom function.
Of course a screenshot of working serial decoder would be appreciated a lot :)
-
Has anyone already tried UART decoding with these new scopes ?
Good question. I still haven't seen any real reviews of what they're like to use.
-
Good question. I still haven't seen any real reviews of what they're like to use.
You should know why, by now. Because in this forum the first evaluation people want to have for a Rigol scope is of "how hackable is it?". >:D
-
Has anyone already tried UART decoding with these new scopes ?
Good question. I still haven't seen any real reviews of what they're like to use.
Speaking of, so what is decision, are you gonna buy one? Is it on the way?
-
Speaking of, so what is decision, are you gonna buy one? Is it on the way?
I'm waiting for tautech to get them in stock.
-
Seriously ? :-DD
Rob, go on !!
-
Speaking of, so what is decision, are you gonna buy one? Is it on the way?
I'm waiting for tautech to get them in stock.
So you're not buying Rigol HDO then.... And I was looking forward to tests...
-
Speaking of, so what is decision, are you gonna buy one? Is it on the way?
I'm waiting for tautech to get them in stock.
So you're not buying Rigol HDO then.... And I was looking forward to tests...
I'm in the process to buy a new 4 channels scope, i was going for MSO5074 when HDO came out, so i would like to know how HDO1000 behaves with UART decoder on zoomed waveforms and how many decoded bytes is able to show at a time.
Anyway, problem is that, right now, the HDO1074 model is not available anywhere in EU.
-
I'm waiting for tautech to get them in stock.
So you're not buying Rigol HDO then....
You don't think Tautech is gonna stock 'em?
-
Speaking of, so what is decision, are you gonna buy one? Is it on the way?
I'm waiting for tautech to get them in stock.
So you're not buying Rigol HDO then.... And I was looking forward to tests...
I'm in the process to buy a new 4 channels scope, i was going for MSO5074 when HDO came out, so i would like to know how HDO1000 behaves with UART decoder on zoomed waveforms and how many decoded bytes is able to show at a time.
Anyway, problem is that, right now, the HDO1074 model is not available anywhere in EU.
https://rigolshop.eu/hdo1074.html (https://rigolshop.eu/hdo1074.html)
Delivery time about 1 month.
Or: https://www.rigolitalia.it/collections/hdo1000/products/oscilloscopio-rigol-hdo1074-70-mhz-1-gsa-s-50-mpts-4ch-dho (https://www.rigolitalia.it/collections/hdo1000/products/oscilloscopio-rigol-hdo1074-70-mhz-1-gsa-s-50-mpts-4ch-dho)
-
We need to crack the "Rigol HDO As A Service" license. Then we don't need to buy the equipment...
Well soon you might be able to that to Keysight, the way they are going......
-
Hello
I was wondering if someone has thaught about replacing the fans in the scope
To me they sound relatively loud
The type is a
MGA6012MR-O15
If you have the space, you can fit a thicker, lower RPM fan in there. If the replacement fan has the same power rating, it moves about the same amount of air versus pressure so it should provide an equal amount of cooling.
-
Speaking of, so what is decision, are you gonna buy one? Is it on the way?
I'm waiting for tautech to get them in stock.
So you're not buying Rigol HDO then.... And I was looking forward to tests...
I'm in the process to buy a new 4 channels scope, i was going for MSO5074 when HDO came out, so i would like to know how HDO1000 behaves with UART decoder on zoomed waveforms and how many decoded bytes is able to show at a time.
Anyway, problem is that, right now, the HDO1074 model is not available anywhere in EU.
https://rigolshop.eu/hdo1074.html (https://rigolshop.eu/hdo1074.html)
Delivery time about 1 month.
Or: https://www.rigolitalia.it/collections/hdo1000/products/oscilloscopio-rigol-hdo1074-70-mhz-1-gsa-s-50-mpts-4ch-dho (https://www.rigolitalia.it/collections/hdo1000/products/oscilloscopio-rigol-hdo1074-70-mhz-1-gsa-s-50-mpts-4ch-dho)
Delivery time about 1 month = not available
I usually buy instruments from italian reseller Batterfly, they told me that there is not even a date for availability so it's useless to put it on listing (like every other seller).
-
I usually buy instruments from italian reseller Batterfly, they told me that there is not even a date for availability so it's useless to put it on listing (like every other seller).
I usually buy from Batronix in Germany but earlier on it was said that Batronix won't even be selling the HDO1000 because Rigol won't let them:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4437196/#msg4437196 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4437196/#msg4437196)
I don't know if Batterfly will be different, but they're not showing the HDO1000 at the moment. :popcorn:
-
Delivery time about 1 month = not available
I usually buy instruments from italian reseller Batterfly, they told me that there is not even a date for availability so it's useless to put it on listing (like every other seller).
How are their assistance & tech support? I'm in search of a reliable reseller for a SDS2000X+ purchase.
Notes:
1. You may want to wait for the HDOs to be available on Amazon. Usually, Rigol stuff gets on Amazon shortly after release.
2. You may want to evaluate the HDO1K before purchasing: it's acoustically noisy (the HDO4K has two 3600 rpm 60x15 fans.. Much probably the 1K has the same configuration).
-
Hello
I was wondering if someone has thaught about replacing the fans in the scope
To me they sound relatively loud
The type is a
MGA6012MR-O15
If you have the space, you can fit a thicker, lower RPM fan in there. If the replacement fan has the same power rating, it moves about the same amount of air versus pressure so it should provide an equal amount of cooling.
Seems to be enough room in there.
I will look at thicker versions.
Also the 30dBA from the datasheet of that one seem much lower than what i hear
because that sure is not the rustling of leaves in the wind.
-
Seems to be enough room in there.
I will look at thicker versions.
Look for Noctua and Noiseblocker, 25mm thick.
Thinker fans move much more air per rotation.
-
I received the scope today... software seems to be very very unreliable. When I enable SPI decoding, it hangs and restarts all the time. It is the first test I run on new scopes and this one failed miserably.
I see a huge BUGS BONANZA video coming from Dave...
Fan is very noisy, scope UI in general is very responsive and I like the UI design, the screen size and brightness.
-
I received the scope today... software seems to be very very unreliable. When I enable SPI decoding, it hangs and restarts all the time. It is the first test I run on new scopes and this one failed miserably.
I see a huge BUGS BONANZA video coming from Dave...
Fan is very noisy, scope UI in general is very responsive and I like the UI design, the screen size and brightness.
Can you move and resize decode windows? What is shown in User Manual is very bad layout, pretty much unusable....
As for the bugs, I did say it all seems very rushed to the market..
-
I see a huge BUGS BONANZA video coming from Dave...
As seen as on the MSO5000...Let´s hope he got time for it.
As for the bugs, I did say it all seems very rushed to the market..
Oh not again rigol...
5000/7000 bugs weren´t fixed all until today, I´ve got a bad feeling about the new ones...
Let´s hope I´m wrong.
-
To keep the hacking thread clear, I post it here....
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4519394/#msg4519394 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4519394/#msg4519394)
Maybe LeCroy wasn't happy... ? ^-^
My thoughts on it:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4312669/#msg4312669 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4312669/#msg4312669)
8)
-
Isn't this OT? Are we not posting on the wrong thread (at least according with the title)? :-//
-
;D
-
Seems there is a first FW update available for the HDO4K
https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52 (https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52)
no description though
-
Seems there is a first FW update available for the HDO4K
https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52 (https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52)
no description though
In the FPGA section we can see BODE reference ... Maybe with an external gen?
-
Doesn´t looks like it was implemented with the actual firmware.
Maybe with an external gen?
In case of the both HDO´s, it can go only this way.
Or this is meant for future models.
Or this is meaning nothing... :-\
-
Translation:
- Complete chip and board level self-test, including DDR calibration parameter readback
- Conventional oscilloscope program, without Bode plot
- Bode function version, without high resolution
So for whatever reason, generating a Bode plot means no access to high-resolution. I wouldn't expect a bode plot to be very taxing, as its just plotting data, you can use the oscilloscopes built in measurements to do that.
Could be a code thing, they have a Bode plotter that works in 8-bit and they haven't ported it to 12-bit.
edit: missed that A75T and A100T, is that a different FPGA device?
-
Nobody noticed a mention of HDO2000 ? ^-^
-
Several FPGA bistreams mean that all the functionality does not fit at the same time. Those It is possible that a separate firmware is loaded for different modes.
-
Nobody noticed a mention of HDO2000 ? ^-^
There were a lot more models listed in the hacking thread, I thought you saw them...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4501234/#msg4501234 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4501234/#msg4501234)
-
Several FPGA bistreams mean that all the functionality does not fit at the same time. Those It is possible that a separate firmware is loaded for different modes.
Which is exactly what I said before..
While platform is generally united, every model still has some details that need be taken into account. FPGA bitstream is probably hardcoded for 1 or 2 ADC. Also if they make MSO those will have different FPGA bitstream too..
-
Nobody noticed a mention of HDO2000 ? ^-^
There were a lot more models listed in the hacking thread, I thought you saw them...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4501234/#msg4501234 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4501234/#msg4501234)
Thank you for pointing that out, no I didn't. My mind immediately spotted 8000A as out of pattern, and since that was model much more interesting to me it got my attention.. It's not like I do this as a professional analysis where I pay complete attention to every detail... We are just discussing these things here for fun..
And since I noticed it now, I wonder what that one would be..
Originally HDO1000 datasheet was saying 1GS/s sampling rate. Then they changed it to 2GS/s.
Could it been that they meant to release 2000 but won't?. They realized there is too much segmentation on basically same hardware?
Or if they will release 2000 what would it be?
They cannot make 2000 sample faster than 1000 because that is 4000 already...
They say HD so it has to be 12 bit.
Maybe 1000 with MSO option will be called 2000?
:popcorn:
-
The apk's launch in emulator but because they don't found the specific hardware, freeze on the Rigol logo screen.
-
Did a little comparison between old and new FW
Seems like there is a new/different HW revision out there
They included a new network driver
"insmod ethernet PHY driver for Motorcomm - YT8531S"
also the bitstream files for the fpga include a B Version now with a note suggesting a different FPGA (probably less Tile fabrics)
The main apk as well as the launcher and Webcontrol got an update
as did the bitstream files for the FPGA
Haven't found an official change log yet though
-
also the bitstream files for the fpga include a B Version now with a note suggesting a different FPGA (probably less Tile fabrics)
Yeah, so the two part numbers are (datasheet (https://docs.xilinx.com/v/u/en-US/ds181_Artix_7_Data_Sheet), table (https://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon-devices/fpga/artix-7.html#productTable)):
- XC7A75T 75520 LE, 180 DSP, 3780 RAM
- XC7A100T 101440 LE, 240 DSP, 4860 RAM
Cost is about 17% more, on Digikey.
-
also the bitstream files for the fpga include a B Version now with a note suggesting a different FPGA (probably less Tile fabrics)
Yeah, so the two part numbers are (datasheet (https://docs.xilinx.com/v/u/en-US/ds181_Artix_7_Data_Sheet), table (https://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon-devices/fpga/artix-7.html#productTable)):
- XC7A75T 75520 LE, 180 DSP, 3780 RAM
- XC7A100T 101440 LE, 240 DSP, 4860 RAM
Cost is about 17% more, on Digikey.
Maybe they've optimized the code so they don't need the more expensive FPGA any more.
-
also the bitstream files for the fpga include a B Version now with a note suggesting a different FPGA (probably less Tile fabrics)
Yeah, so the two part numbers are (datasheet (https://docs.xilinx.com/v/u/en-US/ds181_Artix_7_Data_Sheet), table (https://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon-devices/fpga/artix-7.html#productTable)):
- XC7A75T 75520 LE, 180 DSP, 3780 RAM
- XC7A100T 101440 LE, 240 DSP, 4860 RAM
Cost is about 17% more, on Digikey.
Maybe they've optimized the code so they don't need the more expensive FPGA any more.
Something like that, yes.
I explained it before. Because production is just ramping up and development is obviously not finished yet, so they repurposed some HDO4000 BOM, until they make sure how much they can cut down. Then they will make "optimized" (cut down) version. But they actually have to develop it to the point that they have good idea of resources they need.
That is not uncommon during development. But it normally happens during development. Meaning these scopes were released during late prototype phases. Basically when they had release candidates they released product. That is slightly pre beta or early beta phases... A bit too soon for my taste.
That explains state of software.
-
also the bitstream files for the fpga include a B Version now with a note suggesting a different FPGA (probably less Tile fabrics)
Yeah, so the two part numbers are (datasheet (https://docs.xilinx.com/v/u/en-US/ds181_Artix_7_Data_Sheet), table (https://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon-devices/fpga/artix-7.html#productTable)):
- XC7A75T 75520 LE, 180 DSP, 3780 RAM
- XC7A100T 101440 LE, 240 DSP, 4860 RAM
Cost is about 17% more, on Digikey.
Maybe they've optimized the code so they don't need the more expensive FPGA any more.
I would not be surprised if XILINX's FPGA above some size are in embargo (if aimed to CHINA) due to current international situation.
-
I contacted Rigolshop.eu regarding availability of HDO1072 / HDO1074, i was told that this models will be in stock after mid-December.
In the meanwhile i can spot the very same SKUs fully available on rigolna.com ... WT* is that ?!
As if European money is not welcome in Rigol's pockets, not happy at all about that.
All this while the euro is at all-time low exchange rate vs USD.
Just out of curiosity, how much are purchase fee in USA for this kind of products ?
Here in Italy we have a stunning 22% ::)
-
I would not be surprised if XILINX's FPGA above some size are in embargo (if aimed to CHINA) due to current international situation.
PLA (the army in China) for sure is affected. Although we can't find this line of Xilinx products on the list, there is a kind of shortage.
Rigolshop.eu told me about the early december for HDO1K ...
-
Just out of curiosity, how much are purchase fee in USA for this kind of products ?
Here in Italy we have a stunning 22% ::)
For me, it's 0%, but it varies by state.
Does anyone other than Dave have a review yet of the Rigol HDO1000?
-
I would not be surprised if XILINX's FPGA above some size are in embargo (if aimed to CHINA) due to current international situation.
PLA (the army in China) for sure is affected. Although we can't find this line of Xilinx products on the list, there is a kind of shortage.
Rigolshop.eu told me about the early december for HDO1K ...
Dunno what to think, i asked them twice over two different channels, AMAZON and Rigolshop.eu, the answer was always "not before mid december".
I cannot understand why so long when those models seem plenty available in US right now.
-
I would not be surprised if XILINX's FPGA above some size are in embargo (if aimed to CHINA) due to current international situation.
The biggest fastest FPGAs and the highest performance ADCs are the two key areas which are ALWAYS under embargo.
-
The ADC seems to be a RIGOL branded ASCI. The ADC is impressive, but not super fast. Not sure though if it is really made in main land China or a Taiwanese fab.
The FPGA is not really cutting edge (more like mid range) and may not be subject so many restrictions (maybe still a nogo for north Korea, Iran, Afganistan and now Russia).
There can are general supply problems with even more simple parts like voltage regulators that can halt / slow down production. The parts sold in the US may just a first relatively large batch and the 2nd one for europe might have got hit by the chip crisis. The transport got a bit slower and less predictable. AFAIK the distance to the US is a little longer than to Europr and may need to ship them first to get simultaneous availabilty. Another point could be higher than expected orders for the 4000 series. Another reason to slow down the delivery could be a delay with the version that uses the smaller cheaper FPGA.
-
I cannot understand why so long when those models seem plenty available in US right now.
Simple: They haven't got enough production capability yet so they're only selling in one market.
(outside of China)
-
Or, or, or...[attachimg=1]
-
Or, or, or...
Or maybe American consumers have lower standards and aren't so critical of early firmware/hardware as the Europeans are. :box:
-
A "new" teardown of the 1000 could be interesting, when they´re everywhere avaible since a couple of time..
-
A "new" teardown of the 1000 could be interesting, when they´re everywhere avaible since a couple of time..
More expensive SKUs (HDO 1104, 1202, 1204) are already available @ Rigolshop EU (also at Amazon), Conrad has something in catalog but with higher prices (than official listing), here Rigol is aiming to make some decent margin NOT selling models like HDO1072/74 in first place.
Being not afraid about alpha stage FW status i would kindly pay the current listing price for bargain SKUs, what i saw in Dave video is enough to bet on the new toy, that seems more responsive than MSO5000 scopes, even if i'm convinced that there is a lot of space for further optimizations considering the application SOC used.
I also appreciated a lot the Rigol choice for optical encoders, i had some bad experience in the past with mechanical ones failing after few years from the purchase ...
But I need badly a new DSO with 9-10" touch screen at home lab, 12 bits would be a nice addition but not mandatory, so if HDO1072/1074 don't appear soon in EU market I'll go for something else like an MSO5074 or a SDS2104X-PLUS.
The latter has a "quiter" analog acquisition and bigger screen while the Rigol has a much higher sample rate and it's cheaper, a real struggle to decide if HDO1000s do not come in :D
-
A "new" teardown of the 1000 could be interesting, when they´re everywhere avaible since a couple of time..
Do you smell a complete HW redesign for HDO1000 series ?
-
Only "belly-feeling"....For me personally, the here presented HDO1000 is way too near to the much more expensive 4000.
But I need badly a new DSO with 9-10" touch screen at home lab, 12 bits would be a nice addition but not mandatory, so if HDO1072/1074 don't appear soon in EU market I'll go for something else like an MSO5074 or a SDS2104X-PLUS.
The latter has a "quiter" analog acquisition and bigger screen while the Rigol has a much higher sample rate and it's cheaper, a real struggle to decide if HDO1000s do not come in
To be honest, if 12 bit are not really important for you there are no reasons to wait for, except the low noise.
And low noise you can also get with a sds2104x+.
-
-snip
To be honest, if 12 bit are not really important for you there are no reasons to wait for, except the low noise.
And low noise you can also get with a sds2104x+.
I mentioned it in my post, it's actually in my wish list even if it's memory management and some other details would not exactly meet my taste, but you cannot get everything at the same time.
But HDO1000 seems great like HW / price ratio, let's see what happens next days.
-
A "new" teardown of the 1000 could be interesting, when they´re everywhere avaible since a couple of time..
Do you smell a complete HW redesign for HDO1000 series ?
I don't see a major HW redesign: If at all rather minor changes for cost cutting and maybe better availabilty, like different voltage regulators and a one step smaller FPGA, maybe smaller memory chips. This may even happen on the same PCB. The software may changes to make it work with a smaller FPGA and possibly better performance in some areas.
The main parts like front-end, ADC, FPGA, µC for the UI kind of have to stay. So there is not very much to change unless it gets a different product (e.g. version with internal generator or smaller case/LCD).
So far I don't see a major problem that would need a redesign.
-
A "new" teardown of the 1000 could be interesting, when they´re everywhere avaible since a couple of time..
Do you smell a complete HW redesign for HDO1000 series ?
I don't see a major HW redesign: If at all rather minor changes for cost cutting and maybe better availabilty, like different voltage regulators and a one step smaller FPGA, maybe smaller memory chips. This may even happen on the same PCB. The software may changes to make it work with a smaller FPGA and possibly better performance in some areas.
The main parts like front-end, ADC, FPGA, µC for the UI kind of have to stay. So there is not very much to change unless it gets a different product (e.g. version with internal generator or smaller case/LCD).
So far I don't see a major problem that would need a redesign.
I think there is misunderstanding here. I agree architecture won't change. But discussion on "redesign" here revolves around the fact that HDO1000 Dave opened wa literally 4000 board (with big FPGA) minus few analog parts and minus one ADC. Even 50 ohm path was there on PCB although 1000 doesn't support it. That sparked discussion by some "enthusiasts" that means HDO1000 could be converted to 4000 if parts were available. It was obvious that Rigol actually didn't make 1000 series boards at the time but just repurposed 4000 BOM.
Fast forward, HDO1000 is very limited availability (might even be only that first, batch zero), and they obviously will "optimize". That points to conclusion that what we will see now is going to be smaller FPGA and whatnot. They might as well use same PCB (it is still standard FR4 so no need to optimize there), but in the end it will be less powerful hardware. FPGA is pretty much hearth of the scope. Not app processor. So smaller FPGA, less memory and only one ADC and that is smaller model. They will keep app processor and glue to "scope parts", because that part of architecture is actually lots of work and lets them standardize development.
They don't have to do "major redesign" to achieve "major difference in end result".
Same thing as with Keysight 2000. Only 1 Megazoom chip instead of 2 in 3000 series. Less memory, limited input BW and crippled software. In theory Keysight could have made unitary PCB for 2000/3000A series.
-
Do you smell a complete HW redesign for HDO1000 series ?
No.
-
Note that if they've optimized the code to get it into a smaller FPGA, the HDO4000 might get that smaller FPGA, too.
There's very little difference in functionality between the two models.
-
Note that if they've optimized the code to get it into a smaller FPGA, the HDO4000 might get that smaller FPGA, too.
There's very little difference in functionality between the two models.
It is not like that. They won't "optimize" in technical sense but in economical sense. That is confusion here.
As I said, when you are prototyping you start with "bigger" resources because many times you develop software/hardware at the same time. You don't really know how much you are going to use, especially when marketing department keeps moving target. Also mid development, competition releases something, and now you must add that too...
So once the product gets finished enough to take final shape, you "optimize" and settle for hardware version that is "good enough" + some reserve for latter development (if you plan to keep the platform for few years.).
That is why I said that Rigol released these two scopes just a bit too early... Scopes we are seeing now for sale, other manufacturers would beta test for some time until production ramps up in it's final shape...
And with software developers being as they are (unfortunately), don't expect code size to go down, only up... As they finish existing features and add all the promised stuff it will go up...
-
Must also be taken into account that heavily forking the HW design involves a subsequent effort increase for separate FW upgrade service, this is a thing that companies tend to avoid especially for complex products.
Personally i believe that we will see a simple shrink for FPGA and DDR size, keeping the same PCB.
-
I would not be surprised if XILINX's FPGA above some size are in embargo (if aimed to CHINA) due to current international situation.
Both of these are low-end parts by modern standards, so I doubt there are any restrictions on them. I suspect the reasons they have both is that's what they were able to procure. I monitor aliexpress for these parts (as I can't get them elsewhere without 24+ months of a lead time), and found that price for these parts tend to be all over the place, and often "higher-end" A100T can be cheaper than A75T or even A50T.
-
Note that if they've optimized the code to get it into a smaller FPGA, the HDO4000 might get that smaller FPGA, too.
To be pedantic:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/artix-7-only-has-three-different-die-sizes/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/artix-7-only-has-three-different-die-sizes/)
It would likely be possible to not optimise the code and just ship off identically placed designs into both those parts.
-
Note that if they've optimized the code to get it into a smaller FPGA, the HDO4000 might get that smaller FPGA, too.
To be pedantic:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/artix-7-only-has-three-different-die-sizes/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/artix-7-only-has-three-different-die-sizes/)
It would likely be possible to not optimise the code and just ship off identically placed designs into both those parts.
AFAIK that post is no longer correct as there is another die now for 12T/25T devices.
-
It would likely be possible to not optimise the code and just ship off identically placed designs into both those parts.
That would be a very risky thing to try at large scale. There's definitely going to be a binning process at the chip FAB. Even if 99% of them are able to run the code, those 1% returns will cost you a lot of money.
You also run the risk of pissing off the chip maker and they can cut off your supply or start charging you more for the smaller chip.
At Rigol's level it's much better to go and negotiate a deal for legit FPGAs. A good, guaranteed price for the next few years is far more valuable to a company than messing around trying to beat the system.
-
Note that if they've optimized the code to get it into a smaller FPGA, the HDO4000 might get that smaller FPGA, too.
To be pedantic:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/artix-7-only-has-three-different-die-sizes/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/artix-7-only-has-three-different-die-sizes/)
It would likely be possible to not optimise the code and just ship off identically placed designs into both those parts.
AFAIK that post is no longer correct as there is another die now for 12T/25T devices.
The post doesn't even mention 12T/25T, so that doesn't mean that its incorrect, maybe 12T/25T is a fourth die and the rest remain unchanged.
Anyway, if 75T and 100T are the same JTAG ID, Rigol must set some firmware or board level ID? Or is there another register in the FPGA that can be read out.
Either way, the low chance concern that a 100T built device would have some greater performance, should not be a concern, if its another thing that can be hacked.
-
For those interested, Rigol EU now has a 10% promotion for the 1k series. https://rigolshop.eu/products/oscilloscope/hdo1000.html
But still 1 month delivery. Preorder?
-
For those interested, Rigol EU now has a 10% promotion for the 1k series.
I wonder how their math works? I've tried to get "10%" from their numbers, and failed. Seems like more than 10% to me. :-//
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1652315;image)
-
For those interested, Rigol EU now has a 10% promotion for the 1k series.
I wonder how their math works? I've tried to get "10%" from their numbers, and failed. Seems like more than 10% to me. :-//
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1652315;image)
999 down to 899 is roughly 10%..
And then prices with tax just get calculated..
-
I wonder how their math works?
1188.81*0.9=1069.92....
-
For those interested, Rigol EU now has a 10% promotion for the 1k series.
I wonder how their math works? I've tried to get "10%" from their numbers, and failed. Seems like more than 10% to me. :-//
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1652315;image)
1,188.81 down to 1069.81 is ~10% save.
I wonder how your math works?
-
I wonder how your math works?
Duh. :palm:
I was doing 1188.81 / 1069.81
:-DD
-
Fungus, inverted as always... ;D
-
This store says they have them in stock -1072-74?
https://rigolshop.eu/
-
Yes. They finish delivery for older orders.
-
Someone asked about the app windows.
When they are more that two active on the screen, they can be moved between them. Actually it is possible. When you pick by the move icon a grey rectangle will appear suggesting a possible placement.
You cannot resize by drag or overlapp one over another. They will autoresize.
Anyway with too many open windows the scope became very slow.
-
Anyway with too many open windows the scope became very slow.
Oh, now we're going to complain about that...? :-DD
-
Anyway with too many open windows the scope became very slow.
Oh, now we're going to complain about that...? :-DD
Right now, FW bugs apart, there is only one thing i would complain about : FAN noise.
IMHO it's barely acceptable, much louder than DS1054Z, i would ask to Rigol an additional warranty sticker with official permission to open scope and change those t**** with something decent, at my expense.
What I do not understand is that there is plenty of space for at least 25mm deep FANs, where now we have 2x 60x60x15 19CFM @ 3600 that when are cold make buzz/rattle sound.
I measured average power draw, is around 46 Wrms (2 Wrms in standby), all this noise is not justified.
-
Anyway with too many open windows the scope became very slow.
Oh, now we're going to complain about that...? :-DD
This can't be a complain, just an observation. Can't be part in a normal use case scenario. I have put so many windows on screen to show how they behave.
-
Anyway with too many open windows the scope became very slow.
Oh, now we're going to complain about that...? :-DD
This can't be a complain, just an observation. Can't be part in a normal use case scenario. I have put so many windows on screen to show how they behave.
It would be nice to be able to turn off the screen for remote operation.
-
I have put so many windows on screen to show how they behave.
And totally failed to observe that putting multiple "windows" on screen is totally unheard of in a scope at this price level.
(until now)
From the screenshots I've seen: This 'scope appears to be much, much more than just a "low noise" oscilloscope. It's another real game-changer from Rigol.
-
I have put so many windows on screen to show how they behave.
And totally failed to observe that putting multiple "windows" on screen is totally unheard of in a scope at this price level.
You are wrong. I have said that I put many windows on screen because only with more than two windows you can change their position. I have added that the scope became slow just as a mention that it will not be a working scenario for anyone. It's not about price level. Any embeded device will start to react slow as long as you start to activate more applications in the same time.
P.S. Maybe I wasn't explained very well. I remember that also some peoples failed to understand what I have said in tjhe past ...
-
I have put so many windows on screen to show how they behave.
And totally failed to observe that putting multiple "windows" on screen is totally unheard of in a scope at this price level.
(until now)
From the screenshots I've seen: This 'scope appears to be much, much more than just a "low noise" oscilloscope. It's another real game-changer from Rigol.
I would say that a couple of windows at the same time are not bad at all :
-
Yes , on two apps the scope response is pretty well.
-
Yes , on two apps the scope response is pretty well.
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
-
Yes , on two apps the scope response is pretty well.
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
If you have the time, some examples would be appreciated.
-
From the screenshots I've seen: This 'scope appears to be much, much more than just a "low noise" oscilloscope. It's another real game-changer from Rigol.
Especially if you think that the 2 channels come at 699 plus taxes, even less during sales.
-
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
If you have the time, some examples would be appreciated.
Q: Can it display the frequencies of the peaks in the FFT?
-
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
If you have the time, some examples would be appreciated.
Q: Can it display the frequencies of the peaks in the FFT?
Yep, you can activate a table with peak frequencies and level.
-
Yes , on two apps the scope response is pretty well.
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
If you have the time, some examples would be appreciated.
To put it simple you have a single menu with everything you need with no hassle, a decent dynamic range and good refresh rate in awesome LCD panel.
-
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
If you have the time, some examples would be appreciated.
Q: Can it display the frequencies of the peaks in the FFT?
Also quite accurate with level, in attachment video with FFT of AM modulated signal : Fc 1MHz -56 dBm (-69dBV), AM 10KHz-30%.
-
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
If you have the time, some examples would be appreciated.
Q: Can it display the frequencies of the peaks in the FFT?
Also quite accurate with level, in attachment video with FFT of AM modulated signal : Fc 1MHz -56 dBm (-69dBV), AM 10KHz-30%.
No markers ? :-//
-
Yep and i'm impressed by the FFT function, this is my first personal DSO that can be operated as a Spectrum analyzer with FFT, with a decent sensitivity.
If you have the time, some examples would be appreciated.
Q: Can it display the frequencies of the peaks in the FFT?
Also quite accurate with level, in attachment video with FFT of AM modulated signal : Fc 1MHz -56 dBm (-69dBV), AM 10KHz-30%.
No markers ? :-//
Not that i know, these are the options available :
-
Our lecroy scopes haven´t got markers or even a table..
They expect you have eyes to see it and when you want to know the exact value, you can use cursors.
OK, for their prices you can´t expect more comfort, they cost with discount only 13000 or 14000 bucks each.
-
No markers ? :-//
Not that i know, these are the options available :
Surely it has markers and tools to manage them, have you found them yet ?
Heaps of this stuff in a 4ch X-E Siglent.
Just a wee snippet of what they have attached.
-
No markers ? :-//
Not that i know, these are the options available :
Surely it has markers and tools to manage them, have you found them yet ?
Heaps of this stuff in a 4ch X-E Siglent.
Just a wee snippet of what they have attached.
I can spot Heaps of spurious trapped in a Game Boy screen graphics, dunno what's worst.
What a horrible show !
-
Surely it has markers and tools to manage them, have you found them yet ?
Heaps of this stuff in a 4ch X-E Siglent.
Mapping Siglent's peak numbers to table indexes is a job in mental gymnastics if there's a few entries in the table. Hardly intuitive.
Rigol's "Table order" options seem sensible.
(even better would be to display the frequencies on the peaks themselves)
-
Our lecroy scopes haven´t got markers or even a table..
They expect you have eyes to see it and when you want to know the exact value, you can use cursors.
OK, for their prices you can´t expect more comfort, they cost with discount only 13000 or 14000 bucks each.
What lecroy scopes are you using lol.
-
Surely it has markers and tools to manage them, have you found them yet ?
Heaps of this stuff in a 4ch X-E Siglent.
Mapping Siglent's peak numbers to table indexes is a job in mental gymnastics if there's a few entries in the table. Hardly intuitive.
Rigol's "Table order" options seem sensible.
(even better would be to display the frequencies on the peaks themselves)
Show me a complex feature that is intuitive !
They can show tables of marker #, frequency and amplitude and there can be 10 and each one is adjustable, ON, OFF and in frequency.
Surely Rigol has this analyser type marker functionality too ?
-
Show me a complex feature that is intuitive !
See screenshots two posts up...
-
Show me a complex feature that is intuitive !
See screenshots two posts up...
How could you know, you don't have both units.
-
Our lecroy scopes haven´t got markers or even a table..
They expect you have eyes to see it and when you want to know the exact value, you can use cursors.
OK, for their prices you can´t expect more comfort, they cost with discount only 13000 or 14000 bucks each.
What lecroy scopes are you using lol.
Martin said "Our lecroy" not "All lecroy".
-
Exactly. ;)
In this case Wavesurfer WS3024Z, Waverunner 9054, HDO6034A.
Last two got the same software.
Feeding in 1khz Sinewave from a GWInstek generator.
FFT as a math function, one pic shows the menu of the WS3024Z....That´s all, nothing else(it even didn´t got a split display function for FFT)
Second pic shows FFT from the HDO, no marker/peaks/table settings too.
But I must confess, I´ve forgot the "mighty" featureset of the HDO...In this case a spectrum analyzer function. 8)
And there are the markers/peaks/table....
But the "normal" FFT function didn´t have this.
-
It looks like the 'spectrum analyser' is a software option available for several Lecroy oscilloscope models.
-
IMHO all MAUI-based Lecroys have that (but probably needs a license).
-
IMHO all MAUI-based Lecroys have that (but probably needs a license).
It is a separate license. And not all have it. Most but not all.
-
Hi,
Yepp, depending on the performance 1 or 2 traces spectrum option avaible, starting with the 4000HD series, our Waverunner 9054 got this option also.
Offtopic:
Look at the vast amount of avaible options for the WR9000:
https://teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/waverunner-9000-oscilloscopes
After 50 I stopped counting..
-
Hi,
Yepp, depending on the performance 1 or 2 traces spectrum option avaible, starting with the 4000HD series, our Waverunner 9054 got this option also.
Offtopic:
Look at the vast amount of avaible options for the WR9000:
https://teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/waverunner-9000-oscilloscopes
After 50 I stopped counting..
I had the opportunity to use some Lecroy scopes that came out around 2007-2008, apart windows boot stage I had a great feeling from them.
But there is a sore point, within few years all three instruments failed (total purchase cost around 35Keuro), the first was sent to service that (we discovered later) simply cleaned some connectors for a "honest" repair cost of about 2000 euros, the others, out of warranty, were treated in the same way by myself ...
Nowadays non of those works anymore due to faulty screens or other HW problems, spares cost one arm and one leg, in conclusion the brand is now cancelled from the list.
-
Simply no Luck, here we got ones from 1993 on and still running/flawless through calibration going.
But one point is true: Exorbitant repair/inspection costs...
-
Simply no Luck, here we got ones from 1993 on and still running/flawless through calibration going.
I guess not PC based, so a complete different object.
But one point is true: Exorbitant repair/inspection costs...
To say the least and consider that I was working in a multinational corporation without budget problem (at the time ...),
The last nail in the coffin for their supply was an instrument returned exactly in the very same state it left our lab, of course in the company of a salty invoice; the explanation provided by the service was so credible that someone got pissed off at serious level, then there was a brand change.
-
I guess not PC based, so a complete different object.
No, all models we got.
If it's further interesting we could make a new topic about it.
-
Simply no Luck, here we got ones from 1993 on and still running/flawless through calibration going.
Those are the rebrands from Iwatsu 8) Japanese quality. My own Lecroy Wavepro 7200A also got a ridiculous amount of contact problems before it started to show signs of life. Then I needed to change a bunch of diodes on the front panel board because... the ones that where used where the wrong type and would fail over time.
-
I guess not PC based, so a complete different object.
No, all models we got.
If it's further interesting we could make a new topic about it.
Using a modern DSO as a a spectrum analyser is indeed a topic worth a sparate thread. The old scopes were limited by ADC S/N and usually low number of FFT points. With a 10/12 ADC and 1 M points FFT the dynamic range is actually not at all bad. The frequency range is a bit limited, but still not bad for something that comes (of could at last) as a software option. There is also an upside with usually better protection.
-
Using a modern DSO as a a spectrum analyser is indeed a topic worth a sparate thread. The old scopes were limited by ADC S/N and usually low number of FFT points. With a 10/12 ADC and 1 M points FFT the dynamic range is actually not at all bad. The frequency range is a bit limited, but still not bad for something that comes (of could at last) as a software option. There is also an upside with usually better protection.
The spurious free dynamic range is usually limited by the linearity of the high impedance buffer and baseband vertical amplifier chain, and of course noise is limited by the high impedance buffer if a 1M input is used.
-
If someone could do a Two Tone IMD at 100KHz and 1MHz (or other frequencies) and verify the Input Signal IMD with a quality SA (so we know the input signal ~ baseline IMD), this would be very beneficial IMO.
Any effort with the new HDO1000 and 4000 is greatly appreciated.
The benefit we see of these new higher resolution DSOs which can display Frequency Domain Data in somewhat "Real Time" is the reduction/elimination of a Dynamic Signal Analyzer needs for lower frequency high impedance needs.
These Frequency Domain functions (SA and Bode) can be very beneficial up to a few MHz (maybe 10s), with High Z inputs, all the benefits of the "Scope" probes, interfaces, and all in only one lab bench instrument (often bench lab space is limited). Above a few MHz then the usual Spectrum Analyzer (SA) and Network Analyzer (VNA) take over in the low Z 50/75 ohm RF domains.
Anyway YMMV of course!!
Best,
-
DHO....
Both series are renamed to this and I wonder what this could mean.
HDO is clear, high definition oscilloscope, but DHO....
Definition high oscilloscope..sounds silly.
Dumb high...Do not buy high...
Nevertheless I´ve played with the thoughts to get a DHO1074 just for curiosity and testing - After that, re-selling would be easy...
But you can´t get it easy here in germany.
Batronix don´t sell them for reasons, Conrad Electronic got them and could deliver inbetween 2 weeks.
But there´s a note, not for private customers....Why....
DHO4000 is no problem so what are rigol doing there...Won´t they sell the 1000s to the public..
Strange selling policy here.
-
I've bought mine from Germany :)
From the source - Rigol Europe
https://rigolshop.eu/hdo1074.html
-
DHO....
Both series are renamed to this and I wonder what this could mean.
HDO is clear, high definition oscilloscope, but DHO....
Definition high oscilloscope..sounds silly.
Dumb high...Do not buy high...
Nevertheless I´ve played with the thoughts to get a DHO1074 just for curiosity and testing - After that, re-selling would be easy...
But you can´t get it easy here in germany.
Batronix don´t sell them for reasons, Conrad Electronic got them and could deliver inbetween 2 weeks.
But there´s a note, not for private customers....Why....
DHO4000 is no problem so what are rigol doing there...Won´t they sell the 1000s to the public..
Strange selling policy here.
Amazon has a bunch of them in listing from several days.
-
Programming manual is now available for download :
https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203638_637e13d653378.pdf (https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203638_637e13d653378.pdf)
-
Today first tests with of HD1K remote control operation, the good news is that memory transfer speed is decent, around 200Mbps with ethernet interface, something less with USB connection.
Those number come from a full RAW memory transfer process (100 Mpts @ 16bits, 2 bytes x point) that takes about 8 second.
RAW data can be accessed only with acquisition is stopped while screen data can be read any time.
-
Hi,
Just received HDO1074 oscope. Nice device!
Not sure if it was already reported here, but it seems as "High Res" acquisition mode skips half of the points resulting in 1/2 of the amplitude on the display and measurement results.
Firmware: 01.01.26 26/09/2022.
Could anybody check this on your device?
Thanks.
-
Hi,
Just received HDO1074 oscope. Nice device!
Not sure if it was already reported here, but it seems as "High Res" acquisition mode skips half of the points resulting in 1/2 of the amplitude on the display and measurement results.
Firmware: 01.01.26 26/09/2022.
Could anybody check this on your device?
Thanks.
HiRes is lowpass filter.
Try with some low frequency, maybe 1 kHz..
Or you are saying you see every other sample point on screen?
-
Indeed, the amplitude decrease with half when you select Hires mode, either 14 or 16 bits.
-
Indeed, the amplitude decrease with half when you select Hires mode, either 14 or 16 bits.
Thank you for clarification... That is definitely a problem..
-
Indeed, the amplitude decrease with half when you select Hires mode, either 14 or 16 bits.
Maybe it is assuming 50ohm path active? I noticed that if you try to change vertical setting in HiRes mode, signal gets clipped.
-
Indeed, the amplitude decrease with half when you select Hires mode, either 14 or 16 bits.
Maybe it is assuming 50ohm path active? I noticed that if you try to change vertical setting in HiRes mode, signal gets clipped.
Maybe someone with HDO4K could test HiRes with 50 ohm active.
Seem to be an unfinished job. I did not encountered this until now on a scope.
Even is a low pass effect, as 2N3055 has said, it should not cut half of the signal amplitude.
-
50Ω has nothing to do with scope amplitude....
And I will repeat: what frequency are you measuring at?
It can be 100x attenuated depending on frequency...
But it is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes..
Rigol forced this out too soon..
And just a few days ago I realized why: they just had IPO on Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange..
-
Indeed, the amplitude decrease with half when you select Hires mode, either 14 or 16 bits.
Maybe it is assuming 50ohm path active? I noticed that if you try to change vertical setting in HiRes mode, signal gets clipped.
Maybe someone with HDO4K could test HiRes with 50 ohm active.
Seem to be an unfinished job. I did not encountered this until now on a scope.
Even is a low pass effect, as 2N3055 has said, it should not cut half of the signal amplitude.
There are many other quirks, it was expected at launch but now its time to pretend the first FW update, right now what bother me more is wrong settings recover at startup (i.e. AC coupling on channel 1) and FAN noise.
Dunno what you think guys, in my opinion FAN noise is not acceptable, being the speed electronic controlled buy software the hope is they put something like "fan profile" in setting menu.
-
-snip
Rigol forced this out too soon..
And just a few days ago I realized why: they just had IPO on Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange..
This was already pointed out some weeks ago, aside that there is no doubt that application software is alpha version 0.1, but the price is insane, so it's worth the wait ;)
-
50Ω has nothing to do with scope amplitude....
And I will repeat: what frequency are you measuring at?
It can be 100x attenuated depending on frequency...
But it is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes..
Rigol forced this out too soon..
And just a few days ago I realized why: they just had IPO on Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange..
1KHz ...
It is oversampling. From 5 MSs/s to 50 MSa/s.
But whatever the cause it is a bug of course.
-
50Ω has nothing to do with scope amplitude....
And I will repeat: what frequency are you measuring at?
It can be 100x attenuated depending on frequency...
But it is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes..
Rigol forced this out too soon..
And just a few days ago I realized why: they just had IPO on Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange..
It's for sure a bug, the amplitude is halved also with a 100Hz sine wave, noticed first day when I was playing with acquisition menu.
In my opinion this is the last problem of the list, scope's traces are clearly the most detailed that I have seen in a scope of this price as well as the image quality.
-
50Ω has nothing to do with scope amplitude....
And I will repeat: what frequency are you measuring at?
It can be 100x attenuated depending on frequency...
But it is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes..
Rigol forced this out too soon..
And just a few days ago I realized why: they just had IPO on Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange..
1KHz ...
It is oversampling. From 5 MSs/s to 50 MSa/s.
But whatever the cause it is a bug of course.
As was saying 2N3055 "is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes", the weird thing is that it passed internal prelaminar test fully unnoticed :palm:
I'm getting some strange high frequency noise in waveform traces dumped with SCPI commands, something that seems not present on ths DSO screen ???
I will show later.
-
Let´s hope for you and other owners, rigol change it´s "fixing problems policy" and deliver soon the solutions.
-
Here we go, a couple of screens of dumped traces via SCPI command, the first one is "normal" while the second one shows the normal trace plus the high frequency noise that sometime appears among normal waveforms. The reason why there are different traces on second screenshot is because I'm drawing last three traces at the same time.
-
Let´s hope for you and other owners, rigol change it´s "fixing problems policy" and deliver soon the solutions.
I don't expect at all that Rigol will change the habits of the past, i do expect instead this DSO will follow the same fate as the past ones, at best.
I was personally aware about that, dunno other buyers, but if you want a real 12bit DSO @ 1K euro, right now there are not other commercial solutions.
I would have been concerned if DSO had analog acquisition performance issues, but from this point of view I am very satisfied for what I have seen, there is a huge gap in S/N and analog detail toward any other scope in the price range.
-
Demonstration video about the visualization techniques, including the new ultra-acquire mode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFq5JJcuDMw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFq5JJcuDMw)
-
Another new video about the noise performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mObYjYCVL0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mObYjYCVL0)
At appx 1min: Multi-grid display....Impressive.
-
Demonstration video about the visualization techniques, including the new ultra-acquire mode:
The actual ultraAcquire info starts at about 4mins in.
Did not guess that the name meant this at all, its more like "record analysis" not really a different acquire mode. Still the waterfall and grid display were cool, although with the grid one you'd need the scope to somehow output a higher res than it internally processes to see much detail.
-
At appx 1min: Multi-grid display....Impressive.
Yep.
Just the UI and just generally the way this thing works seems like a game-changer to me.
If you add in the 12 bits and low noise then it's now the only choice in this price range, or even much higher.
-
At appx 1min: Multi-grid display....Impressive.
Yep.
Just the UI and just generally the way this thing works seems like a game-changer to me.
If you add in the 12 bits and low noise then it's now the only choice in this price range, or even much higher.
I would add that UI is very responsive, even more after firmware update, nothing to do with MSO5K.
Also screen quality is quite high, high resolution image with very good contrast, in my opinion better than R&S screens that are way to much glossy.
-
I'm actually tempted to save up and get one.
-
what i dont seem to understand is why they cannot come out later to make an mso version. based on same platform maybe some way down the road
sure it would require a new pcb but they could still re-use the same firmware / software. and all this new analogue hardware pipeline
what is less clear to me however is why they cannot work allongside in parallel for those extra mso bits. if they need to wait for those same software engineers to actually finish these analogue software first. to be trained and competent to develop new software components on this new platform
but at least the hardware could developed and some prototypes made, without such critical path delay.
i suppose the staggering of the mso version for later could be a way to give time for old engineers to come over from previous (now defunct) prior platform(s). while a smaller team had already started early ahead just for the analog only product.
that all sounds like a lot of speculation. however what i am really trying to determine is whether or not there will ever actually be an mso mixed signal version of this scope. or if there will never be one.
because if they will eventually come out with an mso version. then i am much happier to wait for that one. however if there were other reasons why rigol doesnt want to bother. then i am not going to benefit by waiting for such a product...
i understand maybe their previous mso 5000 had some certain issue or difficulties with its digital decoding etc. however that would not influence such decisions for this new platform hopefully? or barring any other clear change in rigol's strategy going forwards in terms of their broader product lineup. then i am struggling to see much solid signs or reasons why they wouldnt want to eventually come out with a mixed signal version. if sales of these models are strong. then it makes sense to want to expand the range, right?
-
Demonstration video about the visualization techniques, including the new ultra-acquire mode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFq5JJcuDMw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFq5JJcuDMw)
Nice!! Both videos well done and show off this new HDO4000, the large touch screen used in the video is nice :)
Understand that one can utilize the firmware upgrades for the HDO4000 into the HDO1000 without any apparent issues!!
Much appreciated if someone could run the Two-Tone IMD at 100KHz, 1MHz & 10MHz to show the input channel linearity?
Best,
-
-snip
Much appreciated if someone could run the Two-Tone IMD at 100KHz, 1MHz & 10MHz to show the input channel linearity?
Best,
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
Ok, define "not great" with a number.
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
Ok, define "not great" with a number.
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
Ok, define "not great" with a number.
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
Most modern quality AWGs will likely fit well within that range, since they originate the signal from 14~16 bit DACs and have decent buffer & scaling amplifiers. Some even support digital waveform combining within the instrument, at least our experience with the SDG2000X/6000X demonstrated this as an effective means of signal waveform addition/combining without significant linearity issues.
Best
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
Ok, define "not great" with a number.
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
Why do you mention 8 bits ?
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
Ok, define "not great" with a number.
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
Most modern quality AWGs will likely fit well within that range, since they originate the signal from 14~16 bit DACs and have decent buffer & scaling amplifiers. Some even support digital waveform combining within the instrument, at least our experience with the SDG2000X/6000X demonstrated this as an effective means of signal waveform addition/combining without significant linearity issues.
Best
I too own an SDG2042X and I'm aware it's now capable to internally combine channels but we have no specs about intrinsic IMD, so I do not see a lot of sense to source my scope with it and declare that everything "wrong" that I see is from the DSO, IMHO it would be necessary a signal generator with proved IMD specifications data.
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
Ok, define "not great" with a number.
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
Most modern quality AWGs will likely fit well within that range, since they originate the signal from 14~16 bit DACs and have decent buffer & scaling amplifiers. Some even support digital waveform combining within the instrument, at least our experience with the SDG2000X/6000X demonstrated this as an effective means of signal waveform addition/combining without significant linearity issues.
