Should I buy a Rigol MSO5000?

[petemate]

Hi guys, I have the almost mandatory DS1054Z which covers many of my needs, but I have started to consider purchasing an MSO5000 for better performance and a function generator(which I don't have in my "lab").

I would probaby buy the MSO5074(to get four probes) and then hack it to all options, which will set me back around 1100 EUR. Thats completely doable, as far as I can tell. Then I'll sell my DS1054Z, which can bring in just short of 300 EUR, bringing my total expenses to 800 EUR for a nice-spec scope and a function generator. I know the function generator isn't up to par with a separate unit(its only 5Vpp), but its most likely enough for me(I need line-level audio signals and perhaps some PWM stuff for SMPS control).


What are your opinions of the MSO5000 series? I am especially interested in the front-end overdrive recovery, which is apparently much better than competing scopes and allows you to measure low-voltage signals superimposed onto high-voltage signals(e.g. drain-source on voltage on a switching node). The EEVBlog review sort of knocks it for firmware bugs, but I assume that most of those are fixed now?

[nctnico]

If you want to buy a scope with a lot of bugs and wait years before they are fixed then the MSO5000 is for you. If you want an oscilloscope which works as specified out of the box on the day you unpack it then look at a different brand.

I've been down this road a couple of years ago; having a buggy piece of equipment and no idea when it will be fixed is frustrating like hell. I ended throwing a 2500 EUR scope in the trash AND buying a scope from a more expensive brand. That was a big waste of money. Also you are way too optimistic about the resale price of the DS1054. Count on half if you are lucky.

[0culus]

I have no opinions on the MSO itself, but I'd advise looking for a better quality function generator that isn't part of another instrument.

[petemate]

If you want to buy a scope with a lot of bugs and wait years before they are fixed then the MSO5000 is for you. If you want an oscilloscope which works as specified out of the box on the day you unpack it then look at a different brand.

I've been down this road a couple of years ago; having a buggy piece of equipment and no idea when it will be fixed is frustrating like hell. I ended throwing a 2500 EUR scope in the trash AND buying a scope from a more expensive brand. That was a big waste of money. Also you are way too optimistic about the resale price of the DS1054. Count on half if you are lucky.

Whats your basis for saying the things about it taking years to fix bugs? And I doubt very much you can get a used ds1054z for 150 EUR.

[petemate]

I have no opinions on the MSO itself, but I'd advise looking for a better quality function generator that isn't part of another instrument.

In principle I agree, but I have realized that I very rarely need anything more than whats included here.

[TK]

I've been down this road a couple of weeks ago, the MSO5074 was giving me headache and high blood pressure... I don't know why... if it is the sluggishness, the LCD being too DIM... You need to be very patient and do lots of measurements comparing it to other "reliable" scopes to know what you are getting from it.  I returned it and went back to my Keysight 1000X series and the micsig TO1104.  Just out of curiosity, I ordered a DS1054Z from the Rigol clearance center for $275... If it gives me the same symptoms, then it will go to eBay...

[nctnico]

If you want to buy a scope with a lot of bugs and wait years before they are fixed then the MSO5000 is for you. If you want an oscilloscope which works as specified out of the box on the day you unpack it then look at a different brand.

I've been down this road a couple of years ago; having a buggy piece of equipment and no idea when it will be fixed is frustrating like hell. I ended throwing a 2500 EUR scope in the trash AND buying a scope from a more expensive brand. That was a big waste of money. Also you are way too optimistic about the resale price of the DS1054. Count on half if you are lucky.

Whats your basis for saying the things about it taking years to fix bugs? And I doubt very much you can get a used ds1054z for 150 EUR.

Just look at the DS1054Z, DS2000 and DS4000 threads. It took Rigol years to fix the bugs in these scopes. Do your research! There is enough information on this forum.

[TK]

I have no opinions on the MSO itself, but I'd advise looking for a better quality function generator that isn't part of another instrument.

In principle I agree, but I have realized that I very rarely need anything more than whats included here.

I saw the EDUX1002A (2+1 channels) for $390 at newark the other day... if you can hack it to DSOX1102G and add the missing components for the function generator, you will have the chance to experience a real scope.  And in the process of "upgrading" it, you can have some fun

https://www.newark.com/keysight-technologies/edux1002a/digital-storage-osc-50mhz-2-ch/dp/06AC0358?st=edux1002A

[0culus]

I have no opinions on the MSO itself, but I'd advise looking for a better quality function generator that isn't part of another instrument.

In principle I agree, but I have realized that I very rarely need anything more than whats included here.

Unless you need maximum mobility (fixing things at someone's house for instance), I don't see why that matters.

[TK]

If you want to buy a scope with a lot of bugs and wait years before they are fixed then the MSO5000 is for you. If you want an oscilloscope which works as specified out of the box on the day you unpack it then look at a different brand.

I've been down this road a couple of years ago; having a buggy piece of equipment and no idea when it will be fixed is frustrating like hell. I ended throwing a 2500 EUR scope in the trash AND buying a scope from a more expensive brand. That was a big waste of money. Also you are way too optimistic about the resale price of the DS1054. Count on half if you are lucky.

Whats your basis for saying the things about it taking years to fix bugs? And I doubt very much you can get a used ds1054z for 150 EUR.

Maybe not 150 EUR, but you are not going to get 300 EUR neither...

[Fungus]

...

Whats your basis for saying the things about it taking years to fix bugs? And I doubt very much you can get a used ds1054z for 150 EUR.

He's one of the resident Rigol haters. Safely ignorable.

[TK]

...

Whats your basis for saying the things about it taking years to fix bugs? And I doubt very much you can get a used ds1054z for 150 EUR.

He's one of the resident Rigol haters. Safely ignorable.

And I am becoming the next one... I admit I was a Keysight and micsig fan, but not a Rigol hater, before I tested the MSO5074...   

[Fungus]

And I am becoming the next one... I admit I was a Keysight and micsig fan, but not a Rigol hater, before I tested the MSO5074... 

Maybe Keysight is a tough/expensive act to follow but there's two long threads full of happy Rigol MSO5000 owners here.

Every new 'scope has teething problems, that's just the way it is. Look at the threads on here for all other brands (the ones ntnico isn't pointing you to).

It wasn't too long ago that Siglent was sending out little bags of capacitors for people to solder inside their 'scopes after purchase. If that little "oopsie" had been by Rigol there would be endless threads about it here, but, noooooo, it's Siglent so it's never mentioned.

[EEVblog]

It wasn't too long ago that Siglent was sending out little bags of capacitors for people to solder inside their 'scopes after purchase. If that little "oopsie" had been by Rigol there would be endless threads about it here, but, noooooo, it's Siglent so it's never mentioned.

I haven't been following, what was that for?

There is no doubt that the big names like Keysight, R&S etc are much more polished product and generally more enjoyable to use in small ways and support is way better, but the Siglents and the Rigols will ultimately get the job done and will be better bang-per-buck, depends on what you value.

[metrologist]

...

Whats your basis for saying the things about it taking years to fix bugs? And I doubt very much you can get a used ds1054z for 150 EUR.

He's one of the resident Rigol haters. Safely ignorable.

I wouldn't accuse or portray the motivation as hate, but rather there is a conflict of interest and potential monetary gain to be had if negative perceptions of Rigol are proliferated.

I think there is no vendetta against Keysight, for example, because of market factors, and doing such would challenge the credibility of these posters.

[TK]

It wasn't too long ago that Siglent was sending out little bags of capacitors for people to solder inside their 'scopes after purchase. If that little "oopsie" had been by Rigol there would be endless threads about it here, but, noooooo, it's Siglent so it's never mentioned.

I haven't been following, what was that for?

There is no doubt that the big names like Keysight, R&S etc are much more polished product and generally more enjoyable to use in small ways and support is way better, but the Siglents and the Rigols will ultimately get the job done and will be better bang-per-buck, depends on what you value.

Siglent had an issue with probe compensation and somebody found out that the scope had a footprint for a capacitor in the front-end that was not populated during manufacturing.  Siglent at the beginning decided to ignore the problem, but then later decided to ship capacitors to the end users for them to self-service the scopes.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent-sds1202x-e-compensation-issue/msg1323031/#msg1323031

[luma]

Back on topic, I did the exact thing mentioned in the OP and am very happy for it.  Sold my 1054, picked up the 5074, and am now waiting for the logic probe set too.  I really like the display - it's plenty bright in my workspace with no glare, the touchscreen functionality is handy, and I'm really digging the web interface for quick screengrabs and such.  It's not a perfect scope, but it's a hell of a tool for the price and I have zero regrets.

As usual on the internet, the loudest voices here are going to be the people with something to complain about.  I can't believe some people would spend so much mental energy on "pluses" but here we are...

[TK]

My problem was that I expected something really different for a $999 scope.  It just feels like a DS1054Z plus.  If the DS1054Z and MSO5074 are the only scopes you used, I am sure you will be satisfied.

[bitseeker]

What are your opinions of the MSO5000 series? I am especially interested in the front-end overdrive recovery, which is apparently much better than competing scopes and allows you to measure low-voltage signals superimposed onto high-voltage signals(e.g. drain-source on voltage on a switching node). The EEVBlog review sort of knocks it for firmware bugs, but I assume that most of those are fixed now?

Firmware bugs aren't resolved that fast. They're just in the beginning phase of being discovered and reported. It seems Rigol is responding well to the feedback like they did for the DS1054Z and unlike some of their other models. Nevertheless, the 1054Z still took years to surface and resolve a variety of bugs.

So, the outlook is promising, but unless I had a burning need to upgrade from the 1054Z (I personally don't), I wouldn't get a scope (most test equipment, actually) so early in its life. Ultimately, it depends on your tolerance level to be on the bleeding edge of technology and all that it entails.

[ebastler]

I've been down this road a couple of years ago; having a buggy piece of equipment and no idea when it will be fixed is frustrating like hell. I ended throwing a 2500 EUR scope in the trash AND buying a scope from a more expensive brand. That was a big waste of money.

And that's not even counting the emotional distress which this experience continues to cause you, until today. And the countless hours it took to monitor the EEVBlog forum and compulsively jump in on every Rigol thread. 

[NoisyBoy]

Back to OP's original intend, I think it is dangerous to assume a 5074 can be unlocked for full capability indefinitely.  If you continue to upgrade firmware to get the latest fixes, the hack may or may not work in the future, and you could be back to a 70 MHz scope with no AWG.  I am not saying the 5074 is a bad scope, but counting on hacked features as your basis for upgrade may bring you unexpected disappointment.

The build-in AWG is OK, but definitely not going to beat any standalone AWG out there if you look closer at the spec.  If I were you, I would also consider an alternative of spending much less and just buying a good AWG to add to what you have.  It will give you the flexibility to upgrade each component to exactly what you need when the time comes.

Just something to think about.

[Fungus]

My problem was that I expected something really different for a $999 scope.  It just feels like a DS1054Z plus.
c

I'm not sure what you expected but $999 is exactly "DS1054Z plus" money.

If the DS1054Z and MSO5074 are the only scopes you used, I am sure you will be satisfied.

How much would a 4 channel, 350Mhz bandwidth, 8 GSamples/sec, 400Mb RAM 'scope cost from Keysight/Tek/R&S?

It seems like somebody is comparing the MSO5000 to equivalent spec scopes from high-end players, not equivalent money.

As usual on the internet, the loudest voices here are going to be the people with something to complain about.  I can't believe some people would spend so much mental energy on "pluses" but here we are...

My DS1054Z has shown me four wiggly lines on screen at specified bandwidth from day one. It triggers well, it has plenty of memory, it does a good job at the basic things.

The user interface isn't stellar? The FFT is a bit rubbish? There's a spelling mistake in a menu? I can still sleep at night knowing that.

