Rigol MSO logic analyser -- experiences?

[ebastler]

The new DHO800/900 series looks really tempting for my hobbyist use. Using it with a ~14" touch monitor on the bench, or stand-alone to carry around, should cover my main usage scenarios nicely. I am trying to decide whether it is worth getting the DHO9xx (with 16 digital inputs).

I realize that, in general, a logic analyser built into an MSO is a compromise compared to a stand-alone or (good) PC-based logic analyser, regarding memory depth and user interface. But the mixed-signal and all-in-one design would have value for me, so I would be willing to accept these compromises.

What I am wondering about is the quality of the decoding in Rigol's implementation specifically. I read on the German mikrocontroller.net forum that the MSO5000 series needed a surprisingly high sample rate to decode I²C reliably -- at least 50 times the I²C clock rate presumably, much more than what e.g. the Saleae logic analysers need to do a good job. But the post quality on that forum can be a bit hit or miss...

If you have used a Rigol MSO logic analyser in earnest, ideally on the MSO5xxx, I would much appreciate a summary of your experience with it -- thanks!

[ebastler]

May I give this topic a bump, just once?

I would be really interested in your experience with the logic analyser functionality in Rigol scopes. Specifically, can it analyse signals with a reasonable oversampling, or does it need absurd oversampling (like 50 or 100 times the signal clock speed) to give stable decoding and triggering? Any other reports on hands-on experience would be welcome as well!

In the DHO800/900 series, the logic analyser functionality does not come cheap: Add $200 for the DHO914 model (over the 804), then add another $300 for the logic analyser probe (which is a nice one, with pogrammable thresholds and a large input voltage range up to 40V). But on paper, the resulting logic analyser is comparable to e.g. a Saleae Logic Pro 16, which sells for $1500.

So, how do these two options compare in practice? As mentioned in the OP, I am aware of the usability advantages of a PC-based solution, but would see compensating benefits in the all-in-one solution in the DHO900. Hence am mainly interested in a comparison of the sampling/processing/triggering/decoding power of the Rigol. Many thanks for your comments!

[khs]

Take care using a Rigol (MSO) scope. There is a massive bug in the logic analyzer of the MSO2102A.

Test setup:
CH0 and D0 are connected together to the output of a pulse generator.
Frequency is 10 Hz, pulse width is about 1µs and amplitude is 3V.

At  5 ms / div all is fine.
At 10 ms/ div D4 shows a copy of D0, so the MSO2102A is unusable in this situation.

Maybe other mixed Rigol scopes may work fine, but  I would check a Rigol scope carefully  before buying.

[olewales]

Sorry for digging this one out but its still better than starting a new topic, I guess

I am also very much interested in this. There is very little documented experience with LA on DHO900 and if it isn't any good there is not much reason buying DHO900 over DHO800 series (especially with the hack). Is there anyone now, few months later, who can recommend or recommend against spending extra $$$ on logic analyzer in new Rigol scopes?