Best
I too own an SDG2042X and I'm aware it's now capable to internally combine channels but we have no specs about intrinsic IMD, so I do not see a lot of sense to source my scope with it and declare that everything "wrong" that I see is from the DSO, IMHO it would be necessary a signal generator with proved IMD specifications data.
It was tested and documented here on EEVBLOG...
-
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
Why do you mention 8 bits ?
Because if the input signal conditioning has great difficulty achieving 8 bits of linearity, then 12 bits is much harder even than that. This is one of the reasons that 8 bits has been considered largely sufficient for DSOs.
-
Do you really want to ignite another discussion about measuring distortion with DSOs ? :D
Jokes apart, I guess it would be necessary a quite high quality generator to discern DUT IMD from source IMD.
Oscilloscope inputs have poor linearity so the demands on the two-tone signal source are not great.
Ok, define "not great" with a number.
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
Most modern quality AWGs will likely fit well within that range, since they originate the signal from 14~16 bit DACs and have decent buffer & scaling amplifiers. Some even support digital waveform combining within the instrument, at least our experience with the SDG2000X/6000X demonstrated this as an effective means of signal waveform addition/combining without significant linearity issues.
Best
I too own an SDG2042X and I'm aware it's now capable to internally combine channels but we have no specs about intrinsic IMD, so I do not see a lot of sense to source my scope with it and declare that everything "wrong" that I see is from the DSO, IMHO it would be necessary a signal generator with proved IMD specifications data.
It was tested and documented here on EEVBLOG...
What do you mean, maybe that now SDG2KX have official IMD numbers for channels combine function valid for entire frequency ranges ?
-
8 bits is roughly 51 dB SFDR and the analog front end linearity is unlikely to be even that good. Good linearity is a tough problem in this case.
Why do you mention 8 bits ?
Because if the input signal conditioning has great difficulty achieving 8 bits of linearity, then 12 bits is much harder even than that. This is one of the reasons that 8 bits has been considered largely sufficient for DSOs.
Sorry but I miss the point, here we have a 12 bits scope and a request for a dual tones IMD test, my point was that without a signal source with a known IMD specification is not possible to proceed to test the DSO under that aspect.
Do you mean that is useless test ?
-
It was tested and documented here on EEVBLOG...
What do you mean, maybe that now SDG2KX have official IMD numbers for channels combine function valid for entire frequency ranges ?
All joking aside, do your homework as suggested ;)
Best
-
It was tested and documented here on EEVBLOG...
What do you mean, maybe that now SDG2KX have official IMD numbers for channels combine function valid for entire frequency ranges ?
All joking aside, do your homework as suggested ;)
Best
:-//
-
As suggested there is lots of info on these measurements, just do a diligent search and you'll find it!!
Regarding the SDG2KX as a potential source for doing the DSO IMD testing. This sort of parameter may not be directly specified (maybe indirectly) but our AWG is not bad, maybe you should test yours with a good instrument (Spectrum Analyzer). Then you'll know if the major source of the IMD is the AWG or DSO, or both. Please remember this is Root Sum Squared result, so you may need to "back out" the IMD if the source and measurement are not >10dB apart.
Here's a quick SDG2KX test we did with a SSA3021X+ operating in it's "Sweet Spot". We used a Mini-Circuits 10dB PAD (always keep this N type PAD in place to protect the SA), and set the AWG CH1 and 2 to 0dBm (50 ohm reference), and frequency CH 1MHz, Ch2 1.01MHz. AWG Wave Combine is used, with output directed to Ch1.
SA center F of 1MHz with 100KHz span, and RBW & VBW of 1Hz. Judge for yourself the results shown below.
Edit: Added a couple more plots at 100KHz and 10MHz Center Frequency.
The point here is if the AWG is measuring this level of IMD on the SA, then you "know" the AWG is at least this good a source for use with such measurements, which as mentioned should be at least 10dB better than what your intended DUT is.
As always, KTI (Know Thy Instrument) and YMMV.
Best,
-
Believe the SDG2KX utilizes Quad-Oversampling, so the 1.2GSPS spec is somewhat misleading (please correct if this isn't true, don't want to spread any mis-information). This begins to show when producing a 100MHz based 2 Tone waveform, as artifacts begins to show up along the baseline noise floor likely caused by various "mixing" processes going on since each DAC update rate is only an effective 300MHz (1.2GSPS/4). With this in mind we wouldn't recommend our SDG2000X for a IMD source for 100MHz use.
We did check our SDG6000X at 100MHz. This has a 2.4GSPS, so if the Quad-Oversampling assumption is correct, then each DAC is 600MHz updated, and should produce less waveform artifacts. As expected it does at better job at 100MHz than the SDG2000X we have.
Here's the SDG2000X (#24) and SDG6000 (#23) at 2 Tone 100MHz Waveforms. Note both of these plots are using the Delta-Marker Function to show the 3rd Order IMD Products as dBc relative to the main two tones, we should have done this in the above plots :P
As always, YMMV.
Edit: This thread is about the new Rigol HD series DSOs. Let's all hope they did a good job on the input amps and attenuators, and not degrade the 12 bit ADC. Others have shown a good job on the input referred noise, now lets hope the same for the linearity!!
Best
-
Sorry but I miss the point, here we have a 12 bits scope and a request for a dual tones IMD test, my point was that without a signal source with a known IMD specification is not possible to proceed to test the DSO under that aspect.
Do you mean that is useless test ?
The signal source just has to be better than the possible performance of the DSO, but I have seen the transient response of "12 bit" DSOs, and none of them have 12 bit analog or noise performance.
-
The signal source just has to be better than the possible performance of the DSO, but I have seen the transient response of "12 bit" DSOs, and none of them have 12 bit analog or noise performance.
Seems to me like you're asking the wrong questions.
The question is: Are they better than "8 bit" DSOs. In the case of these Rigols the answer seems to be a resounding "yes!"
-
The signal source just has to be better than the possible performance of the DSO, but I have seen the transient response of "12 bit" DSOs, and none of them have 12 bit analog or noise performance.
Seems to me like you're asking the wrong questions.
The question is: Are they better than "8 bit" DSOs. In the case of these Rigols the answer seems to be a resounding "yes!"
They are better than the 8 bit Rigols, but *not* better than all older 8 bit DSOs or even analog oscilloscopes. The 8 bit Rigols are particularly bad, so it is not difficult to improve on their performance.
Where the 12 bit DSOs do always perform better is FFT dynamic range; low RBW (resolution bandwidth) from a large FFT size minimizes the contribution from front end noise so performance is limited by quantization noise, although that does nothing to improve the SFDR which depends on the linearity.
-
so does this make the siglent sds2000 plus a better overall / all round scope at the same price then?
-
They are better than the 8 bit Rigols, but *not* better than all older 8 bit DSOs or even analog oscilloscopes.
:palm:
so does this make the siglent sds2000 plus a better overall / all round scope at the same price then?
You're going to base a purchasing decision on a single person's claim that "all older 8 bit DSOs" are better than these?
(Edit: And using an incredibly narrow definition of definition of "better" that has nothing at all with user interface, noise levels, feature set, or ... anything else that will affect you in day-to-day life)
-
The signal source just has to be better than the possible performance of the DSO, but I have seen the transient response of "12 bit" DSOs, and none of them have 12 bit analog or noise performance.
Seems to me like you're asking the wrong questions.
The question is: Are they better than "8 bit" DSOs. In the case of these Rigols the answer seems to be a resounding "yes!"
They are better than the 8 bit Rigols, but *not* better than all older 8 bit DSOs or even analog oscilloscopes. The 8 bit Rigols are particularly bad, so it is not difficult to improve on their performance.
Where the 12 bit DSOs do always perform better is FFT dynamic range; low RBW (resolution bandwidth) from a large FFT size minimizes the contribution from front end noise so performance is limited by quantization noise, although that does nothing to improve the SFDR which depends on the linearity.
I remember very noisy Tek & Agilent 8 bits DSOs, much worse than current Rigol MSO5K, so I do not get your point, especially because is not supported by measured data.
This new Rigol 12bits line has nothing to do with previous ones under a lot of aspects, input noise and scope responsiveness are the first two things that you notice at first glance.
-
This new Rigol 12bits line has nothing to do with previous ones under a lot of aspects, input noise and scope responsiveness are the first two things that you notice at first glance.
It's obviously a complete redesign. New hardware, new OS, new everything...
-
so does this make the siglent sds2000 plus a better overall / all round scope at the same price then?
Do you really think that Rigol 12bits DSOs have inferior analog performance than Siglent SDS 2000x plus based on the fact that someone has expressed a personal opinion that is not supported by fact ?
-
i have not taken any such position either way... it just seemed like a relevant question to ask. but such heated exchanges.
there is plenty of time to clear up those question. but it seems upon reviewing the last couple of pages there was some derailment between talking about difficulties measuring with the distortion from awg. which is a seperate matter itself
so the actual input distortion of these respective scopes. so no, i dont see how that has been sufficiently answered yet...
totally fine and no, i dont base my decisions based on just thin air. there has to be some real meat behind. its just a genuine case of:
well let me rephrase: if were true, (as a hypothetical). then what would it mean. because the sds2k has mixed signal, and perhaps less broken bugs in firmware etc.
but i had forgotton that the thing boots twice as long. its 1 minute boot time for the sds2k+, and only 30s for these new rigol hdo. so that alone i think would bother me to still prefer the rigol (all else being taken out of the equation)
-
You're going to base a purchasing decision on a single person's claim that "all older 8 bit DSOs" are better than these?
I am sorry if that was confusing. My claim is that they are not better than every older 8 bit or analog oscilloscope, because some of those old oscilloscopes had lower noise, and better linearity.
I laugh when modern DSOs claim "low noise". They are always making a comparison to DSOs that have high noise, with some of them being exceptionally high. Many of those old oscilloscopes were achieving 18 to 28 microvolts RMS over a 100 to 200 MHz bandwidth, and were only limited by the noise from the RF JFET in their impedance converter.
I remember very noisy Tek & Agilent 8 bits DSOs, much worse than current Rigol MSO5K, so I do not get your point, especially because is not supported by measured data.
I do not know about the HP/Agilent DSOs, but the Tektronix CCD based DSOs sure were noisy, and their linearity was only like 6 bits.
This new Rigol 12bits line has nothing to do with previous ones under a lot of aspects, input noise and scope responsiveness are the first two things that you notice at first glance.
Like I said, it would not take much to improve upon Rigol's older DSOs. That is not a very flattering comparison, although probably a fair one because that is what their potential customers are used to.
-
Our lecroy scopes haven´t got markers or even a table..
They expect you have eyes to see it and when you want to know the exact value, you can use cursors.
OK, for their prices you can´t expect more comfort, they cost with discount only 13000 or 14000 bucks each.
A little bit off topic, but anyway - from operator`s manual:
"Cursors on Math Functions
Cursors can be placed on math functions whose X-axis has a dimension other than time, such as an FFT.
When there is at least one math trace open, the Standard Cursors dialog contains an X-Axis control where
you can choose the units measured by the horizontal cursors. The options will be appropriate to the types
of function traces open; for example, if there is an FFT trace, there is an option for Hz. The cursor lines
are placed on the traces that normally display X-axis values in the selected units."
-
well let me rephrase: if were true, (as a hypothetical). then what would it mean. because the sds2k has mixed signal, and perhaps less broken bugs in firmware etc.
If you need an MSO then this isn't the 'scope for you, obviously.
but i had forgotton that the thing boots twice as long. its 1 minute boot time for the sds2k+, and only 30s for these new rigol hdo. so that alone i think would bother me to still prefer the rigol (all else being taken out of the equation)
The user interface on these Rigols looks very, very interesting. Game changing, even. Disclaimer: I don't own one (yet), I'm judging by the videos and screenshots I've seen.
I do own a Micsig which has a way better UI then all other 'scopes I've used. Everything is really fast to set up and use.
I see many parallels to it in these new Rigols but the Rigols have way more features.
(as they should, they're twice the price...)
-
Our lecroy scopes haven´t got markers or even a table..
They expect you have eyes to see it and when you want to know the exact value, you can use cursors.
OK, for their prices you can´t expect more comfort, they cost with discount only 13000 or 14000 bucks each.
A little bit off topic, but anyway - from operator`s manual:
"Cursors on Math Functions
Cursors can be placed on math functions whose X-axis has a dimension other than time, such as an FFT.
When there is at least one math trace open, the Standard Cursors dialog contains an X-Axis control where
you can choose the units measured by the horizontal cursors. The options will be appropriate to the types
of function traces open; for example, if there is an FFT trace, there is an option for Hz. The cursor lines
are placed on the traces that normally display X-axis values in the selected units."
What do try to say by this? This is standard function on every other scope to have cursors on FFT or math channels for that matter ..
-
If you need an MSO then this isn't the 'scope for you, obviously.
Don't waste your time with this guy/gal, they've been debating what oscilloscope/PSU to get for multiple years.
-
Do you really think that Rigol 12bits DSOs have inferior analog performance than Siglent SDS 2000x plus based on the fact that someone has expressed a personal opinion that is not supported by fact ?
I think we can agree that both are low noise, or in a range where in practice it no longer matters which is lower noise than the other.
but i had forgotton that the thing boots twice as long. its 1 minute boot time for the sds2k+, and only 30s for these new rigol hdo. so that alone i think would bother me to still prefer the rigol
Are you in such a hurry that you can't wait 30 seconds longer? ;)
The boot time is, at least for me, so beside the point, other things would be incomparably more important.
I don't have to defuse a bomb that goes off in a few seconds...
-
i have not taken any such position either way... it just seemed like a relevant question to ask. but such heated exchanges.
there is plenty of time to clear up those question. but it seems upon reviewing the last couple of pages there was some derailment between talking about difficulties measuring with the distortion from awg. which is a seperate matter itself
so the actual input distortion of these respective scopes. so no, i dont see how that has been sufficiently answered yet...
totally fine and no, i dont base my decisions based on just thin air. there has to be some real meat behind. its just a genuine case of:
well let me rephrase: if were true, (as a hypothetical). then what would it mean. because the sds2k has mixed signal, and perhaps less broken bugs in firmware etc.
but i had forgotton that the thing boots twice as long. its 1 minute boot time for the sds2k+, and only 30s for these new rigol hdo. so that alone i think would bother me to still prefer the rigol (all else being taken out of the equation)
There is a thing to be aware of before to purchase the sds2k+, take a look to the following video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVxDibdosdI&t=3s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVxDibdosdI&t=3s)
Maybe this aspect does not bother you, in my case it was a deal breaker.
-
Oh no, not again....
-
Do you really think that Rigol 12bits DSOs have inferior analog performance than Siglent SDS 2000x plus based on the fact that someone has expressed a personal opinion that is not supported by fact ?
I think we can agree that both are low noise, or in a range where in practice it no longer matters which is lower noise than the other.
But the Rigol is an actual 12Bits DSO and waveform details are greater, in my opinion the SDS 2000x plus is an instrument to be to compared with others 8 bits MSO and here we all agree that noise wise is better than Rigol MSO5K scopes, which however cost less and have higher sampling rate.
We are talking about instruments with different purposes, if 12bits vertical resolution is the main feature sought then an hacked HD1074 have currently no rivals at the price.
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
yes and the whole discussion about using history mode instead etc.
but i think i missed here the part of the conversation where somebody mentions what these new rigol hdo do in same situation. dave shows a variety of scopes and... that was before these new rigol platform got released.
however the r&s rtb probably would be my overall personal choice. were it not in a completely different price tier category and unobtainable. so if these new are better that's a positive
but yes, better not to stir up another contentious arguments. its almost worth not knowing the answer for the pages of grief otherwise incurred
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
Be sure you place LeCroy and Pico in the same basket.
However what is more important is to point out your inability to adapt to use the perfectly functional tools you have at your disposal such as split screen Zoom mode.
-
However what is more important is to point out your inability to adapt to use the perfectly functional toolsinconvenient workarounds you have at your disposal such as split screen Zoom mode.
FTFY.
Oh, well. The Siglent apologists are here so that's another thread down the toilet.
Why can't you just admit that Siglents aren't sent from heaven? That they might have flaws/weaknesses?
-
FTFY.
Oh, well. The Siglent apologists are here so that's another thread down the toilet.
Why can't you just admit that Siglents aren't sent from heaven? That they might have flaws/weaknesses?
I have a question when will you buy this Rigol HDO ?
Because for now you are talking about Rigol and Siglent without having these oscilloscopes. So you are a "very reliable source" of information about these oscilloscopes :-DD
-
However what is more important is to point out your inability to adapt to use the perfectly functional toolsinconvenient workarounds you have at your disposal such as split screen Zoom mode.
FTFY.
Oh, well. The Siglent apologists are here so that's another thread down the toilet.
Why can't you just admit that Siglents aren't sent from heaven? That they might have flaws/weaknesses?
Threads go down the toilet when people come in provoking that particular discussion and won't stop...
-
Threads go down the toilet when people come in provoking that particular discussion and won't stop...
I've said all I'm going to say on this matter.
(PS: It wasn't me who brought it up, I didn't mention it, all I said was that Siglent fans really ought to accept that Siglent's aren't heaven-sent. Why don't you go and pick on the real culprits?)
-
I have a question when will you buy this Rigol HDO ?
Because for now you are talking about Rigol and Siglent without having these oscilloscopes. So you are a "very reliable source" of information about these oscilloscopes :-DD
That's never stopped a Siglent fan from going on about the noise in a Rigol MSO5000.
etc.
You don't have to own something to know anything about it or to be able to see the user interface in videos.
I may get one yet, we'll see how the next few months go. I don't actually need one though, right now my Misic covers my oscilloscope needs.
If I didn't own an oscilloscope and I had $1000+ to spend this Rigol would be top of the list for me. I wouldn't get anything without touch screen and the other Rigols and Siglents are only half way to a modern, MIcsig-like UI.
(I assume they didn't want to scare away their existing twisty-knob customer base).
-
I have a question when will you buy this Rigol HDO ?
Because for now you are talking about Rigol and Siglent without having these oscilloscopes. So you are a "very reliable source" of information about these oscilloscopes :-DD
That's never stopped a Siglent fan from going on about the noise in a Rigol MSO5000.
etc.
You don't have to own something to know anything about it or to be able to see the user interface in videos.
You know, I'm reading this topic and I'd rather learn something from practitioners with equipment, not from people who base their knowledge on YouTube marketing videos...
If I have to base my knowledge on Youtube, it might be best to buy FNIRSI (The marketing is awesome) :-DD
Recently, there is a fashion for specialists in all fields where instead of practice there is knowledge from Youtube. Some time ago, such a specialist explained to me how to raise a daughter, where his knowledge about raising children probably also comes from YouTube, and the knowledge about making children from PornHub (a bachelor without a family and children) :-DD
-
You know, I'm reading this topic and I'd rather learn something from practitioners with equipment, not from people who base their knowledge on YouTube marketing videos...
I must remember to tell Dave his videos are "Marketing videos"...
-
his knowledge of how to make children from PornHub :-DD
I'm fairly sure the methods shown there will produce babies.
-
You know, I'm reading this topic and I'd rather learn something from practitioners with equipment, not from people who base their knowledge on YouTube marketing videos...
I must remember to tell Dave his videos are "Marketing videos"...
They are and documentation of his misunderstandings of how to use equipment too.
He is well known for fingers faster than brain usage.
-
You know, I'm reading this topic and I'd rather learn something from practitioners with equipment, not from people who base their knowledge on YouTube marketing videos...
I must remember to tell Dave his videos are "Marketing videos"...
I meant Rigol's videos showing the new oscilloscope. On the other hand, the videos shot by Dave from EEVBlog are invaluable (but it's mostly a hardware review, not a thorough test).
Unfortunately, to evaluate the oscilloscope well, you need to have it, in addition, it is not easy to do because many errors can come out only after some time.
Another thing is that people considering this oscilloscope are more interested in the opinions of users of the equipment. Sorry, but I don't think anyone cares how you rate this oscilloscope based on YT videos that everyone can see.
-
You know, I'm reading this topic and I'd rather learn something from practitioners with equipment, not from people who base their knowledge on YouTube marketing videos...
I must remember to tell Dave his videos are "Marketing videos"...
They are and documentation of his misunderstandings of how to use equipment too.
He is well known for fingers faster than brain usage.
Everyone knows why the media produces click headlines and articles. The only real purpose is to increase media popularity and therefore revenue.
-
Unfortunately, to evaluate the oscilloscope well, you need to have it, in addition, it is not easy to do because many errors can come out only after some time. Another thing is that people considering this oscilloscope are more interested in the opinions of users of the equipment. Sorry, but I don't think anyone cares how you rate this oscilloscope based on YT videos that everyone can see.
What exactly did I say? The only thing I mentioned was the user interface.
You don't have to own one to be able to look at Dave's video (or even Rigol's "marketing video") and know the user interface is a massive improvement over traditional Rigol's Siglents:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1700986;image)
vs.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1700992;image)
PS: Have you checked the credentials of everybody posting here, or is it just because I'm the only one who adds disclaimers?
-
What exactly did I say? The only thing I mentioned was the user interface.
You don't have to own one to be able to look at Dave's video (or even Rigol's "marketing video") and know the user interface is a massive improvement over traditional Rigol's Siglents:
PS: Have you checked the credentials of everybody posting here, or is it just because I'm the only one who adds disclaimers?
I further argue that watching the video is a bit too little to even evaluate the graphical interface. Not to mention the fact that the appearance of the graphical interface as well as its aesthetics is a matter of taste and possible habits.
I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from these photos :-// You can also add GUI R&S, Tektronix, Keysight... and it won't change much :=\
Currently, I have experience with the older Rigol GUI, the touch interface on the Agilent/Keysight DSOX 3054A oscilloscope and the Siglent SAA Plus/SVA spectrum analyzer. I omit the Rigol waveform generator or the recently purchased SDM3065X multimeter from Siglent ...
In fact, without long work on measurements, it was difficult to determine what is more convenient in everyday work, what is weak in a given interface.
As for some of the weaknesses of the Siglent SDS2000X HD interface, I learned a bit from a topic hosted by Martin72. These are practical notes, not pasting screenshots without having the opportunity to work on this equipment.
Here are examples of constructive opinions from other topics - resulting from the fact that someone works on equipment and writes what annoys him:
"Today" I´ve used the bode function for checking some things on a differential probe.
What I don´t like is that when this mode is active, you can´t do anything else except what the bode menu allows you to do.
For example, when you want to change something in the channel menu, no chance, you have to leave the bode mode first.
Still I hope Siglent think again what is right place for "return" button in menu. My opinion is that it need be visible always so that if I open what ever menu and if want return to previous menu no need scroll for find return button.
So forgive me... If someone is willing to spend over 3200euro on an oscilloscope HDO4000 or SDS2000X HD, they still prefer user feedback, not someone who "thinks" something is better (based on YT videos). It's a bit like the attitude of a child who says that when he's big and has money, he'll buy a Ferrari :popcorn:
Personally, I do not want to judge either Rigol or Siglent, although reading the information about both oscilloscopes it looks a bit different.
Having some experience with Rigol, I'm a bit afraid that spending over 3000 euros I will sign up for aplha tests, and it's possible that beta tests will be in 10 years. For example, Rigol corrected some bugs related to math functions, triggers and SCPI commands in DS1000Z only in December 2020 (oscilloscopes of this series were released in 2013).
Siglent SDS2000X HD despite some problems, some shortcomings in the GUI. It seems that this is a slightly more mature design, which can be easily operated after purchase.
It is possible that I am wrong, but some doubts will certainly not be resolved by a person who knows about Rigol only from what someone else publishes on the forum or on Youtube.
-
What exactly did I say? The only thing I mentioned was the user interface.
You don't have to own one to be able to look at Dave's video (or even Rigol's "marketing video") and know the user interface is a massive improvement over traditional Rigol's Siglents:
PS: Have you checked the credentials of everybody posting here, or is it just because I'm the only one who adds disclaimers?
What makes you think that RIgol user interface is easier to use and more ergonomic than touch Siglents?
Little Teletubbies pictures?
Setting details of input channels in dialog that covers whole screen compared to one where you see what you are doing is not upgrade..
It might look nice on a video, but try using it...
Only once you have both side by side on a desk and using it for few months in production you can see where it works and where it does not.
That is why I didn't make any comments on Rigol GUI but saying it looks nice and it is a great upgrade to previous Rigol UI. But I really don't know how it would compare to Siglents..
-
What makes you think that RIgol user interface is easier to use and more ergonomic than touch Siglents?
Little Teletubbies pictures?
Fungus he's horny for Rigol as toothless for biscuits :palm:
He won't buy it himself, and he knows as much about the device as he reads and sees on Youtube ... but he persuades everyone to buy it. :scared:
I don't understand at all how you can convince another person to spend a lot of money on an oscilloscope - which you don't know much about (the oscilloscope was only seen in pictures). |O
Maybe Fungus is an employee of Rigol's marketing department ? :-//
And lest anyone write that I hate Rigol... It's some part of the Rigol oscilloscopes I have...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpMaj3Npml0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpMaj3Npml0)
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
yes and the whole discussion about using history mode instead etc.
but i think i missed here the part of the conversation where somebody mentions what these new rigol hdo do in same situation. dave shows a variety of scopes and... that was before these new rigol platform got released.
however the r&s rtb probably would be my overall personal choice. were it not in a completely different price tier category and unobtainable. so if these new are better that's a positive
but yes, better not to stir up another contentious arguments. its almost worth not knowing the answer for the pages of grief otherwise incurred
HDO zoom-out like all others but Siglent, Picoscope and Lecroys.
-
thanks for answering. i suppose it has covered already in more detail elsewhere. to clarify which specific mode(s) etc. no worries
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
Be sure you place LeCroy and Pico in the same basket.
However what is more important is to point out your inability to adapt to use the perfectly functional tools you have at your disposal such as split screen Zoom mode.
Tautech,
I would like instead to point out your total inability to understand why zoom-out feature is mandatory for lot of situations, or maybe your marketing target is so important at the point to negate/invert reality, like it happened in the SDS2000X HD LA speed comparison with SDS2000X (much faster) where you demonstrated to have NO knowledge about the matter.
Anyway is always funny to see the level of bashing commitment of the whole Siglent Armada in every Rigol thread, it's a pity that Rigol has no interest to inject marketing guys in this forum otherwise it would have been an unparalleled meltdown.
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
Be sure you place LeCroy and Pico in the same basket.
However what is more important is to point out your inability to adapt to use the perfectly functional tools you have at your disposal such as split screen Zoom mode.
Tautech,
I would like instead to point out your total inability to understand why zoom-out feature is mandatory for lot of situations, or maybe your marketing target is so important at the point to negate/invert reality, like it happened in the SDS2000X HD LA speed comparison with SDS2000X (much faster) where you demonstrated to have NO knowledge about the matter.
Anyway is always funny to see the level of bashing commitment of the whole Siglent Armada in every Rigol thread, it's a pity that Rigol has no interest to inject marketing guys in this forum otherwise it would have been an unparalleled meltdown.
There is no "Siglent armada"... Just people trying to dispense with misinformation. At least on my part.
Just for your information, I personally "defended honor" of Rigol, Picoscope even Keysight etc on many occasions when people would write things that are not true..
And if there weren't for "Rigol crusaders" trying to demonize every little thing that is different on other scopes there would be no need for any of these unnecessary, uncivilized, useless, protracted crapshoots about "my **** is bigger than yours...
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
-
As for some of the weaknesses of the Siglent SDS2000X HD interface, I learned a bit from a topic hosted by Martin72. These are practical notes, not pasting screenshots without having the opportunity to work on this equipment.
Sorry, but unless you own one you can't possible know anything about them.
Reading things in forums doesn't count. That's just the way it is.
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
Be sure you place LeCroy and Pico in the same basket.
However what is more important is to point out your inability to adapt to use the perfectly functional tools you have at your disposal such as split screen Zoom mode.
Tautech,
I would like instead to point out your total inability to understand why zoom-out feature is mandatory for lot of situations, or maybe your marketing target is so important at the point to negate/invert reality, like it happened in the SDS2000X HD LA speed comparison with SDS2000X (much faster) where you demonstrated to have NO knowledge about the matter.
Anyway is always funny to see the level of bashing commitment of the whole Siglent Armada in every Rigol thread, it's a pity that Rigol has no interest to inject marketing guys in this forum otherwise it would have been an unparalleled meltdown.
There is no "Siglent armada"... Just people trying to dispense with misinformation. At least on my part.
Just for your information, I personally "defended honor" of Rigol, Picoscope even Keysight etc on many occasions when people would write things that are not true..
And if there weren't for "Rigol crusaders" trying to demonize every little thing that is different on other scopes there would be no need for any of these unnecessary, uncivilized, useless, protracted crapshoots about "my **** is bigger than yours...
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
I find that video quite clear, dunno what you refer to with "wrong information".
I do feel in syntony with David for the simple reason that I do make use of zoom out feature on many occasions as well as I put scope in auto memory mode in other, so this kind of flexibility is important to me like to other workers that operate in similar condition.
Anyway, the fact that Siglent started to implement it in medium / higher models confirms that it does make sense, i would guess that we will see it appear in lower end models in the future, in the meanwhile I consider its absence a lack, not a feature.
The attempt to pass the zoom solution as equivalent does not work for many reasons, especially for cheap scopes where the screen size and resolution are limited and the zoom function slow down operations a lot, especially during its navigation.
But to understand this fact you have to actual use a scope under certain conditions, sure it's note the case for all users but information about that must be evaluated before the purchase and the David's video here comes a lot in handy.
Also you can't deny that here we have an important Siglent marketing supporters, in part official, group that operates exclusively to expand Siglent sales at the expense of the main competitor (Rigol) and this sounds as an anomaly for a technical forum, in fact in many other web tech forums this is forbidden by specific rule.
-
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
I find that video quite clear, dunno what you refer to with "wrong information".
He means "information I don't want to hear".
-
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
I find that video quite clear, dunno what you refer to with "wrong information".
He means "information I don't want to hear".
All the stuff how Keysight works is wrong. But you don't have Keysight scope either...
-
Oh no, not again....
Yes, again, the truth MUST be told ;)
Be sure you place LeCroy and Pico in the same basket.
However what is more important is to point out your inability to adapt to use the perfectly functional tools you have at your disposal such as split screen Zoom mode.
Tautech,
I would like instead to point out your total inability to understand why zoom-out feature is mandatory for lot of situations, or maybe your marketing target is so important at the point to negate/invert reality, like it happened in the SDS2000X HD LA speed comparison with SDS2000X (much faster) where you demonstrated to have NO knowledge about the matter.
Anyway is always funny to see the level of bashing commitment of the whole Siglent Armada in every Rigol thread, it's a pity that Rigol has no interest to inject marketing guys in this forum otherwise it would have been an unparalleled meltdown.
There is no "Siglent armada"... Just people trying to dispense with misinformation. At least on my part.
Just for your information, I personally "defended honor" of Rigol, Picoscope even Keysight etc on many occasions when people would write things that are not true..
And if there weren't for "Rigol crusaders" trying to demonize every little thing that is different on other scopes there would be no need for any of these unnecessary, uncivilized, useless, protracted crapshoots about "my **** is bigger than yours...
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
I find that video quite clear, dunno what you refer to with "wrong information".
I do feel in syntony with David for the simple reason that I do make use of zoom out feature on many occasions as well as I put scope in auto memory mode in other, so this kind of flexibility is important to me like to other workers that operate in similar condition.
Anyway, the fact that Siglent started to implement it in medium / higher models confirms that it does make sense, i would guess that we will see it appear in lower end models in the future, in the meanwhile I consider its absence a lack, not a feature.
The attempt to pass the zoom solution as equivalent does not work for many reasons, especially for cheap scopes where the screen size and resolution are limited and the zoom function slow down operations a lot, especially during its navigation.
But to understand this fact you have to actual use a scope under certain conditions, sure it's note the case for all users but information about that must be evaluated before the purchase and the David's video here comes a lot in handy.
Also you can't deny that here we have an important Siglent marketing supporters, in part official, group that operates exclusively to expand Siglent sales at the expense of the main competitor (Rigol) and this sounds as an anomaly for a technical forum, in fact in many other web tech forums this is forbidden by specific rule.
Again, open your eyes and be sure you place LeCroy and Pico in the same basket.
These are perfectly valid technical design decisions why these scopes operate this way.
Latest scopes offer Auto or Fixed mem depth of which each has their advantages.
-
As for some of the weaknesses of the Siglent SDS2000X HD interface, I learned a bit from a topic hosted by Martin72. These are practical notes, not pasting screenshots without having the opportunity to work on this equipment.
Sorry, but unless you own one you can't possible know anything about them.
Reading things in forums doesn't count. That's just the way it is.
I don't think you understand the difference. I collect information from users who are able to check something and share information (They have this model of oscilloscope). I am collecting this information because I am wondering if it is worth buying Rigol HDO or maybe better Siglent 2000X HD... Rigol seems to have good equipment and is cheaper. However, my experience with Rigol's software raises some concerns.
You advise others by saying buy an oscilloscope you will be satisfied. This is an example of your forum posts:
In short, I am delighted with the purchase of this SIglent SDS1204X-E scope, I do not regret this change of oscilloscope, even with a price difference of almost 3 times.
You should have spent a bit more and got the new Rigol 12-bit oscilloscopes.
They're a whole other level in terms of user interface and performance.
A bit more to have a 12 bits scope, 4 channels and 200 MHz BW !!!
Nooooooo, much more.
You won't regret it if you upgrade your Siglent to the new Rigol.
Fungus But ok, since you advise everyone to buy HDO, maybe you will dispel some of my doubts.
1. Do the currently sold HDO1000 still have the full 50 ohm input path of the 4000 model ? And whether uploading the firmware from the 4000 model activates the possibility of using the 50 ohm track ?
2. Do the advanced triggers work without problems and there are no problems with the firmware ? I care most about (Pulse Width Trigger, Pattern Trigger, Duration Trigger, Window Trigger, Timeout Trigger, Delay Trigger).
3. I have not found anywhere that HDO oscilloscope provide zone triggering (I was looking at the HDO manuals). If so, could someone check if they work correctly. Rigol MSO5000/MSO7000, Siglent 2000X Plus/HD and my Agilent 3054A have zone triggers and I really care about that (they make life easier and it's hard to replace them in any other way - I honestly can't imagine working without such triggers)
If someone doesn't know what zone triggering is, here's a description of how it works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tPgeyEgPc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tPgeyEgPc)
4. Are there any bugs in the software that cause math functions to malfunction? Can you test their performance and report back to me ?
5. I am also interested in the Power Analysis option, how can someone test it if it works properly (there are no errors in the firmware) and present sample measurements here, I will be grateful. Does the Power Analysis option work on HDO1000 after uploading the firmware from HDO4000 ? Mainly this option has the potential to use 12 bits in practice...
6. Does the firmwre allow you to disable interpolation and display samples as dots on the screen (without connecting the dots) ?
7. Has the Bode function been implemented for Rigol external generators ? (current versions of the manual do not mention this). I am referring to this post:
Seems there is a first FW update available for the HDO4K
https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52 (https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52)
no description though
In the FPGA section we can see BODE reference ... Maybe with an external gen?
I have a Siglent VNA as I mentioned, but it's designed for high frequencies. So a big advantage would be the Bode option operating at lower frequencies. Rigol MSO5000 and Siglent have this function, I'm a bit surprised by the lack of it in HDO...
8. Do the problems listed here also exist in the HDO4000 firmware ?
50Ω has nothing to do with scope amplitude....
And I will repeat: what frequency are you measuring at?
It can be 100x attenuated depending on frequency...
But it is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes..
Rigol forced this out too soon..
And just a few days ago I realized why: they just had IPO on Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange..
1KHz ...
It is oversampling. From 5 MSs/s to 50 MSa/s.
But whatever the cause it is a bug of course.
As was saying 2N3055 "is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes", the weird thing is that it passed internal prelaminar test fully unnoticed :palm:
I'm getting some strange high frequency noise in waveform traces dumped with SCPI commands, something that seems not present on ths DSO screen ???
I will show later.
9. Are there any other known issues when using SCPI ?
10. How does the XY mode work ? Doesn't it have the problems that were in the MSO5000 ? How fast is the XY mode ? (would love to see a video)
Fungus, I hope that as a person who highly recommends HDO oscilloscopes, you will dispel my doubts and answer the questions asked.
Of course, seriously, I direct this question to those who own these oscilloscopes.
-
Latest scopes offer Auto or Fixed mem depth of which each has their advantages.
So how do you explain that latest mid-high end Siglent scopes are introducing this "Not Necessary Feature" already present in ALL Rigol scopes from ages ?
Suddenly this "feature" matters a lot ?
-
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
I find that video quite clear, dunno what you refer to with "wrong information".
He means "information I don't want to hear".
All the stuff how Keysight works is wrong. But you don't have Keysight scope either...
You can reply with your own video and explain in detail this wrongness, I will be glad to watch it.
-
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
I find that video quite clear, dunno what you refer to with "wrong information".
He means "information I don't want to hear".
All the stuff how Keysight works is wrong. But you don't have Keysight scope either...
You can reply with your own video and explain in detail this wrongness, I will be glad to watch it.
So you are saying I'm lying, basically...
I don't do Teletubbies for people that are too lazy to read what was already explained dozens of times...
I documented all in details in posts... And it was separately verified..
If you don't trust me, buy your own Keysight scope (like I did) and verify it yourself..
It is your problem, not mine. I did my part.
-
Latest scopes offer Auto or Fixed mem depth of which each has their advantages.
So how do you explain that latest mid-high end Siglent scopes are introducing this "Not Necessary Feature" already present in ALL Rigol scopes from ages ?
Suddenly this "feature" matters a lot ?
I can.
It was management decision to do it where it was opportune because apparently there are people that are willing to use this as a propaganda against Siglent... So if it was possible without breaking something it was done. So brand zealots cannot ad nauseam invent "big" reasons why Siglent is worse than "your brand here"... Even if "your favorite brand" has firmware that is falling apart and scope has dozens of bugs...
While literally millions of Siglent user apparently don't need it...
But hey, more power to the user. And when they do it, then, again, by same people they again did something wrong..
Haters gonna hate...
That is your truth...
-
1. Do the currently sold HDO1000 still have the full 50 ohm input path of the 4000 model ? And whether uploading the firmware from the 4000 model activates the possibility of using the 50 ohm track ?
2. Do the advanced triggers work without problems and there are no problems with the firmware ? I care most about (Pulse Width Trigger, Pattern Trigger, Duration Trigger, Window Trigger, Timeout Trigger, Delay Trigger).
3. I have not found anywhere that HDO oscilloscope provide zone triggering (I was looking at the HDO manuals). If so, could someone check if they work correctly. Rigol MSO5000/MSO7000, Siglent 2000X Plus/HD and my Agilent 3054A have zone triggers and I really care about that (they make life easier and it's hard to replace them in any other way - I honestly can't imagine working without such triggers)
If someone doesn't know what zone triggering is, here's a description of how it works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tPgeyEgPc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tPgeyEgPc)
4. Are there any bugs in the software that cause math functions to malfunction? Can you test their performance and report back to me ?
5. I am also interested in the Power Analysis option, how can someone test it if it works properly (there are no errors in the firmware) and present sample measurements here, I will be grateful. Does the Power Analysis option work on HDO1000 after uploading the firmware from HDO4000 ? Mainly this option has the potential to use 12 bits in practice...
6. Does the firmwre allow you to disable interpolation and display samples as dots on the screen (without connecting the dots) ?
7. Has the Bode function been implemented for Rigol external generators ? (current versions of the manual do not mention this). I am referring to this post:
Seems there is a first FW update available for the HDO4K
https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52 (https://www.rigol.eu/En/Index/listView/catid/28/tp/6/cat/7/xl/52)
no description though
In the FPGA section we can see BODE reference ... Maybe with an external gen?
I have a Siglent VNA as I mentioned, but it's designed for high frequencies. So a big advantage would be the Bode option operating at lower frequencies. Rigol MSO5000 and Siglent have this function, I'm a bit surprised by the lack of it in HDO...
8. Do the problems listed here also exist in the HDO4000 firmware ?
50Ω has nothing to do with scope amplitude....
And I will repeat: what frequency are you measuring at?
It can be 100x attenuated depending on frequency...
But it is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes..
Rigol forced this out too soon..
And just a few days ago I realized why: they just had IPO on Chinese Shanghai Stock Exchange..
1KHz ...
It is oversampling. From 5 MSs/s to 50 MSa/s.
But whatever the cause it is a bug of course.
As was saying 2N3055 "is probably a bug in data scaling after calculations for HiRes", the weird thing is that it passed internal prelaminar test fully unnoticed :palm:
I'm getting some strange high frequency noise in waveform traces dumped with SCPI commands, something that seems not present on ths DSO screen ???
I will show later.
9. Are there any other known issues when using SCPI ?
10. How does the XY mode work ? Doesn't it have the problems that were in the MSO5000 ? How fast is the XY mode ? (would love to see a video)
Fungus, I hope that as a person who highly recommends HDO oscilloscopes, you will dispel my doubts and answer the questions asked.
Of course, seriously, I direct this question to those who own these oscilloscopes.
Short, but I hope this help:
Also if someone has better info please correct me:
1. No, 50 ohm is not active even with the latest Fw. Although I don't have a confirmation from Rigol (I ask but they didn't bother to answer) I am pretty sure that is and will be the same firmware. It work perfectly on HDO1K and even the firmware from HDO1K flash(factory new) is called "HDO4000Update.GEL". At startup, a script can querry the hardware and load the correspodent fpga app.(start_rigol_app.sh)
2. I didn't test thoroughly but until now I did not find any problems. Only time will tell. Even on mature fw versions users can find problems after years, testing on specific setup.
3. No zone triggering. This is also my regret. On Rigol5K is a pleasure to use it.
4. I did not find until now but it is possible that anytime someone can find a bug. See point 2.
5. I can't activate this option on my HDO1K.
6. No. Only vector.
7. No external Bode ploting until now.
8. HiRes problem has been solved with the Fw. updates.
9. I don't know.
10. Slower than Rigol 5K, but at least it can be resized on entire screen.
-
I get all worked up when people bring that particular video because that video is full of wrong information and conclusions. We had lengthy discussion about what is and what isn't right in that video information and what Siglent truly can and cannot do.
I find that video quite clear, dunno what you refer to with "wrong information".
He means "information I don't want to hear".
All the stuff how Keysight works is wrong. But you don't have Keysight scope either...
You can reply with your own video and explain in detail this wrongness, I will be glad to watch it.
So you are saying I'm lying, basically...
I don't do Teletubbies for people that are too lazy to read what was already explained dozens of times...
I documented all in details in posts... And it was separately verified..
If you don't trust me, buy your own Keysight scope (like I did) and verify it yourself..
It is your problem, not mine. I did my part.
DO not get me wrong, I do not have any knowledge about modern Keysight scopes because my customers do not buy them anymore and for sure I'm not going to buy them too and I never said you are lying, but Keysight scopes are out of topic and remaining concepts explained in David's video are adhering with reality.
Instead I was meaning another thing : it's not easy to put concepts in video and here all must agree that David makes a great job in that, so I have respect for his job.
The problem here is another : Siglent supporters still try to convert a lack in a plus and the proof is that this very feature is appearing in more expensive scopes, this is the simple and plain truth, no way to negate it.
-
-snip
1. No, 50 ohm is not active even with the latest Fw. Although I don't have a confirmation from Rigol (I ask but they didn't bother to answer) I am pretty sure that is and will be the same firmware. It work perfectly on HDO1K and even the firmware from HDO1K flash(factory new) is called "HDO4000Update.GEL". At startup, a script can querry the hardware and load the correspodent fpga app.(start_rigol_app.sh)
2. I didn't test thoroughly but until now I did not find any problems. Only time will tell. Even on mature fw versions users can find problems after years, testing on specific setup.
3. No zone triggering. This is also my regret. On Rigol5K is a pleasure to use it.
4. I did not find until now but it is possible that anytime someone can find a bug. See point 2.
5. I can't activate this option on my HDO1K.
6. No. Only vector.
7. No external Bode ploting until now.
8. HiRes problem has been solved with the Fw. updates.
9. I don't know.
10. Slower than Rigol 5K, but at least it can be resized on entire screen.
I can confirm all the points but the last (because I never used XY) and I would add some observations :
1) I do not expect any HDO4K FW adaptation for HDO1K HW, it is very likely that all the additional 4K features will never be ported to the 1K series.
2) If you want an instrument with a mature FW you must buy something that is on the market for several years.
3) The current selling point for HDO1K is the price, if previous two points are deal killer for you then prepare for a much bigger pocket effort or skip 12bits feature.
My HDO1074's board mounts the same acquisition memory amount of 4K line (16Gbits) and biggest version of FPGA, HW wise it would be capable to be expanded to 500Mpts, but as I said before I do not hold my breath awaiting for a FW hack that will allow that.
What I can say is that for the price, after the last FW upgrade, this thing is exceptional : high quality resolution screen and much more responsive UI than MSO5K with all the plus of a low noise 12bits ADC DSO.
I paid mine less than 1100 euros shipped during the black Friday (in place of a a cheaper MSO5074) and I do not regret it at all.
-
DO not get me wrong, I do not have any knowledge about modern Keysight scopes because my customers do not buy them anymore and for sure I'm not going to buy them too and I never said you are lying, but Keysight scopes are out of topic and remaining concepts explained in David's video are adhering with reality.
Instead I was meaning another thing : it's not easy to put concepts in video and here all must agree that David makes a great job in that, so I have respect for his job.
The problem here is another : Siglent supporters still try to convert a lack in a plus and the proof is that this very feature is appearing in more expensive scopes, this is the simple and plain truth, no way to negate it.
And you should not get me wrong either. I don't disagree that you and many others use specific workflow that needs that particular feature.
But what you are (an those that say it absolutely necessary or scope is useless) is forgetting is that literally millions of users don't need it and have scopes that don't have that capability. They simply use it differently. They use zoom function, that is working very well on these scopes with big screen (LeCroys, touch Siglents, Picoscope I have on a 24" screen)..
Also there are literally millions of users of scopes (that do have manual control of memory) that never ever took it out of Auto memory mode because for everyday "scoping" that is most useful mode... It prevents aliasing (and confusion connected to that) and also gives the simplicity of putting on a screen whole event you want to capture and using zoom to zoom in. Or simplicity of capturing whole event with timebase, stopping and then using timebase time and position to observe part of the signal in question, same as with scope with manual memory control....
So for people that absolutely insist they need manual memory mode because they refuse to use scope differently from what they like or have long time habits, then they should get a scope with manual memory mode.
I personally, for instance, would never buy a scope that has ONLY manual memory mode because they are pain in everyday use...
I understand personal choice.... But make no mistake, this heated discussion is about personal choice and willingness to learn new/different ways.. Not about "this cannot be done with this scope because it lacks XYZ". Because it was demonstrated many times it can be done but with slightly different steps.
And as for the "problem": Like I said. Siglent is a company the sells scopes to customers. Fact that most of their scopes have no manual memory mode is from the fact nobody ever made that to be a problem. If they had even 1000 users from millions of sold scopes complaining about this in the past, they would probably have that as a feature. Until this overblown campaign of making this to be a problem much larger than it deserves nobody cared about this.
If you want to judge who is "unfair" or "playing marketing bulshit" take a hard look at who are the loudest portparols of this invented "problem": a guy who simply likes to discuss things he doesn't have or ever tried, but thrives in creating fuss, a guy that has publicly stated hundreds of time he has open grudge with Siglent, some people who are openly Rigol fanboys... Sounds like innocent people are fighting "Siglent's invasion". Instead of some people responding with facts to a smearing campaign that appeared out of blue in the very moment when Rigol's MSO5000 was being creamed by sales of SDS2000X+ and all of Rigol MSO5000 shortcomings were out in open.... You are saying "it is shame there are no Rigol people here to say their side..". Are you sure about that? Or it is that Siglent is honorable enough to openly state their status and not relying on "agents provocateurs".. There is Siglent official account here, a person selling Siglent and several of Beta test team members. They are all known and not pretending to be otherwise.
Ruminate on that. I'm trying to give you background on these because I see you are a new member and seem to be rational person that listen to the facts...
To make sure, I will not discuss this anymore here. This was a very nice topic (so far) on a new potentially exciting scope from Rigol and it is not "Siglent people" that are trying to derail it...
Let's keep it nice topic on Rigol HDO/DHO scopes..