[Fungus]

Back to OP's original intend, I think it is dangerous to assume a 5074 can be unlocked for full capability indefinitely.

Nah, I think it's a pretty safe bet. The people in the hacking thread simply know too much about the system now.

eg. Rigol changed the root password from the Xilinx default in the latest firmware update? That might have just been to stop it being pwned by botnets.

(b) They've been selling hackable 'scopes for decades when it would have been easy to close the "holes". eg. The DS1054Z would have been nothing without hacking. With hacking they sold a million units (rough estimate based on no data whatsoever).

and, (c) There's no way in hell the MSO5000 can compete in the market without hacking. $5000 for all options? That's a complete joke. $999 for the 70Mhz version? That's almost worse - their competitors sell 200Mhz 'scopes for half that.

[nctnico]

...

Whats your basis for saying the things about it taking years to fix bugs? And I doubt very much you can get a used ds1054z for 150 EUR.

He's one of the resident Rigol haters. Safely ignorable.

I wouldn't accuse or portray the motivation as hate, but rather there is a conflict of interest and potential monetary gain to be had if negative perceptions of Rigol are proliferated.

Not true. If there is anyone with a monetary interest in Rigol it must be Fungus. In every Rigol-ish topic he is the one pretending it is all sunshine and unicorns. Usually pretending that long (10s to 100s of pages long) topics about bugs in Rigol equipment don't even exist.  Perhaps it is time Fungus reveals himself as a Rigol employee.

For clarity: I have no monetary interest in any brand. Just trying to help people make a good choice for themselves by showing the good AND the bad.  As I wrote before it is easy to become 'begeistert' with so many features -on paper- for a low price and lose sight of reality.

The oscilloscope market is just interesting to follow and so far the A-brands don't seem to feel threatened at all.

[ebclr]

All those bugs on Rigol are simple "neurotic people bugs", on a day to day use, you don't feel any of those bugs, I use my 1054 for years, and are very happy, I'm not fool enough to pay 5 times more for brands Like Keysigth, that still have bugs, and everything there is expensive from the probes to the service. It's unquestionable that Rigol and Siglent give more for your money

[Fungus]

Not true. If there is anyone with a monetary interest in Rigol it must be Fungus. In every Rigol-ish topic he is the one pretending it is all sunshine and unicorns. Usually pretending that long (10s to 100s of pages long) topics about bugs in Rigol equipment don't even exist.  Perhaps it is time Fungus reveals himself as a Rigol employee.

Is this the same Fungus who started the whole "Siglent hacking" thread and has been saying since the very first day it was hacked that hacked Rigols/Siglents are now about equal bang-per-buck? Just asking...

For clarity: I have no monetary interest in any brand. Just trying to help people make a good choice for themselves by showing the good AND the bad.

...all the while totally ignoring that fact that Siglents aren't all sunshine and unicorns either and that some people simply don't care if their FFT is a bit rubbish or that the input amplifier overdrives by a tiny amount if you go into the 200mV range then manually tune the gain up to 400mV.

For the price of a 4-channel Siglent you can have a DS1054Z and a very nice multimeter. I'm just recognizing what's better value for people who don't know what op-amp overdrive is and don't care if the internal oscillator follows the design guidelines or not, just so long as it works.

All those bugs on Rigol are simple "neurotic people bugs", on a day to day use, you don't feel any of those bugs

This.

[nctnico]

It seems like somebody is comparing the MSO5000 to equivalent spec scopes from high-end players, not equivalent money.

That would be Rigol themselves. 

[Fungus]

The oscilloscope market is just interesting to follow and so far the A-brands don't seem to feel threatened at all.

Brand names have great power but you can bet they're following Rigol/Siglent very closely.

[nctnico]

...all the while totally ignoring that fact that Siglents aren't all sunshine and unicorns either and that some people simply don't care if their FFT is a bit rubbish or that the input amplifier overdrives by a tiny amount if you go into the 200mV range then manually tune the gain up to 400mV.

This topic isn't about Siglent but if you insist: the scope I threw in the trash was an expensive one from Siglent so I'm not a fan of them. OTOH in all fairness I have to conclude that -based on what gets posted on this forum- it does seem that Siglent has improved their firmware development a lot and is getting ahead of Rigol.

[Fungus]

it does seem that Siglent has improved their firmware development a lot and is getting ahead of Rigol.

Rigol has just spent three years developing their own ASIC for the front end and switching to Xilinx-based hardware (I assume this meant starting from zero, firmware-wise). They might just be getting warmed up. 

[Aidanator7000]

For clarity: I have no monetary interest in any brand. Just trying to help people make a good choice for themselves by showing the good AND the bad.

...all the while totally ignoring that fact that Siglents aren't all sunshine and unicorns either and that some people simply don't care if their FFT is a bit rubbish or that the input amplifier overdrives by a tiny amount if you go into the 200mV range then manually tune the gain up to 400mV.

For the price of a 4-channel Siglent you can have a DS1054Z and a very nice multimeter. I'm just recognizing what's better value for people who don't know what op-amp overdrive is and don't care if the internal oscillator follows the design guidelines or not, just so long as it works.

You should know by now that nctnico is a GWInstek fanboy 

[tautech]

For clarity: I have no monetary interest in any brand. Just trying to help people make a good choice for themselves by showing the good AND the bad.

...all the while totally ignoring that fact that Siglents aren't all sunshine and unicorns either and that some people simply don't care if their FFT is a bit rubbish or that the input amplifier overdrives by a tiny amount if you go into the 200mV range then manually tune the gain up to 400mV.

For the price of a 4-channel Siglent you can have a DS1054Z and a very nice multimeter. I'm just recognizing what's better value for people who don't know what op-amp overdrive is and don't care if the internal oscillator follows the design guidelines or not, just so long as it works.

You should know by now that nctnico is a GWInstek fanboy 

Was, owns a R&S now.

[Fungus]

You should know by now that nctnico is a GWInstek fanboy 

Good Will Instek, the "Macbeth" of oscilloscopes. 

[nctnico]

You should know by now that nctnico is a GWInstek fanboy 

Was, owns a R&S now.

Nope. The R&S is on loan. Over the years I have owned oscilloscopes from about every brand out there (except for Lecroy but that is because an Ebay seller didn't know how to send something outside the US).

[EEVblog]

and, (c) There's no way in hell the MSO5000 can compete in the market without hacking. $5000 for all options? That's a complete joke.

Yes, and I've heard that the dealers have had to get big price discounts approved so they can sell it competitively. If you are spending say $3-5k then it's a different ball game.

[EEVblog]

Rigol has just spent three years developing their own ASIC for the front end and switching to Xilinx-based hardware (I assume this meant starting from zero, firmware-wise). They might just be getting warmed up. 

An ASIC that has no boxcar averaging (high resolution mode) 

[petemate]

Hi guys, thanks for all your replies. Its very.. interesting to read all the different opnions on Rigol and their products. Anyway, the answer is that obviously I would like Keysight/Tek/R&S/Lecroy scope, but I simply can't justify it. If you compare specs, matches to the MSO5000 is in the range of 3-10 times as expensive and are simply out of the question. I get access to those instruments at work anyway, so if the need rises, I can technically borrow one. But I would like my own for the day-to-day stuff that I do at home.

Rigol has just spent three years developing their own ASIC for the front end and switching to Xilinx-based hardware (I assume this meant starting from zero, firmware-wise). They might just be getting warmed up. 

An ASIC that has no boxcar averaging (high resolution mode) 

Are you sure about this? I seem to recall from one of your videos that you complained about this, but this video says that it does have a hi-res mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dXvpEV18g&feature=youtu.be&t=55 - nothing is mentioned in the manual, though.

[Fungus]

Hi guys, thanks for all your replies. Its very.. interesting to read all the different opnions on Rigol and their products. Anyway, the answer is that obviously I would like Keysight/Tek/R&S/Lecroy scope, but I simply can't justify it. If you compare specs, matches to the MSO5000 is in the range of 3-10 times as expensive and are simply out of the question. I get access to those instruments at work anyway, so if the need rises, I can technically borrow one. But I would like my own for the day-to-day stuff that I do at home.

Rigol has just spent three years developing their own ASIC for the front end and switching to Xilinx-based hardware (I assume this meant starting from zero, firmware-wise). They might just be getting warmed up. 

An ASIC that has no boxcar averaging (high resolution mode) 

Are you sure about this? I seem to recall from one of your videos that you complained about this, but this video says that it does have a hi-res mode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dXvpEV18g&feature=youtu.be&t=55 - nothing is mentioned in the manual, though.

I thought they added it in the last firmware update.

Or, at least, it appeared as a selection in the menu but it didn't work properly.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2233962/#msg2233962

[nctnico]

Hi guys, thanks for all your replies. Its very.. interesting to read all the different opnions on Rigol and their products. Anyway, the answer is that obviously I would like Keysight/Tek/R&S/Lecroy scope, but I simply can't justify it. If you compare specs, matches to the MSO5000 is in the range of 3-10 times as expensive and are simply out of the question. I get access to those instruments at work anyway, so if the need rises, I can technically borrow one. But I would like my own for the day-to-day stuff that I do at home.

I get the feeling but sometimes you just have to be realistic. If it seems to be too good to be true then it usually is too good to be true. Creating a good product requires a lot of engineering effort and that simply takes money. We all would like a BMW 7 series for the price of a Ford Focus.

You can also check the second hand market. After my Siglent mishap I just ponied up the cash and bought a used Agilent MSO7104. Not cheap but at least it worked as it should. Nowadays there are many other choices to consider which offer similar functionality. If you like a big touch screen then the new MicSig STO1000 series could be an option (knobs and touch screen). It has an 800x600 screen so it has more screen real-estate compared to other scopes with a 800x480 screen and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

If you are still unsure just buy an MSO5000 and try it for yourself. Just be sure to buy it from a shop which isn't fuzzy about returns or even better: get a fully optioned one on loan for a couple of weeks.

[luma]

You can also check the second hand market. After my Siglent mishap I just ponied up the cash and bought a used Agilent MSO7104. Not cheap but at least it worked as it should.

The MSO7104 is currently selling used for nearly 10x the purchase price of the scope the OP is asking about.  Look, we all get it - you don't like low-end scopes.  Not everyone is going to spend the price of a decent used car on a bench tool.  Is there some point where you take a moment to consider if your post is actually adding something beneficial to the conversation?

Anyway, to the OP - the Rigol MSO5000 series is a solid upgrade.  The firmware hack is pretty well entrenched, the encryption keys burned into the device have been extracted, so it's hard to imagine a situation where Rigol could effectively lock us out at this point, meaning it's safe to presume the hacks are here to stay.  If you don't need the extra features right yet, maybe hang out with your 1054Z until things shake out.  The current state of the firmware is just fine, I've encountered no glaring bugs in my own use of the device (limited mostly to low-speed probing of home-built microcontroller projects), and the extra features over the 1054 have warranted the price of purchase for me.

[Fungus]

We all would like a BMW 7 series for the price of a Ford Focus.

An awful lot of people manage to get to work and go shopping without heated massaging seats.

[Noy]

I die exactly what the OP want.
Sold my DS1054z for 300€ and bought MSO5074.
And I'm happy. 350MHz for 1k nice. But even without the Hack the bigger Screen an dedicated knobs for every Channel was worth the money for me.

[nctnico]

You can also check the second hand market. After my Siglent mishap I just ponied up the cash and bought a used Agilent MSO7104. Not cheap but at least it worked as it should.

The MSO7104 is currently selling used for nearly 10x the purchase price of the scope the OP is asking about.  Look, we all get it - you don't like low-end scopes.  Not everyone is going to spend the price of a decent used car on a bench tool.  Is there some point where you take a moment to consider if your post is actually adding something beneficial to the conversation?

Perhaps you should have read my entire post. The MicSig scope I'm prosing costs less. And if you read my posts more carefully you'd know I have nothing against entry level scopes. What I do have a problem with is putting an unfinished product on the market. Ofcourse you want to defend you spending money on the MSO5000 but that doesn't necessarily help others; you are very strongly biased towards finding justification for your choice.

Also asking price isn't selling price on Ebay. I bought my MSO7104 with all options for little over half of what the Ebay sellers are asking currently. And I bought it several years ago. Nowadays you should be able to find a deal in the $3000 range if someone wants to sell it.

[JPortici]

My problem was that I expected something really different for a $999 scope.  It just feels like a DS1054Z plus.  If the DS1054Z and MSO5074 are the only scopes you used, I am sure you will be satisfied.

And that's the problem.
Once you use ANY other oscilloscope you see how flawed the rigols really are.. Not only in software bugs but also in user interface design*, gimmick features* and hardware limitations, like the fact that many of the high sensitivity ranges in the 5000 series are digital zoom of an 8 bit acquisition.

There are people that won't stand for it and critisizing is NOT being rigol-haters. Wanting better tools and not settling for unfinished, flawed stuff is not about bashing a company. Life is too short to waste time on that

*IMHO.

[TK]

Everybody will be happy with a scope that you can buy for $999 and hack it to 350MHz and 100% of the options, even with a huge list of bugs...

until the bug affects you... then you will feel cheated and get buyer's remorse.

[exe]

Wow, didn't know the base model costs so low. To me it looks like a good _second_ scope for high-speed signals. 8GSa, damn, that's fast. Although, I suspect, to get fully use of 350MHz bandwidth, it might be needed to replace probes, that may be pricey.

[luma]

The included probes are specced to 350MHz at 10x.  They're basic passive probes but reasonable for the money.

[Fungus]

until the bug affects you... then you will feel cheated and get buyer's remorse.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that, it isn't true.

[dietert1]

Last year we bought a Rigol DS2202E that came with a free options package.
The scope works well, it's more or less quiet and it is handy for servicing other stuff. I mean with an expensive scope you think twice before taking it from its place.
Some weeks ago we wanted to use the I2C decoder for the first time, but it did not produce any meaningful results. On consecutive repetitions of the identical data sequence each time it produced different (false!) results. I got the work done with our LeCroy Waverunner and wrote an EMail to Rigol, including screen dumps. No response whatsoever, not even an automatic one.
Whether a Rigol DSO is good enough depends on the type of work you want to use it for. In our lab we use it for work that was previously done with a Tektronix 2465 analog scope. The missing bandwidth doesn't really make a difference.

Regards, Dieter

[TK]

until the bug affects you... then you will feel cheated and get buyer's remorse.

Doesn't matter how many times you repeat that, it isn't true.

I don't remember from the other MSO5000 threads... do you own one?  Have you used it?

[TurboTom]

Batronix (probably on behalf of Rigol) lists Rigol's DS/MSO 2000 and 4000 series "obsolete" -- for understandable reasons, the DS/MSO 5000 and 7000 series are probably meant to replace them. Their really old platform, the DS6000 that didn't see a firmware update since almost half a decade, is still in their "current portfolio", maybe since they haven't got anything else (yet) that is specified up to 1GHz bandwidth. That's a real anachronism...

And I guess this means that firmware support for the 2000 and 4000 models has ended with the recent updates for these two models (January 2019 / July 2018, respectively). So verly likely we can expect Rigol to focus their efforts on the new series / platform. I wouldn't be surprised if an "MSO5000A" will be released in a year or two that provides a somewhat "polished" hardware and also includes internal, selectable 50 ohms termination for the inputs, just like they did with the 2000 -> 2000A modification.

Well, just a few thoughts on the situation...

Cheers,
Thomas

[Martin72]

Hi guys, I have the almost mandatory DS1054Z which covers many of my needs, but I have started to consider purchasing an MSO5000 for better performance and a function generator(which I don't have in my "lab").

I would probaby buy the MSO5074(to get four probes) and then hack it to all options, which will set me back around 1100 EUR. Thats completely doable, as far as I can tell. Then I'll sell my DS1054Z, which can bring in just short of 300 EUR, bringing my total expenses to 800 EUR for a nice-spec scope and a function generator. I know the function generator isn't up to par with a separate unit(its only 5Vpp), but its most likely enough for me(I need line-level audio signals and perhaps some PWM stuff for SMPS control).


What are your opinions of the MSO5000 series? I am especially interested in the front-end overdrive recovery, which is apparently much better than competing scopes and allows you to measure low-voltage signals superimposed onto high-voltage signals(e.g. drain-source on voltage on a switching node). The EEVBlog review sort of knocks it for firmware bugs, but I assume that most of those are fixed now?

In my opion, the MSO5000 is the best buy for the money.
In contrast to some others here I own one since december and of course, it have some issues - but it´s "brandnew", last month was the first firmware update released.
You can´t expect a fully working digital scope out of the box for this price - even 3....5 times expensive ones didn´t.
And most of the issues doesn´t disturb me at work, because they aren´t that big as you can read about it.
So I can wait patiently for forthcoming updates, no worry about it.
The MSO5000 got tons of memory, unbeatable samplingrate ( for it´s price), lot of useful (and less useful) features, a big ( dim) screen...I can´t see any scope at this price which is comparable.
Rigol itself compares the 5000 with the 2000s tek and keysight models and this is the right range.
For me it´s a great scope.
For 1100€...
Fully official armed it cost about 5000€ - for this price, I wouldn´t buy a MSO5000 for sure, in this range there are better scopes  (especially R&S and perhaps the new siglents).
But I paid 1100 and know what I get for.
With the hack a real burner, not more, not less.

[NoisyBoy]

Agree with your points from a historical perspective. 

My view is that we cannot guarantee there will be no policy change in the future, all it is required is a new product manager with a money making reason for the senior leadership.  Hence there is risk to justify a purchase decision based on the assumption that the scope can be hacked in perpetuity. 

Back to OP's original intend, I think it is dangerous to assume a 5074 can be unlocked for full capability indefinitely.

Nah, I think it's a pretty safe bet. The people in the hacking thread simply know too much about the system now.

eg. Rigol changed the root password from the Xilinx default in the latest firmware update? That might have just been to stop it being pwned by botnets.

(b) They've been selling hackable 'scopes for decades when it would have been easy to close the "holes". eg. The DS1054Z would have been nothing without hacking. With hacking they sold a million units (rough estimate based on no data whatsoever).

and, (c) There's no way in hell the MSO5000 can compete in the market without hacking. $5000 for all options? That's a complete joke. $999 for the 70Mhz version? That's almost worse - their competitors sell 200Mhz 'scopes for half that.

[rsjsouza]

I understand nctnico's points about releasing unfinished products. Unfortunately testability costs real cash and time, thus the entry level market that SigRig operates is prone to vaporware and beta testing pushed to customers.

My experience with Rigol was always avoiding getting their products in the ramping phase.

I got a DS1102E years after it had matured (2012) and, three years later, I sold it and got a DS4014 on a bargain from their clearance store. This helped me save myself from the massive grief that other users experienced - especially for the DS4000, where the price tag was much higher.

I have no experience with the newer models from SigRig, but the reports here indicate this is not so different.

[TK]

The maturity issue with the new Rigol scopes is a different matter... as they took the ASIC route, if they have any design flaws (like not having high resolution capture, not doing serial decoding in HW, etc), they will stick with the lack of those features for a long time until the next revision of the ASIC is released and in some cases they can compensate by software, but some limitations or bugs will never be resolved for a scope that was already sold.  It is something like what is happening with Keysight with their ASIC and the sample memory being too small..

[ebastler]

It is something like what is happening with Keysight with their ASIC and the sample memory being too small..

Whereas, if it were an FPGA-based design, they would simply update the firmware to add more memory to the FPGA? 

I think there is no point in trying to spread FUD about the 5000Z.
What are you trying to achieve here?

[nctnico]

It is something like what is happening with Keysight with their ASIC and the sample memory being too small..

Whereas, if it were an FPGA-based design, they would simply update the firmware to add more memory to the FPGA? 

I think there is no point in trying to spread FUD about the 5000Z.
What are you trying to achieve here?

You are not getting the point TK is making. If you leave features out of an ASIC then doing a redesign will take a lot of time and money. The way the MSO5000 sits now makes it look like Rigol has left several important features (like decoding and high-res) out of the ASIC. Keysight has a different but equally severe limitation with their ASICs: they have a lot of functionality inside the ASIC except memory. That is very hard to fix/extend without a re-design. In case of an FPGA adding more memory or resources is easy: put a bigger FPGA on the board and/or use a larger memory chip.

To make matters worse for the Rigol MSO5000: the memory depth is so large that the processor doesn't have enough power to do any meaningful operations on the entire memory without slowing down to a crawl. With great memory comes a great need for processing power. Oscilloscopes with far less memory are already struggling to do software based operations on the acquisition memory (even though they are based on the Zync architecture). IMHO Rigol's ASIC doesn't give any edge over the competition but must have cost them a boat load of money.

[rsjsouza]

The maturity issue with the new Rigol scopes is a different matter... as they took the ASIC route, (...)

Rigol is new to the ASIC game, thus they will need some time before they get all kinks solved. Regardless, ASICs are not the same as they were - SW nowadays plays a much larger role than when HP released the first MegaZoom ASIC several decades ago. A modern ASIC usually has a multitude of small programmable units inside (albeit quite simple and tied to specific peripherals) and with a certain degree of re-routing and reconfigurability.

It is something like what is happening with Keysight with their ASIC and the sample memory being too small..

Whereas, if it were an FPGA-based design, they would simply update the firmware to add more memory to the FPGA? 

I think there is no point in trying to spread FUD about the 5000Z.
What are you trying to achieve here?

I think TK is just showing a datapoint that happened with HPAK many decades ago.

[ebastler]

You are not getting the point TK is making. If you leave features out of an ASIC then doing a redesign will take a lot of time and money. The way the MSO5000 sits now makes it look like Rigol has left several important features (like decoding and high-res) out of the ASIC. Keysight has a different but equally severe limitation with their ASICs: they have a lot of functionality inside the ASIC except memory. That is very hard to fix/extend without a re-design. In case of an FPGA adding more memory or resources is easy: put a bigger FPGA on the board and/or use a larger memory chip.

Thank you, I understood the point alright. TK was claiming that the problem with ASICs is that "some limitations or bugs will never be resolved for a scope that was already sold". And then proceeded to give an example that would have required a hardware addition in any case, whether ASIC or FPGA-based.

Regarding the advantages of upgrading to a larger FPGA (in a revised scope generation) vs. re-spinning an ASIC which you claim, I'd say:

• Releasing an updated scope with enhanced hardware (FPGA) specs seems quite uncommon indeed. Can you name a few examples where manufacturers -- whether Chinese or US brands -- have done so?
• You may be overestimating the NRE cost for re-spinning an ASIC. See here for example. http://blog.zorinaq.com/asic-development-costs-are-lower-than-you-think/

[Noy]

MSO5000 is not the first scope with this asic.
So i would worry more if i bought the 7000 series.

[nctnico]

You are not getting the point TK is making. If you leave features out of an ASIC then doing a redesign will take a lot of time and money. The way the MSO5000 sits now makes it look like Rigol has left several important features (like decoding and high-res) out of the ASIC. Keysight has a different but equally severe limitation with their ASICs: they have a lot of functionality inside the ASIC except memory. That is very hard to fix/extend without a re-design. In case of an FPGA adding more memory or resources is easy: put a bigger FPGA on the board and/or use a larger memory chip.

Thank you, I understood the point alright. TK was claiming that the problem with ASICs is that "some limitations or bugs will never be resolved for a scope that was already sold". And then proceeded to give an example that would have required a hardware addition in any case, whether ASIC or FPGA-based.