-
Short, but I hope this help:
Also if someone has better info please correct me:
1. No, 50 ohm is not active even with the latest Fw. Although I don't have a confirmation from Rigol (I ask but they didn't bother to answer) I am pretty sure that is and will be the same firmware. It work perfectly on HDO1K and even the firmware from HDO1K flash(factory new) is called "HDO4000Update.GEL". At startup, a script can querry the hardware and load the correspodent fpga app.(start_rigol_app.sh)
2. I didn't test thoroughly but until now I did not find any problems. Only time will tell. Even on mature fw versions users can find problems after years, testing on specific setup.
3. No zone triggering. This is also my regret. On Rigol5K is a pleasure to use it.
4. I did not find until now but it is possible that anytime someone can find a bug. See point 2.
5. I can't activate this option on my HDO1K.
6. No. Only vector.
7. No external Bode ploting until now.
8. HiRes problem has been solved with the Fw. updates.
9. I don't know.
10. Slower than Rigol 5K, but at least it can be resized on entire screen.
I can confirm all the points but the last (because I never used XY) and I would add some observations :
1) I do not expect any HDO4K FW adaptation for HDO1K HW, it is very likely that all the additional 4K features will never be ported to the 1K series.
2) If you want an instrument with a mature FW you must buy something that is on the market for several years.
3) The current selling point for HDO1K is the price, if previous two points are deal killer for you then prepare for a much bigger pocket effort or skip 12bits feature.
Thanks for the replies :) That clears things up a bit. All in all, I asked about the HDO1000 more out of curiosity, seeing the possibility of uploading the firmware from the HDO4000.
Although the HDO1000 is probably also based on the HDO4000 firmware to some extent, so they will probably be similar in some areas.
As for costs, they are not my main selection criterion. That's why I'm thinking more about Rigol HDO4000 or Siglent 2000X HD (similar purchase costs). Anyway, I will probably still follow the topics on both oscilloscopes. It is known that HDO is a bit young and probably some more information will appear here over time.
-
As for some of the weaknesses of the Siglent SDS2000X HD interface, I learned a bit from a topic hosted by Martin72. These are practical notes, not pasting screenshots without having the opportunity to work on this equipment.
Sorry, but unless you own one you can't possible know anything about them.
Reading things in forums doesn't count. That's just the way it is.
This is interesting, from someone who seems to constantly bash anything from Siglent regardless of instrument, and likely has never owned a Siglent product, certainly not the ones constantly bashed |O
And here's your quote from #621
"You don't have to own something to know anything about it or to be able to see the user interface in videos."
Do we listen because "You don't have to own something to know anything about it", or "Sorry, but unless you own one you can't possible know anything about them. Reading things in forums doesn't count. That's just the way it is." :palm:
So which is it :-//
BTW we do listen to folks on the forum and watch videos, but have developed "Filters" wrt to the quality of information and bias of such.
Anyway, back to the Rigol HD thread.
Very curious how well this new 12 bit HD DSO behaves wrt to linearity, e.g. use in FFT mode. Awhile back we had requested a Two Tone IMD test, which should hint at how well the HD Input Amp/Attenuator and 12 bit ADC behave.
So far what we've seen is the hardware seems to be well done, UI looks interesting and has some nice features. Our concern is will the FW updates reflect fixes in a timely manner, and will additional "features" be added, such as Bode plots.
Also hats off to Rigol for rolling their own custom ASICs, and offering the cost advantages to customers :-+
They plan on large sales to spread the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering), as they incurred a large $ investment in the development of these very ASICs.
Personally we haven't seen much Rigol bashing here (actually more Siglent bashing), mostly just folks trying to gather information on this very interesting new HD DSO from Rigol.
Disclaimer, we don't own any Rigol equipment (yet), mostly Siglent and HPAK, also Keithley, GW Instek, Hioki, Tonghui, and Tek.
Best,
-
Mawyatt, I don't know if it is good enough, but I own a SDG 2K AWG that work with wave combine.
If you suggest me a setup(delta F) I can try to show a FFT on HDO1K.
-
Mawyatt, I don't know if it is good enough, but I own a SDG 2K AWG that work with wave combine.
If you suggest me a setup(delta F) I can try to show a FFT on HDO1K.
Thanks!!
Recently we did some IMD tests with our SDG2K on here with the Combine Mode, but can't remember where. The AWG performed well, was even confirmed on our SA, so think this is a good source.
Recall we did tests at 100K, 1M and 10MHz with 10K spacing. Level was at 0dBm, but since the HD01K doesn't have a 50 ohm termination, maybe a level of ~1VPP should be fine with DSO & AWG at High Z Input/Mode. At 10MHz without a 50 ohm setup, this may cause an issue, so results here may be questionable.
Anyway, thank you so much for offering to perform these tests :-+
Best,
-
Hi @mawyatt,
This are the FFT for 100 KHZ, 1MHz and 10 MHz.
As you said at 10 MHz without impedance matching, it just trying to show second signal.
Maybe with some tunning on the FFT the results could be improved.
-
Thanks for the plots :-+
Can you keep the span for each frequency the same at roughly 50KHz? You will need to increase the sweep time to improve the frequency resolution. Using a slower sweep time will allow better frequency resolution and allow the 3rd order IMD products to be shown a little better, as they should stand out above the FFT noise floor which is helped with FFT averaging as shown.
Here's an example at 100KHz with 50KHz span, and added a 1MHz version.
Thanks again!!
Best,
-
Personally we haven't seen much Rigol bashing here (actually more Siglent bashing), mostly just folks trying to gather information on this very interesting new HD DSO from Rigol.
Disclaimer, we don't own any Rigol equipment (yet), mostly Siglent and HPAK, also Keithley, GW Instek, Hioki, Tonghui, and Tek.
Because to tell the truth, there is probably no Siglent fanatic here.
Martin72 changed MSO5000 to Siglent - I am not surprised reading his posts and what were the problems with the MSO5000 after they were launched on the market.
Personally, apart from products of renowned companies (R&S, HP/Agilent, etc.), I have more Rigol equipment than Siglent. The purchase of SSA from Siglent convinced me a bit to this company. Although the recent purchase of the SDM3065X and its firmware has spoiled this good Siglent picture a bit. In fact, I would kick the ass of the manager who is responsible for this product. On the other hand, I read on the forum about SDM and knew what I was getting into, so I can't blame anyone. Here, a much lower price and the lack of Keysight 34465A equipment on the market and the increase in its price decided on the choice.
As a forum hobbyist, I want to learn about hardware, whether it's Rigol or Siglent, but from people who are able to write about hardware and have hands-on experience with it. This always allows you to make a purchase decision and reduces the likelihood that the equipment will be returned to the seller.
However, the fact that there are internet storytellers who know everything about the equipment mainly after seeing its photos on the internet will no one can change that :-//
Only Tautech is a seller and promotes Siglent equipment a bit, on the other hand, at least he tries to help everyone when they have a problem with Siglent equipment - even if you didn't buy this equipment from him. So you can forgive him to some extent :P
-
Mawyatt, I don't know if it is good enough, but I own a SDG 2K AWG that work with wave combine.
If you suggest me a setup(delta F) I can try to show a FFT on HDO1K.
Thanks!!
Recently we did some IMD tests with our SDG2K on here with the Combine Mode, but can't remember where.
Here ?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/two-tone-test-with-scope-and-sa/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/two-tone-test-with-scope-and-sa/)
-
Only Tautech is a seller .............
Be very afraid, there are a few more of us here. :-DMM
-
Personally, apart from products of renowned companies (R&S, HP/Agilent, etc.), I have more Rigol equipment than Siglent. The purchase of SAA from Siglent convinced me a bit to this company. Although the recent purchase of the SDM3065X and its firmware has spoiled this good Siglent picture a bit. In fact, I would kick the ass of the manager who is responsible for this product. On the other hand, I read on the forum about SDM and knew what I was getting into, so I can't blame anyone. Here, a much lower price and the lack of Keysight 34461A equipment on the market and the increase in its price decided on the choice.
Agree about the SDM3065X, this is our least favorite Siglent equipment and has been relegated to just measuring lab temperature, we rely on the three KS34465A, DMM6500, AG34401A and HP34401A for DMM measurements.
Also agree tautech has been very helpful for folks with Siglent equipment, however haven't seen anyone as helpful with Rigol tho!!
Best,
-
But there must be "rigol people" here....
When I still owned the MSO5000 I was in contact with Rigol support almost weekly.
Every time I wanted to send a link to something, the answer was you don't need it, we know the thread... ;)
-
Thanks for the plots :-+
Can you keep the span for each frequency the same at roughly 50KHz? You will need to increase the sweep time to improve the frequency resolution. Using a slower sweep time will allow better frequency resolution and allow the 3rd order IMD products to be shown a little better, as they should stand out above the FFT noise floor which is helped with FFT averaging as shown.
Here's an example at 100KHz with 50KHz span, and added a 1MHz version.
Thanks again!!
Best,
These are the best I can get, I think.
Unfortunately, over a certain sweep time, the signal don't offer good results.
-
We don't have the Rigol HD DSO, so not sure how the FFT works.
Can you scale the Vertical axis with Ref and Scale/div?
Can you select the time sweep to improve noise floor?
Is FFT averaging available to drive down the noise floor and show the IMD products better?
BTW does the FFT allow cursors? This really helps with evaluating signals, especially if they have a relative measurement.
Anyway, thanks so much for the effort and measurements,
Best,
-
Do we listen because "You don't have to own something to know anything about it", or "Sorry, but unless you own one you can't possible know anything about them. Reading things in forums doesn't count. That's just the way it is." :palm:
So which is it :-//
One of those is sarcasm for the guy simultaneously telling me I know nothing because I only read about them in forums but that he knows something because he read it in a forum.
Me? I only mentioned the user interface, not anything technical, and I added a disclaimer. Apparently that was enough to enrage a lot of people and derail an entire thread. :-//
I'm still not sure why people think you can't learn anything about a user interface by watching videos. Martin72 seems to be able to post official Rigol "marketing" videos (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4636354/#msg4636354) and get away with it so I figure it's something personal.
-
We don't have the Rigol HD DSO, so not sure how the FFT works.
Can you scale the Vertical axis with Ref and Scale/div?
Can you select the time sweep to improve noise floor?
Is FFT averaging available to drive down the noise floor and show the IMD products better?
BTW does the FFT allow cursors? This really helps with evaluating signals, especially if they have a relative measurement.
Anyway, thanks so much for the effort and measurements,
Best,
This are the FFT settings.
No averaging in FFT menu, only for the aquisition, but does not impove. I can use vrms instead of dB.
If I scale the signal will also scale.
There are cursors availabe to measure the FFT.
-
For the 100KHz FFT, set the Center Freq to 100KHz and Span to 50KHz. For the Amplitude set the offset to 0dBv and the scale to 20dB/Div. This should produce a good FFT.
For cursers, set 1 to 100KHz, 2 to 110KHz, 3 to 90KHz and 4 to 120KHz, then show the curser table if possible.
Edit: I see cursers are only two A and B, so set A to 100KHz and B to 90KHz.
Thanks for the efforts :-+
Best,
-
Btw, do the math traces have different colours ?
-
Btw, do the math traces have different colours ?
Yes.
-
Ah, that was something I´ve missed badly on the MSO5000....
Multi-windows...That´s really cool. :-+
Which rigol you have, DHO1000 or 4000 ?
-
Ah, that was something I´ve missed badly on the MSO5000....
Multi-windows...That´s really cool. :-+
Which rigol you have, DHO1000 or 4000 ?
the least expensive :) : DHO1000 2 channels.
-
For the 100KHz FFT, set the Center Freq to 100KHz and Span to 50KHz. For the Amplitude set the offset to 0dBv and the scale to 20dB/Div. This should produce a good FFT.
For cursers, set 1 to 100KHz, 2 to 110KHz, 3 to 90KHz and 4 to 120KHz, then show the curser table if possible.
Edit: I see cursers are only two A and B, so set A to 100KHz and B to 90KHz.
Thanks for the efforts :-+
Best,
0 offset does not seems good.
24 dBv offset is better.
EDIT: and the cursors.
-
Ok Offset is not at top but in middle, so set offset to -80 dBv and 20dB/div.
BTW nice display with 4 FFT windows!!
You changed your two tones above from 100 & 110KHz to 90 & 100KHz, set them back to 100 & 110KHz and leave cursers at 100KHz and 90KHz, this will show the one sided IMD.
Best,
-
Ok Offset is not at top but in middle, so set offset to -80 dBv and 20dB/div.
BTW nice display with 4 FFT windows!!
Best,
Now with 80 dBv offset.
P.S. Maybe a remote session will be better :)
-
This doesn't look right, you should only have two dominate tones at 100 & 110KHz, not three, and two lesser tones at 90 & 120KHz. Is your AWG setup properly?
Also, the cursor reading at 100KHz should be about -9dBv (1VPP = -9dBv rms). Raise the sample rate to something >2MSPS, with 400KSPS you might seeing aliasing.
Check the plots we posted earlier.
Best,
-
You changed your two tones above from 100 & 110KHz to 90 & 100KHz, set them back to 100 & 110KHz and leave cursers at 100KHz and 90KHz, this will show the one sided IMD.
Best,
nope. just cursors have changed (90 & 100).
-
This doesn't look right, you should only have two dominate tones at 100 & 110KHz, not three, and two lesser tones at 90 & 120KHz. Is your AWG setup properly?
Also, the cursor reading at 100KHz should be about -9dBv (1VPP = -9dBv rms). Raise the sample rate to something >2MSPS, with 400KSPS you might seeing aliasing.
Check the plots we posted earlier.
Best,
Not too much to setup for the AWG. Freq - 100 kHz and 110 kHz, Amp. 0,775 mVpp and output set to wave combine .
This is how the signal look.
-
You changed your two tones above from 100 & 110KHz to 90 & 100KHz, set them back to 100 & 110KHz and leave cursers at 100KHz and 90KHz, this will show the one sided IMD.
Best,
nope. just cursors have changed (90 & 100).
This is showing 400KSPS and likely the "extra large" 90KHz tone is due to aliasing (it should be much much smaller that the two input tones) and swamping out the IMD tone which should be about 60dB down from the tones at 100 & 110KHz. The AWG should be set to 100 & 110KHz. Your setting of 0.775mvPP is -11.25dBv rms, 1VPP is -9dBv, either should be fine as the IMD is referenced in dBc, or below the input tone levels.
You should be seeing something like -60 to -70dB between the A and B cursers if things are correctly setup and the HD is responding as expected.
Please look at our earlier post for what the FFT should look like, this the same as on a Spectrum Analyzer shown here (added the previous DSO FFT for comparisons) Note the small IMD tones at 90 and 120KHz on the SA, which shows the SDG2000X AWG is good enough for the test at hand (this is in dBm since the SA is a 50 ohm based instrument). Also note how these plots, the DSO FFT and the SA plot, look similar as they should. Of course the SA will be superior to the DSO since this is the type of task they are designed for, whereas the DSO is mainly a Time Domain instrument and the FFT is an "extra" Frequency Domain feature we get :-+
Best,
-
This is showing 400KSPS and likely the "extra large" 90KHz tone is due to aliasing (it should be much much smaller that the two input tones) and swamping out the IMD tone which should be about 60dB down from the tones at 100 & 110KHz. The AWG should be set to 100 & 110KHz. Your setting of 0.775mvPP is -11.25dBv rms, 1VPP is -9dBv, either should be fine as the IMD is referenced in dBc, or below the input tone levels.
You should be seeing something like -60 to -70dB between the A and B cursers if things are correctly setup and the HD is responding as expected.
Best,
The AWG was set to 100 si 110 KHz. Other freq. appear due to different timebase. See here : https://youtu.be/EdaNDG3ke-I
Can I help you with more?
-
You changed your two tones above from 100 & 110KHz to 90 & 100KHz, set them back to 100 & 110KHz and leave cursers at 100KHz and 90KHz, this will show the one sided IMD.
Best,
nope. just cursors have changed (90 & 100).
This is showing 400KSPS and likely the "extra large" 90KHz tone is due to aliasing (it should be much much smaller that the two input tones) and swamping out the IMD tone which should be about 60dB down from the tones at 100 & 110KHz. The AWG should be set to 100 & 110KHz. Your setting of 0.775mvPP is -11.25dBv rms, 1VPP is -9dBv, either should be fine as the IMD is referenced in dBc, or below the input tone levels.
You should be seeing something like -60 to -70dB between the A and B cursers if things are correctly setup and the HD is responding as expected.
Please look at our earlier post for what the FFT should look like, this the same as on a Spectrum Analyzer shown here (added the previous DSO FFT for comparisons) Note the small IMD tones at 90 and 120KHz on the SA, which shows the SDG2000X AWG is good enough for the test at hand (this is in dBm since the SA is a 50 ohm based instrument). Also note how these plots, the DSO FFT and the SA plot, look similar as they should. Of course the SA will be superior to the DSO since this is the type of task they are designed for, whereas the DSO is mainly a Time Domain instrument and the FFT is an "extra" Frequency Domain feature we get :-+
Best,
It is bit weird, how Riglol have done this?
Here @skander36 attached image
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1703689;image)
FFT info display 400kSa/s
Main timebase (H) info display 2.5ms/ and (A) 200kSa/s and 10kpts acquisition length.
Fun that this extremely high 90kHz peak in FFT looks like just 110kHz alias. (if sampling is 200kHz 110kHz signal is folded back to 90kHz, if this is case, it also explain its displayed level.
But, FFT window info tell 400kSa/s. If this is real truth then it must not fold back (alias). Is it (400kSa/s) real truth or is it just Rigolism.
If they have different sampling for FFT it is then nice to see what is display if normal oscilloscope and freq.axis displays are both displayed same time and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz.
Perhaps @skander36 can show it to us.
-
Like this?
-
Like this?
No.
Is it better to first read and after then do. ;)
-
Then I need more clear info.
You said "and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz. "
You want to be at 400 kSa/s?
Edit- or with cursors?
-
Then I need more clear info.
You said "and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz. "
You want to be at 400 kSa/s?
No.. I said:
"But, FFT window info tell 400kSa/s. If this is real truth then it must not fold back (alias). Is it (400kSa/s) real truth or is it just Rigolism.
If they have different sampling for FFT it is then nice to see what is display if normal oscilloscope and freq.axis displays are both displayed same time and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz."
Now please:
Set oscilloscope Horizontal 2.5ms/div, length 10ksample, and you can see it tell sampling speed is 200kSa/s
So oscilloscope top display info tell (H) 2.5ms/div (A) 200kSa/s 10kpts (D) 0.0s also set trigger near zero and mode Edge (as it was before)
Now keep this oscilloscope displayed.
And open FFT. (both visible, time base display (aka oscilloscope) and freq. base display (aka FFT in this case)
FFT info as it was earlier, 400kSa/s
FFT Center 100kHz.
Input sinewave 100.5kHz (or 101kHz)
Now in your last FFT window there was also 50kHz span.
You can set bit more narrow span for better visibility for this case now. Say example 10kHz span.
And, if it is now possible with Rigol display both together. Oscilloscope view and FFT view on same screen. (overlaid or in separate windows depending what is possible in Rigol)
ETA: oh ok you did it allready. Try also open oscilloscope screen together with FFT.
And narrow FFT span to 10 or 5kHz.
Is it fun what you see in FFT window :bullshit:
I think Rigol need urgently do some rework.
-
Then I need more clear info.
You said "and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz. "
You want to be at 400 kSa/s?
No.. I said:
"But, FFT window info tell 400kSa/s. If this is real truth then it must not fold back (alias). Is it (400kSa/s) real truth or is it just Rigolism.
If they have different sampling for FFT it is then nice to see what is display if normal oscilloscope and freq.axis displays are both displayed same time and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz."
Now please:
Set oscilloscope Horizontal 2.5ms/div, length 10ksample, and you can see it tell sampling speed is 200kSa/s
So oscilloscope top display info tell (H) 2.5ms/div (A) 200kSa/s 10kpts (D) 0.0s also set trigger near zero and mode Edge (as it was before)
Now keep this oscilloscope displayed.
And open FFT. (both visible, time base display (aka oscilloscope) and freq. base display (aka FFT in this case)
FFT info as it was earlier, 400kSa/s
FFT Center 100kHz.
Input sinewave 100.5kHz (or 101kHz)
Now in your last FFT window there was also 50kHz span.
You can set bit more narrow span for better visibility for this case now. Say example 10kHz span.
And, if it is now possible with Rigol display both together. Oscilloscope view and FFT view on same screen. (overlaid or in separate windows depending what is possible in Rigol)
ETA: oh ok you did it allready. Try also open oscilloscope screen together with FFT.
And narrow FFT span to 10 or 5kHz.
Is it fun what you see in FFT window :bullshit:
I think Rigol need urgently do some rework.
10 kHz span - 2,5ms/div and 2 ms/div
-
Then I need more clear info.
You said "and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz. "
You want to be at 400 kSa/s?
No.. I said:
"But, FFT window info tell 400kSa/s. If this is real truth then it must not fold back (alias). Is it (400kSa/s) real truth or is it just Rigolism.
If they have different sampling for FFT it is then nice to see what is display if normal oscilloscope and freq.axis displays are both displayed same time and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz."
Now please:
Set oscilloscope Horizontal 2.5ms/div, length 10ksample, and you can see it tell sampling speed is 200kSa/s
So oscilloscope top display info tell (H) 2.5ms/div (A) 200kSa/s 10kpts (D) 0.0s also set trigger near zero and mode Edge (as it was before)
Now keep this oscilloscope displayed.
And open FFT. (both visible, time base display (aka oscilloscope) and freq. base display (aka FFT in this case)
FFT info as it was earlier, 400kSa/s
FFT Center 100kHz.
Input sinewave 100.5kHz (or 101kHz)
Now in your last FFT window there was also 50kHz span.
You can set bit more narrow span for better visibility for this case now. Say example 10kHz span.
And, if it is now possible with Rigol display both together. Oscilloscope view and FFT view on same screen. (overlaid or in separate windows depending what is possible in Rigol)
ETA: oh ok you did it allready. Try also open oscilloscope screen together with FFT.
And narrow FFT span to 10 or 5kHz.
Is it fun what you see in FFT window :bullshit:
I think Rigol need urgently do some rework.
10 kHz span - 2,5ms/div and 2 ms/div
Something is wrong here. FFT shows RBW of 39,99 mHz (0.03999 Hz), but FFT plot for the peaks is 500 Hz wide... At that magnification it should be just a single vertical line..
Also scope samples at 200kS/s but FFT states 400 kS/s.
Why do you keep scope at stupidly small 10 kpts?
Set the scope memory to AUTO, and then look at FFT.
If ADC is sampling at 200kS/s 101 kHz is violating Nyquist..
And FFT is upsampling aliased data...
On my scope I couldn't even make it do something so wrong until I made custom math transformation.
I made it sample at fixed 250 kS/s sample rate, fed it 125 kHz and 126 kHz signal.
But since FFT (correctly) refuses to show anything above Nyquist, I had to manually create math upsample from 250 kS/s to 500 kS/s, and then did FFT of that. And lo and behold, here is wrong plot in all it's glory...
Then I went and set sampling and memory to auto, and gave it a bit more data and got different picture...
All of this drills down to few points being trumpeted here (but hey it's all a propaganda, you know!!).
1. Manual settings of a scope is as dangerous as it is versatile. Auto is your friend as far as memory management is concerned. Unless you need to set it specifically for some reason, but make sure you understand repercussions.
2. If you want to set something manually, with FFT you want to set manual sample rate, not memory size.. That way you control aliasing, and it doesn't change all the time with timebase. Otherwise keep it AUTO and let FFT downsample if it needs. That way you loose RBW (unless in very long timebases) but no aliasing. After you see propper picture of signal, then you can tweak sample rate/memory size or whatnot to try to optimize what you see.
3. This scope is upsampling in FFT without warning or any explanation that what it's doing might be wrong. Bad implementation of FFT. They meant to make it more like SA, but ignored math that goes with it. So it is neither good FFT or good SA. If you want to understand what I'm saying, just look for all the write ups on FFT implementation on R&S RTB2000 and all associated pro et contra...
-
Then I need more clear info.
You said "and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz. "
You want to be at 400 kSa/s?
No.. I said:
"But, FFT window info tell 400kSa/s. If this is real truth then it must not fold back (alias). Is it (400kSa/s) real truth or is it just Rigolism.
If they have different sampling for FFT it is then nice to see what is display if normal oscilloscope and freq.axis displays are both displayed same time and just input single sinewave, say example 100.5kHz."
Now please:
Set oscilloscope Horizontal 2.5ms/div, length 10ksample, and you can see it tell sampling speed is 200kSa/s
So oscilloscope top display info tell (H) 2.5ms/div (A) 200kSa/s 10kpts (D) 0.0s also set trigger near zero and mode Edge (as it was before)
Now keep this oscilloscope displayed.
And open FFT. (both visible, time base display (aka oscilloscope) and freq. base display (aka FFT in this case)
FFT info as it was earlier, 400kSa/s
FFT Center 100kHz.
Input sinewave 100.5kHz (or 101kHz)
Now in your last FFT window there was also 50kHz span.
You can set bit more narrow span for better visibility for this case now. Say example 10kHz span.
And, if it is now possible with Rigol display both together. Oscilloscope view and FFT view on same screen. (overlaid or in separate windows depending what is possible in Rigol)
ETA: oh ok you did it allready. Try also open oscilloscope screen together with FFT.
And narrow FFT span to 10 or 5kHz.
Is it fun what you see in FFT window :bullshit:
I think Rigol need urgently do some rework.
10 kHz span - 2,5ms/div and 2 ms/div
Something is wrong here. FFT shows RBW of 39,99 mHz (0.03999 Hz), but FFT plot for the peaks is 500 Hz wide... At that magnification it should be just a single vertical line..
Also scope samples at 200kS/s but FFT states 400 kS/s.
Why do you keep scope at stupidly small 10 kpts?
Set the scope memory to AUTO, and then look at FFT.
If ADC is sampling at 200kS/s 101 kHz is violating Nyquist..
And FFT is upsampling aliased data...
On my scope I couldn't even make it do something so wrong until I made custom math transformation.
I made it sample at fixed 250 kS/s sample rate, fed it 125 kHz and 126 kHz signal.
But since FFT (correctly) refuses to show anything above Nyquist, I had to manually create math upsample from 250 kS/s to 500 kS/s, and then did FFT of that. And lo and behold, here is wrong plot in all it's glory...
Then I went and set sampling and memory to auto, and gave it a bit more data and got different picture...
All of this drills down to few points being trumpeted here (but hey it's all a propaganda, you know!!).
1. Manual settings of a scope is as dangerous as it is versatile. Auto is your friend as far as memory management is concerned. Unless you need to set it specifically for some reason, but make sure you understand repercussions.
2. If you want to set something manually, with FFT you want to set manual sample rate, not memory size.. That way you control aliasing, and it doesn't change all the time with timebase. Otherwise keep it AUTO and let FFT downsample if it needs. That way you loose RBW (unless in very long timebases) but no aliasing. After you see propper picture of signal, then you can tweak sample rate/memory size or whatnot to try to optimize what you see.
3. This scope is upsampling in FFT without warning or any explanation that what it's doing might be wrong. Bad implementation of FFT. They meant to make it more like SA, but ignored math that goes with it. So it is neither good FFT or good SA. If you want to understand what I'm saying, just look for all the write ups on FFT implementation on R&S RTB2000 and all associated pro et contra...
I ALWAYS USE AUTO SETING FOR MEMORY.
In some specific cases I use Maximum available memory on that scope.
Auto means that when I use some specific setting as was requested this value is autmatically adjusted. So I'm not keeping myself. I was adjusting only timebase, as sample rate is automatically adjusted with memory.
It was always in auto position.
I just want to help mawyatt to see how is looking a two tone FFT on this scope following his setup. I don't want to show something from my side.
-
I want still stay in this particular case because (even if user setup is not at all best possible for this and not--- also if we look previous two tone mess)
All is in this image.
@skander36 previous image
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1703971;image)
There is now ONE signal, 100.5kHz to input, is it as I requested. (naturally with its own some harmonics etc but these do not matter here now at all)
FFT display two signals!!!!!! 100.5kHz as is ok and if FFT real samplerate is 400kSa/s ( fNyquist 200kHz)
But there is also 99.5kHz signal with quite same level as real input signal 100,5kHz peak.
This display is IMPOSSIBLE if somethings is not really messed up in Rigol system. If input is as requested.
Also look this noise "signature"... it reveals more than Rigol hopes.. (think about 100kHz center) :-DD :bullshit:
IF
FFT samplerate is 200kSa/s as also main timebase is. Then this display is still messed up BUT in this case it need display 99.5kHz peak alone and signal trace need end to 100kHz points so 100.5kHz is out of FFT. (But 100.5kHz is folded back from fNyquist 100kHz so result is 99.5kHz)
But because it also display 100,5kHz it looks like FFT samplerate is not same as main timebase 200kSa/s. If FFT samplerate is 400kSa/s as displayed info is. How it generate this 99.5kHz. Even if 100,5kHz input signal have extremely high harmonixs this display is still not possible.
Now I want ask from @skander36
Are you really sure there is only one 100.5kHz sinewave signal going to Rigol input as I requested earlier? (not dual tone)
If yes, then Rigol have severe problem. (also without this answer I know... )
-
The FFT trace looks horizontally mirrored at 100kHz, even the noise seems mirrored. Strange.
-
Yes, is a single wave on the signal.
Indeed, the wave at slower timebase look as an modulated wave.
But it is the wave below.
-
I ALWAYS USE AUTO SETING FOR MEMORY.
In some specific cases I use Maximum available memory on that scope.
Auto means that when I use some specific setting as was requested this value is autmatically adjusted. So I'm not keeping myself. I was adjusting only timebase, as sample rate is automatically adjusted with memory.
It was always in auto position.
I just want to help mawyatt to see how is looking a two tone FFT on this scope following his setup. I don't want to show something from my side.
No need to be defensive. I didn't say you have no clue or something offensive.
But look at that screen. Scope says it is sampling with 200kS/s and 10kpoints. Why?.
I was actually hoping that is because it was set to manual setting... Because if it isn't, then something is indeed wrong..
Scope will limit number of points at 5 or 10 ns/div. Because of maximum sample rate.
When you are at ms/div, scope (at AUTO) should lower sample rate only when it runs out of memory. But it doesn't say 100 Mpts... it says 10kpoints..
Why is the scope using only this much? It has 100MPoints per datasheet..
And in time domain it shows 200 kPts/s and 400 in FFT..
As I have shown, it is obvious that DHO1000 is actually sampling at 200kHz, therefore aliasing 101kHz to 99kHz and all kinds of wrong things that stem from this.
Why is it doing this?
What kind of weird timebase is 2.5ms/div? (what happened to 1-2-5-10 sequence?)
Is FFT forcing sample rate (but does it wrongly)?
Can you disable FFT, set it to 2.5ms (or 2ms) /div and see what sample rate and sample memory uses then. Then enable FFT and look if it changes. Did you try to change RBW for FFT? Can you even do that? I cannot see in manual that RBW is among setable parameters.. Maybe scope autosets sample rate and RBW was too wide for timebase and it started changing things.
I know you are trying to show something that Mike asked you for. But I assure it is in your interest to research this weird behaviour into detail. What you see is not right (either a bug or not being used correctly, maybe for the lack of good documentation..) and you should be aware that I would not trust FFT on that scope a single bit, until we get it to show correct graph.
-
Yes, exactly. It was what I start wonder because some peaks looks like fNyg fold backs in original previous dual tone test. So we do not need anymore wonder this previous dual tone test mess.
Attached @skander36 picture (with my mod)
Left side bottom trace is mirror from right side. |O
So we can now sure say Rigol FFT is broken. Whole mess.
-
Yes, is a single wave on the signal.
Indeed, the wave at slower timebase look as an modulated wave.
But it is the wave below.
And your scope still shows 10kpoints.. On every single image your scope shows fixed 10kpoints.
It is set for manual 10kpoints obviously... Fix that and try again..
-
Yes, is a single wave on the signal.
Indeed, the wave at slower timebase look as an modulated wave.
But it is the wave below.
And your scope still shows 10kpoints.. On every single image your scope shows fixed 10kpoints.
It is set for manual 10kpoints obviously... Fix that and try again..
How ever but Rigol FFT is broken. Period.
-
I ALWAYS USE AUTO SETING FOR MEMORY.
In some specific cases I use Maximum available memory on that scope.
Auto means that when I use some specific setting as was requested this value is autmatically adjusted. So I'm not keeping myself. I was adjusting only timebase, as sample rate is automatically adjusted with memory.
It was always in auto position.
I just want to help mawyatt to see how is looking a two tone FFT on this scope following his setup. I don't want to show something from my side.
No need to be defensive. I didn't say you have no clue or something offensive.
But look at that screen. Scope says it is sampling with 200kS/s and 10kpoints. Why?.
I was actually hoping that is because it was set to manual setting... Because if it isn't, then something is indeed wrong..
Scope will limit number of points at 5 or 10 ns/div. Because of maximum sample rate.
When you are at ms/div, scope (at AUTO) should lower sample rate only when it runs out of memory. But it doesn't say 100 Mpts... it says 10kpoints..
Why is the scope using only this much? It has 100MPoints per datasheet..
And in time domain it shows 200 kPts/s and 400 in FFT..
As I have shown, it is obvious that DHO1000 is actually sampling at 200kHz, therefore aliasing 101kHz to 99kHz and all kinds of wrong things that stem from this.
Why is it doing this?
What kind of weird timebase is 2.5ms/div? (what happened to 1-2-5-10 sequence?)
Is FFT forcing sample rate (but does it wrongly)?
Can you disable FFT, set it to 2.5ms (or 2ms) /div and see what sample rate and sample memory uses then. Then enable FFT and look if it changes. Did you try to change RBW for FFT? Can you even do that? I cannot see in manual that RBW is among setable parameters.. Maybe scope autosets sample rate and RBW was too wide for timebase and it started changing things.
I know you are trying to show something that Mike asked you for. But I assure it is in your interest to research this weird behaviour into detail. What you see is not right (either a bug or not being used correctly, maybe for the lack of good documentation..) and you should be aware that I would not trust FFT on that scope a single bit, until we get it to show correct graph.
For showing a slightly better graph I need to manually set the memory, not auto.
I have show also a timebase of 2 ms that show better.
I was keeping 2,5 because it has attract the attention to RF-loop and indeed none of my scope show this at 2,5ms.
-
Yes, is a single wave on the signal.
Indeed, the wave at slower timebase look as an modulated wave.
But it is the wave below.
And your scope still shows 10kpoints.. On every single image your scope shows fixed 10kpoints.
It is set for manual 10kpoints obviously... Fix that and try again..
How ever but Rigol FFT is broken. Period.
Well I agree that it is not right. But I'm trying to help a person figure out what so they can maybe report it or at least be aware they have a problem and where it is...
On my scope, if I force main acquistion to 200Msps/s, FFT won't show anything more than 100kHz in FFT..
That way it shows you BW of the process.. If you have aliasing, you have it, but if initial sample was 200kSps/s, nothing over 100kHz makes sense..
-
I ALWAYS USE AUTO SETING FOR MEMORY.
In some specific cases I use Maximum available memory on that scope.
Auto means that when I use some specific setting as was requested this value is autmatically adjusted. So I'm not keeping myself. I was adjusting only timebase, as sample rate is automatically adjusted with memory.
It was always in auto position.
I just want to help mawyatt to see how is looking a two tone FFT on this scope following his setup. I don't want to show something from my side.
No need to be defensive. I didn't say you have no clue or something offensive.
But look at that screen. Scope says it is sampling with 200kS/s and 10kpoints. Why?.
I was actually hoping that is because it was set to manual setting... Because if it isn't, then something is indeed wrong..
Scope will limit number of points at 5 or 10 ns/div. Because of maximum sample rate.
When you are at ms/div, scope (at AUTO) should lower sample rate only when it runs out of memory. But it doesn't say 100 Mpts... it says 10kpoints..
Why is the scope using only this much? It has 100MPoints per datasheet..
And in time domain it shows 200 kPts/s and 400 in FFT..
As I have shown, it is obvious that DHO1000 is actually sampling at 200kHz, therefore aliasing 101kHz to 99kHz and all kinds of wrong things that stem from this.
Why is it doing this?
What kind of weird timebase is 2.5ms/div? (what happened to 1-2-5-10 sequence?)
Is FFT forcing sample rate (but does it wrongly)?
Can you disable FFT, set it to 2.5ms (or 2ms) /div and see what sample rate and sample memory uses then. Then enable FFT and look if it changes. Did you try to change RBW for FFT? Can you even do that? I cannot see in manual that RBW is among setable parameters.. Maybe scope autosets sample rate and RBW was too wide for timebase and it started changing things.
I know you are trying to show something that Mike asked you for. But I assure it is in your interest to research this weird behaviour into detail. What you see is not right (either a bug or not being used correctly, maybe for the lack of good documentation..) and you should be aware that I would not trust FFT on that scope a single bit, until we get it to show correct graph.
For showing a slightly better graph I need to manually set the memory, not auto.
I have show also a timebase of 2 ms that show better.
I was keeping 2,5 because it has attract the attention to RF-loop and indeed none of my scope show this at 2,5ms.
Thank you for explaining.. Yeah that is not good FFT implementation... Please don't mind my persistence, I'm just trying to figure this out. Thanks for patience...
Best,
Sinisa
-
I just want to help mawyatt to see how is looking a two tone FFT on this scope following his setup. I don't want to show something from my side.
Sorry been away awhile helping friends daughter with Calculus 3 upcoming exam.
Thanks for the effort and such, we are all just trying to learn something here about this new HD DSO. In my case this was to investigate the input channel and 12 bit ADC linearity by means of the Two Tone IMD method.
Think what's been uncovered here is the FFT may have some shortcomings and the HD is not behaving as expected wrt the FFT.
Your efforts are appreciated and have enabled this learning experience, otherwise we would all still be in the "fog" as to how this new HD performs, especially the FFT!!
Best,
-
Yes, is a single wave on the signal.
Indeed, the wave at slower timebase look as an modulated wave.
But it is the wave below.
And your scope still shows 10kpoints.. On every single image your scope shows fixed 10kpoints.
It is set for manual 10kpoints obviously... Fix that and try again..
How ever but Rigol FFT is broken. Period.
Well I agree that it is not right. But I'm trying to help a person figure out what so they can maybe report it or at least be aware they have a problem and where it is...
On my scope, if I force main acquistion to 200Msps/s, FFT won't show anything more than 100kHz in FFT..
That way it shows you BW of the process.. If you have aliasing, you have it, but if initial sample was 200kSps/s, nothing over 100kHz makes sense..
Yes I know you kindly try advise user for better adjustments and this is of course more than good and kind.
But now we can also see that Rigol FFT have some very severe class bug-bugs. So using it may lead to severe misleading about signals under test, specially to user who perhaps do not have enough knowledge and experience to analyze its errrors and then avoid its effect.
If real samplerate is example 200kSa/s FFT trace need end to 100kHz.
But now it looks like with this setting it mirrors, as can see in my modified image (right side horizonta mirror under left side. Mirror point 100kHz.
If samplerate is 200kHs it must not display at all this 100.5kHz. It must only display 99.5kHz peak. But it display both. This problem first looks like that there is same real samplerate for FFT as for oscilloscope but... this do not explain this at all, because it still display 100.5kHz also. Just wondering what is this mess what it is doing. If I have this machine on table I know how to test further for analyze how it behave.
I can only say. Rigol need repair it.
User need be careful and do not believe what is display until he know more things about how it behave exactly in different situations. As can see this previous dual tone test, it was one fun example how it can fool user.
-
If I have this machine on table I know how to test further for analyze how it behave.
Police, help!
Somebody is having an opinion about an oscilloscope without owning it!
-
If I have this machine on table I know how to test further for analyze how it behave.
Police, help!
Somebody is having an opinion about an oscilloscope without owning it!
It is not my problem if you do not understand anything about these things.
-
It is not my problem if you do not understand anything about these things.
The first thought that came into my head when I saw those screenshots wasn't that the sky was falling.
My first thought was "spectral leakage", followed by "I wonder what window function they're using?"
If those questions didn't enter your head before you made a million anti-Rigol posts then... :-//
I'll leave it to the people who own them to figure out what's going on.
Me? I suspect the FFT math is correct (it's not exactly rocket science) but the sampling rate and buffer size is completely unreasonable, ie. It's an edge case.
Is it a problem? That depends on how easy it is to get into that edge-situation with this 'scope.
-
It is not my problem if you do not understand anything about these things.
The first thought that came into my head wasn't that the sky was falling.
The first thought was "spectral leakage", followed by "I wonder what window function they're using?"
If those questions didn't enter your head before you made a million anti-Rigol posts then... :-//
Seriously, if you don't understand, don't enter the discussion...
Spectral leakage has nothing to do with the fact that sampling rates and sampled data and analysed graph are not correlating...
It's all right to not know something..
But you're not helping HDO1000 users by pretending there is no problem.
And even if we presume basic math behind this FFT is correct, how do you use this thing? Several basic parameters are not available and you have no control over process.
So FFT at this stage needs more work. Which is a shocker... Whole scope is basically in alpha stage. Documenting all the problems and reporting them to Rigol is only way for users of HDO ever getting a scope that actually works well...
So if you want to help, go buy HDO1000, and we'll work together to debug it, time permits...
Putting head in a sand is no help to ACTUAL HDO users. Fixing bugs is...
And if we were Siglent shils (people involved into this FFT troubleshooting), we would sit back, laugh and enjoy this clusterfuck and NOT help Rigol fix stuff they don't know by themselves...
Robert is a nice guy, and I would like to help. You should find somebody to help too. It feels nice, it's a worthy cause..
-
ok so in simple layman's terms, for these observed results:
which of the following *could be true i.e. we cannot be sure yet, maybe we can at least rule out some of these possible reasons?
* there is an issue with the analog linearity, i.e. adc or in hardware. that is not fixable
* there is a firmware bug, or other issue with the firmware that is either (as mentioned) possible windowing FFT, or misleading, not documented, not clear in the UI
* there was a problem taking measurements or in testing methodology, the assumptions or interpretation of what they mean given the setup + settings input into the machine
so for example you might answer 1+2, but not 3
or 1,2, or 3
Sorry this probably is not a very helpful quesitron. A better line of enquiry would be to consider what next different tests could be done, and/or with other sorts of test equipment.
Just as a novice I am asking to try better to understand the implications here. For example if it could be a firmware bug, then I guess it would make sense that Rigol should need to be asked / should answer if they will address in firmware. Things like this. If that isn't an overstep to be suggesting like that...
-
It's all right to not know something..
FFT mirroring is a thing. Here's a Teletubbies video:
(skip to 5:33...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIofPiVVC64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIofPiVVC64)
But you're not helping HDO1000 users by pretending there is no problem.
I'm not pretending there's no problem, just that we need to know every last setting ... and the same settings tried on other devices.
And even if we presume basic math behind this FFT is correct, how do you use this thing?
You make sure that Nyquist is high enough for the signal you're looking at.
(Which you're supposed to do anyway)
-
Question: What happens if the input signal is 99.5kHz?
-
The FFT trace looks horizontally mirrored at 100kHz, even the noise seems mirrored. Strange.
I would bet it is mirrored! That should say something to those who know this stuff.
-
The FFT trace looks horizontally mirrored at 100kHz, even the noise seems mirrored. Strange.
I would bet it is mirrored! That should say something to those who know this stuff.
Yep. See video three posts up ^^^
-
Yep. See video three posts up ^^^
Sorry, I spoke too soon. Then I saw the rest of the posts.
Shouldn't the FFT stop at 100kHz if you have the 200kSa/s ? That would solve the picture at 200 kSa/s and save Rigol's honor. :)
But then, why does the 400kSa/s show the same mirroring? :palm:
These are the moments where you need an engineer next to the GUI programmers or in the betatesters group...
I wonder how such a bug passed the FFT QC tests?!? :-//
-
Question: What happens if the input signal is 99.5kHz?
You can't deduce that from the data you've received so far. I'm not surprised - for some reason.
-
Question: What happens if the input signal is 99.5kHz?
You can't deduce that from the data you've received so far. I'm not surprised - for some reason.
I've been told I'm not allowed to deduce anything from forum posts or screen grabs.
I thought I'd ask a simple, direct question instead.
-
The FFT trace looks horizontally mirrored at 100kHz, even the noise seems mirrored. Strange.
I would bet it is mirrored! That should say something to those who know this stuff.
Yes the display is mirrored around 100KHz, which implies a 200KSPS rate.
If one is viewing a center frequency of 100KHz, then the FFT should create a sample rate that supports a reasonable result around 100KHz, which 200KSPS is not. As mentioned this sample rate should not be allowed to be this low and the DSO should produce a much higher sample rate which evidently it does not, unless user intervention to "force" the lower sample rate and incur Nyquist sub-sampling artifacts, but hopefully knowing such artifacts will occur.
This is a serious FFT bug, that could easily fool a user into "thinking" these sub-sampled artifacts are real when in fact they are not.
scander36 has done a great service in showing these FFT results, which initially were to show the channel and ADC linearity by means of a Two Tone IMD signal and subsequent FFT, but this low sampling rate issue was uncovered.
Best,
-
Shouldn't the FFT stop at 100kHz if you have the 200kSa/s ?
You mean simply display nothing on screen above that frequency?
That's a good question. Logic says "yes"... but it would look weird and I'm sure people would complain just as loudly. :popcorn:
I don't know what other 'scopes do in this situation - I don't own them all. It seems suspicious that they claim an "FFT frequency" at double the sample rate so I'd guess "2x upsampling followed by a low pass filter" to try and minimize the effects of mirroring. If this is the case then there's a bug somewhere...
(yes, I know "2x upsampling" already involves a low pass filter so it can be a single step in practice...)
-
Shouldn't the FFT stop at 100kHz if you have the 200kSa/s ?
You mean simply display nothing on screen above that frequency?
That's a good question. Logic says "yes"... but it would look weird and I'm sure people would complain just as loudly. :popcorn:
I don't know what other 'scopes do in this situation - I don't own them all. It seems suspicious that they claim an "FFT frequency" at double the sample rate so I'd guess "2x upsampling followed by a low pass filter" to try and minimize the effects of mirroring. If this is the case then there's a bug somewhere...
(yes, I know "2x upsampling" already involves a low pass filter so it can be a single step in practice...)
Here's as close as we can get to the Rigol HD at 100KHz with 200KSPS and 10K memory depth with the SDS2000X+ at 125KHz with 250KSPS and 16K memory depth.
Note, it does not display anything past 125KHz, immediately conveying to the user that this is "forbidden Nyquist frequency zone", and FFT display is not to be trusted!!
Edit: This makes one wonder if the Rigol HD uses the lower sampling rates to show a quicker user FFT response? Also, this shows that a significant amount of effort has been expended in the SDS2000X+, likely by some folks on here, to produce a quality FFT function & display that is user friendly and reliable.
After all, what good is a DSO function that can't be relied upon to produce reliable results?
Best,
-
Question: What happens if the input signal is 99.5kHz?
Same thing.
It is more a memory lack problem.
This is happened only at 10kpts and lower. If you pay attention to the memory and you will intervene to alocate more memory (100kpts and over) this ghost will disapear.
-
Shouldn't the FFT stop at 100kHz if you have the 200kSa/s ?
You mean simply display nothing on screen above that frequency?
That's a good question. Logic says "yes"... but it would look weird and I'm sure people would complain just as loudly. :popcorn:
I don't know what other 'scopes do in this situation - I don't own them all. It seems suspicious that they claim an "FFT frequency" at double the sample rate so I'd guess "2x upsampling followed by a low pass filter" to try and minimize the effects of mirroring. If this is the case then there's a bug somewhere...
(yes, I know "2x upsampling" already involves a low pass filter so it can be a single step in practice...)
Here's as close as we can get to the Rigol HD at 100KHz with 200KSPS and 10K memory depth with the SDS2000X+ at 125KHz with 250KSPS and 16K memory depth.
Note, it does not display anything past 125KHz, immediately conveying to the user that this is "forbidden Nyquist frequency zone", and FFT display is not to be trusted!!
Best,
Same on Rigol at even lower samplerate.
-
It's all right to not know something..
FFT mirroring is a thing. Here's a Teletubbies video:
(skip to 5:33...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIofPiVVC64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIofPiVVC64)
But you're not helping HDO1000 users by pretending there is no problem.
I'm not pretending there's no problem, just that we need to know every last setting ... and the same settings tried on other devices.
And even if we presume basic math behind this FFT is correct, how do you use this thing?
You make sure that Nyquist is high enough for the signal you're looking at.
(Which you're supposed to do anyway)
Why are you doing this? Now you want to derail topic about Rigol ...
Of course mirroring is a thing. You didn't say that. You said spectral leakage...Which is not same. That is why I said you should stay out of this discussion. You are just repeating some terms you saw on internet without understanding.
I don't need Teletubbies video for that, thank you. I know it from school...
OTOH, that video is actually not bad for someone new to topic...
Also it is obvious that user had great problems not being able to actual set FFT parameters effectively.
That is why there were dozens of posts...
-
Also it is obvious that user had great problems not being able to actual set FFT parameters effectively.
That is why there were dozens of posts...
If you are talking about me, I remember that I set the parameters as requested. This is why I request a specific setup.
If it was after me I can present a nice looking FFT and say : "Look how good it is!"
-
Shouldn't the FFT stop at 100kHz if you have the 200kSa/s ?
You mean simply display nothing on screen above that frequency?
That's a good question. Logic says "yes"... but it would look weird and I'm sure people would complain just as loudly. :popcorn:
I don't know what other 'scopes do in this situation - I don't own them all. It seems suspicious that they claim an "FFT frequency" at double the sample rate so I'd guess "2x upsampling followed by a low pass filter" to try and minimize the effects of mirroring. If this is the case then there's a bug somewhere...
(yes, I know "2x upsampling" already involves a low pass filter so it can be a single step in practice...)
FFT must not plot anything above Nyquist because there is nothing. That is mathematically correct.
Upsampling followed by lowpass filter is nonsense that doesn't achieve anything. Frequencies folding back are because of samples having specific sampled content at sample time... You cannot do anything afterwards. It's entropy, data is lost...
Why would 2X upsampling involve lowpass filter? Is there some new DSP opposite universe that I don't know about?
Could you please explain, because I'm genuinely confused about this?
-
Also it is obvious that user had great problems not being able to actual set FFT parameters effectively.
That is why there were dozens of posts...
If you are talking about me, I remember that I set the parameters as requested. This is why I request a specific setup.
If it was after me I can present a nice looking FFT and say : "Look how good it is!"
Problem is that scope does not let you set these parameters the way FFT should be set.
Also you say problem is only with 10kpts or less..
But that is a big problem, because number of points shouldn't matter. FFT is routinely done on 1024 or 512 points for that matter..
Scope at one point shows both 200 ksps/s and 400ksps for FFT and shows wrong data. No setting should produce that. Where do you set FFT points ?? Is there a setting for that?
-
Yep. See video three posts up ^^^
Sorry, I spoke too soon. Then I saw the rest of the posts.
Shouldn't the FFT stop at 100kHz if you have the 200kSa/s ? That would solve the picture at 200 kSa/s and save Rigol's honor. :)
But then, why does the 400kSa/s show the same mirroring? :palm:
These are the moments where you need an engineer next to the GUI programmers or in the betatesters group...
I wonder how such a bug passed the FFT QC tests?!? :-//
It should stop at 100kHz. And it is not happening all the time.. If you put scope in Auto memory mode, it will have high enough sample rate and you won't see this.. It wasn't tested properly, it was rushed to market... I refuse to believe Rigol engineers don't know this. They were not given enough time.
-
Also it is obvious that user had great problems not being able to actual set FFT parameters effectively.
That is why there were dozens of posts...
If you are talking about me, I remember that I set the parameters as requested. This is why I request a specific setup.
If it was after me I can present a nice looking FFT and say : "Look how good it is!"
Problem is that scope does not let you set these parameters the way FFT should be set.
Also you say problem is only with 10kpts or less..
But that is a big problem, because number of points shouldn't matter. FFT is routinely done on 1024 or 512 points for that matter..
Scope at one point shows both 200 ksps/s and 400ksps for FFT and shows wrong data. No setting should produce that. Where do you set FFT points ?? Is there a setting for that?
If you are suggesting that there are too few setting available, I agree with you, but this setup case was a particular one, with two tone combined, that revealed some limits on this aspect.
Rigol could make more settings available to the user.
-
You mean simply display nothing on screen above that frequency?
That's a good question. Logic says "yes"... but it would look weird
Note, it does not display anything past 125KHz, immediately conveying to the user that this is "forbidden Nyquist frequency zone", and FFT display is not to be trusted!!
Cool!
(So Rigol's "fix" is easy... :popcorn: )
-
Of course mirroring is a thing. You didn't say that. You said spectral leakage...Which is not same.
It's been a while since I studied this. I got my terms mixed up. Sue me.
That is why I said you should stay out of this discussion. You are just repeating some terms you saw on internet without understanding.
Weird that none of the "experts" mentioned mirroring before I did.
Just sayin'...
-
... If you put scope in Auto memory mode, it will have high enough sample rate and you won't see this..
This is one of the problems, my scope was in AUTO memory mode, as i said I use most of the time auto setting, but maybe this is not a good habit. You should pay attention all the time at this parameter as it can change over a lower limit. The automatic memory management is not so reliable and in some cases, like this, it will not allocate the correct memory back to the necessary number.
-
Of course mirroring is a thing. You didn't say that. You said spectral leakage...Which is not same.
It's been a while since I studied this. I got my terms mixed up. Sue me.
That is why I said you should stay out of this discussion. You are just repeating some terms you saw on internet without understanding.
Weird that none of the "experts" mentioned mirroring before I did.
Just sayin'...
No, don't be sorry. It is OK. Honest mistake is honest mistake.. it is grand of you to admit. Kudos!
Actually aliasing was mentioned several times. It includes "mirroring" or "folding" or downsampling... But I agree, it has been long and protracted over few pages.. again, easy not to connect...
-
Weird that none of the "experts" mentioned mirroring before I did.
Just sayin'...
Think GF mentioned "mirroring" in #687, and we mentioned aliasing earlier.
Best,
-
what i am finding the most amusing about all this is we were simply just trying understand adc linearity / imd. and then trying to use this specific scope feature measurement around fft we hit up these bug(s).
so then you inevitably end up wondering if we had picked any other tests on other scope features at random we wouldn't have seen the same levels of bugginess / things yet to be fixed.
therefore am struggling to feel sufficient levels of trust to spend those 1k usd (for me a lot, for others not). not until a much later timeframe on this model. maybe to come back and see after +6 months, then another +12 months from now. right? so end of 2023.
in meantimes i keep a lookout for any possible rtb2004 deals. which of course are few and far between or simply dont exist. nearest i got to see was a full locked no options for 1300. but didn't seem worth it compared to other pricing, or to the have to pay for the missing options on top.
but my other hope is that siglent might decide to replace some of their current lineup with newer model. in response to these new rigol. whichever - am not too deep into choosing and 1 camp to ignore the others.
but what i liked was rudi's deep dive video series for comparing the r&s against the siglent. at least that gives me a frame of reference. he put a lot of time and effort into those video series + document.
just am not seeing the point to bash these rigol hdo series over it. not until their team have fully a generous extra time to fix and improve on what is by all accounts a yet to be finished product. but if they want my money... they're gonna have to work for a bit longer at it. at least they seem on the right track. it just depends how well they respond and will be addressing these issues.
-
It wasn't tested properly, it was rushed to market... I refuse to believe Rigol engineers don't know this. They were not given enough time.
I expect a rushed DSO to have GUI problems. I have difficulty accepting that an erroneous FFT implementation, that is there since day 1, is due to the fact that it was rushed to market. Proper FFT limits should be in place since the beginning.
These guys were programming a DSO, not a drawing tablet. If the physics of signal processing isn't correct why bother with the menus layout? Or they started with the menus because the libraries existed already?
-
Anyway ... I think it's clear what the problem is.
Also the workarounds: Always use a high sample rate, don't break Nyquist!
And what Rigol can do about it: Either fix their upsampling or, even better/simpler, truncate the FFT display.
Maybe @Dave could do a video calling them out. :popcorn:
-
Maybe @Dave could do a video calling them out. :popcorn:
Please no.
The ex Rigol seller found this.
-
Anybody have contacts at Rigol?
AFAIK they never gave any signs of reading EEVBLOG forums.
-
Yeah, think as tv84 and 2N3055 mentioned it's very early in the lifeline of this new HD DSO.
They did spend significant $ on the custom chip developments, so maybe Rigol decided to release early to save debugging $, and have early adopters help with the debug? This could be their business release plan for these new HD DSOs!!
We were very interested in the Channel & 12 bit ADC Linearity, this would be mostly for use with FFTs. Now raises the question in light of what we know, is linearity a factor for this HD DSO??
Anyway, it is what it is and has damped our initial enthusiasm some, being not as well polished as we had hoped.
Best,
-
... If you put scope in Auto memory mode, it will have high enough sample rate and you won't see this..
This is one of the problems, my scope was in AUTO memory mode, as i said I use most of the time auto setting, but maybe this is not a good habit. You should pay attention all the time at this parameter as it can change over a lower limit. The automatic memory management is not so reliable and in some cases, like this, it will not allocate the correct memory back to the necessary number.
In my opinion Auto mode is only way not to go mad in everyday work. You go manual when you need.
-
In my opinion Auto mode is only way not to go mad in everyday work...
Good point! :)
-
Yeah, think as tv84 and 2N3055 mentioned it's very early in the lifeline of this new HD DSO.
They did spend significant $ on the custom chip developments, so maybe Rigol decided to release early to save debugging $, and have early adopters help with the debug? This could be their business release plan for these new HD DSOs!!
We were very interested in the Channel & 12 bit ADC Linearity, this would be mostly for use with FFTs. Now raises the question in light of what we know, is linearity a factor for this HD DSO??
Anyway, it is what it is and has damped our initial enthusiasm some, being not as well polished as we had hoped.
Best,
I will exercise a bit more restrain before passing judgment and give them a bit more time to start releasing some FW updates. When R&S released half baked RTB2000 years ago, everybody was full of understanding for almost a year, until R&S made it decent enough..
OTOH I knew it was too early to release it, and never had early adopter fever... But Rigol has a chance now to prove their mettle... or not. It's up to them.
-
The mirror reminds me on the array returned by Matlab's/Octave's fft() function. It contains DC and the positive frequency bins in the first half of the array, followed by Nyquist and the negative frequency bins. For a real-valued signal, plotting1) the log magnitude of this array shows a mirrored spectrum, as we are seeing it here. However, FFT on scopes usually does not display any negative frequencies, but hides them. I would not a priori overstate the bug -- it could be an easy to fix careless mistake in the software.
1) E.g. plot(20*log10(abs(fft(samples))))
-
.. But Rigol has a chance now to prove their mettle... or not. It's up to them.
I'm toying with the idea of getting the DHO1074, playing with it for a while, and giving it away again.
It costs only 1200€ in the rigolshop and would be here in a few days.
In the time I could again annoy the German Rigol support, as I had once done with the MSO5000. 8)
Seriously, it would be interesting to play a little bit with it.
I like to have things here instead of reading/watching and the 4000 is a little bit too expensive for just playing.
Although...if batronix would lend me one....
-
They did spend significant $ on the custom chip developments, so maybe Rigol decided to release early to save debugging $
I think last summer the marketing department planned a November release, because November/December is when most people buy oscilloscopes.
Then... November came along and it wasn't 100% finished because software never is. The rest is history.
Anybody who's ever worked in a company which develops products will have lived through this story ^^^
-
I would not a priori overstate the bug -- it could be an easy to fix careless mistake in the software.
Well, :-DD that is a definition of a software bug. ...
-
They did spend significant $ on the custom chip developments, so maybe Rigol decided to release early to save debugging $
I think last summer the marketing department planned a November release, because November/December is when most people buy oscilloscopes.
Then... November came along and it wasn't 100% finished because software never is. The rest is history.
Anybody who's ever worked in a company which develops products will have lived through this story ^^^
I agree.. That is what happened. Now we wait and see.. Fact that they rushed it out is one thing.
But if people keep buying it like crazy despite bugs, because it's cheap, they have very little incentive to fix things..
-
Although...if batronix would lend me one....
Batronix said they wouldn't be selling them (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4437025/#msg4437025) because Rigol won't let them so long as they're selling Siglents.
Let's check...
Nope. No HDO series on Batronix. >:(
-
Although...if batronix would lend me one....
Batronix said they wouldn't be selling them (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4437025/#msg4437025) because Rigol wouldn't let them so long as they were selling Siglents.
Let's check...
Nope. No HDO series on Batronix. >:(
No DHO1000... They are selling 4000 tough... So weird....
-
Yep, DHO4000 is on sale, DHO1000 not.
And Conrad Electronic offers the DHO1000 for commercial customers only.... :-//
-
The mirror reminds me on the array returned by Matlab's/Octave's fft() function. It contains DC and the positive frequency bins in the first half of the array, followed by Nyquist and the negative frequency bins. For a real-valued signal, plotting1) the log magnitude of this array shows a mirrored spectrum, as we are seeing it here. However, FFT on scopes usually does not display any negative frequencies, but hides them. I would not a priori overstate the bug -- it could be an easy to fix careless mistake in the software.
1) E.g. plot(20*log10(abs(fft(samples))))
I am not sure that the part to the right of fs/2 is actually a perfect mirror image. If you look at the second screenshot in https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4668886/#msg4668886 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4668886/#msg4668886) the image seems to be a few dB down. Also in this case sampling rate is 200 kSa/s (acquistion) -> 256.41 kSa/S (FFT). That suggests an interpolation/resampling filter. In the next screenshot there is downsampling 2 GSa/s -> 25.64 MSa/s, which actually makes some sense to improve resolution at low frequencies.
Unlike the 2x upsampling case, that actually has potential for introducing less-obvious images < fs / 2. So here's hoping they got that right.
-
Remember that China is still in all sorts of lockdowns. It's easy to sit here saying they ought not to have released it and that they should be fixing it, but... we have no idea what's going on over there.
-
But if people keep buying it like crazy despite bugs, because it's cheap, they have very little incentive to fix things..
True words.
I think this forum is a niche... Most people only look at the wallet. :-//
But, I'm still betting on Rigol to fix all this stuff. Looking at the odds, I'm might win a load of $$$. :D
-
Shouldn't the FFT stop at 100kHz if you have the 200kSa/s ? That would solve the picture at 200 kSa/s and save Rigol's honor. :)
But then, why does the 400kSa/s show the same mirroring? :palm:
These are the moments where you need an engineer next to the GUI programmers or in the betatesters group...
I wonder how such a bug passed the FFT QC tests?!? :-//
It seems Rigol uses some code that is shared. So the bugs are shared as well. Early I've noticed the same inconsistent Sa/s values for FFT sampling rate vs. scope's sampling rate in the 1054Z model. No wonder the HDO series are also affected.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-buglist-continued-(from-fw-00-04-04-03-02)/msg4536227/#msg4536227 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1000z-series-buglist-continued-(from-fw-00-04-04-03-02)/msg4536227/#msg4536227)
-
It's easy to sit here saying they ought not to have released it and that they should be fixing it, but... we have no idea what's going on over there.
At least they could build the scopes and ship them to the world, despite lockdown.
-
I think this forum is a niche...
You underestimate this forum my friend...
-
I am not sure that the part to the right of fs/2 is actually a perfect mirror image. If you look at the second screenshot in https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4668886/#msg4668886 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4668886/#msg4668886) the image seems to be a few dB down. Also in this case sampling rate is 200 kSa/s (acquistion) -> 256.41 kSa/S (FFT). That suggests an interpolation/resampling filter. In the next screenshot there is downsampling 2 GSa/s -> 25.64 MSa/s, which actually makes some sense to improve resolution at low frequencies.
Unlike the 2x upsampling case, that actually has potential for introducing less-obvious images < fs / 2. So here's hoping they got that right.
You are right, if the FFT sample rate is not 200kSa/s, but 256.41 kSa/s, then at least this image can't be a mirror.
Actually only the 3rd image with 2 GSa/s -> 25.64 MSa/s decimation looks OK.
The 4th image with 500 MSa/s -> 5.26 MSa/s decimation has too many spurs, IMO.
Decimation can make sense to improve resolution, by why such weird sample rates like 25.64 MSa/s (decimation by factor ~78 which is neither decimal nor power of two)?
-
Maybe they are trying to line up the bins of a power-of-two FFT with the center/span setting? I kind of hate that approach though, CZT is a much cleaner way to get arbitrary spans (even at the cost of somewhat longer FFTs).
I hadn't looked at the fourth image properly. As far as I can tell the only difference between third and fourth is sample rate. So this is genuinely worrying.
It might make sense to download the raw samples at those settings and compare against an FFT in Matlab or Python.
-
Although...if batronix would lend me one....
Request made... ;)
-
I tried to reproduce this FFT issue on my HDO1K and I think I nailed down the bug.
First of, in Auto memory mode I don't see any issue, so I did all the tests in 10k manual memory mode and centered the FFT at 100 kHz.
- Setting the time base to 2 ms/div results in a 500 kSa/s for both the main sampling rate and the FFT window => no visible issue
- Setting the time base to 5 ms/div results in a 200 kSa/s for both the main sampling rate and the FFT window => FFT display is cut after the 100 kHz point (above Nyquist) => no visible issue
- Setting the time base anywhere between 2 and 5 ms/div is the interesting part ! For example setting to 4.5 ms/div results in a 200 kSa/s main sampling rate but a 222.22 kSa/s in the FFT window => FFT display is cut after the 111 kHz point (above Nyquist of the wrong sampling frequency in the FFT window) => there's your issue !
So the bug is that the sampling rate used in the FFT window is computed straight from the timebase, rather than computer from a "rounded up" timebase like it is done for the main sampling frequency.
This should be quite an easy fix for Rigol (let see how much time it takes them !)
For now, to use the FFT in a safe way, you should just avoid manually setting any non "round" timebase, just stay on a 1-2-5 timebase (which is what most users will do anyway).
-
So you have to manually set the time base to something weird for it to appear?
-
- Setting the time base to 5 ms/div results in a 200 kSa/s for both the main sampling rate and the FFT window => FFT display is cut after the 100 kHz point (above Nyquist)
You mean 'cut' like in this screenshot, nothing displayed?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1704226;image)
-
- Setting the time base to 5 ms/div results in a 200 kSa/s for both the main sampling rate and the FFT window => FFT display is cut after the 100 kHz point (above Nyquist)
You mean 'cut' like in this screenshot, nothing displayed?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1704226;image)
Yep, exactly. Just as @skander36 showed in a HDO1K screenshot a few posts ago :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4670623/#msg4670623 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4670623/#msg4670623)
-
Although...if batronix would lend me one....
Request made... ;)
Get one(HDO4204)in the next days, batronix are simply "the best".
-
Although...if batronix would lend me one....
Request made... ;)
Get one(HDO4204)in the next days, batronix are simply "the best".
:-+ Well, I'm waiting for thorough tests and comparison of HDO4000 with SDS2000X HD...
-
Hi,
When it arrives, with luck this week, I will be able to use it for about 3 weeks before batronix wants it back, for a trade show.
First, I'll take a closer look at how the build quality is, how loud the fans are, how good the display is, how sensitive the touchpanel is, how intuitive the menus are to use, etc.
But the main thing is:
Tell me what to test/compare, it will be "collected" and executed on the respective weekends.
I have the following signal sources at home:
Siglent SDG2122X
Siglent STB-3 Demoboard with numerous test signals including decoder signals.
Bodnar pulser
So start thinking about it, I'll let you know when the scope arrives.... ;)
-
Hi,
When it arrives, with luck this week, I will be able to use it for about 3 weeks before batronix wants it back, for a trade show.
First, I'll take a closer look at how the build quality is, how loud the fans are, how good the display is, how sensitive the touchpanel is, how intuitive the menus are to use, etc.
But the main thing is:
Tell me what to test/compare, it will be "collected" and executed on the respective weekends.
I have the following signal sources at home:
Siglent SDG2122X
Siglent STB-3 Demoboard with numerous test signals including decoder signals.
Bodnar pulser
So start thinking about it, I'll let you know when the scope arrives.... ;)
Is it a "free" rent ?
I'm going to say something that you may already know : out of the box FANs are loud A LOT, the system push PWM regulation to 100% regardless the temperature, totally unacceptable but luckily there is the a SW cure.
Being obsessed by noise I went beyond swapping original ones with a couple of cheap SUNON 60x60x25 plus anti-vibration mounts, now it's very comfortable.
-
Is it up to you as the customer to make the system silent ?
When I buy something new instead of DIY I expect not to play with it around.
Positive example:
My Silgent HD scope, it cames with a silent system out of the box, no improvements at the cost of warranty are needed.
Is it a "free" rent ?
Except of the shipping costs, yes.
Currently I´ve heard nothing new from them after their answer, let´s hope everything goes well.
-
Is it up to you as the customer to make the system silent ?
When I buy something new instead of DIY I expect not to play with it around.
For sure not but there are example of noisy instruments for any brand, including your beloved Siglent ;), i.e. the SDS1104X-E.
In the past I swapped FANs in many instruments, including a GW Instek the same day I opened the box, the noise was sooo weird.
In many cases the problem are vibration and it's enough to make use of rubber mounts, small FAN motors (<=60mm) do have very high torque ripple that usually resonate with metallic chassis.
Rigol HDO do have FAN PWM speed regulation but for some reason the scope push them at max regardless the actual internal temp, I studied the file system and everything is there but they messed with thermal system configuration.
The SW speed hack works but if you want the best possible result you have to mount rubber screw and 25mm deep fans as I did, but here we are in a quite subjective field.
I.e. a friend of mine that bought the 2 channel version on Amazon (850 euro shipped from DE depot exactly as mine bought from Rigolshop.eu) is more then happy with software speed hack.
Positive example:
My Silgent HD scope, it cames with a silent system of the box, no improvements at the cost of warranty are needed.
Your Siglent scope cost more than 3 times mine ;) , for sure with that kind of budget I would consider it in place of Rigol HDO4K and here I agree that Rigol have to make a better acoustic design with scopes on sale at certain price.
First step should be to drop 60mm fans in favor to 80mm or 120mm, the price to pay is instrument size, not a problem in my case.
Anyway, the noisiest scope that I ever used is an old PC based Lecroy back in 2008, it seemed a vacuum cleaner and the exhaust air was sooo hot :)
-
Your Siglent scope cost more than 3 times mine ;)
The rigol HDO4000 also and it got the same fans... ;)
And this is the point.
As the MSO5000 was launched, everyone wonders about how rigol could do that at this price.
8GSa/s, deep memory, 2-ch awg inbuild, etc etc.
The answer was simple, by using the cheapest materials around their new chipset.
Same on the HDO1000 - But also the same on the HDO4000...
The 3-times more expensive 4000 got the same quality like the 1000, same display, same fans, (nearly) same main pcb...
A bit pathetic.
-
Your Siglent scope cost more than 3 times mine ;)
The rigol HDO4000 also and it got the same fans... ;)
And this is the point.
As the MSO5000 was launched, everyone wonders about how rigol could do that at this price.
8GSa/s, deep memory, 2-ch awg inbuild, etc etc.
The answer was simple, by using the cheapest materials around their new chipset.
Same on the HDO1000 - But also the same on the HDO4000...
The 3-times more expensive 4000 got the same quality like the 1000, same display, same fans, (nearly) same main pcb...
A bit pathetic.
More low cost options will be in the marketplace later this year. ;)
-
Nice !
Siglent Armada is again active here, now we are going to enjoy with a fair review by Martin, who is notoriously impartial with Rigol and Siglent comparisons.
What a Joke.
-
Siglent Armada is again active here, now we are going to enjoy with a fair review by Martin, who is notoriously impartial with Rigol and Siglent comparisons.
What a Joke.
Hmm and why should Martin's review be dishonest ?
Martin obviously doesn't like having only one oscilloscope. He sold Siglent SDS200X Plus and Rigol MSO5000 unnecessarily :-DD
-
Nice !
Siglent Armada is again active here, now we are going to enjoy with a fair review by Martin, who is notoriously impartial with Rigol and Siglent comparisons.
What a Joke.
Cynical much?
-
who is notoriously impartial with Rigol and Siglent comparisons.
From what do you conclude that ?
Because I do not break out in complete enthusiasm about another Rigol scope?
Until now, I had always owned the scopes about which I dared to allow myself a greater judgment.
From Rigol I had DS1054Z, DS2072A, MSO5074.
For the latter I once joined the forum and if you would read my "old" posts, you would know how enthusiastic I was about the scope.
And still am, partly.
But then be equally "allowed" to be excited about the SDS2104X+.
From Siglent I had the SDS1104X-E, SDS2104X+ and now the SDS2104X+ HD.
None of the scopes mentioned is perfect, it depends on your own needs, but also expectations.
The HD, for example, is a step up from the "normal" Xplus.
But even that has features that I do not like so well, which I would like to see improved.
That's why there is also a corresponding thread for the Scope.
Plus things that can´t be improved.
I have larger newer Lecroy scopes at work to measure, so have a "higher-level" comparison of where the journey for Rigol and Siglent could go.
That's what I measure these scopes against, and to date Siglent is a little closer to that than Rigol.
And it's okay to say that without being accused of being biased or having reports cast into doubt before they've even been made.
That annoys me a bit right now. :(
Oh yes, feedback from batronix today, the HDO4204 will be shipped on monday.
-
I think everyone here wants Rigol to release good equipment and compete with Siglent.
It is a plus for us when companies compete with each other. Thanks to this, we have better and better equipment to buy and better prices.
Constructive criticism is to force companies to improve this equipment, because currently, both in terms of Rigol and Siglent, it is not always good with it.
Nobody does it out of malice or fanaticism towards any of the companies.
-
Your Siglent scope cost more than 3 times mine ;)
The rigol HDO4000 also and it got the same fans... ;)
And this is the point.
As the MSO5000 was launched, everyone wonders about how rigol could do that at this price.
8GSa/s, deep memory, 2-ch awg inbuild, etc etc.
The answer was simple, by using the cheapest materials around their new chipset.
Same on the HDO1000 - But also the same on the HDO4000...
The 3-times more expensive 4000 got the same quality like the 1000, same display, same fans, (nearly) same main pcb...
A bit pathetic.
More low cost options will be in the marketplace later this year. ;)
Low cost options with 12 bit?
-
I'm curious about the FFT record length of HDO or MSO5000 scopes. They can reach 1M points in it's datasheet. But in the manual, in fixed FFT point, there are just 65536 point at most. If they have an Auto mode to get 1M FFT point, or I misunderstood something?
-
-snip
The 3-times more expensive 4000 got the same quality like the 1000, same display, same fans, (nearly) same main pcb...
A bit pathetic.
Rigol pathetic ?
This is exactly the same thing Siglent and everyone else are doing in most DSO lines, common HW base with small differentiation and SW upgrades that brings prices to a multiple of the base product.
So what's your point ?
MSO5K with cheapest materials .... :D
MSO5K sells very well and right now Siglent has nothing that could compete, anyway the cheapest DSO materials that I saw in my life were rusty Siglent's chassis that David spotted many times during his teardown.
Dunno if you are conducting a personal crusade against Rigol or if you are part of Siglent marketing system or if you are getting something in exchange, for sure I do not expect an unbiased review from someone that defines Rigol the product under test as "pathetic" in advance.
-
MSO5K sells very well and right now Siglent has nothing that could compete, anyway the cheapest DSO materials that I saw in my life were rusty Siglent's chassis that David spotted many times during his teardown.
Oh FFS it seems you and Dave have not been around much as any guillotined galv steel plate will oxidize and I have a Tek TDS2012B right beside me that proudly displays the exact same chassis edge rust in the same way. :horse:
However an early batch of faulty plated steel plate did get through QC many years back and Siglent learnt the lesson to more carefully check products their suppliers send them.
-
The 3-times more expensive 4000 got the same quality like the 1000, same display, same fans, (nearly) same main pcb...
The HDO4204 is only about 50% more expensive than the HDO1204, not three times.
For that difference you get double the sample rate, power analysis functions and smart probe connectors.
-
Yes that may well be true if I had referred to it, but I did not.
I was talking about the basics, the workmanship and the obviously same components that are used for both model series.
From that point of view, the difference is even greater than three times(699 to 2699).
If we want to cherry pick, then 2.7 times (999 to 2699), from 4-ch to 4-ch, then you´re right, it´s not three times.
When we (as you did) want to compare the feature benefits:
For that difference you get double the sample rate, power analysis functions and smart probe connectors.
Power analyzer is software only, just like the additional decoder options you can purchase for the 4000 - If they wanted to, the 1000 could have that too.
A "political" decision.
The double sample rate is due to the second chip that was soldered on.
The Smartprobe connectors are also just an additional board, all this does not justify the hefty surcharge and you still have the same quality as the incomparably cheaper 1000 model.
But on the other side, when I get the 4204 for testing, most of the points will be valid also for the 1000(except samplerate/bandwith)*
So I musn´t buy (or loan) a DHO1000 to "know" it.
*( yes I know, it got more memory..But that makes no difference at all.)
-
A "political" decision.
Yep.
-
Argh...
Batronix are as ever fast as lightening (don´t know how they do it), yesterday shipped, today arrived - But I was not there.. :P
Tomorrow after work I´ll go and get it from the post office.
The curiosity rises up...
-
Tadaa... ;)
First impression without powering on (too cold, must wait):
It´s tiny... :D
My HD seems small and little but rigol is more tiny...Interesting, a new trend ? ;)
Building quality/Look&Feel: Good !
Not equal to the HD but very very close to it, nothing negative to say about it.
To be continued.
-
Couldn't wait until the weekend and turned it on earlier. ;)
Positive:
Very fast booting and almost instant shutdown.
Negative: The fans are brute loud.... :o
Of all the scopes I've had, these are the loudest.
The probes coming with are the same as the MSO5000 comes with, relative cheap ones, no probesense, only 350Mhz and switchable attentuation (I don´t like such probes).
Display is remarkable better than on the MSO5000, brighter and clearer - And you recognize the higher resolution immediately, graphics/icons are finer displayed - This point (Resolution)goes to rigol.
-
Further things...
Menu style:
I like it! Very intuitive to use, everything you can do with is visible, no need to scroll or use underfolders.
First I thought, oh yes how fancy and useless the displayed schematic is, but then realize you can nearly touch everything there and a menu pops up.
Nice, really nice.
And I´ve found a bug inbetween a minute of running...Rigol won´t disappoint you ;D
Probesetting:
First I´ve set the probe to 10:1 then adjusting the probe with the ref signal.
Then playing around with the timebase and after this I´ve pressed the "Auto" button.
Scope takes the setting - And "kill" the 10:1 setting, now it´s 1:1... Solved, see Reply#783
And there is something weird with the ultra aqcuire mode.
More to come in the next days.
-
On the HDO1K the probe stay on 10X after Autoset.
Maybe you should upgrade to 02.04 or active probe interface wait for confirmation (which would be a bug of course).
-
Thankyou for the hint, firmware is avaible on the rigol eu site, but must ask batronix before of course.
-
I was able to downgrade to ver. 02.00 from Rigol site, but still the Autoset does not modify probe to 1X.
Maybe if you get permission to upgrade you will be able to isolate the problem.
For the HDO1K users, on the chinese Rigol site they put the Fw. 02.04 on the DHO1K section along with the release notes and instructions. Release notes file does not tell anything about the improvements but intention is important ;D
Also the firmware is the same for both lines (4K and 1K) as I suspected before. (DHO1000-DHO4000(ARM)Update)
-
I was able to downgrade to ver. 02.00 from Rigol site, but still the Autoset does not modify probe to 1X.
Maybe if you get permission to upgrade you will be able to isolate the problem.
Hi,
It´s not a bug, it´s a feature...
Today I´ve played a bit with the utility menu, there is a point called "Auto Config".
In this sub-menu you can choose if the channel coupling will be kept or not when activating the auto function... :P ;)
So this was solved.
I got the permission from batronix to change the firmware and so I did the upgrade.
Whatever this will do, without release information. ::)
After this I let it warm up (going out of the room, the fan noise is killing me...) and did a self cal.
Nice: It shows when it was the last time calibrated.
Self cal procedure takes appx 10min, that is fast.
Touchscreen response is good and like on my HD (and all other scopes I know) the rigol freezes the waveform shortly when moving.
I also got a look at the Acquire menu, the different modes.
Normal, average, peak, hires and ultra.
What I lke :
Hires mode you can select between 14 bit and 16 bit and the resulting bandwith will be displayed(depending on the memory depth) - Want to have this on my HD too...
BTW, memory depth:
Interesting the 1st: Default setting is NOT auto, it is 10k.
Interesting the 2nd: In averaging and hires mode, auto mode is not possible.
Interesting the last: in averaging mode the maximum memory depth is only 10M instead 250M ???
The ultra mode is a little bit confusing as you can choose between several displaying modes (adjascent, overlay, waterfall, mosaic), but nothing will happen or weird things but not what you expect to see.
But I got a little idea what the reason could be and will check this tomorrow.
Martin
-
Interesting the last: in averaging mode the maximum memory depth is only 10M instead 250M ???
Does it change with the number of averages?
-
No, plus the limitation is mentioned also in the manual - But without giving a reason.
-
Glad you sorted out.
For the UltraAquire I have to set the display frame number and timeout.
-
Ah and my idea was it has something to do with the display freeze mode.
Thanks, will try it out "tomorrow".
You have a 1000, right ?
-
Yes HDO 1072.
-
I was able to downgrade to ver. 02.00 from Rigol site, but still the Autoset does not modify probe to 1X.
Maybe if you get permission to upgrade you will be able to isolate the problem.
For the HDO1K users, on the chinese Rigol site they put the Fw. 02.04 on the DHO1K section along with the release notes and instructions. Release notes file does not tell anything about the improvements but intention is important ;D
Also the firmware is the same for both lines (4K and 1K) as I suspected before. (DHO1000-DHO4000(ARM)Update)
Download file is the same but HDO1K/4K but firmware files are different, it's enough to browse the GEL file container to see that.
Anyway, it's a common good practice to put in test instruments with latest FW version available, especially if we compare them with other devices.
-
Download file is the same but HDO1K/4K but firmware files are different, it's enough to browse the GEL file container to see that.
I said this for those users who expressed doubt that the previous firmware was not for HDO1K.
Probable you are calling firmware the FPGA app files.
We know whats inside the gel file - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4572985/#msg4572985 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4572985/#msg4572985)
-
Download file is the same but HDO1K/4K but firmware files are different, it's enough to browse the GEL file container to see that.
I said this for those users who expressed doubt that the previous firmware was not for HDO1K.
Probable you are calling firmware the FPGA app files.
We know whats inside the gel file - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4572985/#msg4572985 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4572985/#msg4572985)
FPGA bins are part of firmware set, I made this clarification beacuse reading "the firmware is the same for both lines" could be misleading.
-
There is one firmware file that can be applied to both 4k and 1K models.
-
a program like binwalk (or other similar firmware unpacker tools) should let you see what is the outline structure of those firmware regions. to examine better the regions and layout
-
Today I didn't have much time, but I could play a bit with the FFT function.
I was a bit surprised how little you can adjust/select.
There are no FFT modes like the Siglent(Normal/Peak/Average).
Also you can't set a number of points, overall the FFT features are very meager on the Rigol.
I then had a 1khz sine wave fed in with the SDG2122X, 50 ohms, 775mVpp.
I noticed two things, next to the fundamental there seems to be a small disturbance that makes the peak look a bit grinded.
Then the next thing, the change from hanning to flattop.
You can't adjust anything, so take it as it is, just how the displayed looks, that is quite different from my siglent scope. :o
That the function is displayed in a window is first of all a fine thing.
But the shifting to hit the point where the representation on the screen changes, is a bit fiddly, there is then the selection in the menu at the siglent a bit more practical, but that's just my impression.
But there is again a point, I would also want to have with my siglent:
The vertical scaling is on the right side, which I find only logical, that the fundamental is to be located either rather left or in the middle.
You can read it better when it is on the right. :-+
But that is only a question of software (hello, siglent.. ;) ).
Edit: Damn, pics are shuffled..again.
-
Additional,
Siglent and rigol with their tables, judge for yourself what looks "better".
For me I like more the white background of the rigol table.
You also can see the advantage of having an averaging fft mode(siglent pic).
-
Controls aside: The noise floor on the Rigol looks to be more than 10dB lower so the peaks on the right hand side of this image stand out a lot more. The pastel color of the text is also a lot easier to read (in the screenshots at least).
Rigol:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1714196;image)
Siglent:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1714190;image)
-
And that means what ?
-
Controls aside: The noise floor on the Rigol looks to be more than 10dB lower so the peaks on the right hand side of this image stand out a lot more. The pastel color of the text is also a lot easier to read (in the screenshots at least).
Fungus,
how much there is noise floor in FFT is very dependent on FFT settings. Namely bin width is very important, because, math..
One big problem with FFT on HDO1000/4000 as it is is that you cannot control some important parameters and it isn't clear what exact parameters is it using.. So direct comparison is moot.
Truth is that SDS2000X HD has few percent less noise than HDO4000 in general.
HDO4000 has a bit less noise at low frequencies and SDS2000X HD has less noise at higher frequencies..
But that is irrelevant because they are in the same ballpark.
But if software doesn't let you get the benefits, you still get suboptimal results.
For instance, on my SDS2000X HD i can easily get 15-20 dB less noise than what is shown for Rigol in Martin's images. Around -115 to -120 dB at same input sensitivity.. Just by choosing right parameters. And since Siglent did it right, I can do that repeatably and predictably.
Rigol made decent hardware. GUI looks nice. Now they should fix the actual scope software part, as i pertains to actual usage of the scope.
They started posting some fixes. Good. Hope for the best.
-
Siglent and rigol with their tables, judge for yourself what looks "better".
For me I like more the white background of the rigol table.
I appreciate the new Rigol UI. It's starting to look like a LeCroy. :-+
BUT the font they use is still reminiscent of the chinese way of dealing with the latin alphabet. They don't have much sensibility to choose the best charater font.
The font alone makes the UI feel somewhat cheap! Don't make me explain it better, it's in my guts.
-
And that means what ?
The whole point of an FFT is to find those, so... :-//
how much there is noise floor in FFT is very dependent on FFT settings. Namely bin width is very important, because, math..
In the images posted so far the peaks were much more visible on one of the two 'scopes.
Finding peaks is important in FFTs so I thought I'd mention it, that's all.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
-
And that means what ?
The whole point of an FFT is to find those, so... :-//
how much there is noise floor in FFT is very dependent on FFT settings. Namely bin width is very important, because, math..
In the images posted so far the peaks were much more visible on one of the two 'scopes.
Finding peaks is important in FFTs so I thought I'd mention it, that's all.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
:-//
Cmon,
I was polite and factual. And explained something.
And peaks are easily visible on both, and better on Siglent because you can better control the process.
And I gave a solution to Rigol to make it better..
My post was completely bona fide..
-
Rigol made decent hardware. GUI looks nice. Now they should fix the actual scope software part, as i pertains to actual usage of the scope.
They started posting some fixes. Good. Hope for the best.
In the few days I have the rigol here I can say (from my point of view, of course) that the GUI is another level, especially when you compare it to "older" models like the MSO5000.
Directly, there is no contest, this point goes to the new HDO (or DHO, whatever).
And I like it more than siglent´s GUI, partly.
Hope I can do further playings in the later afternoon..
BTW, anyone got a clue why the flattop window looks so drastically different on the rigol ?
-
Pet peeve: Can we please say "UI" instead of "GUI"? :)
-
Rigol made decent hardware. GUI looks nice. Now they should fix the actual scope software part, as i pertains to actual usage of the scope.
They started posting some fixes. Good. Hope for the best.
In the few days I have the rigol here I can say (from my point of view, of course) that the GUI is another level, especially when you compare it to "older" models like the MSO5000.
Directly, there is no contest, this point goes to the new HDO (or DHO, whatever).
And I like it more than siglent´s GUI, partly.
Hope I can do further playings in the later afternoon..
BTW, anyone got a clue why the flattop window looks so drastically different on the rigol ?
On that FFT setting menu I don't see any mention of either of number of points or number of bins or bin width. It seems it "automagically" decides on those and they are very important as to how it will look.
But it does look weird...
-
But it does look weird...
It looks typical of most FFT images on the web.
eg. https://www.gaussianwaves.com/2020/09/window-function-figure-of-merits/ (https://www.gaussianwaves.com/2020/09/window-function-figure-of-merits/)
As you say, it's probably related to number of bins/number of sample points in the FFT.
-
Hi, Anybody knows, if that HiRes issue was fixed in available FW updates? 02.04? Thanks.
-
The "flattop" screenshot definitely looks weird. At first glance it might look like "a" windowed FFT. But look closer:
- It is nothing like a flattop window. A flattop produces a wide main-lobe and the side-lobes shouldn't have a smooth envelope.
- Why do we see wide side-lobes at all? Has the number of points suddenly dropped? The RBW display hasn't changed but unfortunately that is bugged anyway (it seems to be off by a constant factor of 1000 though; that would suggest we are still at 1 Mpts, the maximum according to the datasheet).
- Look at the main-lobe again. It actually hasn't changed much at all, it is still very sharp. And so are the harmonics. So we must still be at full resolution.
Maybe there is just a typo in the formula for the window function. :-// It is definitely possible to construct a window that behaves like this (for example take a "normal" window function and superimpose it with a low-amplitude, much narrower window), but you wouldn't really do that on purpose.
-
But it does look weird...
It looks typical of most FFT images on the web.
eg. https://www.gaussianwaves.com/2020/09/window-function-figure-of-merits/ (https://www.gaussianwaves.com/2020/09/window-function-figure-of-merits/)
As you say, it's probably related to number of bins/number of sample points in the FFT.
No it does not.
If you look at images on internet (wikipedia for instance), they demonstrate windowing with 11 or 13 sample points..
That is why you see something similar... With 1 million points FFT you don't see it.
And if I had to choose what it looks like it looks more like Parzen window with 11 sample points......
Because of all that i presume there is some "magic" happening with Rigol's FFT choice of how many bins it uses automatically...
Also one thing to note: They state RBW : 4.999m ???????? What is that ???
FFT is definitely buggy and to me not finished. Few critical control variables user cannot control, and are not reported.
-
Looks like FFT is still a toy function in any scope. It's not for measurements, it's just for reference. The values for SNR or dynamic range are not provided. The only related parameter in the spec is channel isolation, which is of 1:100. That's 40 dB, so anything on the FFT chart that is below that level (-60 dB, -100 dB, whatever) is just FYI. Accuracy is not officially specified. The most fierce debates are usually about toys :)
-
Looks like FFT is still a toy function in any scope. It's not for measurements, it's just for reference. The values for SNR or dynamic range are not provided. The only related parameter in the spec is channel isolation, which is of 1:100. That's 40 dB, so anything on the FFT chart that is below that level (-60 dB, -100 dB, whatever) is just FYI. Accuracy is not officially specified. The most fierce debates are usually about toys :)
That's the point, if you need reliable spectrum analysis you buy a full specified spectrum analyzer, a DSO is designed to be used mainly as YT instrument, for sure the FFT implementation is not the key point when you look for a new instrument.
What make me really laugh is that in this forum we can see dozens of DSO's FFT screen with 100dB (or even more) vertical dynamic range and infinite debates spent to demonstrate that they are actual ::)
Anyhow, let's all keep in mind that the HDO1074 is available in EU for a little less than 1200 euro VAT included, it offers most of HDO4K features with a respectable 200MHz BW, 100Mpts , 2GSa/s.
This is the real bargain from this new line and there is nothing on the market that come close to it, i.e. the cheapest SDS2000X-HD cost 3 times more.
-
It looks to me like the FFT mode doesn't do real decimation after all (at least in the screenshots). The noise graphs published earlier in this thread seem to indicate that the Rigol has a bit less noise in the kHz region anyway. And it looks like it is running 1 Mpts FFT vs 512 kpts, so that is another 3 dB of processing gain. If there was real 500 MSa/s -> 5 MSa/s decimation (and not just subsampling) that should give another 20 dB and I'm not seeing that.
So I think it is still not quite clear what is happening with respect to resampling. Does the noise floor decrease if you switch acquisition mode to Hi-Res?
Btw I disagree that spectrum analysis does not matter much on an oscilloscope. The main point of having 12 bits is that you can analyze small details on large signals that you often can't see in a time-domain display. Spectrum analysis is a major part of the toolbox. I do agree that specifications lack a lot of detail compared to high-resolution options from Lecroy or R&S. But those are exactly the gaps that people are trying to fill here.
-
And it looks like it is running 1 Mpts FFT
Indeed, basically looks like 1MPts (~5Hz bin spacing), OTOH the displayed RBW=5mHz @5MSa/sa would imply 1Gpts, which can't be true.
However, the "flattop" trace rather suggests a window size of only ~50k points (~100Hz bin spacing), zero-padded to a larger FFT size, leading to interpolation in the frequency domain then (which makes the shape of the side lobes visible). And as you already said, the main lobe is way to narrow for a flattop window. Any common window function has a main lobe width >= 2x the width of side lobes. Something is weird here.
-
Looks like FFT is still a toy function in any scope. It's not for measurements, it's just for reference. The values for SNR or dynamic range are not provided. The only related parameter in the spec is channel isolation, which is of 1:100. That's 40 dB, so anything on the FFT chart that is below that level (-60 dB, -100 dB, whatever) is just FYI. Accuracy is not officially specified. The most fierce debates are usually about toys :)
I think that is a bit simplified look at things..
SDS2000X HD: CH to CH
Isolation (@50Ω)
> 60 dBc, < 500 MHz
> 70 dBc, < 350 MHz
Also CH2CH isolation is relevant only if you use several channels at the same time.. With single channel not so much..
At that time only SFDR is relevant......
So it is very useful but need to be realistic what it is and what is it not...
-
What make me really laugh is that in this forum we can see dozens of DSO's FFT screen with 100dB (or even more) vertical dynamic range and infinite debates spent to demonstrate that they are actual ::)
A 12 bit scope cannot have 120 dB dynamic range.. But it can have -120dBm noise floor, and it can have larger than ADC dynamic range in FFT because of software gain.
Sometimes large dynamic range is not needed, good sensitivity is enough...
GPS signals are in the noise of preamp. It is literally not visible in time domain...
Using clever software techniques they extract useful signal from the noise...
Math don't lie. But it can be misapplied and misunderstood.
And I agree that it is better to be cautious and have a healthy dose of scepticism than believe in fairy tales..
But sometimes we can squeeze a bit more performance with a bit of cleverness.
-
Strange things gentlemen...
Playing with the FFT, same Setup as before.
Setting Memory to 100 Mpoints, hanning window.
Playing with the timebase..
From say 500ms to 50ms the memory remains the same.
Then switching to 20ms - the memory drops down to 10Mpoints.
Switching back to 50ms, the memory remains 10 and the FFT is freaking out....
You can go in the menu and set the memory to 100 again, FFT becomes normal again.
Will upload a video in a few minutes.
-
Upload:
https://youtu.be/ovQ6EENpXz8
-
Looks like the FFT input is being truncated (without proper windowing). Hard to tell what exactly is going on. Some buffer size mismatch maybe?
-
Here is small example (dynamic). (SDS2504X HD)
And note, For this particular purpose these FFT etc settings are not at all best optimal ones.
Signals: (note that these said levels are not accurate, just entered set values using SDG1032X (but I know these levels do not have high error)
If everything is ideal and accurate these are levels.
(marker 1) 5000Hz, +22dBm
(marker 2) 5100Hz -48dBm (carrier level, AM modulation with 20Hz, and modulation depth 20%). 70dB below marker 1
(marker 3) 5120Hz -68dBm (AM USB -20dBc because 20% mod depth) 90dB below marker 1
FFT mode is just Normal and acquisition just normal, no any averaging or other things. Just normal acquisition.
FFT window Flattop.
As can see displayed levels are not bad when also think what is signal source and what are all specifications.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1714817;image)
-
Hi,
the flattop thing from yesterday...
Here a video, look at the FFT on various timebases, especially how the form of the fundamental wave looks like.
https://youtu.be/83K0Y8Bov2k
Weird: With the flattop window memorypoints won´t change...
-
The rest of the FFT test...
Playing from 500ms timebase till 5ms, watch the info on the window (RBW, samplerate), I´ve changed nothing else except the timebase.
I can not guarantee the correct order of the pics as the forum software somehow shuffled them since a couple of months. ::)
More FFT test I don´t make, imho it´s too buggy.
Next play is connecting the bodnar pulser. ;)
-
Last for today, the bodnar pulser.
I´ve been looking for switching the display mode (dot/vectors), to my surprise you can´t change the mode, it´s always vector.
(BTW, to the owners: I haven´t found the possibility to save all the screen content to the stick, when doing a screenshot, all open menus won´t be captured, so I must use a camera)
Then connecting the pulser, measure the rise time: 1.6ns sounds plausible to me, while the signal looks a little bit "filtered".
Following an idea, I´ve activated the second channel and to my surprise, the pulse on ch1 is getting "faster" and overshoots came up.
(1.2ns when 2 channels are active).