Regarding the advantages of upgrading to a larger FPGA (in a revised scope generation) vs. re-spinning an ASIC which you claim, I'd say:

• Releasing an updated scope with enhanced hardware (FPGA) specs seems quite uncommon indeed. Can you name a few examples where manufacturers -- whether Chinese or US brands -- have done so?
• You may be overestimating the NRE cost for re-spinning an ASIC. See here for example. http://blog.zorinaq.com/asic-development-costs-are-lower-than-you-think/

I think the Siglent SDS2000X is an updated version of the SDS2000. There are also many scopes with A-B-C-D versions. Still with an FPGA you can choose to use a different size one right up to the point when the first pre-production prototypes are produced. With an ASIC you have to plan ahead. From the comments in the link you provided you'll see that the costs quoted on the website are very low. A bitcoin mining ASIC is probably also relatively simple because the same (small) structure is repeated many times to increase processing speed.

One of the comments:
Unfortunately the examples don't provide a measure of the ASIC's complexity. Pre-tapeout expenses (designers' headcount) will be a function of how many testable features are included on the chip. In my experience I've NEVER seen an ASIC project team complete a design for less than $500K USD, regardless of location.

[ebastler]

A bitcoin mining ASIC is probably also relatively simple because the same (small) structure is repeated many times to increase processing speed.

One of the comments:
Unfortunately the examples don't provide a measure of the ASIC's complexity. Pre-tapeout expenses (designers' headcount) will be a function of how many testable features are included on the chip. In my experience I've NEVER seen an ASIC project team complete a design for less than $500K USD, regardless of location.

That's a valid point; the ASIC complexity will impact the price, of course. I don't dare to compare the complexity of a Bitcoin miner vs. a scope data processor. Recent FPGA-based Bitcoin miners use FPGAs with some horsepower, e.g. Xilinx Kintex-7, so they might well be comparable in complexity to an oscilloscope.

But even if the full cost of an ASIC development project is somewhat higher than the $200k..$300k stated in the blog post, only part of that (mainly the mask cost) will recur if you need to create a slightly modified version of a working design.

Anyway, the biggest unknown in any estimates is probably the number of scopes Rigol produces and sells. If they have to re-spin the ASIC after one year, are those $200k (or whatever) of mask costs amortized over 10k scopes, or 100k, or what number?

[Martin72]

There are also many scopes with A-B-C-D versions.

Lecroy Wavesurfer 3000 and 3000Z Series - Same features, same look, but better (faster) hardware in the Z-models

[tautech]

There are also many scopes with A-B-C-D versions.

Lecroy Wavesurfer 3000 and 3000Z Series - Same features, same look, but better (faster) hardware in the Z-models

SDS3000 and SDS3000X 

[Martin72]

Hehe….

We shouldn´t forget the topic:

Should I buy a Rigol MSO5000..
Yes, if you couldn´t / won´t spend more money on it.
And more means in this case really more.
And speculations about possible hardware-updates somewhere in the future, well…
Today is today, maybe a better screen will be implemented, maybe an internal 50 Input will be implemented. ( the DSO/MSO7000 got it now and here but costs as much as the entry R&S RTB(which hadn´t a 50 ohm Input)- but I would go definitely for the RTB instead)
Maybe in 2yrs, maybe in 3yrs, maybe never and a new model comes out, who knows it now, that shouldn´t be a point for buying a scope or not.
How much could I spend for it, are there alternatives for this money, are they better/equal/worse, what will I do with it…and so on.

[KC0PPH]

What would be the "next step down" from this scope. Sub $1k price.

Requirements include AWG either internal to the scope or the scope plus AWG should be Sub 1K.

[Martin72]

Got the combo siglent SDS 1104X-E scope and awg siglent SDG1032X (wow...actual price only 308€) before.

Hard to beat, for me the SDS 1104X-E is better than rigol DS1054Z and the awg is better than the comparable from rigol, too.

[tautech]

What would be the "next step down" from this scope. Sub $1k price.

Requirements include AWG either internal to the scope or the scope plus AWG should be Sub 1K.

Depends of a sampling rate that you'll be happy with or suits your needs.
For example if you were to select 2 GSa/s and 4 ch and AWG.........few without dropping way down in BW.

However drop down to 1 GSa/s and 4ch there is more choice.

Without some more 'must haves' it's hard to recommend particular models.
A 200 MHz SDS1204X-E with its external SAG1021 AWG option will come in at $1018 and it has 2x 1 GSa's ADC's and 14 Mpts of memory supporting each.

[Martin72]

I would prefer the SDG1032X instead, it is miles awy better than the SAG1021

[Mortymore]

Got the combo siglent SDS 1104X-E scope and awg siglent SDG1032X (wow...actual price only 308€) before.

That price killed me. I hat to sell my TEK210 some 4 months ago, to be able to buy the SGD1032X for about €410. I had waited... I could have kept the TEK.

So, about the MSO5000, If I had the 1054Z hacked today and there was no urge for the MSO5000, I waited for it to mature, and in the meantime buy a decent signal generator at decent price, like the SDG1032X for €308 
Since the 5000 is hackable today, I don't think that will be otherwise in the future (seems to me that's actually a sales point), and maybe the price can go down a little... or at least you could save some money in the meantime to buy a more mature product if you still into the 5000, or decide for another rival at that time.

[tautech]

I would prefer the SDG1032X instead, it is miles awy better than the SAG1021

Yes of course.

When everyone wants the best available for less $ there also is the choice to 'improve' the BW and enable options too.
If we lower the initial cost for KC0PPH to SDS1104X-E and SDG1032X ($499 + $359) and liberate them both to have a 200 MHz 4ch DSO and a 60 MHz 2ch AWG and still some change left from $1k. 

[Martin72]

and maybe the price can go down a little

I don´t think it will happen.
It will be like the DS1054Z.
Actually, you could buy it with all upgrades included.
They (rigol) must do this, because the Siglent SDS X-E series comes with decoding and 100/200Mhz all in.
Today, the MSO5000 stand alone, there is nothing comparable in sight for this price.
Like the DS1054Z in 2015.
In this year, the DS1054Z was a milestone for it´s price.
In my opinion, the MSO5000 is it today too.
For it´s price, we should never forget it.
About 1000 bucks…
A few months ago, we had to let repairing an old waverunner from lecroy, display was exchanged.
Costs about 1400€, only for the display.
You get what you paid for.
Asian manufactors make it possible that every hobbyist can buy a scope.
Not more, not less.
It´s a wet dream buying a scope for a price about 1000€/$ and thinking, this one can compete against "professional" ones.

[nctnico]

Sorry but given the numerous bugs and missing features it sounds more like you bought an expensive trofee to put in a cabinet to display rather than purchasing a tool to get work done. The words ' severely deluded' come into my mind after reading your post.

And I'll repeat myself: a good tool is more productive in a commercial environment and a good tool makes a hobby more fun. There is nothing in the MSO5000 you can't buy from a different brand (new or used). For example: spend $500 on an older 500MHz Lecroy and $350 on a low-end scope (the GW Instek GDS1054B is the DS1054Z killer at this moment. The former is hackable to 200MHz with protocol decoding using a simple key generator in an HTML file).

[Mortymore]

and maybe the price can go down a little

I don´t think it will happen.
It will be like the DS1054Z.

If it will be like DS1054Z... then the price will drop, somewhere in time, judging just by two results from a quick google search

https://www.fruugo.pt/rigol-ds1054z-digital-50-mhz-4-canais-1-gsas-24-mpts-8-bit-de-armazenamento-digital-dso/p-8443548-18180269 (524,54 € drop to 456,12 €)
https://www.batronix.com/shop/oscilloscopes/Rigol-DS1054Z.html (€ 403.41 incl. 19% VAT)

But I agree that once again Rigol has set a new price point, moving this time from the 500 to 1000 mark. I'll give them credit for being braking prices starters (despite the bugs and all)

EDIT: some historical price change over time: https://de.camelcamelcamel.com/Rigol-DS1054Z-Oszilloskop/product/B01LNY8CL0?context=search
A search can be done for other countries.

[rsjsouza]

Sorry but given the numerous bugs and missing features it sounds more like you bought an expensive trofee to put in a cabinet to display rather than purchasing a tool to get work done. The words ' severely deluded' come into my mind after reading your post.

I have the same impression that Rigol's history is more or less repeating itself. However, let's hope they are much more nimble in fixing bugs on the MSO5000 family.

How's the history going for the 7000 family? I heard many bugs were there as well, thus it would be a good way to test the path ahead for the MSO5000.

[Fungus]

And I'll repeat myself

Yep. 

[dietert1]

By current standards (e.g. USB2, Fast Ethernet...) any scope with less than 1 GHz Bandwidth and with passive probes must be considered a learning toy. In fact, when you look at the MSO5000 sales sheet at the batronix website they show a block diagram including active probes, so once again they sell something unfinished.
Is it really true the MSO5000 does not come with internal 50 Ohm terminators? So Rigol is just creating confusion and i wonder whether they are behind the bandwidth hack. Maybe they want sell by bandwidth because their "features" aren't solid.
I agree completely with ntnico that the best "bang for buck" is a used LeCroy 1 or 2 GHz scope from ebay with a reasonable set of options. The only way to get a serious device for a reasonable price. If you don't trust ebay, you can ask LeCroy themselves for a second hand scope.

Regards, Dieter

[Mortymore]

I just wish that in a near future Rigol or someone else start braking price points in active and differential probes, at the point that we don't have to spend in them as much or more than the cost of the scope.

It's great to have a scope hacked from 50..70 MHz to 200...350MHz, but having the passive probes ruin everything 

[Martin72]

Having any passive probe on high frequency ruins everything.
The derating curves are nothing unusual, you can make it a little bit "better", but you can´t fight against the "nature" of a passive probe:

http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/manuals/pp006a_manual.pdf

the best "bang for buck" is a used LeCroy 1 or 2 GHz scope

If you need the Ghz bandwith, if you have enough space on your bench to place it onto, if you don´t have a problem with old crt-screens, if you generally don´t worry about the age, appx 20yrs, and the risks of something going defective after all these years, if you don´t need usb and network connections because you have 3.5" disks and diskdrive avaible or love to print the screenshot with the internal printer out or having a rs232 port on your pc, finally if you don´t worry about a few kpts of memory, than you should grab your 1000 bucks and go for a lecoy LC/DDA scope.

Is it really true the MSO5000 does not come with internal 50 Ohm terminators?

Yep and it´s not alone, even the RTB series from R&S don´t have it too.

[nctnico]

Having any passive probe on high frequency ruins everything.
The derating curves are nothing unusual, you can make it a little bit "better", but you can´t fight against the "nature" of a passive probe:

http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/manuals/pp006a_manual.pdf

the best "bang for buck" is a used LeCroy 1 or 2 GHz scope

If you need the Ghz bandwith, if you have enough space on your bench to place it onto, if you don´t have a problem with old crt-screens, if you generally don´t worry about the age, appx 20yrs, and the risks of something going defective after all these years, if you don´t need usb and network connections because you have 3.5" disks and diskdrive avaible or love to print the screenshot with the internal printer out or having a rs232 port on your pc, finally if you don´t worry about a few kpts of memory, than you should grab your 1000 bucks and go for a lecoy LC/DDA scope.

Lecroy isn't the only option. For $1000 you can pick up an Agilent 54835A which has a TFT screen, USB and ethernet. Hack it to become a 54845A and have 1GHz / 4Gs/s on 4 channels or 1.5GHz / 8Gs/s on 2 channels on a scope which is designed for high speed signal analysis. I have used this scope to resolve delays in the tens of ps range. The trigger on this oscilloscope is extremely stable.

And there are other options too like the Tektronix TDS700 series. A floppy to USB emulator can solve the problem of needing a disk drive.

Yep and it´s not alone, even the RTB series from R&S don´t have it too.

But the RTB2000 only goes to 200MHz. 500MHz bandwidth without real 50 Ohm inputs is madness.

[2N3055]

It is funny how there must always be this kind of topic..

It is also funny how Rigols and Siglents are held up to a higher standards than A-brand scopes costing 20x more.

So, since everybody else is repeating half-facts ad nauseum, let's repeat some facts:

1. Revision history for very expensive Keysight MSOX-3000T (18000 USD list price) is 27 PAGES LONG... Most of it bugs, some improvements over years.. Does that mean they are shit? No, it means they have great support...
2. R/S RTB2000 came out full of bugs, in some pretty basic stuff like sampling the waveform didn't work properly. It also had only basic math, comparable to Rigol 1000Z..For +5000€ price. After 3 years (that's three years) most of it was debugged, and math was upgraded (under pressure of users).  It is a great scope now, and it has, also, great support. Nobody said " I paid 5000$ for this shit and had to wait 3 years for it to become bug free... Screw the Germans, they are crap.." NO. It was also "We have great support"
....
Just mention exploding PSUs, scopes that loose flash for no reason,  very expensive multimeters that blue screen ....
And so on and so on...

And than, on the other side, for instance, we have a user here which bought a product that was few months old (so called "early adopter") and after few weeks, declared product is crap because it is buggy, that manufacturer is crap because they don't make perfect products first time with no bugs whatsoever....

Funny world, full of double standards.

Rigol MSO5000 was officially released in November 2018. 5 months ago..
And it's basic 70MHz version cost just a bit more than buying RTB2000 MSO option.
If you go and buy 4x 350MHz passive probes that would be 400€.. So you get a scope for 500€...

So let's be realistic on both counts: It is very inexpensive scope, and it is still very new. I personally never was early adopter and couldn't understand people who are.. All brand new platforms are buggy as hell, even from A-brands..
It is all about either having trust in manufacturer they will do it right eventually (and even with A-brands it takes time) or waiting for product to stabilise for a year or so and buy only things that are proven to be stable and dependable.

Full disclosure: Like nctnico, I also believe that if you need equipment for business, and if it makes your process faster and/or better you go and give more money for a product that serves you better.
I personally wouldn't buy MSO5000/7000 for business right now because I don't have time to be part of debug process..
I also don't like their user interface. I like Siglent's UI direction better. But that is a matter of taste too..

If in a year, MSO5000/7000 platform still doesn't have HIRES done right, if it still is not refined in a way that shows it is going towards being mature and stable platform than it will be that MSO5000 was unfulfilled promise and bad product. If they fix problems, it will be GREAT product and a good manufacturer.

We'll see in a year. Until then, jury is still out...
Regards,

[2N3055]

But the RTB2000 only goes to 200MHz. 500MHz bandwidth without real 50 Ohm inputs is madness.

RTB2000 goes up to 300 MHZ and MSO5000 up to 350MHz.
They both need 50 Ohm termination...

[tautech]

Having any passive probe on high frequency ruins everything.
The derating curves are nothing unusual, you can make it a little bit "better", but you can´t fight against the "nature" of a passive probe

Yet some are better than others.

Open this in another tab and compare against the Rigol probe spec above.
https://siglentna-qwavztc8hvq2w.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SP3025A_3050A_Users_Guide.pdf

V derating and impedance profiles have an edge. 

[petemate]

Im really glad that there is this much debate on the topic. Its a great way for me to reflect on my decision, which at the moment is leaning towards "wait 6-12 months".

One question regarding the missing hi-res acquisition that most people agree is an issue: There are 8 bits at 8GSPS. Thats not going to change with the chipset. As far as I know, hi-res mode is just averaging of a number of sequential samples, providing the possibility to get "increased resolution", since the average of n samples can produce a value that is in-between each sample value.  Why would this be a hardware issue? I get that you can do it in HW, but why can't it be added as a software fix?

[Martin72]

I personally never was early adopter and couldn't understand people who are.. All brand new platforms are buggy as hell, even from A-brands..

But without them, bugs which might appear during daily measuring (and creates countless different measure-situtations) would be hard to find.
I own one since end of november and since december-march I was in contact to the rigol support, telling problems, what could be better and so on.

but why can't it be added as a software fix?

It was implemented in the first firmware update but doesn´t have the effect I expected from:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2266332/#msg2266332

But they know it, I´ll send them the pics, let´s see what will happen.

They both need 50 Ohm termination...

And it will looks like this:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2270838/#msg2270838

I personally wouldn't buy MSO5000/7000 for business right now because I don't have time to be part of debug process..

Same here, my colleagues shouldn´t be part of it - we need things that works proper for i.e. acceptance tests.
But if some bugs were eliminated, it could be a cheap tool for daily measurings and if some gets broken, just buying new instead of repairing.

[2N3055]

@ petemate:
That is good question, petemate.
Reason for it to be in hardware is speed. Done right, with 8x oversampling you get 1GS/sec sampling rate and additional 1.5 bit res. and with16x 500MS/sec and 2+ bits.
And all would be real time with no slowdown in any scope operation.
Some manufacturers prefer to do it in software, or better to say postprocessing. Lecroy is such.
It slows down refresh rate but will have an advantage that ORIGINAL samples are preserved. No data is decimated and/or lost. You always get original pure sampled data in a buffer so you can massage it later to your heart's will.

First approach is great for interactive scopes that you use to probe around and general use.
Second approach is great if you tend to analyse data in depth..
Tool for the job. Ideally, you should have both.. In reality, you get one that fits most of your use cases.
Regards,

[nctnico]

Im really glad that there is this much debate on the topic. Its a great way for me to reflect on my decision, which at the moment is leaning towards "wait 6-12 months".

One question regarding the missing hi-res acquisition that most people agree is an issue: There are 8 bits at 8GSPS. Thats not going to change with the chipset. As far as I know, hi-res mode is just averaging of a number of sequential samples, providing the possibility to get "increased resolution", since the average of n samples can produce a value that is in-between each sample value.  Why would this be a hardware issue? I get that you can do it in HW, but why can't it be added as a software fix?

Traditionally hi-res mode is done in hardware (let's not debate when it is done during acquisition or while processing the data to draw the waveform) and it offers a filter which reduces high frequency content and increases the number of bits to get more resolution. The usual oversampling requirements apply: there has to be enough noise and the ADCs need to be reasonably linear. So hi-res mode may not give you the extra resolution you might expect because it is still bound to the laws of physics behind sampling theory. The biggest advantage of hi-res mode is that it cleans up a noisy signal so you get a nice sharp trace.

The downside of high-res mode is that the filter cut-off frequency depends entirely on the samplerate. Therefore IMHO a better feature is input filtering. This is available on some oscilloscopes. Input filtering offers more flexibility because you can set the cut-off frequency independant of the sampling rate, the filter is more agressive and usually you can choose between low-pass, band-pass and high-pass.

Now back to your question: can high-res mode be done in software? Yes it can but it will slow down the waveform update rate considerably. I see in the MSO5000 specs that it should do hi-res mode so why it isn't working is a good question.

[Fungus]

You are not getting the point TK is making. If you leave features out of an ASIC then doing a redesign will take a lot of time and money.

Is that true?

Surely it's all done with CAD systems these days, not teams of people armed with huge sheets of paper and rolls of black masking tape. A minor change to an ASIC could be a few mouse clicks then press "print".

[2N3055]

But without them, bugs which might appear during daily measuring (and creates countless different measure-situtations) would be hard to find.
I own one since end of November and since december-march I was in contact to the rigol support, telling problems, what could be better and so on.

I know and I appreciate effort. It's just I don't have time for it. I wish I had time to play with it, but I don't.

They both need 50 Ohm termination...

And it will looks like this:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2270838/#msg2270838

I presume proper implementation. But also, it is convenient to just switch it on...

I personally wouldn't buy MSO5000/7000 for business right now because I don't have time to be part of debug process..

Same here, my colleagues shouldn´t be part of it - we need things that works proper for i.e. acceptance tests.
But if some bugs were eliminated, it could be a cheap tool for daily measurings and if some gets broken, just buying new instead of repairing.

I personally have no doubts they will fix bugs. They did for 1000Z, but it might take time.
Once they fix them, it won't be just usable. It will be great.. It is potentially much better than just basic tool. It has many measurements, deep memory, fast refresh rate, decodes....
Regards,

[Fungus]

I personally wouldn't buy MSO5000/7000 for business right now because I don't have time to be part of debug process..

Same here, my colleagues shouldn´t be part of it - we need things that works proper for i.e. acceptance tests.
But if some bugs were eliminated, it could be a cheap tool for daily measurings and if some gets broken, just buying new instead of repairing.

There's room in the world for both types of user, why can't people see that?

Tool for the job. Ideally, you should have both.. In reality, you get one that fits most of your use cases.

Yep, and if you rely on any particular data analysis function then either test it before purchase and/or have another system in place.

eg.

Last year we bought a Rigol DS2202E that came with a free options package.
The scope works well, it's more or less quiet and it is handy for servicing other stuff. I mean with an expensive scope you think twice before taking it from its place.
Some weeks ago we wanted to use the I2C decoder for the first time, but it did not produce any meaningful results. ... I got the work done with our LeCroy Waverunner.

Has the DS2202E given $750 of value? Your comment about "handy for servicing other stuff" suggests it has, if so then it was a good purchase.

In your case the I2C wasn't a showstopper because you had another device handy that could do it. That's the way a sensible company should function, IMHO, not by trying to buy a Nirvanascope(tm) for every single employee because said employee might need a minor function twice a year.

For hobbyists? You can buy a $6 device on eBay to decode I2C. If you only need I2C a couple of times per year then would a 'scope with working I2C for three times the price be a better purchase than a DS2202E+a $6 gadget? (I say "No")

It's fun to complain about bugs on the internet but real life has to be practical.

[2N3055]

You are not getting the point TK is making. If you leave features out of an ASIC then doing a redesign will take a lot of time and money.

Is that true?

Surely it's all done with CAD systems these days, not teams of people armed with huge sheets of paper and rolls of black masking tape. A minor change to an ASIC could be a few mouse clicks then press "print".

ASICs by Rigol are designed differently than Keysight's in 3000T/4000/6000 series.

It has analog front end ASIC with high bandwidth and attenuators for simpler (cheaper) front end design.
Also they have ADC chip ASIC that is pretty much ADC chip that is a bit customized to work with scopes.
Data then goes to FPGA for processing. Waveform engine is in FPGA.
So they can change many things at will, more so than Keysight...

Problems I see is that analog front-end seems noisy, and have low sensitivity (5mV /DIV seems to be most sensitive range, with others doing 1mV/DIV or 500uV/DIV).
That cannot be made better without redesign..
Also, very high bandwidth ADC will be noisy..

We'll see how they handle the situation..

[Mr Nutts]

If you need the Ghz bandwith, if you have enough space on your bench to place it onto, if you don´t have a problem with old crt-screens, if you generally don´t worry about the age, appx 20yrs, and the risks of something going defective after all these years, if you don´t need usb and network connections because you have 3.5" disks and diskdrive avaible or love to print the screenshot with the internal printer out or having a rs232 port on your pc, finally if you don´t worry about a few kpts of memory, than you should grab your 1000 bucks and go for a lecoy LC/DDA scope.