When all channels are active, the overshoot of the pulse gets "blurried" while the risetimes decreases to 1.5ns .
Hm...
-
Last for today, the bodnar pulser.
I´ve been looking for switching the display mode (dot/vectors), to my surprise you can´t change the mode, it´s always vector.
Purposely done to foil rf-loop's investigations of false dots. ;)
(BTW, to the owners: I haven´t found the possibility to save all the screen content to the stick, when doing a screenshot, all open menus won´t be captured, so I must use a camera)
Inspect the Save/Recall menu for the switch to show or hide menus in screenshots.
Do you forget your Siglent has that ?
...............
Hm...
Indeed.
-
Inspect the Save/Recall menu for the switch to show or hide menus in screenshots.
Do you forget your Siglent has that ?
No, why should I...This was the first section I´ve looked for. ;)
Edit:
BTW, the \$\Omega\$ symbol in the channelbox stands for 50 Ohm input... :P
-
Purposely done to foil rf-loop's investigations of false dots.
Snip of the manual:
19.1 Display Type
This series oscilloscope provides the "Vector" display mode in which the sample
points are connected by lines and displayed. In most cases, this mode can provide the
most vivid waveform for you to view the steep edge of the waveform (such as square
waveform).
LOL....
And the manual telling me another thing, about the screenshot...
There is no possibility to save the whole screen content.... :palm:
-
(BTW, to the owners: I haven´t found the possibility to save all the screen content to the stick, when doing a screenshot, all open menus won´t be captured, so I must use a camera)
On the web interface you have menu "Print screen" . There you have both options Screenshot and Screen Capture.
-
Thank you but it should be also possible without web control..Something for the wishlist.
Not for me,but for the current and future owners.
-
Following an idea, I´ve activated the second channel and to my surprise, the pulse on ch1 is getting "faster" and overshoots came up.
(1.2ns when 2 channels are active).
When all channels are active, the overshoot of the pulse gets "blurried" while the risetimes decreases to 1.5ns .
Hm...
Sinc interpolation is supposed to introduce pre-shoot and overshoot, when applied to an undersampled edge. I guess the frontend is too fast to prevent aliasing at 1GSa/s and 2GSa/s. Is it possible to turn off sinc interpolation?
-
Just powered on again*, there is no possibility to do it.
*(When plug in the scope to mains, it will switch on for a second (fan starts running, display lit)before it reaches the standby condition)
-
Sinc interpolation is supposed to introduce pre-shoot and overshoot, when applied to an undersampled edge. I guess the frontend is too fast to prevent aliasing at 1GSa/s and 2GSa/s. Is it possible to turn off sinc interpolation?
No, you can't turn off sin(x)/x interpolation in these scopes, it has been confirmed by Rigol.
Check reply #180 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4426576/#msg4426576 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4426576/#msg4426576)
-
First test weekend is over..
Summary so far:
Pros:
-Good building quality
-The display is bright and clear and has the same high resolution as the screens of the R&S RTB2000 series.
-New UI, mostly intuitive to use
-Good response of the touchscreen
-Mostly fast response/performance in general
Cons:
-Brutal loud fans
-No bode plot
-Meager FFT features
-FFT is buggy
-No dot mode
-No deactivating sin(x)/x possible
-No complete screenshot possible (except via webserver)
-Auto memory mode not on all acquisiton modes avaible
-In average mode only max. 10M memory
Next things I´ll test are the decoder functions and I want to test the ultra acquire mode somehow to get an idea for what´s in real good for(there are a lot of limitations(refer to the manual) when this mode is active)
Further waveform update rate, just for curiosity.
-
Martin72,
Thanks for the testing. Any chance you could run a two tone IMD test on the Rigol and Siglent HD DSO for comparisons? Think you have a SDG2042X, so you could use the Waveform Combine feature. Maybe just 10KHz and 11KHz at 1VPP if you have the time.
Best,
-
Hi,
Yes will do, maybe tomorrow, no problem.
The rigol can remain here for another 10 days before I have to send it away again.
We can play around with it until then, but I will have the most time for it again next weekend.
I will do the two-tone test earlier.
-
I'm not nearly smart enough to fully understand all this, but I always thought sin(x)/x was some kind of 'approximation' that restored curvature to the sample data.
According to this Agilent brief, sinx(x)/x can create an identical waveform as seen by the input...
https://siglent.fi/data/technical-common/Sin%28x%29x_Agilent.pdf (https://siglent.fi/data/technical-common/Sin%28x%29x_Agilent.pdf)
Digitizing real-time oscilloscopes provide the backbone of high speed time-domain measurements made in the
industry today. Modern oscilloscopes use high-speed digitizers to capture the input signal. An oscilloscope’s
sample rate is often touted as a banner specification for the instrument; higher being better. In reality, as long
as the rules of Nyquist are not violated, an oscilloscope can reconstruct a user’s signal identically. This
reconstruction process is often referred to as sin(x)/x interpolation. Whether the sample rate is 25x the Nyquist
frequency, or 2.5x the Nyquist frequency, interpolation can be used to reproduce the waveform exactly as it
appeared at the oscilloscopes input connector, removing all doubt about a signal’s behaviour between samples.
-
The sin(x)/x interpolation gives the interpolation that has no signal in the higher Nyquist regions. So it would be the true signal after a brickwall filter at fs/2.
There is just no information what high frequencies could be there - so assuming no high frequencies is OK.
It can still help to just see the dots and no interpolation at all.
The simple linear interpolation is more a thing for faster drawing and no other real advanatge. So one can well live without that option if the scope is fast enough with sin(x)/x.
-
I will do the two-tone test earlier.
Couldn´t wait... ;)
Two-tone 10 and 11khz, 1vpp.
Rigol settings as it could get, siglent settings "decreasing" to the rigol settings for better comparison.
Be aware that the pics will be shuffled.EDIT : I hate this!!! >:(
Next post will be siglent only with "all in", means FFT average mode and 2Mpoints.
-
Be aware that the pics will be shuffled.
BTW, meant to tell you to skip the first attachment and never use it then attachments will always retain their uploaded order.
-
Siglent with FFt avg 8 and 2Mpoints, Memory Auto..
@Rob: Ah, thanks, it works!
-
Martin72,
Thanks :-+
The Rigol does look good, and appears to have better linearity under these conditions!!
So one can infer with this one test case that maybe they've done a good job with the input, and ADC designs, so this is encouraging!
Now if they can get their act together and get the firmware up to snuff, AND if the lower cost HD performs as well which remains to be seen, then this new HD deserves some serious consideration, especially at the intro price point!!
Anyway, thanks for the testing!! BTW if you want to run some additional tests at say 100K & 1MHz or whatever frequencies you like we won't complain ;D
Best,
-
According to this Agilent brief, sinx(x)/x can create an identical waveform as seen by the input...
Only if the input signal sampled by the ADC was a priori band-limited.
Furthermore, perfect reconstruction assumes an ideal sinx(x)/x interpolation kernel, which has an infinite extent (in practice it needs to be truncated to a finite length, though).
-
I'm not nearly smart enough to fully understand all this, but I always thought sin(x)/x was some kind of 'approximation' that restored curvature to the sample data.
Yes, sin(x)/x reconstructs the original signal from the sample points.
sin(x)/x isn't an approximation, per. se., but for perfect results you need an infinitely wide filter and nobody can do that in practice.
It also only works if the original signal doesn't have any frequencies above the Nyquist rate, which is rarely the case in real life. Almost everything has high frequency harmonics.
TLDR; sin(x)/x wants to be perfect but real life won't let it.
-
Some X-Y mode questions:
- I see in the manual you can pick a source for X & Y. Can the source be a math result?
- Do cursors work in X-Y?
- Can you turn on color grade in X-Y?
- I see the "add a window" for X-Y. So I can have a Y-T plot and a X-Y plot on the screen at the same time?
- Is the X-Y display impacted by the amount of memory used? i.e. if you use more memory, do you get more points on the screen with a slower display update like the SDS2000X+?
-
Have you tried Hi-Res mode yet? In the new MXO4 video Dave shows that the Rigol has 14 bit @ 100 MHz and 16 bit @ 50 MHz settings. That latter seems way overoptimistic, 2 more bits correspond to roughly 12 dB improvement in SNR while 2x decimation should give only 3 dB.
Capturing maybe >10 Mpts of noise at the max. sampling rate with and without Hi-Res for offline spectrum analysis should tell most of the story. If you have a levelled 1-2 GHz signal source, checking the frequency response at different analog bandwidth and Hi-Res settings might also be interesting.
-
Hi,
I do not have a Ghz source here.
In the acquiremenu when you choose "Hi-Res", the bandwith will be displayed for 14 bit and 16 bit.
One channel only and full memory, 14 bit 200Mhz, 16 bit 100Mhz.
Drops down to 50Mhz and 25Mhz when all channel are active, drops further when you decrease the memory.
Pics of today:
FFT without source, 1mV/div, 50 Ohm, full bandwith, full Samplerate:Normal acquisition, Hi-res 14bit, Hi-res 16bit.
Last pic a 120Mhz sinewave with 1Vpp amplitude, Hi-res 16 bit active, amplitude decreased to under 700mVpp.
-
Interesting! So presumably the 200 MHz bandwidth limiting on the 4204 is done digitally using the same filter as the High-Res mode. That might also contribute to the differences in step response that you saw when you enabled 2/4 channels (as the filter will need to be different when the sample rate changes).
Also, it seems that "14 bit" mode is at least semi-plausible (in the sense that if you round up, there is a 2 bit-ish improvement over the nominal 12 bit without the filter) and is in line with other manufacturers' marketing claims. "16 bit" mode on the other hand is essentially "alternative facts" territory (14.5 bits if we are being generous).
-
By the way, something that may be interesting:
Note the pic with the FFT 16bit - You get the same result in normal mode when decreasing vertical resolution under 500µV(200µV, 100µV) and bandwith will be automatically limited to 20Mhz then.
-
Just noted the frequency is indicated as ~119MHz, shouldn't that be 120MHz?
Best,
-
Last pic a 120Mhz sinewave with 1Vpp amplitude, Hi-res 16 bit active, amplitude decreased to under 700mVpp.
Hallo,
interestingly, after HIRES, the sample rate is still 4 GSa/s. So no points are decimated.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Just noted the frequency is indicated as ~119MHz, shouldn't that be 120MHz?
Best,
Hm, you're right..
Will check it after work.
-
Last pic a 120Mhz sinewave with 1Vpp amplitude, Hi-res 16 bit active, amplitude decreased to under 700mVpp.
Hallo,
interestingly, after HIRES, the sample rate is still 4 GSa/s. So no points are decimated.
Best regards
egonotto
It will be 4GS/s.. ERES and HIRES are running average filters.. they don't change number of sample points...Just lowpass filter it..
Also with Averaging, no resample happens, just average point by point between different triggers.
-
Hm, you're right..
Will check it after work.
It is 120Mhz, but will measured between 119..121Mhz.
BUT: Rigol have a hardware (I guess) counter...
Following pics with 120Mhz and 1Vrms, look at the Vrms measure.
-
Finally the siglent HD with 120Mhz 1Vrms signal..
The counter shows 120Mhz, the measurement 119.7, note the difference in the amplitude between rigol and siglent.
828mVrms to 961mVrms.
Second pic shows the FFt of the signal, the third the same but with ERES 3.0.
But it´s only for showing, note the measured amplitude of only 40mVrms.
Bandwith drops down to appx 12Mhz when ERES with +3 Bits is active.
(Note: Measures are taken with auto memory, when switching to fixed memory, ERES will be "deactivated" (switched to normal mode) )
-
The last days are dawning, where I can still test the Rigol, actually it is only next weekend and at the latest on the following Wednesday I want to send it back.
I will still perform my tests as already described, otherwise possibly still fulfill wishes.
Who has wishes, may communicate them.
In general, I am somewhat surprised that there is probably no greater interest in the HDO4000.
One must not forget, the HDO1000 is almost identical in construction, except for the missing second chip and less memory.
I'm just saying... ;)
-
One must not forget, the HDO1000 is almost identical in construction, except for the missing second chip and less memory.
I'm just saying... ;)
Yep. The HDO1000 is the most interesting one.
It's all very well comparing the expensive model with a fancy Siglent but the fact is HDO1000 will be identical for most usage cases and it's a third of the price.
In general, I am somewhat surprised that there is probably no greater interest in the HDO4000.
The fact that not many people are posting requests doesn't mean there's no interest. You're the expert, and you're the one who's got the hardware.
I'm more interested in how it is in daily use than the extreme edge cases that most people seem so obsessed with.
What does it do best?
What does it do worst?
What stands out?
What are the quirks?
How many thumbs up does it get?
-
One must not forget, the HDO1000 is almost identical in construction, except for the missing second chip and less memory.
I'm just saying... ;)
Yep. The HDO1000 is the most interesting one.
It's all very well comparing the expensive model with a fancy Siglent but the fact is HDO1000 will be identical for most usage cases and it's a third of the price.
::)
Comparing 2 different classes of instrument here but later this year there will an opportunity to compare two 1000 series HD scopes. :-X
-
@Fungus : Will come with a summary.
@Rob : Hm...new model ? Is this the reason why we still hear nothing about a firmware update fo the HD..
Edit: Quirks...
I had an interesting freeze on the rigol yesterday.
After "hard powering on" scope switched on automatically, booting, screen appeared but you couldn't do anything.
-
@Rob : Hm...new model ? Is this the reason why we still hear nothing about a firmware update fo the HD..
Martin, start saving!!!!!
-
Not for a low cost model..
I would start saving for one of these three scopes:
SDS6000A H12, MSX04 or HDO6034 A or B.
Everything else wouldn´t be a step forward.
-
I have Rigol HDO4000 on order now. For me HDO1000 is not really dramatically different from 12 bit Owon scopes that have been around for a while and I think work reasonably well. But HDO4000 with a possibility of a nearly 1 GHz bandwidth is tempting. As for MXO4, it looks nice but no one posted so far the noise spectrum or the real waveform update rate in analog applications like averaging. So at some point I may have to request a demo as well.
-
Not for a low cost model..
I would start saving for one of these three scopes:
SDS6000A H12, MSX04 or HDO6034 A or B.
Everything else wouldn´t be a step forward.
Not available to the west.
Although the 12 bit 20 GSa/s SDS7000A will be.
-
Not available to the west.
I know and that´s a big "mistake"in my opinion.
Imagine rigol deciding to build a scope with one centaurus chip per channel, with 12" full hd display and a more "mature" software, because they have drawn the right conclusions from the bugs and missing features of the hdo 1000/4000 series...
The price (if you take the difference from HDO4000 to HDO1000) could be around 7000 for the entry level model.
And that would still be a bit cheaper than the 6000A and that has only 8bit here.
Let's hope rigol doesn't come up with this idea. 8)
-
Not available to the west.
I know and that´s a big "mistake"in my opinion.
Imagine rigol deciding to build a scope with one centaurus chip per channel, with 12" full hd display and a more "mature" software, because they have drawn the right conclusions from the bugs and missing features of the hdo 1000/4000 series...
The price (if you take the difference from HDO4000 to HDO1000) could be around 7000 for the entry level model.
And that would still be a bit cheaper than the 6000A and that has only 8bit here.
Let's hope rigol doesn't come up with this idea. 8)
You know better and overlook whom Siglent partner with whom has a say if their HW is to be marketed to the west.
SDS7000A is very different as Siglent have spun their own chip, SFA8001.
More on it here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds7000a-dsos-coming/msg4642900/#msg4642900 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds7000a-dsos-coming/msg4642900/#msg4642900)
-
Let´s talk about there:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds7000a-dsos-coming/msg4709066/#msg4709066 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds7000a-dsos-coming/msg4709066/#msg4709066)
On-Topic:
For me HDO1000 is not really dramatically different from 12 bit Owon scopes that have been around for a while and I think work reasonably well.
I´ve looked on the owon portfolio, I can´t see a (hi-res)model which you could really compare to the rigol.
-
Playing around with the webcontrol..
What I miss the looking for a new firmware button.
The rest works like expected, the click of the rigol site there leads to the chinese version, where you can see a beast..
-
Do the HDOs have any built-in apps like Micsigs do? Can you surf the web, etc.?
-
For me HDO1000 is not really dramatically different from 12 bit Owon scopes that have been around for a while and I think work reasonably well.
I´ve looked on the owon portfolio, I can´t see a (hi-res)model which you could really compare to the rigol.
They have had 12 bit models from 2-channel 100 MHz for less than $400: XDS2102a to 4 ch, 200 MHz for $1300: XDS3204AE. Some of the specs may not be as good, but they had them for a long time, so I am just saying Rigol HDO1000 is not a big step up.
-
Do the HDOs have any built-in apps like Micsigs do? Can you surf the web, etc.?
Didn´t found anything in that direction.
-
Measures/Tests of today, splitting in several posts..
First I think I´ve found another bug on the rigol.
Intensity grading or better color grading:
Intensity grading is the best you can have on the market, as always from rigol.
But color grading got a bug: switching to color grade deactivate the intensity regulation, it seems it´s always at 100%, no adjustments possible.
Interesting: When you are in the ultra acquire mode, intensity is deactivated too, but additional in normal and color display mode.
Pics are taken from the rigol and siglent HD, AM signal and SPO signal from the STB-3 demo board.
-
But color grading got a bug: switching to color grade deactivate the intensity regulation, it seems it´s always at 100%, no adjustments possible.
Not a bug. The same is on Rigol 5K, intensity grading is deactivateed on color grading.
For me, a bug is how color grading is looking, as I said before. They choosed a fire color scheme but it's not fine graded ...
-
Hm,
Then it´s a bug and missing feature...
I don't remember if I had played with intensitiy grading when I took these pictures from my MSO5074:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2240724/#msg2240724 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2240724/#msg2240724)
-
Interesting behaviour when decoding is active..
Had tried SPI and RS232, after a few annoying moments I had it running.
Then I wanted to test up to which time base length the signals are still decoded (packages).
Ended with a little surprise... ;)
(forget it, roll mode was active..)
-
Decoding, continued..
For the siglent, RS232 at 50ms or more are no problem, it decodes and decodes and decodes...
Setting were quickly done and when you press "copy to trigger" all become rock-stable...very cool.
The rigol got a button "copy trigger", but it is not clear what will happen when pressed, it doesn´t act like on the siglent.
Apart from that I like the table design of the rigol more with it´s black&white display.
Moving the windows is a cool thing, but not intuitive to use.
In summary, the siglent decodes more stable.
Pics: Decoding RS232, SPI, etc..
-
Interesting behaviour when decoding is active..
Had tried SPI and RS232, after a few annoying moments I had it running.
Then I wanted to test up to which time base length the signals are still decoded (packages).
Ended with a little surprise... ;)
https://youtu.be/B_qN3jAf9sU
You have to put Roll to off. (from Horizontal settings menu)
-
Ahh....
Didn´t notice the auto roll mode starting at 50ms... |O
Thanks !
-
The very last of today...
Copy trigger (decode mode): On the siglent it is obviously (copy from trigger, coppy to trigger), see pic.
Then measuring in general:
First I like the arrangement very much, you tap on the measure window and get a short menu on the left side - really cool :-+
But there´s something really annoying with it.
You couldn´t change the measure parameter in it... :P
You have to add a new measure window or remove the "old" and then add one with the wanted parameter, that´s really uncool and something for the wishlist to change.
The demoboard got some signals not only decoding types, runt, glitch, pulse, burst, etc.
Tested all, no issues with it.
And then there is a signal "noisy pwm" for demonstrating the Eres function.
Works perfectly on the rigol.
After all testings I´ve started to measure the update rate, will try to finish it before I must send it back.
What I´ve seen so far is, that the updates are always in "packages" regardless in which acquisition mode the scope is.
Or it is simply updates with "long" blind time inbetween.
The maximum I´ve measured was about 500000 wfms/s, will try it again in one of the next evenings.
Time is running out, can test something else until next wednesday evening, on thursday the scope will be send back.
Edit: BTW, in this time of testing the scope hangs two times.
First the screen becomes dark and a white windows appears with the request to start the "rigol app" again, the second I´ve already seen.
Scope was starting automatically after plug in the mains, boots and then freezes, the power button lit orange.
(Red = Stby, green = on)
-
Testing update rates...
Will make a table next weekend, here some pics from the HDs update rate signal.
Looks plausible to me, just what you'd expect from it.
Max Wfms/s normal mode 108690, sequence mode 568180.
So far, so good.
Then the rigol scope...WTF... ;)
As far it could get same settings, normal mode, no measures active, auto memory, one channel active.
Now hold your breath, the maxmimum rate is 1666730 Wfms/s :scared:
The second fast is also above the million, 1111060 Wfms/s....
This couldn´t be the normal acquisition mode, never ever... 8)
Two reasons why:
Rigol itself claimed about 50000 Wfms/s in normal mode, the trigger output signals are in packages just like you were in sequence mode.
With a timebase of 2µs, it´s the first time the rigol drops down and comes near the 50k, 47619 Wfms/s.
The siglent reaches 4762 Wfms/s BUT 45454 Wfms/s in sequence mode.
This not normal mode what you have on the rigol...
(Note: rigol_normal_20ns screenshot was cutted below, for what reason ever )
-
In ultra acquistion mode you get the same results, more or less.
One difference, the pauses between the packages are way more longer, inbetween seconds(maybe depending on the frame/timeout settings)..
-
Hi Martin,
One thing I'm very happy with my current SDS2074X plus. Unlike previous HP/Agilent or Tek scopes, one need to juggle the auto/normal mode around to get single mode or roll mode worked as expected. We could change it easily between all the modes in a click on Siglent. Does Rigol have the same or similar benefit?
Thanks!
-
Hi teddychn,
In this case the siglent sds2000X plus got the best direct access.
And unfortunately the "default" and "auto setup" buttons are directly touchable on the rigol (on the same height like the other buttons).
This is the price you must pay for a smaller design I guess, altough there´s a little space left on the front, see pic.
Roll mode you can access via the acquire menu ( just press the acquire button on the front or touch the horizontal icon on the screen (or the field with the samplerate)).
Roll mode is either auto or off - the "scale" shows 50ms, but you can´t change it, maybe reserved for future firmware update.
Tomorrow is the last day/evening I can do something on the rigol, times was flying away.
Martin
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1722302;image)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1722308;image)
-
Regarding update rate, the time structure of triggers is indeed very uneven. So I used a frequency counter to measure the trig out frequency (reciprocal method) over a 1 sec gate time. With one channel on the update rate is indeed around 50k over a wide range of horizontal time scales. But it drops very quickly with more channels on:
1 ch on: 55k
2 ch on: 17k
3 ch on: 7k
4 cn on: 5k
Turning on high-resolution mode does not affect the update rate. Turning on average (for 1k points) reduces the update rate to about half (for each number of channels turned on).
The high frequency response is pretty good, the signal amplitude goes to about 84% at 800 MHz and 64% at 1 GHz.
-
Hi,
Today I´ve played with the Ultra mode again, the update rates, table will follow.
And for the very last I did a short "silent movie" ;) about the very nice UI...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-v7lX5kCg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-v7lX5kCg)
And now time to say goodbye rigol..Many thanks to batronix for the support.
-
And unfortunately the "default" and "auto setup" buttons are directly touchable on the rigol (on the same height like the other buttons).
This is the price you must pay for a smaller design I guess, altough there´s a little space left on the front, see pic.
Roll mode you can access via the acquire menu ( just press the acquire button on the front or touch the horizontal icon on the screen (or the field with the samplerate)).
Roll mode is either auto or off - the "scale" shows 50ms, but you can´t change it, maybe reserved for future firmware update.
Thanks, Martin,
I compared the SDS2000X Plus with the 2000X HD and the HDO4000. Although the 2000X HD has seven fewer buttons than the 2000X Plus, I still can feel comfortable using it. The HDO4000 has more buttons and knobs than the 2000X HD, but I'm not sure about its maneuverability. However, its auto-scroll mode sounds good, and the graphical interface should make it more manageable.
Actually, I just dislike switching between normal/auto mode back and forth for some trigger modes on some scopes.
Ted
-
Summary of my 2.5 week test of the Rigol DHO4204 Scope, part 1.
As mentioned at the beginning, the "touch quality" is very decent, even if it doesn't quite reach that of an SDS2000X HD.
Despite the 10" screen, it is compact in size and should fit on any table.
The screen itself is clear and bright, and the resolution is very good.
The touch panel is precise and responds quickly.
The absolute minus point are the fans, the Scope produces a volume that is only surpassed by the infamous WaveJet series from Lecroy - very annoying and cannot be a permanent condition.
The boot time is pleasantly short, after a bit more than half a minute you can already start.
Now we come to the two highlights, so for me personally.
On the one hand, of course, the 12-bit resolution plus the pleasingly low noise - I only knew this from Siglent, but it's nice that Rigol has it now.
The second highlight is without any doubt the new graphical user interface.
No long searching around, everything is accessible as if on a platter, really very well done, you don't really need the "hardware buttons" anymore - This just calls for a tabletscope from Rigol.
Less good are the undoubtedly existing bugs and the somewhat meager equipment in general.
For example, the FFT function, which sometimes delivers confusing results, the lack of functionality (no averaging, no peak detect mode, no chooseable amount of points).
That you can not swap the parameters in measurements, only add or take away, that something is wrong with the acquisition modes, can not be right, that you can not switch between vector and dot mode, etc, etc..
But these are things that Rigol can easily fix with software updates, in my opinion.
Part 2 follows.
-
Here the table with the wfms/s.
As mentioned before this can´t be the normal mode on the rigol.
Ultra and "Normal" are looking very similar, the blindtime between the packages are greater in the ultra mode.
Second part of my summary will following in the evening..
Martin
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1724927;image)
-
Here the table with the wfms/s.
As mentioned before this can´t be the normal mode on the rigol.
Ultra and "Normal" are looking very similar, the blindtime between the packages are greater in the ultra mode.
Second part of my summary will following in the evening..
Martin
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1724927;image)
In Sequence mode there is important to measure guaranteed maximum speed. This what matters.
In Sequence mode we need trust what is minimum trigger interval when not any single trigger event do not drop out! (reason is, imho, obvious)
With 50ns/div SDS200XHD is most fast.
Its guaranteed maximum speed is (my data) ~511,5 ksegment/s
How to test it. You need burst signal. (I have measured it using 80000 pulse burst and segments in oscilloscope sequence 80000. And other t/div / memory values using maximal amount of segments in sequence.
Set scope for 50ns/div, 1k memory length. No matter if dots or vectors and if interpolation is Sinc or x.
Set sequence for 80000 segments
Then without signal start oscilloscope Sequence (now it is waiting trigger)
Start burst. As long as it capture all 80000 signal signal speed is below sequence acquisition guaranteed max speed.
Set now busrt (example pulses, freq 568180kHz as is value in your table)
Somewhere before 80000 it stops acquisition (and waiting more pulses) because some pulses are dropped out , not captured.
Now drop this burst frequency until it can reliable capture every single pulse. Repeat it over ten times until you are sure it never drops any single pulse (segment).
I can say guaranteed maximum speed is 510 ksegment/s (perhaps tiny bit over but there need be some marginal if promise something)
Then about normal mode wfm/s speed. In your table it looks like there is peak value what exist inside acquisition cycle burst.
When we talk wfm/s speed we need handle it using average speed (this we can use example for propability calculations for glitch hunting etc)
SDS2000XHD maximum average wfm/s speed is 98kwfm/s (display mode dots, 50ns/div, single channel in use and trigger just basic edge)
Peak value inside acquisition burst is just bit over 108kwfm/s as is in your table. This is not wfm/s speed it is peak value.
I have measured average speed using HP53131A (with very accurate reference).
Here below is part from my old tests (it is still "preliminary")
(https://siglent.fi/data/SDS2000XHD/SDS2000X-HD-wfm-partial-preliminary.png)
Then yesterday and today I did some check about these my values and I did not find errors... (naturally values are bit rounded (down)) :
ETA: Later now after carefully look my collected data... there are some inexplicable exceptions what need further tests and with some different test method.
During normal wfm/s test display looks this below.
(https://siglent.fi/data/SDS2000XHD/tstimg/wfm/mo/0-SDS2000XHD-dots-int-x-50nsdiv-Ch1-maxwfms.png)
Next image below. SDS2000X HD Trig out is connected to SDS2000X Plus. Here can see how it looks like.
Same trig out out signal what go to SDS2kX+ input is splitted and go to HP53131A input and there is used 3s gate time for get value what can see in my table.
(https://siglent.fi/data/SDS2000XHD/tstimg/wfm/mo/1-SDS2000XHD-trig-out-SDS2000Xplus-maxwfm-peakwfm-burst.png)
Using these kind of fast universal counters need use enough long gate time because signal is not continuous wfm. Also when test other wfm speed with other settings counter Auto trigger leveling may lead to very weird results >> manual level set.
I will not comment on Rigol's results. But the things said earlier about Siglent also raised some small doubts about the Rigol numbers.
@Martin72
What is your SDS2000X HD HW version?
-
@rf-loop:
2.0
-
@rf-loop:
2.0
Ok.
Later after Rigol tests etc when you have better time, I will ask you repeat exactly this same what you can see in my images and also as told about Sequence guaranteed speed measuring.
Just perfectly same signal input, including all same settings and then other scope looking SDS2kXHD Trig Out as in my image displayed. So we can see if this acquisition burst have any timing change. We can look it example here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-12bit-(published-for-chinese-domestic-market-only)/msg3932408/#msg3932408) or other place so that this thread does not forked off into a side road
-
Hi,
Yep, can do, will do and then in the mentioned thread.
I need a second scope for this, it could be a sds2104X from work or ws422 when "repaired".
Or...A rigol HDO1074. ;)
-
Or...A rigol HDO1074. ;)
Sensible choice. :)
-
Here again in summary, my further impressions, part 2
What I liked was the speed of the scope, it was always pretty snappy no matter what was happening/being calculated on the screen.
The decoding was a bit bumpy at first, since the triggering has to be set pretty precisely to display plausible values, but then I liked the visual representation of the table better than with the Siglent, which rather "merges" with the background, because of the same color.
The idea with the sliding windows is great, but a bit tricky to use, especially if you want to move the windows so that they visually make sense.
The connection via LAN worked as I had imagined.
Overall, it's a good scope, but it could be even better if Rigol makes the effort this time and optimizes the software in the near future.
I don't really like comparisons, but there's no getting around it.
The model I had costs about 3200 € including taxes.
The comparison with the 2000X+HD is obvious, because it costs 3550€ incl. taxes and is the next 12 bit scope, after that it gets expensive(I know, I know...Owon...But please people...This is not a comparison, don't force me to prove it ;) ).
If I can spend 3200, I can spend 3550, so let's leave that little difference out of it.
Likewise, we can leave the screen size out of it, because they are the same size.
Both have 12 bit resolution and are very low noise, so we leave that out too.
What's left.
A comparison of the (imho) important key features:
DHO4000: 2000X HD:
- 1280x800 screenresolution - 1024x600
- 4GSa/s max. Samplerate - 2GSa/s max
- 800Mhz max bandwith - 500Mhz max
- 500Mpt max memory - 200Mpt max
- Hdmi output - No video output
- No MSO - MSO
- No Bode Plot - Bode Plot
- Active probe inputs - No active probe input
- No awg inbuild - Inbuild awg
In my opinion, however, you can only compare and then decide when the rigol has been optimized in terms of software.
I am somewhat branded by the MSO5000, which has not been optimized to this day.
Should rigol come to its senses and support the new scope accordingly, it would without question be a serious competitor, depending on what features you prefer.
At the moment it is not.
(And not for me anyway, since I need bode plot).
Thanks for reading, I'll make another post with links to some of my posts here.
And who knows, maybe I'll grab the DHO1000 and compare it to the 2000X+, I'm still thinking about it right now. ;)
-
The elephant in the room is that the DHO1000 is almost identical for a third of the price.
-
Yes and no.
After having the "big brother" for 2.5 weeks, I´ve made up my mind about the "little one".
They(rigol) have stripped the DHO1000 down to the common core of 12 bit and the 10 inch display.
Therefore, it can no longer be compared directly, rather with the competition from its own price range, the 2000X+ and the MSO5000.
And even then it doesn't look good for the 1000, it still has the advantage of the 12 bit resolution, but almost everything else is below the other two scopes.
But I would rather check it out live myself instead of just judging by the spec sheet.
Let's see if this works out, I would also want to borrow it, but Batronix doesn't have DHO1000... ::)
I´ll start a request elsewhere.
-
Here the table with the wfms/s.
As mentioned before this can´t be the normal mode on the rigol.
Ultra and "Normal" are looking very similar, the blindtime between the packages are greater in the ultra mode.
Second part of my summary will following in the evening..
Martin
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1724927;image)
Hello I'm in need of some help :-//, Is the screen image formed by taking multiple pass, it does not appear at 2ns that a single write of 40 or 80 points is adequate to represent a visual image.
thanks
-
Hm, you're right..
Will check it after work.
It is 120Mhz, but will measured between 119..121Mhz.
BUT: Rigol have a hardware (I guess) counter...
Following pics with 120Mhz and 1Vrms, look at the Vrms measure.
Hello, The noise floor of the Rigol, is elevated, then flattens out. Where as the Siglent is flat from start to stop frequency.
Why is this the case and what is the impact of the different in the time domain?
thanks gogo
-
Hm, you're right..
Will check it after work.
It is 120Mhz, but will measured between 119..121Mhz.
BUT: Rigol have a hardware (I guess) counter...
Following pics with 120Mhz and 1Vrms, look at the Vrms measure.
Hello, The noise floor of the Rigol, is elevated, then flattens out. Where as the Siglent is flat from start to stop frequency.
Why is this the case and what is the impact of the different in the time domain?
thanks gogo
Rigol has Hires mode ON. Hires mode is software filter that filters out high frequencies while interpolating more resolution..
In time domain it means a lower BW. In this case it behaves as 120 MHz BW scope.
-
Hello I'm in need of some help :-//, Is the screen image formed by taking multiple pass, it does not appear at 2ns that a single write of 40 or 80 points is adequate to represent a visual image.
It depends on the display mode, dot or vector.
First let you see only the single dots, last "connects" the dots together to a line.
The rigol got only vector mode.
-
Rigol releases new firmware v00.02.07 for DHO1000 and DHO4000 ~ 2023.05.17
[Model Supported] All the DHO1000 and DHO4000 series oscilloscopes
[Latest Revision Date] 2023/04/29
[Updated Contents]
00.02.07 2023/04/29
- Custom external attenuation ratio
- Add the merge display function of MATH window and simulation window
- Add the window shrink function through Pass-Fail
- Cursor module zero stagnation function, to solve the problem that the cursor is difficult to capture 0V first
- Add a toggle switch for merging screens, which can display cursors in each split screen and synchronize the cursors
- The measurement function adds [cursor area] measurement function requirements
- Fixed crash issue in German mode
- Pause to keep the afterglow display after turning on the waveform hold
- Fixed the truncation problem of enlarged waveform after stoping
- Fixed the problem that the adjustment trigger point could not be adjusted back to the middle of the screen after moving to the right for more than -50S under a large time base
- Fixed Crash problem when restarting with probe
00.02.04 2022/12/14
-Released the production version
Download:
https://supportcn.rigol.com/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/ftp/Firmware/DHO1000&DHO4000(ARM)UpdateV00.02.07.zip
-
something new came out :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlnJPfRygKw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlnJPfRygKw)
-
Due to the name changing batronix sells it´s HDO stock for 10% less:
https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rigol-HDO4204.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rigol-HDO4204.html)
too bad they don't have the HDO1000... 8)
-
Hello,
I was wondering which device (Rigol HDO4000 or Siglent SDS2000X HD) is better in terms of noise. In the video "EEVblog 1501 - Rigol HDO4000 Low Noise 12bit Oscilloscope Unboxing & First Impression" Dave shows different measurements regarding noise.
He uses different memory sizes. With 1 MSample, the noise is significantly smaller than with 250 MSamples. This is because the HDO4000 then averages samples and therefore looks better.
I then used samples that Dave and Martin72 kindly provided and modified a program from Peter (PeDre) to determine histogram and RMS and peak peak.
Since I am not familiar with Matlab, my changes are certainly quite bumbling.
All in all, I think that the Siglent has the edge in terms of noise.
Best Regards
egonotto
Addendum: Rigol's data is true 16 bit. The data of Siglent is 12 bit. The 4 least significant bits are there 0. This means that the data from the Rigol has already been processed. One problem with the comparison is the dynamic range, which is unknown to me.
-
Hello,
one picture was missing.
Best Regards
egonotto
-
Why does one scale say "10^4" and the other scale says "10^7"?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1821649;image)
-
Hello,
for the Rigol I have only a file with 1 MSamples. For Siglent I have a file with 200 MSamples.
What makes the comparisons problematic is the lack of information on how the conversion is made into volts, i.e. the unknown dynamic range.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Hi, would it be possible to post some pictures on the FFT function of the DHO1074?
I'm planning to use that FFT function to check RF frequencies (up to 450MHz), would I be able to do this with the DHO1074 FFT funtion? would I be able to detect harmonics higher than 450MHz?
thank you
-
Hi, would it be possible to post some pictures on the FFT function of the DHO1074?
I'm planning to use that FFT function to check RF frequencies (up to 450MHz), would I be able to do this with the DHO1074 FFT funtion? would I be able to detect harmonics higher than 450MHz?
The DHO1074 only has 70MHZ bandwidth so looking at 450MHz signals simply won't work.
Even if you hack it to 200Mhz it still isn't going to work. You might see some extremely attenuated remnant of a 450MHz signal but the first harmonic will be at 900MHz so... nope.
-
Thank you for the reply.
would a upgraded Siglent SDS2000X plus do the job then?
(Just trying to see if I can money by not buying a microSA ultra for my HAM stuff)
- check Tx power - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5egC7ZF_aYs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5egC7ZF_aYs) - time 5:20(ish)
- check FCC compliance (spurious emissions) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mimAMN4Fhi4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mimAMN4Fhi4) - time 5:34
-
Thank you for the reply.
would a upgraded Siglent SDS2000X plus do the job then?
(Just trying to see if I can money by not buying a microSA ultra for my HAM stuff)
If it's for "HAM" then the TinySA ultra is designed for the job. They only cost around $120. :-//
https://www.tinysa.org/wiki/ (https://www.tinysa.org/wiki/)
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004934403303.html (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004934403303.html)
-
I took some data to directly compare analog performance of Rigol DHO1074 to a now fairly old Owon XDS3062A with 12 bit resolution. Both were used with 500MS/sec sample rate and 1 Mpts. Rigol is not upgraded. I measured noise with 1 MOhm shorted input on 1 mV/div scale and 1 V/div scale. I also tested them with a sine generator, HP3326, to check nonlinearity.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1846042)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1846048)
In general, I would say there is no absolute winner. Owon scope still has a higher dynamic range on 1 V/div scale so is a better "HD", but it also has a somewhat larger non-linearity and messier spectrum at high frequency. The noise spectrum on 1mV/div is on average similar, but Rigol's is much cleaner. One place were there is a large difference in favor of Rigol, by nearly an order of magnitude, is in how long it takes to transfer data to the computer over Ethernet.
-
Thank you for the reply.
would a upgraded Siglent SDS2000X plus do the job then?
(Just trying to see if I can money by not buying a microSA ultra for my HAM stuff)
No, they are intended for very different purposes.
In general, you want a device that has at least 4x higher bandwidth than the highest frequency you will be testing. You want to be able to see at least the first 3 harmonics. And for 70cm band, that means on the order of 2GHz. For that, a spectrum analyzer is the best option. The cheapest option for your needs is an RTL-SDR ($20) with the right spectrum analysis software, but the bandwidth is a bit low for UHF harmonic analysis. A Pluto SDR ($200) would be my go-to recommendation for hams as a general purpose instrument for RF analysis for those on a budget. It easily has the frequency range required.
A lab quality instrument to meet your needs is an SVA1032X (or uphack an SVA1015X).
-
A lab quality instrument to meet your needs is an SVA1032X (or uphack an SVA1015X).
Not possible.
-
Does UltraScope support the DHO1000 series?
I've installed everything (UltraSigma, UltraScope, NI VISA, DHO1000 LVI driver) multiple times. Though I haven't found "Ultrascope for DHO1000" software like there exists for other scopes.
Web view works. SCPI works through UltraSigma over USB and LAN. But there's no UltraScope option, I don't see the instrument in the device tree, and I can't manually add its VISA address.
-
No it does not work as far as I know.
You don't loose too much because is an old software, full of bugs and very slow. They rely on web control interface for remote control. This is fast and provide you with all you need, even capture screen as movie.
-
After more than a year of "blockade", Batronix is now offering the DHO1000 after all ??
https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rigol-DHO1074.html (https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rigol-DHO1074.html)
What could be the reason why it suddenly goes... :popcorn:
-
:-+ :-DD
-
After more than a year of "blockade", Batronix is now offering the DHO1000 after all ??
What could be the reason why it suddenly goes... :popcorn:
I've been wondering about that. Is it public knowledge why they were not selling it before, and what has caused the change now?
-
Hi,
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4437196/#msg4437196 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg4437196/#msg4437196)
Maybe they have now gotten "permission" from rigol.
-
Maybe they have now gotten "permission" from rigol.
Thanks, I had missed that little episode...
Strange; haven't Batterfly sold the DHO1000 (and Siglent scopes) all along?
I'm curious whether there will be further competitive moves by Rigol. A DHO1000 variant with LA and AWG is overdue, I'd say. Wonder how they will call (and price) it -- DHO1200, 1500, 2000?
-
You'll laugh, but that was already going through my head today.
If you look at the models, it somehow doesn't seem well thought out.
Or experimental.
We'll throw something on the market and see what the reactions are like.
I had the biggest model here, now the smallest model, so I actually know all of them.
Rigol would have to revise the DHO1000, equip it with a second ADC, built-in AWG and LA.
However, this would mean that nobody would buy either the DHO1000 or the DHO4000 any more.
Or an upgraded version of the DHO4000, with one ADC per channel in order to maintain the bandwidth/sampling rate for all channels.
But that would be so expensive that hardly anyone would buy it in view of the alternatives from Siglent or even R&S.
As I said, I don't think the current range of models is well thought out.
-
well my general assumption (so far) has been that....
they simply cannot release all intended products at same time. but have to stagger and focus on a pathway from one conquest to the next. (and perhaps learning something each time)
having this gap (for mso awg + la) between 900 and 8000 (on same general shared platform family) is indeed conceeding a middle ground or 'mid range' to competitors. yet also they just are still not yet up to scratch into the firmwares.
if 1 shared firmware team has gotten it right or wrong yet for the 8000 series? i mean for these missing mso features. then to translate that downwards onto less capable hardwares yet... the technical demands of both awg and la seems pretty low by comparison to the 12-bit analog.
so what's the crazy chinese approach here? managers running awry, or some technical holdups / bottleneck within a single resource constrained team? or something else entirely?
for example you point to the cost and competition in mid-range segment. which is surely true atm. but rigol could still stand some chance to get their act together. plus how good did the 8000 digital features ever gotten anyhow? or still remains some poorly selling / incomplete wip?
or maybe its instead to a level of some bom components shortage or other market facing penny counting of accountants as to which products is actually selling versus competition?
or maybe because its what china actually thinks it needs domestically. that these scopes are commissioned to help china's own internal market over and above international exports. so in this mindset then the western criterias simple don't matter very much. and what china is asking for is both
a) some very cheap and capable scopes, for the masses (and that anybody can afford, for regular / orginairy and low levels stuff)
and
b) ok plus just 1 high end flagship model too. for the pros in cutting edge businessess that can afford to pony up the dough for an 8000 level. and to have a home grown chinese option internally manufactured for that segment too.
this would then put both the 1000 and 4000 mid tiers into a grey zone category of 'meduim' sme or things. so is that really what china wants too aswell? i suppose its for who is calling the shots. and getting the requests / demands asks?
i say this at the same time that (for some unknown reason) that the 1074 is 50% discounted in jp. which is also a bit strange seeming situatuin too? or perhaps jp gets some unique exporting / trading arrangements? very odd.
-
Rigol would have to revise the DHO1000, equip it with a second ADC, built-in AWG and LA.
However, this would mean that nobody would buy either the DHO1000 or the DHO4000 any more.
Or an upgraded version of the DHO4000, with one ADC per channel in order to maintain the bandwidth/sampling rate for all channels.
But that would be so expensive that hardly anyone would buy it in view of the alternatives from Siglent or even R&S.
As I said, I don't think the current range of models is well thought out.
I would assume that the plan is to keep the current range of DHO models on the market, and complement the DHO1000 and 4000 with sister models, much like the DHO800/900 siblings.
If the follow the DHO800/900 lead, these "big sisters" would be closely based on the DHO1000 and 4000, respectively. They would include the LA and AWG, and some further, minor differentiating features: Maybe "slightly better" bandwidth, if Rigol follow the DHO800/900 pattern; include full memory option of the smaller model as standard; throw in some software/analysis features.
Something like these -- just speculation of course:
DHO2000
- 2 GSa/s (single ADC)
- 150 and 300 MHz bandwidth?
- 100 MPts memory
- Logic Analyser
- AWG (in -S model variant)
- I²S, power analysis?
DHO5000
- 4 GSa/s (single ADC)
- 200, 400, 800 MHz bandwidth
- 500 MPts memory
- Logic Analyser
- AWG (in -S model variant)
- I²S, power analysis, what else?
As a further step, there's room above the 5000 for a dual-ADC model (or even quad) maybe?
-
Rigol releases new DHO1000U series:
DHO1202U, 2 channel, 200MHz, 2GSa/s, 50Mpts(opt.), 500,000wfms/s
DHO1204U, 4 channel, 200MHz, 2GSa/s, 50Mpts(opt.), 500,000wfms/s
Chinese Datasheet:
https://www.rigol.com/file/DHO1000U%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8C.pdf (https://www.rigol.com/file/DHO1000U%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8C.pdf)
-
Black Friday Promotion: RIGOL Digital Oscilloscopes
Products: DHO1000 Series including DHO 1072, DHO 1074, DHO1102, DHO 1104, DHO 1202, and DHO 1204.
Unprecedented 40% discount!
Valid from Black Friday 24/11/2023 to 30/11/2023.
https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html (https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html)
-
Maybe they have better info than us about the SDS1000X HD release date and price? ::)
-
On the website, DHO1000 is "only" 10% less...
-
On the website, DHO1000 is "only" 10% less...
The promotion starts in a week I think.
-
So what is this "DHO100U" models difference? Sorry I cannot have time to translate the chinese or to guess about it.
-
Black Friday Promotion: RIGOL Digital Oscilloscopes
Products: DHO1000 Series including DHO 1072, DHO 1074, DHO1102, DHO 1104, DHO 1202, and DHO 1204.
Unprecedented 40% discount!
Valid from Black Friday 24/11/2023 to 30/11/2023.
https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html (https://www.rigol.eu/NEWS/news/58.html)
Does anyone know if that applies to the US market as well? Or just EU?
I didn't see any reference to that sale on the Rigol NA website...
edit - a hackable DHO1074 with 1280x800 10.1" screen would be nice at $600...
-
@Antonio90:
God, I'm blind... :palm:
-
edit - a hackable DHO1074 with 1280x800 10.1" screen would be nice at $600...
Also more memory and 2GS/sec.
Maybe they have better info than us about the SDS1000X HD release date and price? ::)
Maybe just that that model isn't selling much since the DHO800 came out.
Or maybe they're planning an MSO model.
-
edit - a hackable DHO1074 with 1280x800 10.1" screen would be nice at $600...
Also more memory and 2GS/sec.
Doesn't the DHO1000 series also provide for dual ADC or something so you can run 2 channels at full speed like the SDS1104X-E ? The DHO800 series cuts down sampling rate for 2 channels.
edit - N/M just watched Dave's video on the HDO1000 and alas it also uses a single ADC. Still, 2gbs sampling rate goes further than 1.25
-
Doesn't the DHO1000 series also provide for dual ADC or something so you can run 2 channels at full speed like the SDS1104X-E ? The DHO800 series cuts down sampling rate for 2 channels.
No, it's a single ADC as well in the DHO1000.
-
So what is this "DHO100U" models difference? Sorry I cannot have time to translate the chinese or to guess about it.
Looks like a downgrade from the DHO1000 series: Half the memory size (25 MPts standard, 50 optional) and a reduced waveform capture rate (max. 30k/s regular mode, 500k/s UltraAquire mode).
-
So what is this "DHO100U" models difference? Sorry I cannot have time to translate the chinese or to guess about it.
Looks like a downgrade from the DHO1000 series: Half the memory size (25 MPts standard, 50 optional) and a reduced waveform capture rate (max. 30k/s regular mode, 500k/s UltraAquire mode).