LOL, you don't need to pay a Grand for a LC with CRT there are lots of them which go for a lot less and with a lot more memory than a few kpts 

But Waveruner LT and Wavepro 900 are now so cheap that it doesn't make much sense to go for the older scopes. LT comes with I think 8Mpts and the Wavepro with up to 64Mpts, and instead of USB one can just use CompactFlash cards to transfer data via the rear PCMCIA port 

Or just get one which has the optional network card 

From what I was told both LT and Wavepro 900 were made by IWATSU and should be very reliable, also service manual and schematics are available 

[Martin72]

I see in the MSO5000 specs that it should do hi-res mode so why it isn't working is a good question.

Same was on the 7000 - although it´s implemented in the SPU, see ultravision II platform details.
After the fw upgrade you can select hi-res and something will happen:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/new-rigol-scope/msg2233980/#msg2233980

But not in the way as expected, as known from siglent or lecroy scopes.

LOL, you don't need to pay a Grand for a LC with CRT there are lots of them which go for a lot less and with a lot more memory than a few kpts

Not here. 

[2N3055]

Last year we bought a Rigol DS2202E that came with a free options package.
The scope works well, it's more or less quiet and it is handy for servicing other stuff. I mean with an expensive scope you think twice before taking it from its place.
Some weeks ago we wanted to use the I2C decoder for the first time, but it did not produce any meaningful results. ... I got the work done with our LeCroy Waverunner.

Has the DS2202E given $750 of value? Your comment about "handy for servicing other stuff" suggests it has, if so then it was a good purchase.

In your case the I2C wasn't a showstopper because you had another device handy that could do it. That's the way a sensible company should function, IMHO, not by trying to buy a Nirvanascope(tm) for every single employee because said employee might need a minor function twice a year.

For hobbyists? You can buy a $6 device on eBay to decode I2C. If you only need I2C a couple of times per year then would a 'scope with working I2C for three times the price be a better purchase than a DS2202E+a $6 gadget? (I say "No")

It's fun to complain about bugs on the internet but real life has to be practical.

In that particular case it could have been user error. I cannot say without more detail. Rigol terminology is, well, weird sometimes, defaults are not logical. Decodes sometimes take time to do it right. Unlike LeCroy or Keysight or R/S that make it easier to setup things.

A bit of trivia: MSOX3000T/4000 doesn't recognize error if you put in an address from 10bit address  range into 7bit address I2C packet. It decodes it as a nice, 7bit ADR packet without any error. Picoscope showed an error, saying packet is malformed 10 bit ADR packet. It KNOWS that was 10bit address and expected different packet.

We are talking about 18000USD list price instrument, and Picoscope 2000 series would do the job right ....
Is it crap for it?? Nope, because it does so many other things right...
Is it perfect? No, that is why I have other scopes..

[Fungus]

ASICs by Rigol are designed differently than Keysight's in 3000T/4000/6000 series.

It has analog front end ASIC with high bandwidth and attenuators for simpler (cheaper) front end design.
Also they have ADC chip ASIC that is pretty much ADC chip that is a bit customized to work with scopes.
Data then goes to FPGA for processing. Waveform engine is in FPGA.
So they can change many things at will, more so than Keysight...

In that case the "hi-res" mode is done in the FPGA so a fix should be just firmware.

I wonder what the problem is, I find it hard to believe they don't know how to do it. The only thing I can think of is that they're low on space on the FPGA and there's multiple paths that all need to access hi-res data so the averaging needs to be implemented all over the place.

[Martin72]

A video from rigol last month published, hadn´t see this before, a hi-res mode comparison between RTB and MSO5000:



LOL, the first seconds…..there are worlds between the two displays.
But that´s not the point.

[petemate]

LOL, the first seconds…..there are worlds between the two displays.

Are you refering to the 1200x800 vs 1024x600?

[Martin72]

No, the brightness….
The resolution ist more than enough.
In everyday use, the dim display makes no problem - but whenever another scope stands byside, the different is mostly huge.

[2N3055]

LOL, talk about marketing..

R/S in HIRES mode drops to 300Ks/sec and shows undersampling. Rigol still samples at 2Gs/sec so shows signal properly.

Only problem is that RTB2000 has same/less noise without HIRES than MSO5000 in HIRES mode....
So if you didn't put RTB2000 in HIRES mode (you don't need it frankly for this example) it would show things properly.

But this is good example that you shouldn't compare things blindly. In this case, if properly used, both could do the job..

[Martin72]

Rigols seems to be convinced of having a functional hi-res mode….makes me nervous.

[2N3055]

Rigols seems to be convinced of having a functional hi-res mode….makes me nervous.

Yep it's scary a bit. Or they just wont admit publicly .. We'll see..

[nctnico]

LOL, talk about marketing..

R/S in HIRES mode drops to 300Ks/sec and shows undersampling. Rigol still samples at 2Gs/sec so shows signal properly.

No. It is the overdrive recovery which distorts the signal. Look carefully at the time/div. And the ADC samplerate doesn't drop on the R&S. On the RTM3004 the high res mode adds up to 6 bits extra and I assume this is the same on the RTB2000. To get 6 bits extra you need to oversample at least 4^6 =4096 times. The R&S keeps showing the resulting samplerate AFTER doing the oversampling needed to get the extra resolution. 1.25Gs/s / 4096=305ks/s

The use case shown in the video is a bit odd. One would use zoom mode to just look at the extra bits you get from high-res mode and not expand the signal. The whole point of having extra resolution is to be able to use the zoom mode to get more detail. The video goes from showing high-res mode to showing overdrive recovery but then fails to show how the high res mode on the MSO5000 is better compared to the RTB2000. It doesn't add up.

[Fungus]

Rigols seems to be convinced of having a functional hi-res mode….makes me nervous.

Any video like that is only made to hide something. 

Technically speaking: They're showing more real information with that color gradient thing, it shows the real signal and the surrounding noise. If you were a robot, that's what you'd want to see.

OTOH humans like to imagine that signals are perfect and want to see the ideal version of a signal, hence the popularity of hi-res mode.

[NoisyBoy]

I generally like the new Keysight test equipment as I grew up with the HP/Agilent/Keysight family, love the hardware and the support.

The concern I have with the old 54835A is not the hardware, but the fact that it runs on Windows 98, a 20+ years old OS GUI shell which in turn runs on top of DOS, a nearly 40 years old OS.  I worked closely with both MSFT/IBM OS development in my early career, and I can still remember all the hard work to develop Windows NT and OS/2 so we could move off DOS into a protected kernel based architecture and remove the memory limitation.  Win 98 had its place back in those days, but I would not touch either with a 10' pole now.

It was an easy way to slap a GUI on a scope 20 years ago, so I understand why Agilent chose it. But I would rather pick a scope without Windows in it if I were to go back to using vintage equipment.  Better yet, I would pay more to get a current Keysight if I were to stay with the Agilent/Keysight family. 

This is just a personal preference based on the behind-the-scene knowledge of Win 98, so I am not implying that everyone should do the same.  We should all pick the gear we are most comfortable with.

Having any passive probe on high frequency ruins everything.
The derating curves are nothing unusual, you can make it a little bit "better", but you can´t fight against the "nature" of a passive probe:

http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/manuals/pp006a_manual.pdf

the best "bang for buck" is a used LeCroy 1 or 2 GHz scope

If you need the Ghz bandwith, if you have enough space on your bench to place it onto, if you don´t have a problem with old crt-screens, if you generally don´t worry about the age, appx 20yrs, and the risks of something going defective after all these years, if you don´t need usb and network connections because you have 3.5" disks and diskdrive avaible or love to print the screenshot with the internal printer out or having a rs232 port on your pc, finally if you don´t worry about a few kpts of memory, than you should grab your 1000 bucks and go for a lecoy LC/DDA scope.

Lecroy isn't the only option. For $1000 you can pick up an Agilent 54835A which has a TFT screen, USB and ethernet. Hack it to become a 54845A and have 1GHz / 4Gs/s on 4 channels or 1.5GHz / 8Gs/s on 2 channels on a scope which is designed for high speed signal analysis. I have used this scope to resolve delays in the tens of ps range. The trigger on this oscilloscope is extremely stable.

And there are other options too like the Tektronix TDS700 series. A floppy to USB emulator can solve the problem of needing a disk drive.

Yep and it´s not alone, even the RTB series from R&S don´t have it too.

But the RTB2000 only goes to 200MHz. 500MHz bandwidth without real 50 Ohm inputs is madness.

[nctnico]

I generally like the new Keysight test equipment as I grew up with the HP/Agilent/Keysight family, love the hardware and the support.

The concern I have with the old 54835A is not the hardware, but the fact that it runs on Windows 98, a 20+ years old OS GUI shell which in turn runs on top of DOS, a nearly 40 years old OS.  I worked closely with both MSFT/IBM OS development in my early career, and I can still remember all the hard work to develop Windows NT and OS/2 so we could move off DOS into a protected kernel based architecture and remove the memory limitation.  Win 98 had its place back in those days, but I would not touch either with a 10' pole now.

This reasoning doesn't make any sense. It is an oscilloscope and Win98 is just the OS to make it go. The entire system has been build to work as a whole and it will work the same way today as it did when it got released. It is not like you'll use it to run MS Office 2019 or go browsing on internet.

20 years from now the Linux which drives most modern test equipment will be extremely outdated as well but that doesn't make the instrument any less useful.

[Fungus]

I generally like the new Keysight test equipment as I grew up with the HP/Agilent/Keysight family, love the hardware and the support.

I keep on hearing this but surely if it was any good it wouldn't need support. 

[newbrain]

...Windows 98, a 20+ years old OS GUI shell which in turn runs on top of DOS, a nearly 40 years old OS.

To put it very simply, this is false  , though I've heard it countless times.
W95, 98 and ME only used DOS as bootloader (and to run old incompatible programs that needed direct resource access).

Now, that memory protection was really rudimentary  is a topic for another day...

[dietert1]

If i were a maker of scopes with difficulties to fulfil buyers' expectations to get a bug free instrument, but i had to sell for income, my main concern would be how to get away with it.
Maybe i would give the buyer a free options packet, so whenever he wants to complain, i can reject his claims saying that the bad part of the firmware was a present.
And maybe i would invite him to do some bandwidth "hack" so i could reject even more claims, because i won't accept claims on hacked instruments.
And maybe i would offer my higher bandwidth instruments at salty prices to make sure nobody would buy them.

How does anyone expect Rigol to produce a serious multi-GSamples instrument for $ 1000, when everbody else needs to charge several times more? With their "innovative" methods they are just creating a lot of confusion.

Regards, Dieter

[TK]

How does anyone expect Rigol to produce a serious multi-GSamples instrument for $ 1000, when everbody else needs to charge several times more? With their "innovative" methods they are just creating a lot of confusion.

Regards, Dieter

The same way as Keysight is able to sell a serious full 2GSa/s (2 + 1 channels) for $350-$400?

[2N3055]

How does anyone expect Rigol to produce a serious multi-GSamples instrument for $ 1000, when everbody else needs to charge several times more? With their "innovative" methods they are just creating a lot of confusion.

Regards, Dieter

The same way as Keysight is able to sell a serious full 2GSa/s (2 + 1 channels) for $350-$400?

EDUX1002A 50 MHz, 2 Channel, 1 GSa/s, 100 kpts  ??

[TK]

How does anyone expect Rigol to produce a serious multi-GSamples instrument for $ 1000, when everbody else needs to charge several times more? With their "innovative" methods they are just creating a lot of confusion.

Regards, Dieter

The same way as Keysight is able to sell a serious full 2GSa/s (2 + 1 channels) for $350-$400?

EDUX1002A 50 MHz, 2 Channel, 1 GSa/s, 100 kpts  ??

Yes, but it is the same hardware (except for some missing ICs and passives costing no more than $10) as the DSOX1102G that can do 200MHz, 2GSa/s, 2 + 1 channels.  Talking about HW cost + R&D, it is all there and you can get it for around $400.

[Fungus]

EDUX1002A 50 MHz, 2 Channel, 1 GSa/s, 100 kpts  ??

Yes, but it is the same hardware (except for some missing ICs and passives costing no more than $10) as the DSOX1102G that can do 200MHz, 2GSa/s, 2 + 1 channels.  Talking about HW cost + R&D, it is all there and you can get it for around $400.

Can it be hacked?

[Noy]

If you have an asic which is much cheaper in high volume then you are trying to use it in many devices as possible...

[TK]

EDUX1002A 50 MHz, 2 Channel, 1 GSa/s, 100 kpts  ??

Yes, but it is the same hardware (except for some missing ICs and passives costing no more than $10) as the DSOX1102G that can do 200MHz, 2GSa/s, 2 + 1 channels.  Talking about HW cost + R&D, it is all there and you can get it for around $400.

Can it be hacked?

Yes.  EDUX to DSOX with full options.  https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-978-keysight-1000x-hacking/525/

[Martin72]

So we talk about the good old ones, the good "A" brands vs "china crap", better to buy a used scope for the same price instead of a new one and so on.
And everyone is the same opinion (me too) for "serious" measures we need an expensive "A" brand scope..
Question is, where are the benchmarks for to judge over this is crap or not, in which measure situation you can separate the boys from the men…
For example, I got my private MSO5000 350Mhz still at work, as well we have a Waverunner LT with 350Mhz also - So I could directly compare.
Which measurings could expose the rigol as a cheap thing or the opposite as a surprisingly good unit ?
Which tests should be done to judge ?
We´re always talking only about...

[2N3055]

Problem is that Rigol does not deny warranty to software hacked equipment..
Good luck with a Keysight scope that you physically changed board, added/changed components and soldered on...

Also despite being very responsive, that scope is not so great. Even 4MS on my 3000T is barely usable...Saving  grace on 3000T is bunch of measurements, protocols and MSO that is very helpful. 1000 series has almost none of that... Also only 2 ch

Unless they are simply replacement for analog scope with same analog workflow, 1000 and 2000 from Keysight are crappy digital scopes.

Once MSO 5000 is debugged, it will be more like 3000t series with larger screen and much more memory. Much more..
So for general purpose mixed signal/microcontroller debugging much better. It will be directly comparable to R&S RTB2000 class, and not Keysight 1000/2000 series..
Though it might take some time for this to happen..

[nctnico]

So we talk about the good old ones, the good "A" brands vs "china crap", better to buy a used scope for the same price instead of a new one and so on.
And everyone is the same opinion (me too) for "serious" measures we need an expensive "A" brand scope..
Question is, where are the benchmarks for to judge over this is crap or not, in which measure situation you can separate the boys from the men…
For example, I got my private MSO5000 350Mhz still at work, as well we have a Waverunner LT with 350Mhz also - So I could directly compare.
Which measurings could expose the rigol as a cheap thing or the opposite as a surprisingly good unit ?
Which tests should be done to judge ?

Follow the tests I subjected the R&S RTM3004 to: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rohde-schwarz-rtm3000-review/msg1604185/
Note that doing all these tests takes several tens of hours!

[nctnico]

Once MSO 5000 is debugged, it will be more like 3000t series with larger screen and much more memory. Much more..
So for general purpose mixed signal/microcontroller debugging much better. It will be directly comparable to R&S RTB2000 class, and not Keysight 1000/2000 series..

If the RTB2000 is your reference level then you can also consider a GW Instek MSO2074A for $1600 (the price includes logic probe pods for 16 digital channels) and hack it to have the spectrum analysis and higher bandwidth. You have to think carefully whether a bigger screen and touch screen are really worth the extra money. Also the MSO2074A and RTB2004 work today and not in a few years from now (or never).

[dietert1]

The Rigol 5000 with it's 8 GSample/sec could be a nice 1 GHz 2-channel scope if it were prepared for using active probes.
If their ASIC supported  RIS sampling, it could even make a nice 2 GHz 4-channel sope.
But what people discuss here is buying a 70 MHz bandwidth crippled device. The recommendation to hack it to 350 MHz is strange from a professional point of view, because it voids warranty without getting anywhere close to what it should be. This is just asking for trouble, if you think about later firmware revisions. The term warranty has the connotation of not being granted as a present.

The difference between a LeCroy DSO and others becomes obvious as soon as you start stacking algorithms, like doing math on resolution enhanced traces or zoom into filtered traces or average FFT spectra. As far as i have seen from our DS2202E, Rigol software engineers don't (yet) have a clear concept on how to achieve that. For example the firmware knows very well how to determine the risetime of a logical signal, so it does determine the two logical levels. But when you start the I2C decoder, you have to setup the level by hand, and you have to do it twice, once for clock and once for data. What if you forgot to setup probe attenuation properly? It will probably break down. Maybe that's how i did not get any meaningful I2C result.

Regards, Dieter

[Martin72]

Also the MSO2074A and RTB2004 work today and not in a few years from now (or never).

Today, after several firmware updates…..and what means "working" in this case ?
The mso 5000 today works too.
It did it in Nov 2018 when it was launched and it do it now, after the FIRST firmware update.

Maybe that's how i did not get any meaningful I2C result.

Unfortunately, we don´t use I2C, otherwise I would test it on the mso5000.
The decoding on the mso5000 is way better(and stable) than on the ds1054z, we also have in our lab.
But access to I2C I don´t have at the moment.

The recommendation to hack it to 350 MHz is strange from a professional point of view, because it voids warranty without getting anywhere close to what it should be. This is just asking for trouble, if you think about later firmware revisions.

You´re right, but for private use it doesn´t matter.
Additional, the "hack" vanishes by the next firmware update, see the rigol 5000 hack thread.

[nctnico]

Also the MSO2074A and RTB2004 work today and not in a few years from now (or never).

Today, after several firmware updates…..and what means "working" in this case ?

Working without bugs ofcourse and deliver on specs  Please don't play dumb. Both scopes I mentioned worked way better when introduced and both manufacturers are way more responsive when it comes to fixing bugs compared to Rigol. In general GW Instek gives you a beta version within days or weeks and puts the fix in the next release, R&S has fixed release cycles with a clearly defined roadmap (just ask Rich from R&S). One point you may have is that the RTB2004 could do with more fixing when it was release but the first batch got sold for a ridiculously low price ($2k with full options IIRC).

[2N3055]

Also the MSO2074A and RTB2004 work today and not in a few years from now (or never).

Today, after several firmware updates…..and what means "working" in this case ?

Working without bugs ofcourse and deliver on specs  Please don't play dumb. Both scopes I mentioned worked way better when introduced and both manufacturers are way more responsive when it comes to fixing bugs compared to Rigol. In general GW Instek gives you a beta version within days or weeks and puts the fix in the next release, R&S has fixed release cycles with a clearly defined roadmap (just ask Rich from R&S). One point you may have is that the RTB2004 could do with more fixing when it was release but the first batch got sold for a ridiculously low price ($2k with full options IIRC).

Read and weep....Dozens of bugs with basic functions ...
It was officially released March 2017.

And from end of document excerpt:
-------------------------------------------------
1.4 Known Issues
The following tables list the known issues and indicate since which version the issue
could be observed:
Known issues of Firmware V02.202:
Since Issue
V02.101 Zoom window created with zoom tool: in rare cases the vertical zoom positon of the zoom
window is wrong.
V01.000 Trigger type timeout with "Stays High|Low" configured as range: with this setup some trigger events will be lost.

So bugs in triggering since release still not fixed...

I really like how "repaired defects" are named "improvements". Sleazy.

I actually give you that GW Instek is very good, much better in quality and price performance than RTB2000.

So yeah Rigol actually has LESS bugs on release..



 

[nimish]

I bought a MSO5074 + pod because at $1400 or so I could hack it to to an otherwise 2000/3000+ scope. I'm a hobbyist. I don't make money off of my equipment. I wanted something that is good enough to last until 5-10 pass and the tech is cheap enough that I can drop $500 to replace it, vs spending $3000 now and being sad in 5 years that a toaster could out-sample my scope.

If you rely on scopes for your $, then yes Keysight/Tek/RS/etc make sense, since you can use it as deductible R&D capex. No such luck for the hobbyist. You can't offer something 2x-3x as pricy as a "comparable" offering in an extremely price sensitive segment.

The MSO5074 + hack is a very good deal despite the nits that rule it out for businesses and "serious" uses. If my hobby takes off into a business, and the RoI makes it worth it, I'll look at upgrading. Until then I'll stick to the MSO5000 and its warts, which fra nkly as a new user to scopes aren't a big deal. I script most of my dealings with it anyway 

But until then, nctnico and his vendetta against hobbyists buying cheap scopes that offer extreme value for money will always baffle me.

[Martin72]

Both scopes I mentioned worked way better when introduced and both manufacturers are way more responsive when it comes to fixing bugs compared to Rigol.

Did you compare it ?

Do you have a mso 5000 and work with it to do such a statement ?

[nctnico]

Read and weep....Dozens of bugs with basic functions ...
It was officially released March 2017.

Dozens? Where? The known issues from the latest release notes only lists two:
https://scdn.rohde-schwarz.com/ur/pws/dl_downloads/dl_firmware/pdf_3/RTB2000_ReleaseNotes_v02.202.pdf

[nctnico]

But until then, nctnico and his vendetta against hobbyists buying cheap scopes that offer extreme value for money will always baffle me.

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong here. If you like it, you like it but wait until you need advanced feature like protocol decoding to work. What baffles me is that people buy half baked products and pretend they are equivalent to equipment costing 5 to 10 times more.  Rigol will need years to fix it. The threads about the DS1054Z, DS2000 and DS4000 series are all the proof you need.

If Dave can spot several simple issues right of the bat then there are many more lurking because Dave's testing isn't thourough to begin with (and that is OK because really thourough testing would result in a long winded boring video).

Edit: besides that: the Rigol MSO5000 isn't an entry level or cheap scope to begin with. They want a serious amount of money for it.

[rsjsouza]

Read and weep....Dozens of bugs with basic functions ...
It was officially released March 2017.

Dozens? Where? The known issues from the latest release notes only lists two:
https://scdn.rohde-schwarz.com/ur/pws/dl_downloads/dl_firmware/pdf_3/RTB2000_ReleaseNotes_v02.202.pdf

nctnico, I think his point was that I counted 55 bugs squashed after the first firmware. If anything, it was far from perfect when it was released and there were several basic issues.

The remaining triggering bug is almost not even worth mentioning: it says it happens in "rare cases": how rare it may be debatable, but being on the other side of the fence (support and development) I can tell these types of issues may never be addressed due to resources being diverted towards more pressing bugs or features (or even entirely new platforms).

As I mentioned before, any new platform needs time to mature, either from R&S or Rigol. What counts is the time to react. So far, the ball is in Rigol's court with the MSO5000 and the comparison could be R&S and their metric of 55 bugs fixed in two years (among new features). How many were fixed in the same timeframe on the DS1000Z platform? What about the DS2000? I can tell that, within 4~5 years after market introduction, the DS4000 reached the status of a very good and useable platform - not perfect, but all very important bugs were squashed.

[nctnico]

What counts most is the severity of the bugs. If a bug causes an entire feature not to work then it is much more problematic than missing a button press every now and then.

Edit: And perhaps R&S isn't the best example. According to what I can find on the Google GW Instek announces the GDS2000E series beginning 2015. When I wrote my review (published februari 2016 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/msg855862/#msg855862 ) they had a pretty much mature product and where able to fix the bugs I had found within weeks.

[2N3055]

Read and weep....Dozens of bugs with basic functions ...
It was officially released March 2017.