My guess is that they have taken the 800/900 FPGA and memory and put it in the DHO1000 package.
-
My guess is that they have taken the 800/900 FPGA and memory and put it in the DHO1000 package.
But then how do they get 2 GSa/s out of that? Unless the 800/900 are artificially throttled...
-
Doesn't the DHO1000 series also provide for dual ADC or something so you can run 2 channels at full speed like the SDS1104X-E ? The DHO800 series cuts down sampling rate for 2 channels.
...
If DHO 1K had 2 ADC's would have been a killer for his big brother DHO 4K. It can be transformed through vendor.bin method into DHO 4000 model, but with one ADC it is not too usefull as the software expect 2 ADC.
-
My guess is that they have taken the 800/900 FPGA and memory and put it in the DHO1000 package.
But then how do they get 2 GSa/s out of that? Unless the 800/900 are artificially throttled...
I don't know really. Maybe it is throttled, or it might just be a bad guess. But, why would they make a model like the 1000u if not for BOM savings? (and lowering the price)
Assuming everything else is the same (frontend, screen, ADC, etc), it looks like the most sensible approach.
-
Can't find much info on the HDO1000U series - are you even certain it offers the same 2gbs rate ?
-
[attachimg=1]
-
I don't know if the U model will launch in Europe, but maybe they are discontinuing the DHO1000? With the Black Friday promotion and all.
Right now, at $600 plus $300, if you know how to desolder and solder the ADC, a 1074 could be turned into a 4804 for less than 1k, bar the active probe interfaces.
-
So what is this "DHO100U" models difference? Sorry I cannot have time to translate the chinese or to guess about it.
Looks like a downgrade from the DHO1000 series: Half the memory size (25 MPts standard, 50 optional) and a reduced waveform capture rate (max. 30k/s regular mode, 500k/s UltraAquire mode).
If it has the big screen and 2GSa/sec. then it could be worth a look...
-
Can't find much info on the HDO1000U series - are you even certain it offers the same 2gbs rate ?
You can find all information here:
https://www.rigol.eu/products/oscillosopes/DHO1000%20series.html (https://www.rigol.eu/products/oscillosopes/DHO1000%20series.html)
Data sheet:
https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203334_637e131e9efd2.pdf (https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203334_637e131e9efd2.pdf)
User manual:
https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203520_637e138873720.pdf (https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203520_637e138873720.pdf)
-
My guess is that they have taken the 800/900 FPGA and memory and put it in the DHO1000 package.
But then how do they get 2 GSa/s out of that? Unless the 800/900 are artificially throttled...
I'm guessing it's not the exact same FPGA. Maybe something intermediate.
(or a higher speed version of the same FPGA if there is one...)
-
Can't find much info on the HDO1000U series - are you even certain it offers the same 2gbs rate ?
You can find all information here:
https://www.rigol.eu/products/oscillosopes/DHO1000%20series.html (https://www.rigol.eu/products/oscillosopes/DHO1000%20series.html)
Data sheet:
https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203334_637e131e9efd2.pdf (https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203334_637e131e9efd2.pdf)
User manual:
https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203520_637e138873720.pdf (https://www.rigol.eu/Public/Uploads/uploadfile/files/20221123/20221123203520_637e138873720.pdf)
That doesn't have a 'U' in the name.
-
Right now, at $600 plus $300, if you know how to desolder and solder the ADC, a 1074 could be turned into a 4804 for less than 1k, bar the active probe interfaces.
I thought the ADC is a Rigol custom chip? Is it available separately?
Also, are you sure that's the only difference -- maybe different FPGA or RAM speed grades are also used?
-
Right now, at $600 plus $300, if you know how to desolder and solder the ADC, a 1074 could be turned into a 4804 for less than 1k, bar the active probe interfaces.
I thought the ADC is a Rigol custom chip? Is it available separately?
Also, are you sure that's the only difference -- maybe different FPGA or RAM speed grades are also used?
Maybe, although I doubt that is the case WRT the FPGA. I recall seeing photos of both boards, and they were the same except for the ADC chip. (EDIT: the missing second ADC)
The $300 is wrong, it is actually 350 for a "donor" DHO802.
-
Maybe, although I doubt that is the case WRT the FPGA. I recall seeing photos of both boards, and they were the same except for the ADC chip. (EDIT: the missing second ADC)
The $300 is wrong, it is actually 350 for a "donor" DHO802.
There's a new firmware out there that mentions an "edu" version so maybe there might be a cheaper one soon.
It's not something I'd attempt though. That sort of mod is for tough guys only.
-
It's quite risky indeed. I wouldn't either, as I have no clue about reballing or PCB rework, nor suitable equipment for that matter.
A professional service would make the affair quite a bit more expensive, and, of course, you would have to forfeit the 3 years warranty.
-
It's quite risky indeed. I wouldn't either, as I have no clue about reballing or PCB rework, nor suitable equipment for that matter.
A professional service would make the affair quite a bit more expensive, and, of course, you would have to forfeit the 3 years warranty.
Wait for the big discounts on the DHO4000 then. ;)
I think they might come, as Rigol must follow up with a model that supports AWG and LA options. It seems a bit absurd in this price class to have a "bare oscilloscope" model only. And the front panel looks half-empty too...
-
It would have to be a really big discount. The above "shenanigans" would already be at the top of my price range, and I don't really need 800MHz nor have any active probes.
-
It would have to be a really big discount. The above "shenanigans" would already be at the top of my price range, and I don't really need 800MHz nor have any active probes.
I would suspect that anyone really needing 800mhz equipment is just going to buy a device properly rated for the task. Seems like those frequencies are well outside the average hobbyist's need.
Getting a base model 70mhz scope and being able to upgrade it to 200mhz (knowing the front end is amply capable) is a pretty good deal itself.
-
I don't really need 800MHz nor have any active probes.
You can't probe anything close to 800Mhz without them.
I would suspect that anyone really needing 800mhz equipment is just going to buy a device properly rated for the task. Seems like those frequencies are well outside the average hobbyist's need.
The DHO4000 is really an "active probes only" scope. It's cheap for people who need that but very overpriced for everybody else.
Getting a base model 70mhz scope and being able to upgrade it to 200mhz (knowing the front end is amply capable) is a pretty good deal itself.
Get a DHO800 for that :-)
-
I don't really need 800MHz nor have any active probes.
You can't probe anything close to 800Mhz without them.
I would suspect that anyone really needing 800mhz equipment is just going to buy a device properly rated for the task. Seems like those frequencies are well outside the average hobbyist's need.
The DHO4000 is really an "active probes only" scope. It's cheap for people who need that but very overpriced for everybody else.
Getting a base model 70mhz scope and being able to upgrade it to 200mhz (knowing the front end is amply capable) is a pretty good deal itself.
Get a DHO800 for that :-)
Z0 probe will go to a GHz easy. And the high speed is not only for probing signals. You could use the FFT with EMC probes, connect it to all kinds of RF systems with 50 Ohm output or use it as a timer/counter.
-
Rigol shop is selling the 1072 for 486€, the 1074 for 700€ on amazon.de incl. VAT and shipping.
That's incredibly cheap, but I don't think it means anything except that you probably get an HDO instead of a DHO.
This will just be a sale of leftover stock with the old designation.
https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1 (https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1)
-
Rigol shop is selling the 1072 for 486€, the 1074 for 700€ on amazon.de incl. VAT and shipping.
That's incredibly cheap, but I don't think it means anything except that you probably get an HDO instead of a DHO.
This will just be a sale of leftover stock with the old designation.
https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1 (https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1)
Yes, 486 E for a scope with 12 bit, 10' touch screen, 200 MHz, 2GSa/s, 100 mpts, is a bargain.
-
I don't really need 800MHz nor have any active probes.
You can't probe anything close to 800Mhz without them.
I would suspect that anyone really needing 800mhz equipment is just going to buy a device properly rated for the task. Seems like those frequencies are well outside the average hobbyist's need.
The DHO4000 is really an "active probes only" scope. It's cheap for people who need that but very overpriced for everybody else.
Getting a base model 70mhz scope and being able to upgrade it to 200mhz (knowing the front end is amply capable) is a pretty good deal itself.
Get a DHO800 for that :-)
Z0 probe will go to a GHz easy. And the high speed is not only for probing signals. You could use the FFT with EMC probes, connect it to all kinds of RF systems with 50 Ohm output or use it as a timer/counter.
You are right. There are also a few reasonably low cost/DIY active FET probes, and having a 50 Ohm termination one can always use the "transmission line" probe. Still, realistically, noobs like me won't be able to pull the hack, even assuming there are no further firmware-related setbacks. Populating the missing components, modifying the frontend (even if it's only a slight modification), and desoldering/resoldering the custom ADC...
There are so many things that can go wrong, and even if they don't, you might not be able to calibrate it correctly.
-
Rigol shop is selling the 1072 for 486€, the 1074 for 700€ on amazon.de incl. VAT and shipping.
That's incredibly cheap, but I don't think it means anything except that you probably get an HDO instead of a DHO.
This will just be a sale of leftover stock with the old designation.
https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1 (https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1)
Is it really that cheap provided the DHO800 exist? I'm genuinely asking. The DHO800 Is already "200" Mhz. It's 300 bucks for a bigger screen and 750MS/s more. ¿Or does it have more features? If it had the 50Ohm path active I would probably buy it but I really am not sure right now.
-
Is it really that cheap provided the DHO800 exist? I'm genuinely asking. The DHO800 Is already "200" Mhz. It's 300 bucks for a bigger screen and 750MS/s more. ¿Or does it have more features? If it had the 50Ohm path active I would probably buy it but I really am not sure right now.
It also has a 50% higher waveform update rate, more memory, CAN and LIN triggers. Nothing revolutionary, but it makes it a bit more powerful.
And the form factor has some other niceties besides the large screen, which you may or may not find relevant: Second USB host port, connectors for 10 MHz reference In/Out, and a "proper" built-in power supply.
-
Rigol shop is selling the 1072 for 486€, the 1074 for 700€ on amazon.de incl. VAT and shipping.
Prices for both models have now been increased to about 830€, which is the regular list price for the 1072. Strange -- according to their "xx left in stock" info they have only sold a single 1074 during the promotion so far.
Edit: Maybe they had just jumped the gun and activated the discount too early? Their Black Friday sale is only meant to be active November 24-30.
-
Rigol shop is selling the 1072 for 486€, the 1074 for 700€ on amazon.de incl. VAT and shipping.
That's incredibly cheap, but I don't think it means anything except that you probably get an HDO instead of a DHO.
This will just be a sale of leftover stock with the old designation.
https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1 (https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ2NYKNL?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1)
Is it really that cheap provided the DHO800 exist? I'm genuinely asking. The DHO800 Is already "200" Mhz. It's 300 bucks for a bigger screen and 750MS/s more. ¿Or does it have more features? If it had the 50Ohm path active I would probably buy it but I really am not sure right now.
DHO800 undersamples at 4 ch enabled. It's screen is tiny.
If I personally would have to chose between DHO800 and DHO1000 at that price difference I would certainly get the 1000.
Just screen size is huge difference in usability. Better sampling helps a lot. 1000 has more memory. Better time base accuracy and stability. It has Hires Mode. 1000 has specification for EXT trigger jitter.
As for analytic functions, they are both pretty much equal. 100 can show 14 measurements instead of 10. If unhacked both, 1000 has few more protocol decodes.. It will have better specs connected with sampling speed. For instance faster detection in peak mode. It will have more Wfms/s. It has propper power supply. Etc....
It is a better scope in many details.
Download datasheets and compare. If difference is worth the money for you is up to you to decide.
-
Would be tricky to see where the DHO1000U should land price-wise if its just neutered DHO1000 and doesn't bring anything new, now that Rigol is dumping the DH01000 series below 490 EU/US with tax & delivery in US & Europe. (2CH) and in Europe, the DHO1072 (486EU) is quite close to the MSRP of a DHO802 (435 euro)
Not many vendors would use such a logic.. as you're getting high on your own supply, and undermining the market for coming products if there are no standout features for the DHO1000U series..and I cant see Rigol adjusting prices in the DHO800 series, so close to release... would leave a lot of buyers with a bad taste.
-
Would be tricky to see where the DHO1000U should land price-wise if its just neutered DHO1000 and doesn't bring anything new, now that Rigol is dumping the DH01000 series below 490 EU/US with tax & delivery in US & Europe. (2CH) and in Europe, the DHO1072 (486EU) is quite close to the MSRP of a DHO802 (435 euro)
Not many vendors would use such a logic.. as you're getting high on your own supply, and undermining the market for coming products if there are no standout features for the DHO1000U series..and I cant see Rigol adjusting prices in the DHO800 series, so close to release... would leave a lot of buyers with a bad taste.
It's quite strange. Maybe they are just trying to flood the market before the arrival of the SDS1000X-HD? I really don't know if that makes sense at all, and I'm afraid the Siglent is going to be quite a bit more expensive, and might not be easily hackable, maybe oriented at a different market.
Or maybe Ebastler is right and they are going to put out a MSO with AWG and LA, dumping the DHO1000 as the BOM doesn't make economic sense right now.
The 1000U would be the cheaper substitute with long-term sales in mind.
-
[...] dumping the DHO1000 as the BOM doesn't make economic sense right now.
The 1000U would be the cheaper substitute with long-term sales in mind.
That would be my guess. The DHO1000 probably did not sell well at its list price, especially since the DHO800 is out and so much cheaper. The fact that distributors who sell both, Rigol and Siglent, were formerly barred from selling the DHO1000 series but have now been allowed to do so, also points in that direction.
The 1000U can probably be sold at a price point close to the discounted DHO1000 Black Friday offer. Besides the stripped-down memory and waveform rate, I would also expect that it has lost the internal 50 Ohm paths (which were not enabled anyway) and the optical encoders. Maybe it has transitioned to SD-card flash too? That must be cheaper if it's in the 800 series...
-
Rigol shop is selling the 1072 for 486€, the 1074 for 700€ on amazon.de incl. VAT and shipping.
Prices for both models have now been increased to about 830€, which is the regular list price for the 1072. Strange -- according to their "xx left in stock" info they have only sold a single 1074 during the promotion so far.
Edit: Maybe they had just jumped the gun and activated the discount too early? Their Black Friday sale is only meant to be active November 24-30.
The low price on the DHO1072 is still active in some of the European Amazon warehouses.
Rigol's DHO1000 campaign seems to be pretty widespread.
Japan.. its -50% across the DHO1000 palette.
Rigol-official/JP DHO1072 incl. JP-VAT is around 430 Euro (70.400yen)
Add-ons like AWG/MSO would flip the picture 180*.. it is weirdly missing atm. - having it on a 7" 16/9 screen like the DHO900/S series seems far from ideal, if they gonna have 3 lines with a big 10.1 screen.. - it could be where the logic is buried, and why Rigol is confident that the DHO1000U is gonna create its own market, no matter what price-adjustment they do on the DHO1000 series, if the DHO1000U is close to being a DHO900/S just with a 10.1 screen alongside some of the fundamentals of the DHO1000-line' which would be a welcome for the MSO, not least the sample rate..
-
If we are going to speculate, to me, it seems that Rigol has no defined strategy at all, from what I can observe.
They now have portofolio of 16 active scope models (with subdivisions in BW added):
DS1000D/E
DS1000Z/Plus
DS1000Z-E
DS2000A
MSO2000A
MSO5000E
MSO5000
DS7000
MSO7000
MSO8000
MSO8000A
DS70000
DHO800
DHO900
DHO1000
DHO4000
R&S has 9 lines, including portable ones. Siglent has 10 including portable ones. Keysight has 11 lines, from Infiniivision 1000X to 110GHz Infiniium UXR–B. LeCroy has 11 (if we disregards Siglent rebadges) from 3000Z to 65 GHz Wavemaster and LabMasters.
All these manufacturers have careful positioning of all those to match full gamut.
Rigol made chipset and were under extreme pressure to use it for something and they simply made random 4 scopes.
These scopes are de facto marketing research for them.
They will see how well it goes, what people are complaining about and then kill some and make some new models.
They will sell some, make some money... Move on.
This is how it looks to me... A completely reactive approach, with no visible long term strategy..
It is complete mystery what they are doing..
-
I don't get why the price is increased in Amazon Germany and not on the rest of the EU countries.
They are all sold by RIGOL EU.
-
If we are going to speculate, to me, it seems that Rigol has no defined strategy at all, from what I can observe.
They now have portofolio of 16 active scope models (with subdivisions in BW added):
DS1000D/E
DS1000Z/Plus
DS1000Z-E
DS2000A
MSO2000A
MSO5000E
MSO5000
DS7000
MSO7000
MSO8000
MSO8000A
DS70000
DHO800
DHO900
DHO1000
DHO4000
R&S has 9 lines, including portable ones. Siglent has 10 including portable ones. Keysight has 11 lines, from Infiniivision 1000X to 110GHz Infiniium UXR–B. LeCroy has 11 (if we disregards Siglent rebadges) from 3000Z to 65 GHz Wavemaster and LabMasters.
All these manufacturers have careful positioning of all those to match full gamut.
Rigol made chipset and were under extreme pressure to use it for something and they simply made random 4 scopes.
These scopes are de facto marketing research for them.
They will see how well it goes, what people are complaining about and then kill some and make some new models.
They will sell some, make some money... Move on.
This is how it looks to me... A completely reactive approach, with no visible long term strategy..
It is complete mystery what they are doing..
It is certainly quite strange. I also especulate that some of the DHO lineups will be abandoned rather quickly, or at least they will stop selling them.
My bet is the DHO1000. The DHO900 doesn't look very good either.
I don't know about the 4000, and the 800 seems like a really nice scope for the price.
-
If we are going to speculate, to me, it seems that Rigol has no defined strategy at all, from what I can observe.
They now have portofolio of 16 active scope models (with subdivisions in BW added):
...
This is how it looks to me... A completely reactive approach, with no visible long term strategy..
It is complete mystery what they are doing..
I was thinking that Rigol considers their development and design teams expendable, so that they effectively start over with each new series.
-
If we are going to speculate, to me, it seems that Rigol has no defined strategy at all, from what I can observe.
They now have portofolio of 16 active scope models (with subdivisions in BW added):
Part of the reason why the list is so long is just naming conventions. Defining DHO800 and 900 as separate families rather than just versions of the same product is a bit artificial -- the main thing it achieves is to create a clearer "hacking boundary" between the two, it seems, where additional encoders and maximum bandwidth are not easily hackable. Likewise with the MSO5000E as a separate model, which could also have been part of the MSO5000 lineup.
Another part of the reason is that they seem to never discontinue a product line. ;)
Rigol made chipset and were under extreme pressure to use it for something and they simply made random 4 scopes.
Again, I'd say its closer to 3 DHO scope lines, and that does not seem unreasonable. The naming conventions have shifted a bit; the product lines would normally be 1000, 2000 and 4000/5000 (in the prior Rigol portfolio or competing brands). But the decision to launch LA and AWG functionality first in the low-end product is very strange indeed...
-
But the decision to launch LA and AWG functionality first in the low-end product is very strange indeed...
¿Maybe they want free beta-testing before releasing them in a more expensive scope?
-
I was thinking that Rigol considers their development and design teams expendable, so that they effectively start over with each new series.
What makes you say that? There clearly is a platform strategy across the DHO 800/900, 1000 and 4000 software and hardware. Compared to the prior generation of products there is a lot of new development, transitioning to new ADCs, touch screens and OS. But the prior generation's architecture dates back 9 years or so, so that effort seems adequate.
-
If we are going to speculate, to me, it seems that Rigol has no defined strategy at all, from what I can observe.
They now have portofolio of 16 active scope models (with subdivisions in BW added):
Part of the reason why the list is so long is just naming conventions. Defining DHO800 and 900 as separate families rather than just versions of the same product is a bit artificial -- the main thing it achieves is to create a clearer "hacking boundary" between the two, it seems, where additional encoders and maximum bandwidth are not easily hackable. Likewise with the MSO5000E as a separate model, which could also have been part of the MSO5000 lineup.
Another part of the reason is that they seem to never discontinue a product line. ;)
Rigol made chipset and were under extreme pressure to use it for something and they simply made random 4 scopes.
Again, I'd say its closer to 3 DHO scope lines, and that does not seem unreasonable. The naming conventions have shifted a bit; the product lines would normally be 1000, 2000 and 4000/5000 (in the prior Rigol portfolio or competing brands). But the decision to launch LA and AWG functionality first in the low-end product is very strange indeed...
These models are exactly that: different products.
800/900 are different products. Literally. It is not like they made 800 MSO with option to enable MSO. That would have been smart. But no, the made two different products. Case is different, BOM is different, FW is different.
What I listed is literally 16 different production lines...
What about MSO8000 and MSO8000A? They are completely identical, but 8000A has bigger BW (600 vs 750 and 1 vs 1.5 GHz), even though it cannot satisfy Nyquist for all 4 ch for anything than base model..
Or MSO7000 and DS7000 ? Same scope but MSO deleted in hardware. I don't think difference in BOM is worth supporting two product lines.
Most manufacturers are putting in a great effort to NOT do this because it makes sense. No wonder they have problem finishing products and developing FW to maturity.
And you are correct, they are doing it upside down: they never stop selling old products but they stop developing FW (or at least drop it to very low level).
-
I was thinking that Rigol considers their development and design teams expendable, so that they effectively start over with each new series.
What makes you say that? There clearly is a platform strategy across the DHO 800/900, 1000 and 4000 software and hardware. Compared to the prior generation of products there is a lot of new development, transitioning to new ADCs, touch screens and OS. But the prior generation's architecture dates back 9 years or so, so that effort seems adequate.
They made new GUI for 1000Z/2000/4000 series.
Then they transitioned (completely from the scratch) to their 1st gen chipset and new GUI and touchscreens. That was 5000/7000/8000 series.
And they kept pretty much nothing from that for new DHO series. DHO series actually seem to run GUI that is something similar to their 70000 series devices.
Now they have active 4 generations of hardware:
1000D/E
1000Z /2000A
5000/7000/8000/8000A
DHOxxx/xxxx
-
It's quite strange. Maybe they are just trying to flood the market before the arrival of the SDS1000X-HD? I really don't know if that makes sense at all, and I'm afraid the Siglent is going to be quite a bit more expensive, and might not be easily hackable, maybe oriented at a different market.
Hmmm, mine arrived without options but has all now. >:D
-
It's quite strange. Maybe they are just trying to flood the market before the arrival of the SDS1000X-HD? I really don't know if that makes sense at all, and I'm afraid the Siglent is going to be quite a bit more expensive, and might not be easily hackable, maybe oriented at a different market.
Hmmm, mine arrived without options but has all now. >:D
Good to hear ;D
-
they never stop selling old products but they stop developing FW (or at least drop it to very low level).
I think you are too generous. "Developing" would imply good industry practices like a solid software release management process, including a consistent release cadence, useful release notes, proper attention to package verification and the correct application of semantic version numbers.
Based on my experience of Rigol FW/SW updates so far, I'd say "farting out software" myself.
-
It's almost like 2N3055 wrote it, his assumption.
Rigol throws a few models on the market and the model that hits the nerve and sells well is halfway maintained.
See DS1000z and MSO5000.
These have probably received the most updates.
The MSO5000 in particular was a hit, 8GSa/s max and a fully-fledged 2-channel AWG except for the output level, you won't find that anywhere in this price range to this day.
But these were lucky hits, Rigol doesn't seem to know any model strategy or even proper model maintenance.
Now the new 12Bit models, starting with the 4000/1000 models a year ago.
I had a 4204 to test at the beginning of this year and now for a few weeks the 804.
And I was surprised that nothing has changed in terms of the software.
Especially as a 4000 owner I would feel like a fool, except for the hires mode and a few more decoders, the biggest model is no different from the smallest.
On the other hand, you could have used the year to incorporate various improvements and additions, this is not the case.
So the feeling remains that Rigol has simply released a few "prototypes" and the "real ones" are yet to come, with customers serving as beta testers.
This is simply not serious behavior.
Of the four models, two of which I know, I think the 800 series is the most suitable.
The price/performance ratio is right (apart from the current 40% less promotion on the 1000).
-
I agree with that assessment.
Rigol's PM and PMO team's must be non-existent, asleep at their desk, or labouring under a very different impression of their role and duties as compared to everyone else. The question is, for how long can this go on before it starts to cut deep into their revenue and growth plans.
-
https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html (https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html)
Batronix now has all 1000 models in stock (not yet last week), so I can hardly imagine that this is a discontinued model series.
Hm, or exactly because they didn't offer any 1000s for a year....
-
It's almost like 2N3055 wrote it, his assumption.
Rigol throws a few models on the market and the model that hits the nerve and sells well is halfway maintained.
See DS1000z and MSO5000.
These have probably received the most updates.
The MSO5000 in particular was a hit, 8GSa/s max and a fully-fledged 2-channel AWG except for the output level, you won't find that anywhere in this price range to this day.
But these were lucky hits, Rigol doesn't seem to know any model strategy or even proper model maintenance.
Now the new 12Bit models, starting with the 4000/1000 models a year ago.
I had a 4204 to test at the beginning of this year and now for a few weeks the 804.
And I was surprised that nothing has changed in terms of the software.
Especially as a 4000 owner I would feel like a fool, except for the hires mode and a few more decoders, the biggest model is no different from the smallest.
On the other hand, you could have used the year to incorporate various improvements and additions, this is not the case.
So the feeling remains that Rigol has simply released a few "prototypes" and the "real ones" are yet to come, with customers serving as beta testers.
This is simply not serious behavior.
Of the four models, two of which I know, I think the 800 series is the most suitable.
The price/performance ratio is right (apart from the current 40% less promotion on the 1000).
The MSO5000 is a really nice scope, the only missing feature is the 50 Ohm input. If it would have it I would've long bought one.
But that's reserved to the 7000 series, which is more than twice the price. I personally think this is a mistake.
-
https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html (https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html)
Batronix now has all 1000 models in stock (not yet last week), so I can hardly imagine that this is a discontinued model series.
Hm, or exactly because they didn't offer any 1000s for a year....
Batronix unfortunately can't match Rigol's Black Friday discount on the DHO1074. Seems strange that Rigol Europe via their direct sales channel are undercutting their own distributors. (Via Amazon, the 1074 is now available at 713€ incl. VAT again for German customers as well.)
I just changed my mind and cancelled my SDS2104X Plus order, in favor of a DHO1074 at half the price. I am sacrificing the higher bandwidth and sampling rate of the SDS for the 12 bit (16 bit interpolated) resolution of the DHO, and for the UI which I really like on the large screen. I don't really need Bode plots, and will buy a DSLogic PC-based logic analyser later -- which costs about the same as the logic probe for the SDS.
Let's see whether a hack to enable the 50 Ohm inputs will materialize eventually... Or maybe Rigol decides to make this available as an option, for better differentiation vs. the DHO800? Or the 50 Ohm inputs remain unusable forever, which would not be a catastrophe at 200 MHz max. bandwidth.
-
I might do that too, although the SDS1000X-HD is much more appealing. The problem is the price, we only know the chinese prices, and I'm afraid we might see a 1199 tag plus VAT once it arrives to Europe.
I don't do anything in the digital domain other than the occasional protocol decode or signal integrity check, and I can always buy a Siglent AWG later on. But yeah, the price is the great unknown.
-
Let's see whether a hack to enable the 50 Ohm inputs will materialize eventually... Or maybe Rigol decides to make this available as an option, for better differentiation vs. the DHO800? Or the 50 Ohm inputs remain unusable forever, which would not be a catastrophe at 200 MHz max. bandwidth.
50 Ohm is mostly there to avoid reflections in the line. I don't think there will be much difference between internal/external 50 Ohm at that bandwidth.
Aside: I wonder how high the bandwidth can go on the DHO1000 series? The DHO4000 goes to 800MHz. We need to see some hacking of these... :-)
-
50 Ohm is mostly there to avoid reflections in the line.
I don't think there will be much difference between internal/external 50 Ohm at that bandwidth.
I wonder how high the bandwidth can go on the DHO1000 series? The DHO4000 goes to 800MHz. :)
That's why I said that it wouldn't be a catastrophe to make do without the internal termination up to 200 MHz. (But it would be nice not to have to search for the 50 Ohm pass-through terminator, and not to bump into it all the time when it is installed.)
Dave's teardown of the DHO1000 and 4000 suggested that they have the exact same frontend. But since the license protection of the 1000/4000 seems structured similar to the 800/900 series, all 4000-only features may be out of reach for hackers of the DHO1000. I don't think it is realistic to make the DHO1000 believe that it's a 4000; there's an ADC missing... So I am buying this assuming I will get a 200 MHz scope, not more.
-
The frontend is quite similar, and has the 50 Ohms input, but it's not identical. In the upper right part of each input channel there are a few components arranged in a different way, just next to the frontend chip.
Edit: the pcb looks slightly different in that area too. Maybe it is just due to the manufacturing date, and current DHO4000 is the same.
-
https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html (https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html)
Batronix now has all 1000 models in stock (not yet last week), so I can hardly imagine that this is a discontinued model series.
Hm, or exactly because they didn't offer any 1000s for a year....
Batronix unfortunately can't match Rigol's Black Friday discount on the DHO1074.
The Black Friday promotion runs from 24.11. to 30.11.
I would take another look tomorrow, keyword best price
-
Aside: I wonder how high the bandwidth can go on the DHO1000 series? The DHO4000 goes to 800MHz. We need to see some hacking of these... :-)
I said with another ocassions. It can go to 800 MHz when is applied vendor.bin method. But without modifications of the main application it cannot be used as it expect 2 ADC's and route signal trough both channels and double the measured frequency. You can use it however with one channel to see the amplitude of the signal and how it look also 50 ohm is working. Rigol has make sure that the scope cannot be an easy hack, as with the licenses. Otherwise nobody would buy the 4K series.[attachimg=1]
EDIT - added a few pics
-
Batronix unfortunately can't match Rigol's Black Friday discount on the DHO1074.
The Black Friday promotion runs from 24.11. to 30.11.
I would take another look tomorrow, keyword best price
Apparently there are limits to the "best price" promise. I did ask Batronix today, since I would have preferred to buy from them, but their answer was "sorry, we can't match that".
If they were allowed/enabled (by Rigol EU) to match that price tomorrow, I assume they would have told me so. And it would still feel like bad business practices by Rigol EU to allow their distributors to give the discount only starting on the 24th, but sell direct at the -40% discount days before. :-//
-
https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html (https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html)
Batronix now has all 1000 models in stock (not yet last week), so I can hardly imagine that this is a discontinued model series.
Hm, or exactly because they didn't offer any 1000s for a year....
Batronix unfortunately can't match Rigol's Black Friday discount on the DHO1074.
The Black Friday promotion runs from 24.11. to 30.11.
I would take another look tomorrow, keyword best price
On rigol.eu the quotations are now without the 10% discount. So tomorrow for DHO1072 the price (now 699 euro + VAT ) will probably be about 419 euro + VAT and for DHO1074 about 599 euro + VAT.
DHO1074 seems to be a very good deal, and DHO1072 probably the best selling for the next 6 days.
More DHO users on eevblog, more interest to "improve" them.
-
On rigol.eu the quotations are now without the 10% discount. So tomorrow for DHO1072 the price (now 699 euro + VAT ) will probably be about 419 euro + VAT and for DHO1074 about 599 euro + VAT.
Yep, but they have been selling at discounts up to 40% (varying by model and country) via Amazon since the beginning of this week. 599€ + VAT for the DHO1074 in Germany today, for example.
More DHO users on eevblog, more interest to "improve" them.
There already is a good body of hacking knowledge, in a DHO1000/4000-specific hacking thread and a DHO800/900 thread, where a lot of the ideas seem directly applicable to the 1000/4000 too:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/)
The easiest approach is to generate upgrade license keys via a script:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5148330/#msg5148330 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-rigol-dho800900-scope/msg5148330/#msg5148330)
But that does not give the DHO800 and DHO1000 access to options which Rigol has only enabled in the respective higher-end models (900 and 4000 series). If you want these, you can make a DHO800 think it's a 900 with limited side effects, by swapping out the vendor.bin file. But doing the same with a DHO1000 will give you a 4000 model with two broken channels, since the second ADC is missing, and is a proprietary Rigol part.
-
Are they still mentioning the 50\$\Omega\$ input on the front panel of the DHO1000 ? Or it was just on the promotional pictures and it's not printed on real units ?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1935723;image)
-
But that does not give the DHO800 and DHO1000 access to options which Rigol has only enabled in the respective higher-end models (900 and 4000 series). If you want these, you can make a DHO800 think it's a 900 with limited side effects, by swapping out the vendor.bin file. But doing the same with a DHO1000 will give you a 4000 model with two broken channels, since the second ADC is missing, and is a proprietary Rigol part.
Switching two vendor.bin files could be a temporary solution to select DHO1000 / DHO4000 if we can get a functional DHO4000 with 2 channels this way.
-
Are they still mentioning the 50\$\Omega\$ input on the front panel of the DHO1000 ? Or it was just on the promotional pictures and it's not printed on real units ?
Mine has not arrived yet -- and then I will probably not be allowed to unpack it until Christmas... But here's an actual user with a DHO1072 (not HDO, hence not an early model) which has the 50 Ohm labelling: https://youtu.be/JlnJPfRygKw, e.g. around 7:00 minutes.
So maybe Rigol do have a plan in their back pocket to offer a 50 Ohm upgrade option if and when the competitive situation requires. :)
-
Are they still mentioning the 50\$\Omega\$ input on the front panel of the DHO1000 ? Or it was just on the promotional pictures and it's not printed on real units ?
Mine has not arrived yet -- and then I will probably not be allowed to unpack it until Christmas... But here's an actual user with a DHO1072 (not HDO, hence not an early model) which has the 50 Ohm labelling: https://youtu.be/JlnJPfRygKw, e.g. around 7:00 minutes.
So maybe Rigol do have a plan in their back pocket to offer a 50 Ohm upgrade option if and when the competitive situation requires. :)
Still 1 year after the introduction the option is still not there and it just look silly.
-
Still 1 year after the introduction the option is still not there and it just look silly.
Maybe they will eventually enable it just to avoid the embarrassment. ;)
Or they are printing it as a courtesy to the successful hackers who get 50 Ohm inputs activated.
-
Still 1 year after the introduction the option is still not there and it just look silly.
Maybe they will eventually enable it just to avoid the embarrassment. ;)
Or they are printing it as a courtesy to the successful hackers who get 50 Ohm inputs activated.
Hehe yes maybe :-DD
-
Are they still mentioning the 50\$\Omega\$ input on the front panel of the DHO1000 ? Or it was just on the promotional pictures and it's not printed on real units ?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1935723;image)
Yes, it would seem so. Mine has just been delivered from Amazon UK and it's a DHO (not HDO) and still carries the 50 ohm termination text.
-
LOL,
Now it´s back to 40% off again:
https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ31PHLN?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1 (https://www.amazon.de/HDO1072-Digitaloszilloskop-EXT-Kanal-1-500-000-Touch-Display/dp/B0BJ31PHLN?ref_=ast_sto_dp&th=1)
-
That's why I said that it wouldn't be a catastrophe to make do without the internal termination up to 200 MHz. (But it would be nice not to have to search for the 50 Ohm pass-through terminator, and not to bump into it all the time when it is installed.)
Dave's teardown of the DHO1000 and 4000 suggested that they have the exact same frontend. But since the license protection of the 1000/4000 seems structured similar to the 800/900 series, all 4000-only features may be out of reach for hackers of the DHO1000. I don't think it is realistic to make the DHO1000 believe that it's a 4000; there's an ADC missing... So I am buying this assuming I will get a 200 MHz scope, not more.
Depending on your setup, a BNC T could work to avoid the stickout.
I'm 90% sure I'd blow up the 50R input at some point if it were internal. So easy to put 12V DC into the scope at the wrong time.
-
Regarding the 50 Ohm "issue", I have made an inquiry, let's see if they (Rigol.eu) can still remember me and give a correspondingly quick and adequate answer. ;)
-
Depending on your setup, a BNC T could work to avoid the stickout.
I'm 90% sure I'd blow up the 50R input at some point if it were internal. So easy to put 12V DC into the scope at the wrong time.
I have sometimes used a BNC T + terminator in a pinch. But the termination/match is not as good, and they tend to get in the way of the knobs on most of the input jacks.
Where did Thorlabs find a 5 kOhm terminator for that photo? ::)
-
Where did Thorlabs find a 5 kOhm terminator for that photo? ::)
THEY sell them. For various detectors...
-
Where did Thorlabs find a 5 kOhm terminator for that photo? ::)
THEY sell them. For various detectors...
Used as a load then, not an impedance-matching terminator. In which case the BNC T arrangement should be fine.
-
Where did Thorlabs find a 5 kOhm terminator for that photo? ::)
THEY sell them. For various detectors...
Used as a load then, not an impedance-matching terminator. In which case the BNC T arrangement should be fine.
Exactly.
-
https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html (https://www.batronix.com/versand/rigol/DHO1000.html)
Batronix now has all 1000 models in stock (not yet last week), so I can hardly imagine that this is a discontinued model series.
Hm, or exactly because they didn't offer any 1000s for a year....
Batronix unfortunately can't match Rigol's Black Friday discount on the DHO1074.
The Black Friday promotion runs from 24.11. to 30.11.
I would take another look tomorrow, keyword best price
Batterfly has the 40% off promotion. I really don't understand why Batronix can't match the price.
-
Batterfly has the 40% off promotion. I really don't understand why Batronix can't match the price.
Right now they can ... ;D
-
Batterfly has the 40% off promotion. I really don't understand why Batronix can't match the price.
Right now they can ... ;D
Wow !!! And adding the Batterfly's BF 10% ... that is something ...
It's not available in stock, so must be checked if can be ordered.
-
Batterfly has the 40% off promotion. I really don't understand why Batronix can't match the price.
Right now they can ... ;D
Did you ask Batronix and they confirmed the price? Strange that they did not mention it yesterday when I checked with them. They can't be that desperate for these sales, probably not much margin left for them...
Batterfly does indeed apply their 10% discount on top of the -40%, resulting in a 46% discount in total. Not bad at all! Next step will be "buy one, get one free". ;)
-
Did you ask Batronix and they confirmed the price? Strange that they did not mention it yesterday when I checked with them. They can't be that desperate for these sales, probably not much margin left for them...
Batterfly does indeed apply their 10% discount on top of the -40%, resulting in a 46% discount in total. Not bad at all! Next step will be "buy one, get one free". ;)
Do you think that Batronix will display a price and ask you for another at checkout?
-
It's updated on their page.
You can buy it directly without asking for best price (unless you want them to match the 10% batterfly discount).
-
I have already ordered 1074 from rigol.eu, and set the payment.
I was too fast :-DD
-
It's updated on their page.
You can buy it directly without asking for best price (unless you want them to match the 10% batterfly discount).
Thanks, I had not looked further than the DHO1000 series overview page on Batronix.com, which still shows the regular list prices. Yes, asking for the additional 10% discount requires sending them an email.
Ah, well, I already ordered from Amazon yesterday after Batronix told me "sorry, no can do". No extra 10%, but I get an extended return period until end of January. Which is nice considering that I will only start playing with the scope after Christmas. (Well, probably on Christmas eve to be honest... ;))
-
Depending on your setup, a BNC T could work to avoid the stickout.
I'm 90% sure I'd blow up the 50R input at some point if it were internal. So easy to put 12V DC into the scope at the wrong time.
I have sometimes used a BNC T + terminator in a pinch. But the termination/match is not as good, and they tend to get in the way of the knobs on most of the input jacks.
Where did Thorlabs find a 5 kOhm terminator for that photo? ::)
It's because the scope input is still going to be 1Mohm || 14pf for example. So you have a transmission line with a small stub with a open and a capacitor on the end of it. The -3dB point with 50Ohm is 500MHz for such a system, ignoring the reflections, standing waves and other issues due to the stub. There are through terminations for Tektronix scopes that are specific to the scope, that supposed to push this out a little further with some compensation in the 50 Ohm, but it's not ideal at all.
-
It's because the scope input is still going to be 1Mohm || 14pf for example. So you have a transmission line with a small stub with a open and a capacitor on the end of it. The -3dB point with 50Ohm is 500MHz for such a system, ignoring the reflections, standing waves and other issues due to the stub. There are through terminations for Tektronix scopes that are specific to the scope, that supposed to push this out a little further with some compensation in the 50 Ohm, but it's not ideal at all.
Was able to reach -3dB of ~680MHz with a T junction and 50R (MSO5000 1MOhm + 17pF in), but maybe that was my limiting factor, I'll have to try again with a through and see if there is any difference in the response.
Looks like DHO1000 is 1MOhm + 19pF, slightly higher.
-
I received my DHO1074 today and decided that a quick pre-Christmas incoming inspection was in order. :)
The unit I got (from Rigol Europe via Amazon) was manufactured in December 2022, calibrated in January, and still came with the original firmware 2.04. So as we suspected, these have not been flying off the shelves at list price...
After upgrading to firmware 2.11, self-calibration did a better job than it had before -- no more offset errors, which were up to 100 µV with the original firmware. I also managed to actually get 2 GSa/s sampling rate with the updated firmware, much to my relief -- acquisition always seemed to run at half the advertised rate before?!
Not sure what's going on with the options. The scope tells me I have "limited" 200 MHz and 100 MPts options, but they don't seem to be active at all? Anyway, I intend to un-limit them after Christmas...
The screen and LEDs are plenty bright for my taste and lighting conditions; I reduced the screen brightness to 75% and wish I could do the same for the LEDs. The optical encoders feel great and the UI's response to user interactions -- whether via the touch screen or controls -- is very smooth. So the scope fully lives up to the expectations I had based on videos.
I like the UI very much; the dual flex knobs with their dynamic change of function based on which dialog fields you touch works great for me. Startup time is only 30 seconds, quite a bit faster than the DHO800/900, presumably due to a faster CPU and/or flash disk.
Fan noise is the fly in the ointment for me. The dual fans are quite noisy indeed: I can't hear whether my SDG2042X is on or off when the DHO is running next to it, and that signal genererator is not the quietest of instruments. My Korad power supplies, when running under load, can get louder than the DHO -- but that is not an ambitious comparison...
After Christmas I will definitely try the PWM adjustment to reduce the fan speed. For now, the scope is going back into its box and I will do my best to forget about it and be pleasantly surprised a month from now! ;)
-
I will do my best to forget about it and be pleasantly surprised a month from now!
;D
Boot time:
When I was looking for my old test posts from the 4204 in this thread yesterday, I also noticed that I had only measured just over half a minute back then.
It's not the CPU, it's the same for all 12 bit models (6-core), the memory too.
I also have to say that I measured a significantly longer time on the 804 on the first start than on the subsequent starts.
Maybe the scope has something "up its sleeve".
-
It's not the CPU, it's the same for all 12 bit models (6-core), the memory too.
I also have to say that I measured a significantly longer time on the 804 on the first start than on the subsequent starts.
Maybe the scope has something "up its sleeve".
The Rockchip CPU might be the same, I did not check the teardown videos. But didn't the DHO1000 and 4000 have a special chip for the boot disk (FORESEE brand or such), while the 800 and 900 switched to a regular SD card? Maybe there is a speed difference in these?
Alternatively, maybe the newer firmware in the 800/900 does additional stuff upon boot which takes more time, and which will show up in the 1000/4000 in a future firmware release. But they can't do much self-calibration there, with a scope that is not warmed up yet and has undefined signals at its inputs -- hence it seems unlikely that Rigol have found new ways to spend 15 extra seconds there.
-
The Rockchip CPU might be the same
Is the same, FPGA is different.
Maybe there is a speed difference in these?
That's right, the 1000/4000 don't have an SD card, that's probably why the 800/900 take longer to boot.
If you have to load content from the SD card, that's the bottleneck, as lame as the transfer from there is.
-
Hi, I'm on my way to buying my first oscilloscope. and the question is, will the HDO1074 be good for use on hifi audio equipment or is the HDO914s a better candidate with bode plot possibility ?
-
Hi, I'm on my way to buying my first oscilloscope. and the question is, will the HDO1074 be good for use on hifi audio equipment or is the HDO914s a better candidate with bode plot possibility ?
The DHO1000 series will give you even better resolution when needed, since it has 14 and 16 bit modes. (Using averaging/interpolation, at a reduced bandwidth, but certainly covering the audio range.) You could still use it for automated Bode plots, but would need to combine it with an external signal generator and a computer which runs a script to drive the generator & scope via SCPI commands -- awkward.
The DHO914s has everything in one package. You may already have found here on the forum that its Bode plotting capability is still faulty at this time (showing periodic amplitude wiggles which are not there), but I think it's fair to assume that Rigol will fix this soon via a firmware update. Whether you are comfortable with the smaller screen is a decision only you can make...
Specifically for HiFi audio work on a budget, you can also use a sound card for Bode plots -- and much more, like THD measurements. 24 bits instead of a measly 12 or 16! ;) There is various PC software around to use sound cards for these measurements. HPW Works is well-established but expensive; I personally like https://www.audiotester.de/, (https://www.audiotester.de/,) which has also been around for decades now and costs only 39€.
My personal preference would be a DHO1000 as a general measurement tool (with good resolution and a very nice big screen), and the AudioTester + decent USB-connected sound "card" for audio-range Bode plots, FFT, THD measurements etc.
Better make your mind up quickly regarding the DHO1000, since the 40% discount ends tomorrow...
-
Hi, I'm on my way to buying my first oscilloscope. and the question is, will the HDO1074 be good for use on hifi audio equipment or is the HDO914s a better candidate with bode plot possibility ?
I had the chance to "play" with both the mentioned scopes. IMO, the HDO914S isn't a finished product yet, the bode plot function doesn't only produce erroneous results, it also lacks all kinds of features which make it appear to be a half-baked afterthought add-on. The HDO914 / 804 as an oscilloscope is a nice little gadget with basically all that one can whish for from an entry-level instrument. But...it's small and the reduced resolution (1024x600) screen together with the user interface that it inherited from it's larger siblings (DHO1000 / 4000) - (1280x800) makes the screen always look somewhat busy, especially when several windows are used. Rigol will probably get the initial problems sorted eventually, but how long that may take is unknown to us.
What I learned over time using chinese T&M gear is to never expect anything over and above of what you actually get upon purchase. Serious bugs usually get ironed out, and sometimes even add-ons or improvements are provided, but don't consider this for granted. Usually, the instruments selling in the highest numbers are better off while less common gear may get almost no update coverage, even for obvious bugs (Rigol M300 current measurement switching scheme).
Since I enjoyed the U/I and features of the DHO914S quite a lot, and with the unexpected black-friday offer for the DHO1074, I went for it and so far didn't regret it. It's so much more a "Real" scope than the 800/900 series. I also prefer not to have the additional USB PSU box laying around with its potential interference problems. As @ebastler told, bode plotting will require some work, but in all other details it's on-par or better than the 800/900 instruments. And what I really like: it doesn't have this stenching smell of "hot electronics" that the DHO914S emanated -- and that didn't appear to get any less while I had it for evaluation, which may be a real issue when you have your lab in a residential room.
So my recommendation is clear: If workbench space isn't a concern, get the DHO1074 at the "black friday discount", improve it to full DHO1204 capabilities with memory extension (how to do this can be found here in the "hacking" (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg4508461/#msg4508461) thread) and use a work-around for bode plotting if you really need it.
-
Specifically for HiFi audio work on a budget, you can also use a sound card for Bode plots -- and much more, like THD measurements. 24 bits instead of a measly 12 or 16! ;) There is various PC software around to use sound cards for these measurements. HPW Works is well-established but expensive; I personally like https://www.audiotester.de/, (https://www.audiotester.de/,) which has also been around for decades now and costs only 39€.
Download the software for the Analog Discovery. It works with a sound card for free.
-
it doesn't have this stenching smell of "hot electronics" that the DHO914S emanated -- and that didn't appear to get any less while I had it for evaluation
That was bad, yes.
FWIW mine doesn't smell any more. For the first week I left it powered on in the spare room when not in use and that just about fixed it. Any residual is now gone.
-
Quick question to the DHO1074 owners: During the brief pre-Christmas check of my new scope, I noticed that the fastest time base setting was 5 ns/div. (With firmware version 2.11.)
The datasheet states 2 ns/div though. Does that only get unlocked together with the bandwidth upgrade, or is something wrong here?
Actually, while I'm at it: The display of the options status is unclear to me. When it says "Limit" for the 100 MPts and 200 MHz upgrades, does that mean that I (still) have time-limited access to the option, or that the limit has been reached and the option is no longer available? In my case, neither option is usable, and that was the state right out of the box.
-
2ns/div is the limit with F/V 00.02.12 (don't know if relevant) and the bandwidth upgrade to 200MHz active. My take on the "Limit" notification is that this optional feature is blocked. Otherwise I'ld expect "Trial" to be displayed with the remaining time counting down. Yet, I don't know if Rigol provides trial periods for options on these instruments.
-
2ns/div is the limit with F/V 00.02.12 (don't know if relevant) and the bandwidth upgrade to 200MHz active. My take on the "Limit" notification is that this optional feature is blocked. Otherwise I'ld expect "Trial" to be displayed with the remaining time counting down. Yet, I don't know if Rigol provides trial periods for options on these instruments.
Thanks! Do you recall, by any chance, whether you could get down to 2 ns/div before you did the bandwidth upgrade? I want to keep good Christmas etiquette and not start the hacking before I have officially received by present. ;)
Being limited to 5 ns/div comes as a surprise in any case -- the datasheet certainly suggests that the 2 ns/div setting is available for all versions of the DHO1000, independent of bandwidth. Although one can make a case that it is not too relevant in a scope with 5 ns risetime.
The user manual states in chapter 4.9 that the instrument comes with trial versions of the options, which get activated upon first power-on and then last for 36 hours (of operation, I assume). Hence I was wondering whether seeing all options in "Limit" status, and apparently inactive, was what is to be expected.
-
I am on FW 2.11, and the lower limit for me is 5ns/div. I have the 1104 and my BW is currently not upgraded, because I can't get the upgrade to work |O
-
DHO1104 unlocked to 200MHz FW 2.11 -> 2ns/div
-
Thanks TurboTom, gburdzin and mm1!
Your respective scope configurations nicely cover the possible firmware and bandwidth combinations. So it seems that unlocking 200 MHz bandwidth is required to enable 2ns/div, while both FW 2.11 and 2.12 support it.
-
Do you mind sharing the method you used to unlock the BW of the DHO1104?
-
Look at the hacking thread.
-
Yes I have already and as I mentioned there, the BW upgrade is not working for my DHO1104. That is why I am asking.
-
Then I would put the question in the hacking thread, because that's what it's there for.
Here it goes under.
-
The DHO1000 I received has been sitting around for almost a year, cal print date of 11/2022. Definitely not a top seller. Could even be some of the first NA production batch.
edit: 46W power consumption on, 1.2W when off.
-
The math functions IMO are actually quite decent -- admitted, a free math formula entry mode would be preferrable but since there are four possible math windows available, one can do pretty decent stuff with them. Moreover, they are also reasonably fast. As an example for the accuracy, I added screenshots of a PRBS signal first integrated and then differentiated again and then vice versa.
As a peculiar sidenote, it's obvious that Rigol calculates the math in the Zoom window independently of the main trace, easily to be seen in the last screenshot where the trace has been shifted slightly so the first derivative peak goes negative and thus shifts the whole integration trace down vs. the main window. But the accuracy of the reproduction of the original trace is quite satisfying.
No way this kind of precision could have been reached with Rigol's legacy scope's math engines...
-
The detented optical encoders (used for input sensitivity and timebase) that Rigol "hyped" so much for longevity in their ads are crap! Either this or Rigol's engineers still didn't learn how to program such an encoder interface properly (which may very well be possible but is equally embarrassing for them):
While the timebase adjustments work more or less correctly on my black-friday DHO1000, the input sensitivity encoder works okay when turning clockwise, in the counterclockwise direction it frequently skips an increment between two detents and changes the value by two increments upon the next detent.
These encoders have either two or four phase changes between two detents, and at least one phase change happens close to the detent positions (but may slightly be offset to either side) while the other happens approx. half-way in between the detents. And obviously the latter phase change is the one that the increment/decrement of the adjustable value should be synchronized on.
I found this annoying behaviour already on my (almost a decade old) DG4000 AWG. Seems like Rigol hasn't learned anything since! :-- :palm: |O :rant:
And the worst thing about this is that it (most likely) cannot be corrected by firmware update since the front panel PCB contains its own Microcontroller / PLD that manages all the LEDs, pushbuttons and encoders and converts their status into a serial data stream. Apparently, this device needs to be programmed via its own ICSP connector!
-
I will receive mine in 2-3 days. I will inform here if the optical encoders have the same issue or not.
-
It seems that the BF promotion was extended 'till the end of the year, but not for all of them.
1072 was removed from the list and 1102 is listed with "normal" price.
https://rigolshop.eu/products/oscilloscope/dho1000.html
-
Prices are the same here in Canada but some models are not in stock for immediate shipment.
While the timebase adjustments work more or less correctly on my black-friday DHO1000, the input sensitivity encoder works okay when turning clockwise, in the counterclockwise direction it frequently skips an increment between two detents and changes the value by two increments upon the next detent.
I can't reproduce the same issue, you are talking about turning the V/mV dial counter clockwise right?
I had one time where it detented and I didn't see a value change, but that was after about 10 turns back and forth with seemingly normal behavior, and may have been my imagination. If I speed turn the dial either direction there is no obvious odd behavior.
The only minor thing I noticed is if you are already at 500uV and turn the dial to go lower, the waveform will clear and sometimes glitch with spikes, though there won't be a trigger off of them. The previous mso5000 would pop up "over limit", this one doesn't which is fine.
-
My DHO1074 was delivered, ordered from rigol.eu
firmware : 02.04
hardware : 2
build : 2022/12/14
calibration date : 2023/3/28
The offer include the free RLU-01 option, but is not activated, and in the box there is no key for it. I asked them by email, until now I have no reaction.
The encoders are working "almost" fine. Sometime the behavior is like TurboTom said ... it skip some detents and the next is "doubled". But for me the timebase is the problem, the input sensitivity is OK. Can't be reproduced all the time, and not the same detent. I hope that is a problem of software.
I will update the firmware and will see.
-
Just got mine 1072 from rigol.com.pl
Hardware 9
Firmware 2.04
Options unlocked, Upgraded to 2.12
Noise 200Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 2GSa/s 100Mpts 1mV/div:
575uVpp 105uV ACRMS normal mode
375uVpp 58uV ACRMS 14-bit mode (50MHz BW)
296uVpp 26uV ACRMS 16 bit mode (25MHz BW)
Noise 20Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 2GSa/s 100Mpts 1mV/div:
262uVpp 23uV ACRMS normal mode
238uVpp 21uV ACRMS 14-bit mode (50MHz BW) this is what scope writes, looks incorrect because BW is already 20Mhz
222uVpp 19uV ACRMS 16 bit mode (25MHz BW) this is what scope writes, looks incorrect because BW is already 20Mhz
Dave's setting from the video
Noise 200Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 50MSa/s 1Mpts 1mV/div:
661uVpp 69uV ACRMS normal mode
252uVpp 28uV ACRMS 14-bit mode (1.25MHz BW)
192uVpp 22uV ACRMS 16 bit mode (625kHz BW)
Noise 20Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 50MSa/s 1Mpts 1mV/div:
237uVpp 24uV ACRMS normal mode
108uVpp 12uV ACRMS 14-bit mode (1.25MHz BW)
90uVpp 10uV ACRMS 16 bit mode (625KHz BW)
The scope is not grounded, after I connected the ground the noise values not changed.
-
Indeed, noise level is very low.
1mV/div, 2 channels, 50 Ohm terminators on inputs, BW 20MHz / 200MHz, memory auto / max.
For me ch 1 have the highest bias, and ch 4 the lowest.
Also, some pictures for StairUp signal, 6mVpp, 1MHz. Acquisition normal, HiRes 14 bit (50MHz BW), HiRes 16 bit (BW 25MHz).
Generator SDG2042X.
-
Also, some pictures for StairUp signal, 6mVpp, 1MHz. Acquisition normal, HiRes 14 bit (50MHz BW), HiRes 16 bit (BW 25MHz).
Generator SDG2042X.
So the reduced bandwidth in 14 and 16 bit mode is independent of the sampling rate? The 50 and 25 MHz you state for your data, taken at 2 GSa/s, are the same as what ZhuraYuk quoted, for measurements taken at only 50 MSa/s.
I would have thought that they need to reduce the bandwidth if the base sampling rate is already low, to account for the averaging/interpolation/whatever needed to get the extra bits. But if you start with 2 GSa/s, shouldn't there be enough headroom to get higher resolution without sacrificing bandwidth right away?
-
Also, some pictures for StairUp signal, 6mVpp, 1MHz. Acquisition normal, HiRes 14 bit (50MHz BW), HiRes 16 bit (BW 25MHz).
Generator SDG2042X.
So the reduced bandwidth in 14 and 16 bit mode is independent of the sampling rate? The 50 and 25 MHz you state for your data, taken at 2 GSa/s, are the same as what ZhuraYuk quoted, for measurements taken at only 50 MSa/s.
I would have thought that they need to reduce the bandwidth if the base sampling rate is already low, to account for the averaging/interpolation/whatever needed to get the extra bits. But if you start with 2 GSa/s, shouldn't there be enough headroom to get higher resolution without sacrificing bandwidth right away?
I've checked. There are the BW vs Sample rate :
2GSa/s : 14bit/50MHz; 16bit 25MHz
1GSa/s : 14bit/25MHz; 16bit 12.5MHz
500MSa/s : 14bit/12.5MHz; 16bit 6.25MHz
... and so on
Later edit : for 50MSa/s I have 14bit/1.25MHz, 16bit/625kHz. So I believe it was a typo / copy-paste error.
-
Indeed, noise level is very low.
1mV/div, 2 channels, 50 Ohm terminators on inputs, BW 20MHz / 200MHz, memory auto / max.
For me ch 1 have the highest bias, and ch 4 the lowest.
Also, some pictures for StairUp signal, 6mVpp, 1MHz. Acquisition normal, HiRes 14 bit (50MHz BW), HiRes 16 bit (BW 25MHz).
Generator SDG2042X.
Looks like the noise floor is different depending on the model. I have 23uVrms in mine DHO1072 vs 17uVrms in your DHO1074. Or mine is faulty.
Need more people with DHO1072 to compare the results
-
I've checked. There are the BW vs Sample rate :
2GSa/s : 14bit/50MHz; 16bit 25MHz
1GSa/s : 14bit/25MHz; 16bit 12.5MHz
500MSa/s : 14bit/12.5MHz; 16bit 6.25MHz
... and so on
Later edit : for 50MSa/s I have 14bit/1.25MHz, 16bit/625kHz. So I believe it was a typo / copy-paste error.
Ah, thanks! That makes a bit more sense. Although the initial bandwidth reduction to get to 14 bits still seems "excessive", and the next step to 16 bits seems "too small" -- can't get an extra two bits by just halving the sample rate.
So maybe the bandwidth reduction it is not only driven by the sampling requirements, but the scope low-pass filters the signal to reduce the noise in sync with the gain in resolution? Are the bandwidths the same at any V/div setting, or do you possibly get more bandwidth at lower sensitivity settings?
-
Looks like the noise floor is different depending on the model. I have 23uVrms in mine DHO1072 vs 17uVrms in your DHO1074. Or mine is faulty.
Sampling rate was not the same though. You had just one channel active at 2 GSa/s, while core ran two of them at 1 GSa/s. Maybe that explains some of the difference?
-
Just got mine 1072 from rigol.com.pl
Hardware 9
Firmware 2.04
Options unlocked, Upgraded to 2.12
Noise 200Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 2GSa/s 100Mpts 1mV/div:
575uVpp 105uV ACRMS normal mode
375uVpp 58uV ACRMS 14-bit mode
296uVpp 26uV ACRMS 16 bit mode
Noise 20Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 2GSa/s 100Mpts 1mV/div:
262uVpp 23uV ACRMS normal mode
238uVpp 21uV ACRMS 14-bit mode
222uVpp 19uV ACRMS 16 bit mode
Dave's setting from the video
Noise 200Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 50MSa/s 1Mpts 1mV/div:
661uVpp 69uV ACRMS normal mode
252uVpp 28uV ACRMS 14-bit mode (50Mhz BW)
192uVpp 22uV ACRMS 16 bit mode (25Mhz BW)
Noise 20Mhz inputs shorted, DC 1ms/div 50MSa/s 1Mpts 1mV/div:
237uVpp 24uV ACRMS normal mode
108uVpp 12uV ACRMS 14-bit mode (1.25Mhz BW)
90uVpp 10uV ACRMS 16 bit mode (625kHz BW)
The scope is not grounded, after I connected the ground the noise values not changed.
Thanks for pointing out core I edited original post with correct BW
-
Looks like the noise floor is different depending on the model. I have 23uVrms in mine DHO1072 vs 17uVrms in your DHO1074. Or mine is faulty.
Sampling rate was not the same though. You had just one channel active at 2 GSa/s, while core ran two of them at 1 GSa/s. Maybe that explains some of the difference?
I did exactly the same setup as on his screenshots later, with sample rate and everything identical. Still 23uV ACRMS noise floor.
-
Regarding the fans noise, it's not silent at all.
I have MSO5000, and I've been considered it noisy until now, but compared with DHO it's almost silent.
The level is higher, but also the spectrum freq is higher.
I've found an open source noise level apps, named Spectroid and I've made some measurements at about 1m in front of them.
I have attached some pictures, also one for reference, only a computer running in the room.
Also the available options.
Yeah, I will play around with Spectroid, to see if it can be used as a comparative tool.
-
Looks like the noise floor is different depending on the model. I have 23uVrms in mine DHO1072 vs 17uVrms in your DHO1074. Or mine is faulty.
Sampling rate was not the same though. You had just one channel active at 2 GSa/s, while core ran two of them at 1 GSa/s. Maybe that explains some of the difference?
I did exactly the same setup as on his screenshots later, with sample rate and everything identical. Still 23uV ACRMS noise floor.
Strage, we have to see an DHO1072 inside and compare with 1074 regarding the input stages.
If are the same, it can be a matter of luck regarding the cips installed.
Both channels have the same level of 23uV noise ?
-
Also, some pictures for StairUp signal, 6mVpp, 1MHz. Acquisition normal, HiRes 14 bit (50MHz BW), HiRes 16 bit (BW 25MHz).
Generator SDG2042X.
So the reduced bandwidth in 14 and 16 bit mode is independent of the sampling rate? The 50 and 25 MHz you state for your data, taken at 2 GSa/s, are the same as what ZhuraYuk quoted, for measurements taken at only 50 MSa/s.
I would have thought that they need to reduce the bandwidth if the base sampling rate is already low, to account for the averaging/interpolation/whatever needed to get the extra bits. But if you start with 2 GSa/s, shouldn't there be enough headroom to get higher resolution without sacrificing bandwidth right away?
For the moment I can't find an advantage for 14 or 16 bit, and where I can use them. I loose significant BW and details in low level signal.
The normal acquisition mode seems to be just fine.
-
Strage, we have to see an DHO1072 inside and compare with 1074 regarding the input stages.
If are the same, it can be a matter of luck regarding the cips installed.
Both channels have the same level of 23uV noise ?
Ch1 23uV Ch2 21uV. I see in your screenshot the channels have some slight dc offset where mine do not have that. I wonder if this is because of the firmware version or bad self calibration, I have 2.12.
-
Strage, we have to see an DHO1072 inside and compare with 1074 regarding the input stages.
If are the same, it can be a matter of luck regarding the cips installed.
Both channels have the same level of 23uV noise ?
Ch1 23uV Ch2 21uV. I see in your screenshot the channels have some slight dc offset where mine do not have that. I wonder if this is because of the firmware version or bad self calibration, I have 2.12.
I'm still testing it with the old version because I'll try to have a reference when I will update.
Where did you found the v2.12 ?
On line I see only 2.11
Anyway, you must calibrate after each update. The dc offset will be improved, but regarding the noise level I don't know.
And it's not a such big difference, even 23uV it's better than almost any scope on the market.
There are other things that are not very good (at all ...) on Rigol scopes, like FFT. And I have some questions regarding the trigger stability and serial decoders.
-
2.12 firmware is here in firmware section https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000
Did anyone had protective film on the display of their DHO1000/4000 ? Mine come without it.
-
Indeed, noise level is very low.
1mV/div, 2 channels, 50 Ohm terminators on inputs, BW 20MHz / 200MHz, memory auto / max.
For me ch 1 have the highest bias, and ch 4 the lowest.
Hello,
Can you please make the measurements with 1 V/div instead of 1 mV/div?
Best regards
egonotto
-
I guess the differences in RMS noise level are just normal tolerance. @Core probably got particularly lucky with his, on mine I also find the noise to be in the 23µVrms ballpark like many others, see screenshots. I also checked the 1V/div noise as @egonotto requested. And one special screenshot for our friends from Ukraine ;).
-
Hello,
thanks TurboTom, have you 50 Ohm terminators on inputs as core has?
Best regards
egonotto
-
No protective film at all on it. I don't mind but it is unusual, companies usually like to cover everything in plastic bag/film.
Stock bandwidth measured: ~115MHz
200MHz option: 396MHz (1 channel), 320MHz (2 channel)
Anyone see with 2 channels on it seems to get way more vertical jitter? The waveform looks terrible, even at lower frequencies. Maybe an issue with my source or cable, odd it doesn't show up when on single channel though. Will try again later with a proper source.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1946760;image)
-
Hello,
thanks TurboTom, have you 50 Ohm terminators on inputs as core has?
Best regards
egonotto
Yes I had both inputs (CH1 and 4) "terminated" with 50 Ohm, yet via a BNC -> SMA adapter since most of my RF stuff - and thus also the "good" terminators - is SMA.
I may check the total input voltage range of the scope at that sensitivity setting (i.e. how far the converter will linearly digitize beyond the visible vertical range) to approximate ENOB...
@thm_w: The jitter is rather aliasing due to frequency components at the edges of the input signal beyond Nyquist. This "misleads" the sinx/x waveform reconstruction engine and results in the visible jitter effect. You will find this effect on any digital scope without a proper filter in front of the sampling engine. It's probably the price we've got to pay for today's scopes where the "usable" frequency range approaches two thirds of the Nyquist frequency.
-
I can't get any v2.12 FW for DHO1000 from international Rigol web site https://supportint.rigol.com.
Just the v2.11 (August 2023) from Rigol EU (Germany). Is it a special version available only for some country?
-
I can't get any v2.12 FW for DHO1000 from international Rigol web site https://supportint.rigol.com.
Just the v2.11 (August 2023) from Rigol EU (Germany). Is it a special version available only for some country?
Did you look here, as was posted?
https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000
I see it there.
-
@thm_w: The jitter is rather aliasing due to frequency components at the edges of the input signal beyond Nyquist. This "misleads" the sinx/x waveform reconstruction engine and results in the visible jitter effect. You will find this effect on any digital scope without a proper filter in front of the sampling engine. It's probably the price we've got to pay for today's scopes where the "usable" frequency range approaches two thirds of the Nyquist frequency.
Exactly, but even with a perfect anti-aliasing filter, aliasing will still be present because of mixing products between the sample clock and input signal produced by non-linearity in the digitizer. This can be shown by using a clean sine wave source which will still produce the "wobulation". The non-linearity is present in the digitizer itself, but also results from jitter in the sample clock.
Older DSOs tend to be worse, especially those with interleaved ADCs because of greater non-linearity in the digitizer. On these instruments the "wobulation" goes away when random equivalent sampling is used because the equivalent time sample rate is so much higher so there can be no aliasing. Modern instruments which lack equivalent time sampling can use averaging (HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended this in an application note), but I do not think this is as effective.
-
@thm_w: The jitter is rather aliasing due to frequency components at the edges of the input signal beyond Nyquist. This "misleads" the sinx/x waveform reconstruction engine and results in the visible jitter effect. You will find this effect on any digital scope without a proper filter in front of the sampling engine. It's probably the price we've got to pay for today's scopes where the "usable" frequency range approaches two thirds of the Nyquist frequency.
Exactly, but even with a perfect anti-aliasing filter, aliasing will still be present because of mixing products between the sample clock and input signal produced by non-linearity in the digitizer. This can be shown by using a clean sine wave source which will still produce the "wobulation". The non-linearity is present in the digitizer itself, but also results from jitter in the sample clock.
Older DSOs tend to be worse, especially those with interleaved ADCs because of greater non-linearity in the digitizer. On these instruments the "wobulation" goes away when random equivalent sampling is used because the equivalent time sample rate is so much higher so there can be no aliasing. Modern instruments which lack equivalent time sampling can use averaging (HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended this in an application note), but I do not think this is as effective.
Siglent scopes have dot mode where they practically perform RIS (random interleaved sampling), although it is not marketed as such. If signal is triggering fast enough you get nice waveform reconstruction on repetitive waveforms, even when severely undersampled. So they don't market ETS or RIS but it still works as such.
-
Indeed, noise level is very low.
1mV/div, 2 channels, 50 Ohm terminators on inputs, BW 20MHz / 200MHz, memory auto / max.
For me ch 1 have the highest bias, and ch 4 the lowest.
Hello,
Can you please make the measurements with 1 V/div instead of 1 mV/div?
Best regards
egonotto
Yes, see attached. BW 20MHZ / 200MHZ. 50 Ohm terminators.
About the same as TurboTom.
-
...
Older DSOs tend to be worse, especially those with interleaved ADCs because of greater non-linearity in the digitizer. On these instruments the "wobulation" goes away when random equivalent sampling is used because the equivalent time sample rate is so much higher so there can be no aliasing. Modern instruments which lack equivalent time sampling can use averaging (HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended this in an application note), but I do not think this is as effective.
Siglent scopes have dot mode where they practically perform RIS (random interleaved sampling), although it is not marketed as such. If signal is triggering fast enough you get nice waveform reconstruction on repetitive waveforms, even when severely undersampled. So they don't market ETS or RIS but it still works as such.
That is effectively what HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended for DSOs which lack equivalent time sampling. The problem is that even in dot mode, (sin x)/x reconstruction must still be used to determine the trigger point, so the aliasing moves the trigger point around corrupting the result. Averaging helps, but it does not produce as accurate a result as equivalent time sampling.
As a practical matter, the difference should be irrelevant. In both cases the bandwidth of the instrument is insufficient to accurately represent the signal.
-
...
Older DSOs tend to be worse, especially those with interleaved ADCs because of greater non-linearity in the digitizer. On these instruments the "wobulation" goes away when random equivalent sampling is used because the equivalent time sample rate is so much higher so there can be no aliasing. Modern instruments which lack equivalent time sampling can use averaging (HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended this in an application note), but I do not think this is as effective.
Siglent scopes have dot mode where they practically perform RIS (random interleaved sampling), although it is not marketed as such. If signal is triggering fast enough you get nice waveform reconstruction on repetitive waveforms, even when severely undersampled. So they don't market ETS or RIS but it still works as such.
That is effectively what HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended for DSOs which lack equivalent time sampling. The problem is that even in dot mode, (sin x)/x reconstruction must still be used to determine the trigger point, so the aliasing moves the trigger point around corrupting the result. Averaging helps, but it does not produce as accurate a result as equivalent time sampling.
As a practical matter, the difference should be irrelevant. In both cases the bandwidth of the instrument is insufficient to accurately represent the signal.
Display mode dots, interpolation x
( I have reduced memory for get enough low samplerate for demonstrate this)
In this image Zoom window sample interval is 2 div (10ns)
Rise time here is <0.5*sample interval. I can not see big problems with trig position...
Of course can say that it is not accurately trig'd but... how big problems you see there... and this is not ETS.
There on screen is sequential acquisitions randomly interleaved (overlaid)
However, this method has limitations, although it is useful in some situations. Most of the time, our real-time sample rate is sufficient because the full 2GSa/s can be kept up to 10ms/div (SDS2000X Plus)
But as can see trigger position is still ok even when in this case sample interval is 2 div in this Zoom window (4000x Zoom ). Digital trigger engine after ADC can still handle this quite well.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1947057;image)
-
...
Older DSOs tend to be worse, especially those with interleaved ADCs because of greater non-linearity in the digitizer. On these instruments the "wobulation" goes away when random equivalent sampling is used because the equivalent time sample rate is so much higher so there can be no aliasing. Modern instruments which lack equivalent time sampling can use averaging (HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended this in an application note), but I do not think this is as effective.
Siglent scopes have dot mode where they practically perform RIS (random interleaved sampling), although it is not marketed as such. If signal is triggering fast enough you get nice waveform reconstruction on repetitive waveforms, even when severely undersampled. So they don't market ETS or RIS but it still works as such.
That is effectively what HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended for DSOs which lack equivalent time sampling. The problem is that even in dot mode, (sin x)/x reconstruction must still be used to determine the trigger point, so the aliasing moves the trigger point around corrupting the result. Averaging helps, but it does not produce as accurate a result as equivalent time sampling.
As a practical matter, the difference should be irrelevant. In both cases the bandwidth of the instrument is insufficient to accurately represent the signal.
Display mode dots, interpolation x
( I have reduced memory for get enough low samplerate for demonstrate this)
In this image Zoom window sample interval is 2 div (10ns)
Rise time here is <0.5*sample interval. I can not see big problems with trig position...
Of course can say that it is not accurately trig'd but... how big problems you see there... and this is not ETS.
There on screen is sequential acquisitions randomly interleaved (overlaid)
However, this method has limitations, although it is useful in some situations. Most of the time, our real-time sample rate is sufficient because the full 2GSa/s can be kept up to 10ms/div (SDS2000X Plus)
But as can see trigger position is still ok even when in this case sample interval is 2 div in this Zoom window (4000x Zoom ). Digital trigger engine after ADC can still handle this quite well.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1947057;image)
Very interesting, indeed. Thanks !
All we can get with sinc is below. Rigol doesn't like x and dots.
-
Anyone see with 2 channels on it seems to get way more vertical jitter? The waveform looks terrible, even at lower frequencies. Maybe an issue with my source or cable, odd it doesn't show up when on single channel though. Will try again later with a proper source.
The problem is trying to trigger at 2ns/div horizontal when you have 1GS/sec sample rate.
-
...
Older DSOs tend to be worse, especially those with interleaved ADCs because of greater non-linearity in the digitizer. On these instruments the "wobulation" goes away when random equivalent sampling is used because the equivalent time sample rate is so much higher so there can be no aliasing. Modern instruments which lack equivalent time sampling can use averaging (HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended this in an application note), but I do not think this is as effective.
Siglent scopes have dot mode where they practically perform RIS (random interleaved sampling), although it is not marketed as such. If signal is triggering fast enough you get nice waveform reconstruction on repetitive waveforms, even when severely undersampled. So they don't market ETS or RIS but it still works as such.
That is effectively what HP/Agilent/Keysight recommended for DSOs which lack equivalent time sampling. The problem is that even in dot mode, (sin x)/x reconstruction must still be used to determine the trigger point, so the aliasing moves the trigger point around corrupting the result. Averaging helps, but it does not produce as accurate a result as equivalent time sampling.
As a practical matter, the difference should be irrelevant. In both cases the bandwidth of the instrument is insufficient to accurately represent the signal.
Display mode dots, interpolation x
( I have reduced memory for get enough low samplerate for demonstrate this)
In this image Zoom window sample interval is 2 div (10ns)
Rise time here is <0.5*sample interval. I can not see big problems with trig position...
Of course can say that it is not accurately trig'd but... how big problems you see there... and this is not ETS.
There on screen is sequential acquisitions randomly interleaved (overlaid)
However, this method has limitations, although it is useful in some situations. Most of the time, our real-time sample rate is sufficient because the full 2GSa/s can be kept up to 10ms/div (SDS2000X Plus)
But as can see trigger position is still ok even when in this case sample interval is 2 div in this Zoom window (4000x Zoom ). Digital trigger engine after ADC can still handle this quite well.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1947057;image)
Very interesting, indeed. Thanks !
All we can get with sinc is below. Rigol doesn't like x and dots.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1947063;image)
Of course you get around same but as you can see in my image samplerate was 100MSa/s when you use 2GSa/s.
Now try to do same using 100MSa/s but same signal. Or if not possible set oscilloscope and signal so that sampling interval is least 2x longer than risetime. Whole thing was just this... sampling speed far below fNyquist (risetime).
Naturally this below using 2GSa/s as is your image for same signal is just easy.. all can do it.
Sinc, and 2GSa/s. (yes but this is not 12bit scope)
As can also see there is now 100M bandwidth, so risetime bit reduced.. (because 8 bit scope run in 10bit mode)
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1947135;image)
-
Inside that web page:
https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000
I just see a tech features of the scope and 3 links for manual, datasheet and demo request.
No firmware or download link.
-
Inside that web page:
https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000
I just see a tech features of the scope and 3 links for manual, datasheet and demo request.
No firmware or download link.
Pro tip: Try the "Software & Firmware" section. Scroll down until you get to the light-grey background, then there's a menu bar (tab selector).
-
Anyone see with 2 channels on it seems to get way more vertical jitter? The waveform looks terrible, even at lower frequencies. Maybe an issue with my source or cable, odd it doesn't show up when on single channel though. Will try again later with a proper source.
The problem is trying to trigger at 2ns/div horizontal when you have 1GS/sec sample rate.
Yeah, though even if I drop the source signal frequency by half to compensate for 1GS/s vs 2GS/s, signal is still not clean. As explained above there are probably higher frequency components causing issues, so I need to find a cleaner sine source more suitable for testing.
Additional hardware filtering options would be useful, the MSO5000 had 100MHz and 200MHz filters. In this case we know at least a 100MHz filter could be implemented (since the ~100MHz bandwidth option exists).
edit: maybe some filter is applied with 2ch on, since 3dB is dropping ~80MHz? But it seems not ideal.
-
Yeah, though even if I drop the source signal frequency by half to compensate for 1GS/s vs 2GS/s, signal is still not clean. As explained above there are probably higher frequency components causing issues, so I need to find a cleaner sine source more suitable for testing.
Additional hardware filtering options would be useful, the MSO5000 had 100MHz and 200MHz filters. In this case we know at least a 100MHz filter could be implemented (since the ~100MHz bandwidth option exists).
edit: maybe some filter is applied with 2ch on, since 3dB is dropping ~80MHz? But it seems not ideal.
Indeed, an additional 100MHz option as filter can be useful.
But we can send SCPI commands to switch between 70/100/200MHZ.
-
I'm wondering how hard would it be to do FFT with Matlab's signal processing suite, extracting the waveform data form the scope.
Maybe even bode plot with the instrument control and/or audio apps?
Could someone extract some kind of waveform from his scope and post it? I don't have a scope at hand right now, but I do have a laptop and some spare time to play around with it.
-
This has been done several times in the past for older Rigol models.
Maybe the HDO1000 wfm format is compatible with one of those implementations already, dunno.
e.g.
https://github.com/scottprahl/RigolWFM (https://github.com/scottprahl/RigolWFM)
This was quite a good utility for the 1052E, with good window options for fft:
http://meteleskublesku.cz/wfm_view/ (http://meteleskublesku.cz/wfm_view/)
Rigol seem uninterested in fft features such as averaging or peakhold, so a PC app is likely gonna be the only way to get those nice features. But it's a slower and clunkier than having it built-in of course. Hello..Rigol..are you listening.............<crickets>
-
By the way, the 40% off discount for most of the DHO1000 models is still valid until end of this year.
-
By the way, the 40% off discount for most of the DHO1000 models is still valid until end of this year.
Not in the US. They expired in the first few days of December. Back to regular price at RigolNA and Saelig, anyway.
-
Depending on the import duties, it might be worth ordering in the EU.
-
...Could someone extract some kind of waveform from his scope and post it?...
Done already for FFT from DHO800 here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5214702/#msg5214702 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5214702/#msg5214702) :-+
-
Yes, lots could be achieved with a bit of python on the PC side. There is also possibility of hooking into gnu-radio and using the Fosphor fft and spectrogram plotting.
But since the scope runs on android, and folks have already demonstrated side loading other applications, someone much smarter than I, might be able to craft an android app that controls and reads scope data over lxi (locally) and plots fft etc with nicer features than the rigol plot. There may not be the system resources for it though.
-
...Could someone extract some kind of waveform from his scope and post it?...
Done already for FFT from DHO800 here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5214702/#msg5214702 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5214702/#msg5214702) :-+
Thanks! But I also wanted to know if there is an easy way of extracting .CSV or other widely supported format via SCPI to process on Matlab and also get an example waveform extracted from the scope (if anyone has an HDO model and is able to post one), to muck around with it in the laptop. I'm mostly away from my home lab, and will be for some time, but have the laptop with me.
-
Inside that web page:
https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000
I just see a tech features of the scope and 3 links for manual, datasheet and demo request.
No firmware or download link.
Pro tip: Try the "Software & Firmware" section. Scroll down until you get to the light-grey background, then there's a menu bar(tab selector).
I don't find any firmware version for DHO scopes in the firmware download page of https://int.rigol.com/ web site. Just FW for DS, MS, DG, DM, RS, DL, DP scopes.
Post a valid link for the DHO FW 2.12 if it really exists.
-
Post a valid link for the DHO FW 2.12 if it really exists.
For the third time: The link is https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000.
Scroll down a bit, and check the attached screenshot to get your bearings.
Are you sure you are up to installing it? ::)
-
What makes me a bit suspicious is that, at least in Europe, the promo for the DHO1000 will continue until the end of the year.
Not that there isn't an "MK2" version in the offing and they want to get the stocks of the "old" version out of the warehouses.
40% less is really a scoop, and then for so long...
-
Well, we know that they have a "value engineered" variant ready with slightly lowered specs (memory, sampling rate), the -U series. Maybe some design changes to get rid of those hard-to-source parts in the original DHO1000 and 4000 as well. My guess is that the discounted price point is there to stay, and Rigol will just sell the more cost-effective DHO1000-U once the old inventory is gone.
EDIT: Just looked it up again, and apparently there are only 200 MHz versions of the -U variant. So maybe the 70 and 100 MHz DHO1000 are going to disappear, because -- at the reduced price -- they are too close to the DHO800?
A DHO1204-U priced a tad above the 924S would make some sense. But then Rigol really need to add LA and AWG-enabled DHOs with the large screen!
-
If they were trying to unload the DHO1000 line with a permanent price cut, why would they go back to regular MSRP pricing in NA already? The promo ended here on 12/4 I believe.
-
Post a valid link for the DHO FW 2.12 if it really exists.
For the third time: The link is https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000.
Scroll down a bit, and check the attached screenshot to get your bearings.
Are you sure you are up to installing it? ::)
Solved! The international Rigol site is not an good example of professional web site. I looking for DHO FW in the support -> download page related to FW downloads for all Rigol devices and filtered just for scopes only:
https://supportint.rigol.com/SUPPORTS/software-firmware-download.html
and in that page doesn't exixt any FW for DHO series but just for all other series (why Rigol?).
The DHO FW links exist only in the DHO scope specific page (that's stupid and not intuitive at all) inside the Features section (?) of a specific scope model.
Thank you indeed Eblaster for your support.
Rigol EU shows as last FW version the v2.11 dated August 2023 but the v2.12 contains files dated October and so it seems the true last version with these modifications:
00.02.12 2023/10/18
- Added DHO1202U and DHO1204U models
- Fixed the problem of CAN decoding result misalignment when there is an error frame
- Fixed the problem of wrong value in measurement when switching frequency meter source
- Optimize customer experience of frequency meter statistics function
- Fixed the issue where the median boundary value measurement results and cursor indication are incorrect when the display type is percentage.
-
00.02.12 2023/10/18
- Fixed the problem of CAN decoding result misalignment when there is an error frame
- Fixed the problem of wrong value in measurement when switching frequency meter source
- Optimize customer experience of frequency meter statistics function
- Fixed the issue where the median boundary value measurement results and cursor indication are incorrect when the display type is percentage.
-
And Rigol includes the changelog inside the downloaded archive
-
Well, we know that they have a "value engineered" variant ready with slightly lowered specs (memory, sampling rate), the -U series. Maybe some design changes to get rid of those hard-to-source parts in the original DHO1000 and 4000 as well. My guess is that the discounted price point is there to stay, and Rigol will just sell the more cost-effective DHO1000-U once the old inventory is gone.
EDIT: Just looked it up again, and apparently there are only 200 MHz versions of the -U variant. So maybe the 70 and 100 MHz DHO1000 are going to disappear, because -- at the reduced price -- they are too close to the DHO800?
A DHO1204-U priced a tad above the 924S would make some sense. But then Rigol really need to add LA and AWG-enabled DHOs with the large screen!
That's a very plausible explanation.
DHO1000 it's just a very good basic oscilloscope with high resolution and very low input stage noise.
Also, the big high resolution screen it's very good.
It have a lot of power processing, it's fast even with 4 math active windows, but that's all we got.
If the FFT will be optimised and improved (Max-Hold and Average), and adding the Dots mode and X Interpolation, will be enough for me.
For the promotional price still active in EU it's a very good deal. For the normal price not so much.
-
Hello,
the data sheet of DHO1000 says "Internal Capacity 8 GB" but in the "Storage setting menu" I only have just over 4000 MB.
The bandwidth of my DHO1074 is about 85 MHz. With the 200 MHz license I also get about 200 MHz.
The noise in the 1 mV/div range in 20 MHz mode is also about 10 % worse with the 200 MHz license.
Even worse, the noise in the 1 mV/div range without bandwidth limitation is dramatically worse with the 200 MHz license. In channel 4 the noise triples.
Best regards
egonotto
-
The bandwidth of my DHO1074 is about 85 MHz. With the 200 MHz license I also get about 200 MHz.
Interesting, maybe they use sharper filters.
Because DHO804 (70Mhz) got appx 125Mhz bandwith, with hacking to 100Mhz I´ve measured appx 200Mhz.
-
Hello,
the data sheet of DHO1000 says "Internal Capacity 8 GB" but in the "Storage setting menu" I only have just over 4000 MB.
The bandwidth of my DHO1074 is about 85 MHz. With the 200 MHz license I also get about 200 MHz.
The noise in the 1 mV/div range in 20 MHz mode is also about 10 % worse with the 200 MHz license.
Even worse, the noise in the 1 mV/div range without bandwidth limitation is dramatically worse with the 200 MHz license. In channel 4 the noise triples.
The storage makes sense as that is free storage, android OS + the app, etc will take up 4GB easily, so probably they meant 8GB internal memory total in the datasheet.
Something is off with your BW though as I measured ~400MHz -3dB above.
- What is your signal source? Are you using 50R terminator? How many channels are active, do you have a trigger on the main channel that is active and not another channel? Run an FFT and look at the wfm.
The noise will go way up yeah, as I mention above they need to implement a reasonable filter. I don't know if their AFE has selectable hardware filtering or not. If the noise is getting worse even with BW limit on that is odd though 10% is not huge. Here is a FFT compare of 2GS vs 1GS:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1952565;image)
I didn't measure pre/post hack but for CH1 I get 22uV (20MHz), 53uV (Max BW) on 1mV/div.
-
Hello,
thank you for your answer. I used a T-piece with a 50 Ohm termination. The generator is a SDG6022X which had a different motherboard after a repair, with a SDG6052 license. I repeated the measurement with only channel 3 active and a sine wave with 4 Vpp.
At 1 KHz I measured 2 Vpp.
At 85 MHz I measured 1.4 Vpp.
At 100 MHz I measured 1.25 Vpp.
At 120 MHz I measured 1.03 Vpp.
This time I checked the voltage with an RTA4000 with 1 GHz bandwidth. RTA4000 always measured about 2 Vpp.
I'll get to the noise thing later, but the "I didn't measure pre/post hack but for CH1 I get 22uV (20MHz), 53uV (Max BW) on 1V/div." is probably at 1 mV/div?
Best regards
egonotto
-
The noise in the 1 mV/div range in 20 MHz mode is also about 10 % worse with the 200 MHz license.
Even worse, the noise in the 1 mV/div range without bandwidth limitation is dramatically worse with the 200 MHz license. In channel 4 the noise triples.
Best regards
egonotto
You can check my measurements here, it seems to be OK :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg5207760/#msg5207760 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/msg5207760/#msg5207760)
I will try to replicate yours, just tell me the configuration. I have an SDG2042X unleashed.
-
Hello,
thank you for your answer. I used a T-piece with a 50 Ohm termination. The generator is a SDG6022X which had a different motherboard after a repair, with a SDG6052 license. I repeated the measurement with only channel 3 active and a sine wave with 4 Vpp.
At 1 KHz I measured 2 Vpp.
At 85 MHz I measured 1.4 Vpp.
At 100 MHz I measured 1.25 Vpp.
At 120 MHz I measured 1.03 Vpp.
Best regards
egonotto
I have about the same results, using 1Vpp :
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg5207655/#msg5207655 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hacking-the-hdo1khdo4k-rigol-12-bit-scope/msg5207655/#msg5207655)
-
I've made some tests regarding High Resolution 14bit/16bit vs normal.
Signal source SDG2042X
- ch1 : ramp, 1kHz, 10mVpp, symm 50%
- ch2 : pulse, 4kHz, 3mVpp, pulse width 1us, rise edge 8.4ns
- wave combine output
HDO1074 with 50Ohm terminator, aquisition 50mV, 5ms.
Trigger single, stop, then zoom in from 50mV/5ms up to 1mV/1us
The 3mVpp/1us pulse it's very clear even in normal mode.
pictures for normal mode:
-
pictures for HiRes 14 mode:
-
pictures for HiRes 16 mode:
-
FFTs for the same signal, normal mode and HiRes16.
No difference.
-
FFTs for the same signal, normal mode and HiRes16.
No difference.
Why would you expect a difference?
HiRes is a lowpass filter. At 2GSa/s, HiRes16 is supposed to reduce the noise bandwidth from 1GHz to 62.5 MHz.
So you will certainly not see any effect for signal or noise components in the 0...10kHz range.
-
FFTs for the same signal, normal mode and HiRes16.
No difference.
Why would you expect a difference?
HiRes is a lowpass filter. At 2GSa/s, HiRes16 is supposed to reduce the noise bandwidth from 1GHz to 62.5 MHz.
So you will certainly not see any effect for signal or noise components in the 0...10kHz range.
You are right. I was thinking that there is about the same relative low noise, under 120dB.
I have attached the FFT up to 1MHz, for the same signal. Normal and HiRes16.
There is an improvement, about 4-5dB at higher frequencies.
Anyway, the FFT on this scope it's not very versatile.
-
I have attached the FFT up to 1MHz, for the same signal. Normal and HiRes16.
If you really want to see the full difference in the frequency domain, then rather use a 0...1GHz span.
And better do it even without any signal, so that you only see the noise floor.
EDIT: Sorry, I noticed too late that the FFT sample rate was only 20 MSa/s, so a 0...10 MHz span would be approriate.
[ A nast side effect of the lower FFT sample rate is of course that that folded aliases may garble the FFT display, although the time domain display (at full sample rate) does not show signs of aliasing. ]
-
Rigol releases new DHO1000U series:
DHO1202U, 2 channel, 200MHz, 2GSa/s, 50Mpts(opt.), 500,000wfms/s
DHO1204U, 4 channel, 200MHz, 2GSa/s, 50Mpts(opt.), 500,000wfms/s
Chinese Datasheet:
https://www.rigol.com/file/DHO1000U%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8C.pdf (https://www.rigol.com/file/DHO1000U%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8C.pdf)
Not quite sure when that happened, but the 'U' models have appeared on Rigol's international site with USD pricing now, https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000. (https://int.rigol.com/products/detail/DHO1000.) $999 for the 2-channel model, $1199 for 4 channels. (Compared to $1399 and $1699 for the original DHO120x, which are also still listed.) The datasheet for the DHO1000 series has not been updated yet, but the basic (reduced) specs of the U version are mentioned. I don't know whether they are actually available for sale in the US yet?
On the European rigol.eu site the 'U' models are not yet mentioned. But the news there is that the DHO1072 is now listed as "sold out". So maybe the non-U models will indeed be sold off, and the future entry-level 12 bit product landscape will only have the DHO800, 900 and 120xU?
-
Thanks to Performa01's ideea regarding the alternative zoom from another thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-12bit-(published-for-chinese-domestic-market-only)/msg5202036/#msg5202036 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds2000x-hd-12bit-(published-for-chinese-domestic-market-only)/msg5202036/#msg5202036)
I've tried to apply the same for DHO1074, because we know that Rigol don't have vertical zoom, or "zone zoom".
In order to stabilize the waveform I've used the acquisition mode on average (256).
Acq. mem. auto, waveform signal StairUD 1MHz, 1.2Vpp from an Uni-T UTG962E (a very cute sig. generator).
See attached the original waveform and vertical zoom using the math function AX+B, where B=0.
- for the first pictures I've used the same vertical scale (100mV/div), with A=20
- for the second pictures I've used 5mV/div for math function, and A=1
Same result, of course.
-
I'll get to the noise thing later, but the "I didn't measure pre/post hack but for CH1 I get 22uV (20MHz), 53uV (Max BW) on 1V/div." is probably at 1 mV/div?
oops, yeah 1mV/div.
thank you for your answer. I used a T-piece with a 50 Ohm termination. The generator is a SDG6022X which had a different motherboard after a repair, with a SDG6052 license. I repeated the measurement with only channel 3 active and a sine wave with 4 Vpp.
Interesting, well that gen is more than good enough so maybe mine is an issue. Still, can you do the FFT of a 50R short on channel 1 as I showed above and post here? 2Gs/s, span 0 to 1GHz.
You can try lower voltage ranges, but the difference in BW should not be huge between them.
-
Hello,
I haven't really understood how to use FFT with the DHO1074 yet. The 200 MHz license is activated.
Here are a few noise measurements.
Now to the frequency response (50 Ohm):
With 500 mVpp I determined about 240 MHz.
1 kHz 264 mVpp
2 MHz 234 mVpp
100 MHz 220 mVpp
200 MHz 208 mVpp
240 MHz 184 mVpp
250 MHz 176 mVpp
300 MHz 164 mVpp
400 MHz 108 mVpp
Best regards
egonotto
-
How good it would be if Rigol included the average mode.
You would have to write a petition...
-
Hello,
you mean average for FFT?
How is the noise of the Siglent SDS2104X HD in the range of 1mV/div and 1 V/div at 1 ms/div and about 50 MS so that we can compare it with the Rigol?
Rigol 20 MHz with 50 Ohm termination:
1 mV/div: noise is about 23 uVrms
1 V/div: noise is about 9 mVrms
Rigol 200 MHz 50 Ohm termination:
1 mV/div: noise is about 103 uVrms
1 V/div: noise is about 11 mVrms
Best regards
egonotto
PS: But sometimes you get different values, for whatever reason.
As the pictures show.
-
Hello,
you mean average for FFT?
How is the noise of the Siglent SDS2104X HD in the range of 1mV/div and 1 V/div at 1 ms/div and about 50 MS so that we can compare it with the Rigol?
Rigol 20 MHz with 50 Ohm termination:
1 mV/div: noise is about 23 uVrms
1 V/div: noise is about 9 mVrms
Rigol 200 MHz 50 Ohm termination:
1 mV/div: noise is about 103 uVrms
1 V/div: noise is about 11 mVrms
Best regards
egonotto
PS: But sometimes you get different values, for whatever reason.
As the pictures show.
8µ RMS and 300µV P-P at 1mV/div is not right.....
Something very wrong there.
As requested, from SDS200X HD (1ms/div, 2GS/s, 20MPts, 50 Ω):
20MHz BW
1mv/div - 23 µV ACRMS
1V/div - 4 mV ACRMS
200MHz BW
1mv/div - 48 µV ACRMS
1V/div - 5,2 mV ACRMS
FULL BW (cca 550 MHz)
1mv/div - 74 µV ACRMS
1V/div - 5,4 mV ACRMS
Like I said before, 2000XHD is better. Also, you can clearly see how at 1mV/div noise of preamp before AA filter is dominant, and at 1V/div ADC noise is...
But DHO1000 does decent job nevertheless, hardware vise. It is not best in class scope, but affordable one, and for the price range not bad at all.
But software really needs work... :palm:
-
Hello,
thanks. I have switched the DHO1074 off and on again. Now I have a credible 23 mVrms.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Now I have a credible 23 mVrms.
mVrms?
-
Hello,
it is 23 uVrms.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Which means preamp is working really nice but ADC performance is not best in class for the BW.
Or ADC has much wider BW than needed.
Which would make sense if they used same ADC as in 800+MHz DHO4000...
-
Hello,
I haven't really understood how to use FFT with the DHO1074 yet. The 200 MHz license is activated.
Here are a few noise measurements.
You don't use FFT to measure noise levels directly, use AC RMS measurement for that.
FFT can used to measure signal to noise ratios, or maybe to look a noise characteristics.
-
Hello,
you mean average for FFT?
Yes.
-
Hello,
now I have tried the 100 MHz license. BW is about 120 MHz.
Rigol 20 MHz with 50 Ohm termination:
1 mV/div: noise is about 21 uVrms
1 V/div: noise is about 4 mVrms
Rigol 200 MHz 50 Ohm termination:
1 mV/div: noise is about 58 uVrms
1 V/div: noise is about 8.5 mVrms
Best regards
egonotto
-
Hello,
However, the calculations of DHO1000 are not trustworthy. You can also get a noise of 4 mVrms at 1 V/div instead of 8.5 mVrms as in the first measurement.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Could the test setup (moving probes or lights/appliances) influence the measurement?
I live close to military training grounds, and sometimes I get AM interference.
-
Hello,
I don't think so, because you can often bring about this change in the measurement results by different operations (switch on the second channel, add measurement, switch off the second channel, delete the measurement), can bring about this change in the measurement results.
(This is translate with deepl)
Best regards
egonotto
-
Doesn't seem to be the case then. Activating a second channel could induce some crosstalk maybe?
But activating and deactivating measurements, I don't know what could be causing it.
-
Doesn't seem to be the case then. Activating a second channel could induce some crosstalk maybe?
But activating and deactivating measurements, I don't know what could be causing it.
There is no crosstalk.
There is nothing connected to anything.
NO signals.
Just scope's own noise...
That is error in measurement software.
Or at least let's hope it is. Otherwise there is hardware problem.
-
Are the inputs shielded? Covered with tinfoil at least?
If 50 Ohm terminators fitted to the inputs are the noise measurements stable?
-
Hello,
I suspect it's a software bug.
Best regards
egonotto
-
That image that says 340µV P-P max, 280 µV P-P min does not have trace 0.3 div wide...
And it says 8µV RMS which, well, is not really possible...
That would be ratio of 30, not 6-8..
-
Hey egonotto -
I just scanned through your latest messages and I didn't find any information on the firmware version that you're running on your DHO1000. If it's a very early one, maybe try updating it to the most recent version and see if the flakey AC RMS measurement gets sorted. I don't remember to have seen anything like this on my DHO1000 which has the latest version (00.02.12) installed. Just an idea, though... ;)
-
Hello,
when I got the DHO1074 it had firmware 00.02.04. But I had quickly set up 00.02.12
Best regards
egonotto
-
I was also able to observe these phenomena with the DHO4204, and that was 10 months ago.
It remains to be feared that the "good old tradition" of rigol will also strike with the 12-bit models and that they will only do what is necessary to keep the box crash-free.
There is also the question of why the user has no leeway and things like interpolation and display mode are fixed.
Maybe it's better not to know that.
-
In the past, I've done some testing with the MSO5000, which still has the dots mode. In certain configurations, dot mode looks very clear and nice. But if you go to zoom in further, it starts to interpolate and put intermediate points using sinx/x interpolation. Siglent is more predictive, like "in the book".
I've come to terms with the fact that it's noisy and I don't use it below 20mV/div. I put it down to the fact that the input amplifier runs at high temperature and could be an explanation. It was the first oscilloscope I came across that had heat sinks on the input stages. Not very usual for me.
To get to 8GSa/s at a decent price I suspected that there were actually several DACs running in interleaved mode in the DAC chip. It could be for example 8x1GSa/s or even 16x500MSa/s combined in pairs of 2 and 4 respectively to cover the 4 channels. That would explain why it behaves so strangely in dots mode and why it doesn't have X interpolation mode. It's hard to align all these DAC's, so the software has to do something about it.
In this way I thought Rigol managed to get such a good price for the MSO5000.
The DHO also has the input stage operating at high temperature, but at the same time has low noise. I seem to be missing something here. Also the DAC they manufacture may be hiding some unknowns.
My main field of work is in power electronics, so I don't have expertise in high frequencies small signals. It's quite possible I'm wrong in the above :-//
-
In the past, I've done some testing with the MSO5000, which still has the dots mode. In certain configurations, dot mode looks very clear and nice. But if you go to zoom in further, it starts to interpolate and put intermediate points using sinx/x interpolation. Siglent is more predictive, like "in the book".
I've come to terms with the fact that it's noisy and I don't use it below 20mV/div. I put it down to the fact that the input amplifier runs at high temperature and could be an explanation. It was the first oscilloscope I came across that had heat sinks on the input stages. Not very usual for me.
To get to 8GSa/s at a decent price I suspected that there were actually several DACs running in interleaved mode in the DAC chip. It could be for example 8x1GSa/s or even 16x500MSa/s combined in pairs of 2 and 4 respectively to cover the 4 channels. That would explain why it behaves so strangely in dots mode and why it doesn't have X interpolation mode. It's hard to align all these DAC's, so the software has to do something about it.
In this way I thought Rigol managed to get such a good price for the MSO5000.
The DHO also has the input stage operating at high temperature, but at the same time has low noise. I seem to be missing something here. Also the DAC they manufacture may be hiding some unknowns.
My main field of work is in power electronics, so I don't have expertise in high frequencies small signals. It's quite possible I'm wrong in the above :-//
You are not wrong, in theory.
MSO5000 had higher noise because it used both ADC and front end chip that are 4 GHz capable.
Many manufacturers use massively interleaved ADC (including Keysight), and there are many tricks of the trade there to achieve best performance.
From clock distribution, to buffering, to calibration...
-
A short test for the low pass digital filter.
An Axiomet AX-3004H power supply. 5V, switching frequency about 106kHz
Rigol DL3000 load, CC cycle mode, 50Hz, 150mA <-> 1,5A
Math 2 : Low-pass filter, scale 25mV/div.
10ms -> minimum lowpass frequency 25kHz
5ms -> minimum lowpass frequency 50kHz
2ms -> minimum lowpass frequency 250kHz
Triggering on ch1 no problem, HFR coupling.
Measurements on Math 2 are clear and reliable.
FFT is OK, but could be better than that.
The measurement environment is not optimised and the cables pick up some of the noise.
The idea was to check if the the LowPass filter is useful for a such application.
Later edit : the minimum lowpass filter frequency above is for an acquisition memory of 1MB.
-
What if you do FFT of Math2?
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1956636;image)
-
FFT source must be a channel : CH1 - CH4.
Can't do math on math.
-
FFT source must be a channel : CH1 - CH4.
Can't do math on math.
Some Math functions do work on Math results, but not FFT.
-
FFT source must be a channel : CH1 - CH4.
Can't do math on math.
I just checked because I did it earlier today...
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Maybe it's because FFT is done in the FPGA or something. :-//
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-hdo1000-and-hdo4000-12bit-oscilloscopes-launched-in-china/?action=dlattach;attach=1956690;image)
-
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Also does not work with the siglent scopes.
Edit:Misunderstood
-
A short test for the low pass digital filter.
An Axiomet AX-3004H power supply. 5V, switching frequency about 106kHz
Rigol DL3000 load, CC cycle mode, 50Hz, 150mA <-> 1,5A
Math 2 : Low-pass filter, scale 25mV/div.
10ms -> minimum lowpass frequency 25kHz
5ms -> minimum lowpass frequency 50kHz
2ms -> minimum lowpass frequency 250kHz
Triggering on ch1 no problem, HFR coupling.
Measurements on Math 2 are clear and reliable.
FFT is OK, but could be better than that.
The measurement environment is not optimised and the cables pick up some of the noise.
The idea was to check if the the LowPass filter is useful for a such application.
Later edit : the minimum lowpass filter frequency above is for an acquisition memory of 1MB.
Another capture, using 3 Math functions. 2 x LPF filter for normal and zoom waveforms, and FFT.
-
Same signal for MSO5000. Same filter.
Measurements are OK.
Can't do the LPF filter when zoom is activated (filters are disabled in meniu).
And just to be all together, SDS1104X-E (filters not available) and Uni-T UPO1202CS (it seems that filter is using the display data only).
-
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Also does not work with the siglent scopes.
You should rethink that statement.
FFT results cannot be the source for math operations, but Math (incl. FFT) can take channel traces, zoom traces, memory traces and math traces as operands.
-
Another capture, using 3 Math functions. 2 x LPF filter for normal and zoom waveforms, and FFT.
The dedicated counter is limited to working on the physical inputs -- but measurements (both cursor-based and automatic) can be applied to Math results without restrictions, right?
Just out of curiosity: Can you apply automated measurements, as well as further Math operations, to the FFT spectrum? Not sure whether there is anything useful to be measured or calculated, but still...
-
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Also does not work with the siglent scopes.
I don't know, i think it does..... ^-^
In attachment:
- noisy 1MHz into CH1.
- Math2 (F2) Average(C1)
- Math1 (F1) FFT on (F2)
- Math3 (F3) FFT on (C1)
First image are signals. Second image are FFT-s. Different timebase for nicer FFT res.
You can also do this: FFT(Filter(C1*C2)) in single math channel. And do that 4 times...
And also you can have Memory channel as a source. Which is interesting because that means you have original data saved instead of result. So you can later on change FFT parameters when comparing to something.
Siglent's math is on completely another level.. R&S don't have it on MXOx.. They are working on it though...
-
- noisy 1MHz into CH1.
- Math2 (F2) Average(C1)
- Math1 (F1) FFT on (F2)
- Math3 (F3) FFT on (C1)
That's pretty impressive. Done on the SDS2000X HD, I assume? Which is unfortunately outside of my price range, and not a direct competitor of Rigol's DHO1000 series.
Ah, if only Siglent could make up their mind about the SDS1000X HD... With the increasing rumours about the Q1 release of the 800X HD outside of China, it seems uncertain again whether the 1000X HD will come here at all?
-
- noisy 1MHz into CH1.
- Math2 (F2) Average(C1)
- Math1 (F1) FFT on (F2)
- Math3 (F3) FFT on (C1)
That's pretty impressive. Done on the SDS2000X HD, I assume? Which is unfortunately outside of my price range, and not a direct competitor of Rigol's DHO1000 series.
Ah, if only Siglent could make up their mind about the SDS1000X HD... With the increasing rumours about the Q1 release of the 800X HD outside of China, it seems uncertain again whether the 1000X HD will come here at all?
Yes that is 2000XHD, that is what I have.
But from what I hear that little one will be able to mostly do the same.
As for 1000XHD I'm sorry but I honestly don't know. I don't care much about rumors and I have no knowledge of official info on that topic.
I hope it does, it is an excellent scope in its class.
-
I don't know, i think it does..... ^-^
I tried it last night and got the message "not supported".
I'll try it again tonight 8)
-
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Also does not work with the siglent scopes.
You should rethink that statement.
FFT results cannot be the source for math operations, but Math (incl. FFT) can take channel traces, zoom traces, memory traces and math traces as operands.
But that was exactly the point, whether FFT can be used as a source and after I tested it again to be sure, I said no.
And I didn't mean anything other than that. :)
-
Well, I didn't really need another scope, but at £620 DH1074 looked like a bit of fun, so I took the plunge on my first ever bit of Rigol test kit, with low to medium expectations of customer satisfaction :-)
First impressions:
Fan is a little bit noisy, in a low-pitch 'whooshing' sort of way. Not too bad.
Display is excellent, for UI elements and traces, very crisp and clear. Nice fonts.
The UI layout and operation with touch and buttons is very good. Quite intuitive.
Touch and feel of buttons and knobs is good. Plastics quality is good.
The DC accuracy of all 4 channels is within the 2% specification. However, at low frequencies CH1 reads about 4% lower than other channels. For example, with all probes x1 connected to scope comp output, hit Default then AUTO. All 4 traces overlay perfectly. Switch to x10, hit AUTO. CH1 very obviously different, showing 4% lower amplitude than other channel traces (with probes on x10 the input channel relays have switched to the lower input range).
Do your traces overlay perfectly in that setup?
-
Another capture, using 3 Math functions. 2 x LPF filter for normal and zoom waveforms, and FFT.
The dedicated counter is limited to working on the physical inputs -- but measurements (both cursor-based and automatic) can be applied to Math results without restrictions, right?
Just out of curiosity: Can you apply automated measurements, as well as further Math operations, to the FFT spectrum? Not sure whether there is anything useful to be measured or calculated, but still...
I've checked. Please see below.
Ch1 : rectangular waveform, 1MHz, 600mVpp
Math 1 : High Pass filter 10MHz
Math 2 : Math 1 + Ch1
Math 3 : FFT(Ch1)
Math 4 : Math1 - Math2
Masurements are made for Math 4 : Vpp, AC rms, Freq
In the pictures you can check that the counter source must be a hw input : Ch1 - Ch4 and Ext
Later edit : measurements are available even for Math 3, but they are meaningless for FFT - most of them.
-
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Also does not work with the siglent scopes.
You should rethink that statement.
FFT results cannot be the source for math operations, but Math (incl. FFT) can take channel traces, zoom traces, memory traces and math traces as operands.
But that was exactly the point, whether FFT can be used as a source and after I tested it again to be sure, I said no.
And I didn't mean anything other than that. :)
Sorry, but I have difficulties understanding you. When someone says "You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT" then that means you can not use math as source for FFT, not vice versa, right?
-
For example, with all probes x1 connected to scope comp output, hit Default then AUTO. All 4 traces overlay perfectly. Switch to x10, hit AUTO. CH1 very obviously different, showing 4% lower amplitude than other channel traces (with probes on x10 the input channel relays have switched to the lower input range).
Have you tried swapping probes, to check whether the difference lies in the probes or in the scope frontend?
If it is indeed the latter, have you run a self-calibration (after warming up the scope)?
-
Yes, warm-up and self cal done (several times).
Also swapped probes amoung channels, no change, so CH1 frontend is causing this.
-
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Also does not work with the siglent scopes.
I don't know, i think it does..... ^-^
In attachment:
- noisy 1MHz into CH1.
- Math2 (F2) Average(C1)
- Math1 (F1) FFT on (F2)
- Math3 (F3) FFT on (C1)
First image are signals. Second image are FFT-s. Different timebase for nicer FFT res.
You can also do this: FFT(Filter(C1*C2)) in single math channel. And do that 4 times...
And also you can have Memory channel as a source. Which is interesting because that means you have original data saved instead of result. So you can later on change FFT parameters when comparing to something.
Siglent's math is on completely another level.. R&S don't have it on MXOx.. They are working on it though...
If we consider that the DHO4000 it's in the same price range as Siglent SDS2000 HD, the answer is simple.
That's why I've bought DHO1000 for the BF price. More than that is too expensive.
DHO1000 can do FFT only for CH1 - Ch4. See below the screen capture. So Yeah :P
-
Yes, warm-up and self cal done (several times).
Also swapped probes amoung channels, no change, so CH1 frontend is causing this.
Hmm... DC Gain is specified as 2% at full scale, so if the auto-setting did set the gain to use the full scale (more or less), one can argue that the scope is out of spec slightly. Personally I wouldn't be concerned, but will have a look at my DHO1074 when I get to play with it. For the moment, I have all but forgotten about it until Christmas eve. ;)
I found a "Performance Verification Manual", by the way -- only by chance, and only on the ManualsLib site; could not spot it on any Rigol site. Mildly interesting, I'd say: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3029727/Rigol-Dho1000-Series.html#manual (https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3029727/Rigol-Dho1000-Series.html#manual)
Edit: Rigol's North America site has it too, on the product page, after scrolling down a bit and selecting the "Manuals" tab:
https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/dho1000/ (https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/dho1000/)
-
@performa01:
Ah....ahhhh... :palm:
Then I had misunderstood, sorry.
The other one works of course, I could have said that without testing.
-
You can use math as source for most functions but not FFT.
Also does not work with the siglent scopes.
I don't know, i think it does..... ^-^
In attachment:
- noisy 1MHz into CH1.
- Math2 (F2) Average(C1)
- Math1 (F1) FFT on (F2)
- Math3 (F3) FFT on (C1)
First image are signals. Second image are FFT-s. Different timebase for nicer FFT res.
You can also do this: FFT(Filter(C1*C2)) in single math channel. And do that 4 times...
And also you can have Memory channel as a source. Which is interesting because that means you have original data saved instead of result. So you can later on change FFT parameters when comparing to something.
Siglent's math is on completely another level.. R&S don't have it on MXOx.. They are working on it though...
If we consider that the DHO4000 it's in the same price range as Siglent SDS2000 HD, the answer is simple.
That's why I've bought DHO1000 for the BF price. More than that is too expensive.
DHO1000 can do FFT only for CH1 - Ch4. See below the screen capture. So Yeah :P
DHO1000 is different price range for sure. Especially if you got it at 40% discount.
Many people don't need/use advanced math.
Funny thing is that it is not Siglent that is in problem here. Their scopes have added value and price is great for higher quality.
But you know who is more in problem?
DHO1000 basically has almost same features as R&S RTB2000 in analysis (RTB2000 is very basic scope, except excellent BODE).
DHO1000 has more memory, more resolution, etc.. DHO1000 mathi is pretty much copy how R&S did it on RTB2000. Many GUI concepts too.
In many parameters directly competes with RTB2000.
If only Rigol would take seriously software quality, RTB2000 would be in real trouble..
At this moment, RTB is, of course, serious and mature product and Rigol has long way to go to finish the platform...
-
Yes, warm-up and self cal done (several times).
Also swapped probes amoung channels, no change, so CH1 frontend is causing this.
Hmm... DC Gain is specified as 2% at full scale, so if the auto-setting did set the gain to use the full scale (more or less), one can argue that the scope is out of spec slightly. Personally I wouldn't be concerned, but will have a look at my DHO1074 when I get to play with it. For the moment, I have all but forgotten about it until Christmas eve. ;)
I found a "Performance Verification Manual", by the way -- only by chance, and only on the ManualsLib site; could not spot it on any Rigol site. Mildly interesting, I'd say: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3029727/Rigol-Dho1000-Series.html#manual (https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3029727/Rigol-Dho1000-Series.html#manual)
Edit: Rigol's North America site has it too, on the product page, after scrolling down a bit and selecting the "Manuals" tab:
https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/dho1000/ (https://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/dho1000/)
I don't think the scope is out of spec, it meets the DC Gain specification for sure. I haven't seen any vertical gain AC specifications, other than bandwidth. This is just my OCD and curious what other owners see ;D
Thanks for links, will take a look.
-
The DC accuracy of all 4 channels is within the 2% specification. However, at low frequencies CH1 reads about 4% lower than other channels. For example, with all probes x1 connected to scope comp output, hit Default then AUTO. All 4 traces overlay perfectly. Switch to x10, hit AUTO. CH1 very obviously different, showing 4% lower amplitude than other channel traces (with probes on x10 the input channel relays have switched to the lower input range).
Do your traces overlay perfectly in that setup?
On 1x everything perfectly overlaid, then on 10x, my CH4 is the only one visibly off, by about 2% or so. Used 32x average to make it more obvious.
I found a "Performance Verification Manual", by the way -- only by chance, and only on the ManualsLib site; could not spot it on any Rigol site. Mildly interesting, I'd say: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3029727/Rigol-Dho1000-Series.html#manual (https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3029727/Rigol-Dho1000-Series.html#manual)
Funny, as the calibration test sheet I posted only used some relatively basic rigol gear (DM3068, DG1000Z and DSG830), whereas this performance verification is using high end Fluke gear.
-
Sorry double post with DHO800 thread..
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.
-
Sorry double post with DHO800 thread..
I'm in trouble..
To make sure you don't get into more trouble, please don't double-post. ;)
Your question has already received several answers in the other thread (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-dho804-test-and-compare-thread/msg5232171/#msg5232171), so let's continue the discussion there (only).
-
Sorry double post with DHO800 thread..
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.
I have both DHO1074 and MSO5000.
What advantages would a DHO (800 or 1000) have over the MSO:
- DHO interface is better designed for touch screen, also multiple windows looks much better when you want to see multiple math functions simultaneously. See the posts above.
- the input noise is much lower, and for checking the noise of power supplies it is a much better option. Below 20mV/div can't even be compared.
- power consumption is much lower, but fan noise is comparable. The DHO1000 is even noisier than the MSO.
Otherwise the DHO does not make much difference compared to the MSO. It just complements it with the above. Same advanced features, no noticeable improvements.
The differences between DHO800 and DHO1000 are mainly related to size, available memory, sampling rate, and somewhat computing power. The software is pretty much the same. If you can afford it, the current price offer for the DHO1000 is unbeatable. Otherwise, or if you really want it to take up as little space on your desk as possible, you'll be fine with the DHO800.
You will not really need it if MSO it's already fine for you, but it's nice to have one :-DD
-
Thanks for this answer..
Hmm i think there is no advantage above my very old Hameg HMO3524..
It has a noise of around 60-70µV RMS which is less than half of the MSO5k 150µV.. both with open channels and 1ms / 1mV
And i think near to a DHO800?
And the Hameg has 50Ohm internal with 350MHz.. So only 12bit are left as "advantage"..
PS: I don't like touch :-D i prefer single knobs for every channel that was one thing why i choose MSO5K above the Siglent..
-
You might have enough scopes. :)
Is it an option not to buy any new one right now?
-
Sure not buying another one is an option...(the preferred one of my wife ;-) )
But i got some money (tax refund and a salary increase) and i can use it for my tax report 2023 in germany (homeoffice advertising payback) and get partly a refund for it..
And i thought i could buy something which will improve my work in future (12bit vs 8 bit for switching regulator checking, current measuring on USB stuff (CP2100A has only 10A / 100A range which is a bit high for USB current stuff but it works..)..)..
But i think you are right it will not be a huge improvement maybe i should save the money for something "more usefull thing"..
-
Thanks for this answer..
Hmm i think there is no advantage above my very old Hameg HMO3524..
It has a noise of around 60-70µV RMS which is less than half of the MSO5k 150µV.. both with open channels and 1ms / 1mV
And i think near to a DHO800?
And the Hameg has 50Ohm internal with 350MHz.. So only 12bit are left as "advantage"..
PS: I don't like touch :-D i prefer single knobs for every channel that was one thing why i choose MSO5K above the Siglent..
If you already own an oscilloscope with less noise than the MSO, and the touch screen means nothing to you, you can save your money for something else.
12 bits versus 8 bits is not a huge difference for regular measurements. It might be if more advanced math functions were available.
-
I literally just registered to say this is on a 40% sale https://rigolshop.eu/dho1074.html I got it for like 15% sale |O
Hope I don't bother anyone with this message
-
I literally just registered to say this is on a 40% sale https://rigolshop.eu/dho1074.html I got it for like 15% sale |O
Hope I don't bother anyone with this message
There is 40% from normal price which is 1188E. So you can buy it at 712,81E. You get other price?
-
I got it in October :palm:
-
You are too fast. I bought mine from batterfly with the 40% + another 10%, I have received it today.
With the german vat it would be 641€.
-
Congratulations, that was really a great deal that you got there!
-
Hello,
my DHO1074 has Utility -> About -> Hardware: 2 and had firmware 00.02.04.
If I remember correctly, I have seen a DHO1074 with Hardware: 9 in a YouTube video.
What kind of Utility -> About -> Hardware: do you have?
Best regards
egonotto
-
As far as I understood, the HW 9 was on a 2-channel model (DHO1072). All the 4 channel models from the lastes bargain sales that I know of are HW 2.
-
I have Hardware: 3. DHO1074. Date of calibration was 2022/10/15.
-
I have Hardware: 3. DHO1074. Date of calibration was 2022/10/15.
Interesting. My DHO1074 has Hardware: 2 with a calibration date of 2022/10/19. So 4 days after yours, but prior HW version. I wonder if calibration happens at the end of the assembly line, or if completed units are stocked away and calibrated later.
I suspect they have multiple HW revisions with slight variations based on the components they can source at a given time, so probably have multiple revisions coming through their factory/warehouses. Yours is the first I've seen/heard of as revision 3.
-
I accidentally compared some screenshots and noticed that the latest firmware version has significantly more noise.
I have attached the comparison between 02.04 and 02.12.
Inputs have 50 Ohm terminators.
Can anyone check if they got the same result?
-
I accidentally compared some screenshots and noticed that the latest firmware version has significantly more noise.
I have attached the comparison between 02.04 and 02.12.
Presuming that the settings (and especially Averaging, HiRes) are the same, my first thought would be that the noise bandwidth could have changed (different digital? filtering, maybe implied hidden HiRes in the old version?). So I would look at the FFT and compare the noise power spectral distribution between the two versions.
-
Can anyone check if they got the same result?
Is it possible to go back to older firmware versions, or did you just happen to have a saved screenshot which showed the old version info and its noise?
-
Can anyone check if they got the same result?
Is it possible to go back to older firmware versions, or did you just happen to have a saved screenshot which showed the old version info and its noise?
Now I am with old firmware and the noise is back at low level.
I will try some FFTs with 02.04 and then the same tests with 02.12.
I'll be back ;)
-
I have measured several configurations.
I've installed 02.04 -> calibration -> measurements. Same for 02.12. Now there are lower values for DC offset.
I've set 1mV/div, 1ms/div, using 1Mpts/10Mpts deep memory.
From 10Mpts up there are no difference in measurements and FFT plots.
The noise levels for measurements without filters are identical.
For 02.04, the FFT level at 20 Mhz BW is about 12dB lower than the level for full BW.
For 02.12, the difference is about 8dB.
It seems that the filter for 20 Mhz has been changed.
I'll be back with some interesting captures regarding HiRes.
-
I've forgot these ...
-
It appears that the order in which the 20MHz and Hires filters are applied it matter. It can be seen on the attached FFT plots.
The HiRes filters are identical for both FW versions, I will attach them for 02.12 only.
If HiRes is applied first, then 20MHz, the effect is clear.
But if 20MHz is applied first and then HiRes, the latter has no effect on the FFT.
Below I have attached for all combinations:
- Just Hires14
- Hires14, then 20MHz
- 20MHz, then Hires14
Same for Hires16.
For Hires14, only low freq response is changing. For HiRes16 all the freq are going down. Interesting, for me at least :)
Later edit : even when the order is HiRes -> then 20MHz, then you change back HiRes to Normal, the effect persist like the HiRes is still active. So it may be a bug ...
-
Hello,
the noise values on my device change for no apparent reason.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Hello,
the noise values on my device change for no apparent reason.
Best regards
egonotto
Hmmm, I have no idea. I have pretty much the same values every time I check them.
-
Hello,
the noise values on my device change for no apparent reason.
Best regards
egonotto
Unless there is a physical defect in your scope or connections, I suspect your issue is environmental. Is your scope well grounded?
-
Hey guys,
I just got my DHO1074, updated the firmware and unlocked all options.
I noticed that sometimes there are white triangles at the top of the waveform view.... anyone knows what that's about?
-
Events found via the Search function -- see section 17.1 of the manual.
-
Hello,
the noise values on my device change for no apparent reason.
Best regards
egonotto
Unless there is a physical defect in your scope or connections, I suspect your issue is environmental. Is your scope well grounded?
Hello,
it is a DHO1074 it is grounded
I can't say for sure whether there are environmental problems or problems with the ground. However, the values normally change if I change a setting on the scope that has nothing to do with the measured value. For example, switching on a different channel.
Best regards
egonotto
-
I have measured several configurations.
I've installed 02.04 -> calibration -> measurements. Same for 02.12. Now there are lower values for DC offset.
I've set 1mV/div, 1ms/div, using 1Mpts/10Mpts deep memory.
From 10Mpts up there are no difference in measurements and FFT plots.
The noise levels for measurements without filters are identical.
For 02.04, the FFT level at 20 Mhz BW is about 12dB lower than the level for full BW.
For 02.12, the difference is about 8dB.
It seems that the filter for 20 Mhz has been changed.
I'll be back with some interesting captures regarding HiRes.
Hello,
How to get firmware 00.02.04 from DHO1074?
Best regards
egonotto
-
Hello,
How to get firmware 00.02.04 from DHO1074?
Best regards
egonotto
v2.04 is the FW version that I found just out the box.
-
I have this behaviour too on the Timebase encoder.
-
I have measured several configurations.
I've installed 02.04 -> calibration -> measurements. Same for 02.12. Now there are lower values for DC offset.
I've set 1mV/div, 1ms/div, using 1Mpts/10Mpts deep memory.
From 10Mpts up there are no difference in measurements and FFT plots.
The noise levels for measurements without filters are identical.
For 02.04, the FFT level at 20 Mhz BW is about 12dB lower than the level for full BW.
For 02.12, the difference is about 8dB.
It seems that the filter for 20 Mhz has been changed.
I'll be back with some interesting captures regarding HiRes.
Hello,
How to get firmware 00.02.04 from DHO1074?
Best regards
egonotto
Old firmware versions are still available here :
https://rigolshop.eu/dho1074.html
Go down and click on Software & Firmware tab.
You just copy the firmware on USB stick and update using the Menu / Storage / Upgrade, no matter the version. You can install and older version over a newer one.
-
Hello
Has anyone tested the 10mhz clock reference clock input in HD100x and does this port actually work as it should?
There were some problems with old rigol models reference input - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-with-rigol-ds4014e-on-10mhz-external-ref/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-with-rigol-ds4014e-on-10mhz-external-ref/)
Regards
-
Hello
Has anyone tested the 10mhz clock reference clock input in HD100x and does this port actually work as it should?
There were some problems with old rigol models reference input - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-with-rigol-ds4014e-on-10mhz-external-ref/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-with-rigol-ds4014e-on-10mhz-external-ref/)
Regards
AUX out works - 60ns pulse of 1.5V into 50R
External trigger (+/- 5V max) works - though I had to change the trigger level before it started working
10MHz output works - spec is 1.5Vpp into 50R, saw 2.1Vpp
10MHz input works - spec is 130mVpp to 4.1V 10MHz +/- 10ppm. Input accepted +/-20ppm.
There is no on screen indication that EXT is working, just the setting to turn on and off EXT 10M in the "Other" menu.
-
Hello
Has anyone tested the 10mhz clock reference clock input in HD100x and does this port actually work as it should?
There were some problems with old rigol models reference input - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-with-rigol-ds4014e-on-10mhz-external-ref/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/help-with-rigol-ds4014e-on-10mhz-external-ref/)
Regards
AUX out works - 60ns pulse of 1.5V into 50R
External trigger (+/- 5V max) works - though I had to change the trigger level before it started working
10MHz output works - spec is 1.5Vpp into 50R, saw 2.1Vpp
10MHz input works - spec is 130mVpp to 4.1V 10MHz +/- 10ppm. Input accepted +/-20ppm.
There is no on screen indication that EXT is working, just the setting to turn on and off EXT 10M in the "Other" menu.
Ok thanks for info :)
-
Hello,
does anyone know if you can save the data in the memory that you got with Record?
My attempts have failed so far.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Based on what I see on the screen and also in the user manual, I'm afraid it is only possible to store "regular" waveform captures, but not the multiple frames which are captured in "Record" mode.
-
When I first saw the dual "FlexKnob" encoders on the various Rigol DHO models, I thought they were a brilliant idea. (Not Rigol's idea, I believe, but first introduced by
KeysightTektronix?) With my old scope, far too much encoder-knob-clicking was required to iterate through different knob assignments, e.g, when controlling the cursors. Having two knobs, and having their function dynamically assigned by what you touch in the dialogs, seemed like a great UI feature.
Having used the knobs for a while on my new DHO1074, I am less excited now:
- Often, their step size is really odd. When setting e.g. the vertical scale and offset for FFT plots, you end up with awkward numbers on the axis. More often than not, it is not even possible to navigate to an even number, because the steps always fall onto odd values.
- At other times, the step size is set so small that I would have to turn the knob forever. There is no dynamic acceleration, it seems. So I find myself calling up the on-screen keyboard for parameter entry much more often than I'd like.
- Some encoder functions are actually harder to reach now than in the old single-encoder approach. In manual cursor mode, how do I switch to moving both cursors together? Is there really no other option than to open the cursor dialog?!
- I have run into situations multiple times where the knobs get confused as to what they are controlling: Yellow 1/2 indicators show in two parameter fields, but the knobs actually change some other values. Or a knob controls a vertical scale value, but has its horizontal white arrows illuminated.
What are others' experiences with the FlexKnobs? Am I just "holding it wrong", or do those knobs need some love and care from the Rigol software team?
-
- Some encoder functions are actually harder to reach now than in the old single-encoder approach. In manual cursor mode, how do I switch to moving both cursors together? Is there really no other option than to open the cursor dialog?!
I don't have a problem with this personally. If their buttons support "push and hold" you could suggest that, but the driver may not support it.
If you want to move them both without going into the menu you could:
- Physically turn both the knobs at the same time
- Drag both cursors using two fingers on the touchscreen
-
- Some encoder functions are actually harder to reach now than in the old single-encoder approach. In manual cursor mode, how do I switch to moving both cursors together? Is there really no other option than to open the cursor dialog?!
I don't have a problem with this personally. If their buttons support "push and hold" you could suggest that, but the driver may not support it.
If you want to move them both without going into the menu you could:
- Physically turn both the knobs at the same time
- Drag both cursors using two fingers on the touchscreen
Yes, push & hold came to mind as a way to implement this, and some other UI features as well. But it has not really caught on with scopes, it seems. And I doubt that Rigol would want to add more functionality and complexity to the knob-driven part of the UI now, with the focus on touch-screen operation. Also, I think it was TurboTom who mentioned that the front panel is driven by a dedicated processor whose firmware might not be updatable anyway?
When I want to move both cursors in sync, I typically want them to move by exactly the same amount: I have already adjusted their distance, either to a known time or voltage difference or based on a feature of the on-screen signal, and then want to compare some other features of the trace against that reference. So I need a mode where the cursors move exactly in unison, not just a shortcut that is faster than moving them individually. That mode exists, of course, but I find it inconvenient that I have to turn my attention away from the trace, cursors and knobs and call up the cursor dialog.
-
When I first saw the dual "FlexKnob" encoders on the various Rigol DHO models, I thought they were a brilliant idea. (Not Rigol's idea, I believe, but first introduced by KeysightTektronix?) With my old scope, far too much encoder-knob-clicking was required to iterate through different knob assignments, e.g, when controlling the cursors. Having two knobs, and having their function dynamically assigned by what you touch in the dialogs, seemed like a great UI feature.
Tektronix used dual rotary controls on their 11k series of mainframe oscilloscopes starting in 1986, but the later TDS series of oscilloscopes introduced around 1990 only had one.
It is not as apparent, but even earlier than that Tektronix designed hysteresis into their digital rotary controls so that when you released them or used their pushbutton function, minor unintended rotation would be ignored. They were very aware of human factors engineering.
-
Tektronix used dual rotary controls on their 11k series of mainframe oscilloscopes starting in 1986, but the later TDS series of oscilloscopes introduced around 1990 only had one.
Thanks -- I had not realized that Tektronix experimented with this concept so early. I was thinking of the current 2/3/4/5/6 series, which all use two dedicated multi-function knobs and were probably what "inspired" Rigol.
-
This may be old news, but it was a pleasant little surpise to me: The DHO1000 touch interface supports some "swipe" gestures too. Swipe an active channel (or math) indicator downward to disable the channel, or swipe a measurement item to the right to remove it.
Not a huge thing, but it avoids unnecessarily opening a menu and tapping a second time. I could not find it mentioned in the manual. Edit: Oh, it is documented, I just did not get the wording. "You can slide down the channel label to disable the channel." Not in the Touch Gestures section of the manual, but in the Vertical System chapter.
On a loosely related note: If someone has found a shortcut to switch between Auto/Normal/Single triggering without opening the trigger menu, please let me know!
-
Hello,
I am very dissatisfied with the record function of DHO1074. Firstly because I can't save the data, but also because there are often gaps. I wanted to record 100 events that last 20 us and occur every 5 ms. Again and again the distance between two consecutive events is 10 ms and a event is missing in between.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Indeed, the Record function is disappointing, unless I am overlooking something. Even with the smallest number of data points per sweep (1 kpts) and a fast timebase (say 2 µs/div, so 20 µs for the full sweep), the average time step between stored records is 5.8 ms according to the scope's timestamps.
And even those timestamps are probably wrong: Acquiring a series of 1000 frames takes 15 seconds on a stopwatch, while the progress bar and frame counter move forward in a linear manner. But the scope claims that the last record has a timestamp of 5.8 seconds?!
-
Hello,
it's a particular shame because Rigol could do much better with little effort. You just don't need to update the screen during the recording. And enabling saving is not that complicated either. I believe that you can at least save the screen data with SCPI commands.
Best regards
egonotto
-
What are your setups like? I would try this on the DHO804.
-
For my quick test it was just channel 1 enabled, 2 µs/div, 1 kpts memory. My test signal had repeating bursts of pulses (approx. 300 kHz, lasting 500 µs, followed by 500 µs silence), so about 1 ms total period.
I first triggered this "properly", looking for a low pulse lasting much longer than the 300 kHz period to always start at the beginning of a burst. Then figured that the trigger might slow down the recording and tried it again using simple edge triggering, but this did not affect the frame capture rate.
-
I think I have seen enough. My DHO1074 is now a 70 MHz version with basic memory again, with fans running at full speed and no Key.data file just like I received it. Wiped the fingerprints off the screen, put it back into its box, and triggered the return process at Amazon.
There is a lot I liked about the scope. The 12-bit front end is "real", with low noise and usable 14- and 16-bit modes. The screen is brilliant, although a bit too reflective for my taste; the UI, while maybe a bit playful, works quite nicely indeed. And the decoding and measurement functions do work from full memory; I had them count 153000 pulses in a region defined by the on-screen cursors for example.
But there are just too many rough edges and cut corners: Measurements can't be changed after being set up (or at least not all parameters?); the Flex-knobs change parameters on awkward scales and get confused as to what they are controlling; FFT resolution and window functions remain dubious; recording mode is lame to an extent I can't understand...
Using the scope always felt like I was tip-toeing, weary of the next little stumbling block. Since this series has been in the market for more than a year, I don't have very high hopes regarding firmware improvements. And Rigol Europe, who took four weeks and three reminders to finally send me an upgrade code -- which then did not work at all -- did not instill a lot of confidence in the customer support I could expect.
Kudos to Amazon for their generous return policy. Their 2-month return window allowed me to be a good boy and wait until Christmas, then evaluate the scope in some detail. I keenly await Siglent's price for the SDS1000X HD, and will probably shell out the extra money for that scope when it eventually becomes available. In the meantime it's back to the DS1054Z, to re-calibrate my expectations. ;)
-
And Rigol Europe, who took four weeks and three reminders to finally send me an upgrade code -- which then did not work at all -- did not instill a lot of confidence in the customer support I could expect.
At least they answered you, so you're ahead of me. :P
-
and measurement functions do work from full memory
Hello,
respect for your decision.
I doubt if the whole memory is used for the measurements. In the noise measurements, I got different results in stop mode, when I changed the part visible on the screen. This does not change the memory content.
Best regards
egonotto
-
I doubt if the whole memory is used for the measurements. In the noise measurements, I got different results in stop mode, when I changed the part visible on the screen. This does not change the memory content.
Right, when I said "work from full memory", that was not the best way to phrase it. The measurement functions seem to use the full time resolution provided by the memory. (In contrast to the old DS1054Z, for example, which only works with the down-sampled display data.) That makes a huge difference, of course, enabling meaningful measurements and decoding in many situations where using the display data does not give any meaningful results.
I am not sure what actual time range is processed under which circumstances. In my experiments a few days ago I deliberately limited the measurements to a range selected by the cursors -- a functionality my old scope does not offer at all, and which I found most useful, by the way.
-
Not everything is in the spec. For trigger output, basically only its existence is documented. In DS1000Z, the trigger output (and Pass/Fail) signaling is implemented in the lazy logic way, the scope asserts the signal and forgets about it till the moment it's about to start the next acquisition cycle. So the pulse width may vary, depending on time base setting, memory depth, etc.
AUX out works - 60ns pulse of 1.5V into 50R
That makes me confusing. Does it mean that in the Android series, Rigol changed the implementation such that the trigger output signal is now a pulse of fixed duration, a sort of marker? 60 ns is a short time.
-
AUX out works - 60ns pulse of 1.5V into 50R
That makes me confusing. Does it mean that in the Android series, Rigol changed the implementation such that the trigger output signal is now a pulse of fixed duration, a sort of marker? 60 ns is a short time.
Why would that surprise you? The DHO1000 not only uses different firmware, but also a new hardware platform compared to the DS1000Z. I have not looked at the AUX output in my DHO1074, and no longer have it now, but have no reason to doubt thm_w's observation.
-
I'm just curious how exactly does it work in DHO
-
I think I have seen enough.
... triggered the return process at Amazon.
Yup, I can understand that. My impression is that the hardware is quite decent, but anything more than the basic scope firmware features are not implemented particularly well. I have no confidence Rigol will improve the firmware to any extent, maybe some minor fixes, ignoring the elephants in the room.
I'm keeping mine though. It's not my primary scope and for a basic 200MHz 4ch 10" display 12bit bench scope at £620 it's OK for me. But if Siglent 1000X HD ever gets close to that price on BF then I'll jump on it.
-
(...) for a basic 200MHz 4ch 10" display 12bit bench scope at £620 it's OK for me (...)
... and 1280x800 display resolution.
I think that sums it up nicely. Unexpectedly, I like the UI a lot as well. For hobby, it is great value for money.
At work, I would rather like to use something that I can rely on without questioning its results. Then again, I would not have to buy it from my own money.
-
I like the UI a lot as well.
Yes, me too.
-
Yes, as mentioned, I also consider the UI and the screen quality a strong point of the DHO series -- in particular on the 10" screen. It's a pity that the software lets it down in some places, e.g. by not giving the FlexKnobs meaningful step sizes and dynamic acceleration.
I have little doubt that we will see the better screen resolution, nicer fonts etc. on other scope brands too in the future, and that Rigol has pushed the envelope for the industry in that respect. The hardware cost is minimal, as witnessed by the ample supply of cheap 10" tablets, and updating the extra pixels on the screen can't be a prohibitive overhead either. The scope only has to keep pace with the user's vision there, so 60 updates/s are easily enough.
Why can't Rigol give us the nice hardware (screen and 12-bit ADC) and well-thought-out software -- without the little UI stumbling blocks and with solid FFT and Record modes -- at the same time? ::)
-
Why can't Rigol give us the nice hardware (screen and 12-bit ADC) and well-thought-out software -- without the little UI stumbling blocks and with solid FFT and Record modes -- at the same time? ::)
Having taken products to market and being responsible for the financial modeling my guess would be is it comes down to money. I don't know the particulars of this scope in terms of hard costs. But if they sold it for $650 on Black Friday you can be assured that their hardware costs are considerably cheaper then that.
Software development can get fairly expensive and time-consuming. Sometimes good enough is good enough to be able to meet a particular price point.
Sometimes that approach works, however sometimes if the product is severely underdeveloped and rushed out the door due to competitive advantage opportunities it costs you brand loyalty. It is a double-edged strategy.
IMHO anytime you ask such a question, the answer is usually monetary.
-
Looking at the Rigol DS1000Z firmware update history, I believe that some day (perhaps "some year" rather) also DHO1000 firmware will be fixed and updated.
From the 00.04.05.02.04 MSO_DS1000Z Release Notes.txt
v00.01.00.00.05 2013/05/19
- Released the first edition
...
v00.04.05.02.04 2023/02/28
-Added new nandflash driver and original nandflash compatibility
-
...
v00.04.05.02.04 2023/02/28
-Added new nandflash driver and original nandflash compatibility
That would be to benefit Rigol when sourcing nand devices for building new units, not Rigol making additional features to benefit exisiting users.
-
That would be to benefit Rigol when sourcing nand devices for building new units, not Rigol making additional features to benefit exisiting users.
Agree, but in last updates there were also fixes and useful updates:
v00.04.05.02.03 2022/03/25
-add system file backup, solve the problems of red screen when booting, buzzer beeping, keyboard flashing
v00.04.05.02.02 2021/09/22
- Solve abnormal measurement overshoot display problem.
v00.04.05.01.00 2021/06/01
- Modify the vertical Display.
v00.04.05.00.00 2020/12/29
- Add and modify some measurement functions
- Modification of math problem
- Modify some SCPI instruction errors
- Modify some trigger problems.
-
Looking at the Rigol DS1000Z firmware update history, I believe that some day (perhaps "some year" rather) also DHO1000 firmware will be fixed and updated.
From the 00.04.05.02.04 MSO_DS1000Z Release Notes.txt
v00.01.00.00.05 2013/05/19
- Released the first edition
...
v00.04.05.02.04 2023/02/28
-Added new nandflash driver and original nandflash compatibility
Yes, the DS1000Z got some continued attention (even some added functionality) for many years. But it must have been Rigol's best-selling scope for years, probably until quite recently. I don't see the DHO1000 and 4000 series having the same success in the market: Without any AWG and logic analyser options, they are just too limited in this market segment.
The "fire sale" of the DHO1000 series in November/December also suggests that those models have not been selling well. So I would expect this scope range to be replaced relatively soon, maybe by DHO2000 and 5000 models which have the missing options. On the lower end, Rigol have already launched the DHO1000-U in China, a cost-optimised replacement with slightly worse specs.
With some luck, the successor models will be close enough to the current platform, such that Rigol also spins off a firmware version for the DHO1000 and 4000 series occasionally. But I would not expect anywhere near the level of long-term support the DS1000Z received.
-
It seems like a new User Manual v2.0 is available for DHO1000 at international Rigol WEB site https://supportint.rigol.com/ but the download link needs an account that it is impossible to active. EU and Japan Rigol WEB sites have still the v1.0.
-
It seems like a new User Manual v2.0 is available for DHO1000 at international Rigol WEB site https://supportint.rigol.com/ but the download link needs an account that it is impossible to active. EU and Japan Rigol WEB sites have still the v1.0.
Thanks for the tip !
I've dowloaded it. The manual it's dated December 2022. The previous I have is dated Octomber 2022.
But is seems it have the same size, contents list and page numbers. Size is about 19.2MB.
I've searched randomly and I didn't find any changes ...
I can't attach it, maximum allowed is 8000k. Sorry ... :(
I will attach a screen capture regarding the fist page.
-
Rigol firmware is a mess from USA, Japan, Eu and Int WEB sites: same FW with different release dates, no versions aligned. Now the same mess is for the manuals: v1 on EU, v2 on int. and v3 on Japan site. Please, please, Rigol be serious (and professional), stop that stupid mess at all!
-
DHO4404 on Amazon.de warehouse for € 3074 - 20% at checkout = € 2459 including VAT. Still too expensive for me as a hobbyist, but maybe someone is tempted?
-
I would expect another fire sale of the DHO1000 and 4000 sooner or later. Rigol must be working on a successor with MSO capability. Otherwise, how are they going to compete against Siglent's SDS1000, 2000 and 3000X HD?
-
I got a totally random email from Rigol NA this morning. I didn't even buy from Rigol directly, I bought from Saelig. I did register the warranty as I recall, so guess that's why. That's a first from any test equipment manufacturer (granted, this is my only Rigol instrument, so maybe this is common for them).
Hello David,
I wanted to touch base and offer our support regarding any technical queries or challenges you may have with your DHO1074. Whether it's troubleshooting or general guidance, our team is here to assist you every step of the way.
Additionally, if you have any further needs or are considering other products or services, we're here to help. Your feedback is invaluable to us as we strive to enhance our services.
Best,
Wei Zheng
Technical Sales Engineer
RIGOL Technologies
10220 SW Nimbus Ave.
Suite K-7
Portland, OR 97223
Office/fax: (440)232-4488 Ext.113
Email: Wei.Zheng@rigol.com
RIGOL’s Running Promotion: click Here
-
I got a totally random email from Rigol NA this morning. I didn't even buy from Rigol directly, I bought from Saelig. I did register the warranty as I recall, so guess that's why. That's a first from any test equipment manufacturer (granted, this is my only Rigol instrument, so maybe this is common for them).
It was just the same for me with Rigol Europe -- no, wait! It was the other way round. I sent them emails. Four times, over the course of three weeks. And then I actually received a reply.
I guess the service culture varies a bit across their regional organisations. ???
-
The DHO4404 on amazon.de warehouse has been -30% for nearly a week now and still no takers.
-
I have received the below news from Rigol, see the attached screen capture.
The following link for USA :
https://www.rigolna.com/promos/?utm_campaign=DHO1000%20PROMO%20EMAIL%20-%20032724&utm_medium=email&utm_source=AHA (https://www.rigolna.com/promos/?utm_campaign=DHO1000%20PROMO%20EMAIL%20-%20032724&utm_medium=email&utm_source=AHA)
-
I have received the below news from Rigol, see the attached screen capture.
The following link for USA :
https://www.rigolna.com/promos/?utm_campaign=DHO1000%20PROMO%20EMAIL%20-%20032724&utm_medium=email&utm_source=AHA (https://www.rigolna.com/promos/?utm_campaign=DHO1000%20PROMO%20EMAIL%20-%20032724&utm_medium=email&utm_source=AHA)
That's the same $899 the DHO1074 has been selling for since February. Looks like the promotion will extend through July. It's $100 off, but nowhere near the deal that BF was ($400 off).