Dozens? Where? The known issues from the latest release notes only lists two:
https://scdn.rohde-schwarz.com/ur/pws/dl_downloads/dl_firmware/pdf_3/RTB2000_ReleaseNotes_v02.202.pdf

Dozens from release. Two (that I mentioned) are what they officially admit knowing about but didn't fix yet. One of those is from initial release 1.0.0

Other dozens are list of "improvements" (fixed bugs)
On release it had more bugs than MSO5000. Just read release document.

But they are R&S and they and they own their mistakes and fix them eventually. And everybody think it is Ok to be understanding towards them and their bugs are Ok.

In two  years (March 2021) we'll reconvene  here and see if Rigol fixed their errors.  That is fair, that is level field, that  is not xenophobia, sinophobia or whatever crap is this smearing campaign here.

If they didn't I will apologize to you and agree you were right.

In meantime, you have nor right nor reason to categorically state  "they will never fix it", unless you are clairvoyant and can see future..

[nctnico]

I never said they'll never fix it. The fact however is that there seems to be a relation between sales and the frequency of firmware releases by Rigol for a product. The MSO5000 sits in a higher price bracket so they have to rely more on sales to businesses than hobbiests. If sales aren't what they are expecting then bug fixes will be slower or they might even abandon it. Time will tell but be honest: do you want to take that chance? Can you postpone buying a piece of equipment you need now by several years? Or put differently: do you want to buy a product which doesn't do what it is specified to do but you might find out when it is too late? There is a reason why I tested the crap out of the GDS2204E: I wanted to be sure it wouldn't throw me a nasty surprise at the worst possible moment like the Siglent SDS2000 did.

[2N3055]

What counts most is the severity of the bugs. If a bug causes an entire feature not to work then it is much more problematic than missing a button press every now and then.

And perhaps R&S isn't the best example. According to what I can find on the Google GW Instek announces the GDS2000E series beginning 2015. When I wrote my review (published februari 2016 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/gw-instek-gds2204e-(200mhz-4-channel-dso)-review/msg855862/#msg855862 ) they had a pretty much mature product and where able to fix the bugs I had found within weeks.

Severity of bugs: decodes not working properly and reliably, waveform not shown properly (scaling, offset and artefacts), timebase not working reliably, trigger errors, etc etc.. Just read.. Most of them were serious basic functioning of the scope.
Not "pluses".
But they are fanatastic serious company and they fix things and now, after two years it is getting to be reliable. But it was not reliable as released. It was easily worse or at least similar to MSO5000.
I'm not arrogant enough to postulate that Rigol engineers are stupid and incompetent. If anything, they are probably fantastic, and certainly know their job. But releasing new platform, new ASICS, new everything is hard even for the likes of Keysight.

R&S is actually new benchmark how bad can be something at release, and how it can grow to something great.
So if R&S can have 2 years to make it right so can Rigol..

I wish none of them would release unfinished beta class products. But if western companies are allowed to do that, than so can Chinese..

I would like that A brands would prove me wrong and be actually better at this. But they are not..Sometimes they are even worse, especially considering prices they are charging...

[nctnico]

R&S dropped the ball for sure but they put a very nice user interface together on the RTB2000 and related oscilloscopes. Stuff like being able to drag the split screens for example. They probably bit off way more than they could chew and then management kicked in to shove it onto the market. The RTM3000 got released later and that didn't had so many issues.

[Fungus]

The recommendation to hack it to 350 MHz is strange from a professional point of view, because it voids warranty

The hack can vanish just as easily, leaving no trace.

without getting anywhere close to what it should be.

 

It enables all possible features/upgrades, just like official paid-for options do.

[Fungus]

They probably bit off way more than they could chew and then management kicked in to shove it onto the market.

Just like the Rigol MSO5000, then? It's obvious they rushed it our for Xmas.

Weird how R&S get a free pass when they do this but Rigol doesn't, despite R&S costing much more money

[nctnico]

They probably bit off way more than they could chew and then management kicked in to shove it onto the market.

Just like the Rigol MSO5000, then? It's obvious they rushed it our for Xmas.

Weird how R&S get a free pass when they do this but Rigol doesn't, despite R&S costing much more money

Where does R&S get a free pass?

[2N3055]

I never said they'll never fix it. The fact however is that there seems to be a relation between sales and the frequency of firmware releases by Rigol for a product. The MSO5000 sits in a higher price bracket so they have to rely more on sales to businesses than hobbiests. If sales aren't what they are expecting then bug fixes will be slower or they might even abandon it. Time will tell but be honest: do you want to take that chance? Can you postpone buying a piece of equipment you need now by several years? Or put differently: do you want to buy a product which doesn't do what it is specified to do but you might find out when it is too late? There is a reason why I tested the crap out of the GDS2204E: I wanted to be sure it wouldn't throw me a nasty surprise at the worst possible moment like the Siglent SDS2000 did.

What you went trough with Siglent was bad. They screwed you bad, and you are right to be mad. But even Siglent made a lot of improvement in that area. But I agree with you that people need to be cautious.  If they need instrument they have to heavily depend on, they should test right know if instrument does what they need right now. I don't care about promises if I need it NOW.

But that is applicable to every manufacturer. I didn't ( and I advise anybody not to ) buy R&S RTM3000 because it doesn't have basic search on segmented memory and on  such basic protocols as UART, I2C and SPI... You get 400 Msamples worth of I2C in 5000 segments and than you are supposed to go manually trough all them to find a single packet there..
I would like to meet an idiot who thought that was good idea.

So I got Keysight 3000T that has pathetic memory but at least everything works and is a pleasure to work with.
But it is so stable and bug free not because Keysight is God given.. No, it is good because it is almost 10 years old platform that was being debugged all this time. It's revision history is also full of bugs and it's 27 pages long... Result?  Reliable instrument.
But if I need long sample memory, I have to use my Picoscope.  But that is OK, no single instrument can do it all..

3000T also have stupid things:
. there are no histogram measurements. MSO5000 has it..
. you can count pulses only on analog channels, but not on digital where you need it more.
. hardware decode is great for speed. But you cannot apply and/or change decodes afterwards. So you cant just capture something and fiddle with settings until you setup it all right. You have to keep a running captures until you are happy with setting and than capture one you need. Which sometimes you can't do. In which cases software decodes are better. Cue in Picoscope...
etc.

Nobody is perfect.

[tautech]

I never said they'll never fix it. The fact however is that there seems to be a relation between sales and the frequency of firmware releases by Rigol for a product. The MSO5000 sits in a higher price bracket so they have to rely more on sales to businesses than hobbiests. If sales aren't what they are expecting then bug fixes will be slower or they might even abandon it. Time will tell but be honest: do you want to take that chance? Can you postpone buying a piece of equipment you need now by several years? Or put differently: do you want to buy a product which doesn't do what it is specified to do but you might find out when it is too late? There is a reason why I tested the crap out of the GDS2204E: I wanted to be sure it wouldn't throw me a nasty surprise at the worst possible moment like the Siglent SDS2000 did.

What you went trough with Siglent was bad. They screwed you bad, and you are right to be mad.

All that was bad was no timely fix for issues Nico identified and he wasn't prepared to wait for them to arrive.
I get that frustration ^ and the ongoing mentions by Nico  of his early experience with Siglent has been partly responsible for a significant change in culture.

But even Siglent made a lot of improvement in that area.

Exactly.

Nobody is perfect.

No scope is perfect. We will never see one that is.

[dietert1]

In the area of digital scopes LeCroy is the definition of perfect, because they started building them about 40 years ago, when nobody else except HP had the faintest clue what a DSO could be.
When you think you need a car, but you can't afford a new one, you try to get a used one that fits. The recommendation to buy a bicycle instead is ridiculous. Especially if you already had a bicycle.

OT: Three months ago i happened to recap the power supply of our LeCroy 9354A. It is connected to a PC via GPIB and produces TIFF files with  colored traces on the press of a button. When we bought it 10 years ago it came fully equipped with software options. It does not decode serial data streams though. Those scopes currently sell for about US$ 600. The 1 GHz version would be 9374 or 9384.
Our 9354A has a trickle charger for the clock battery, so we can leave it off for years and it will turn on. It also got quiet fans. And it got two 1 GHz active probes.

Regards. Dieter

[Noy]

The handling/useability of  LeCroy is so uncommon many people doesn't like it.
We have a "old" DPO 7254 and a "new"  SDA820Zi-A beside some smaller Hameg/Tektronix and some everyday / everybench 1054z Rigols (enough to check powerup sequences / switching regulator / Low Speed stuff ) use and nearly everyone tries to measure most Highspeed things with the DPO because the handling is much more intuitive then the LeCroy..

Especially the active probes from LeCroy are worse. This tiny fiddly probes with their lego stuff and the tiny resistors you have to solder to your highspeed lines and these resistors are "unsolderable" they won't hold.. Just sneeze beside them and they are Off again... Crap!!!

[Fungus]

When you think you need a car, but you can't afford a new one, you try to get a used one that fits.

Says who? Many people in that situation choose to buy a smaller car and accept the fact that they don't have leather seats and can't fit a sofa in the back.

Buying an old banger just in case they might go into the removals business one day just leads to higher maintenance bills and a smell of old dust every time they get in it.

[dietert1]

My proposal is considering a scope with active probes, if someone wants to work above 100 or 200 MHz. Our LeCroy AP020 1GHz active probes are as easy to use as a passive probe. They just get a little bit warm. Do we need to discuss the difficulties of probing at 10 GHz and how a LeCroy 10 GHz scope sounds like a vacuum cleaner?
Recapping our LeCroy 9354A happened after the arrival of the Rigol DS2202E and nobody knows whether the Rigol will survive ten years. Even with it's age of more than twenty years, our LeCroy 9354A has its advantages, for example the active probe interfaces. It also got a diode gate made of a 50A bridge rectifier in its protective ground connection, so it has a +/- 1.2 V ground free margin and less noise with small signals. It came to us from another lab and the only reason we got it was it did no longer power on. It doesn't smell at all.
I am just demonstrating how $1000 may get you a 500 MHz DSO with two active probes, nothing more.

Regards, Dieter

[nimish]

But until then, nctnico and his vendetta against hobbyists buying cheap scopes that offer extreme value for money will always baffle me.

Sorry but you are absolutely wrong here. If you like it, you like it but wait until you need advanced feature like protocol decoding to work. What baffles me is that people buy half baked products and pretend they are equivalent to equipment costing 5 to 10 times more.  Rigol will need years to fix it. The threads about the DS1054Z, DS2000 and DS4000 series are all the proof you need.

If Dave can spot several simple issues right of the bat then there are many more lurking because Dave's testing isn't thourough to begin with (and that is OK because really thourough testing would result in a long winded boring video).

Edit: besides that: the Rigol MSO5000 isn't an entry level or cheap scope to begin with. They want a serious amount of money for it.

My dude, the MSO5074 is $999. That's not a lot, it's cheaper than my phone, but it is a stretch for a *hobbyist*. The alternative for a *hobbyist* is _not_ a $5000 Keysight scope, it's a $300 cheapass chinese scope or nothing for anything above 200MHz. For the price, there is *nothing* at the level of the MSO5074 + hacks (which as a hobbyist doesn't matter) + a hack pod or real one ($400).

If you paid $5000 for an MSO5074 there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. But we're talking about a hacked $1000 scope, where such things like minor bugs are ok, because you saved thousands.

This is what I don't get; you are talking about a whole other world in terms of people who need absolute reliability -- in which case, spend the $3k, $5k for quality support (it'll pay for itself!) vs a Chinesium grade scope. But I am, and many others in the thread are, in the hobbyist world where outlay cost matters far more than a few extra hours of time.

[Fungus]

This is what I don't get; you are talking about a whole other world in terms of people who need absolute reliability -- in which case, spend the $3k, $5k for quality support

My question is: If a 'scope costs that much money then why does it need any support. Surely it should be completely bug free, easy to use, reliable, nice manual, etc.

Where does "support" enter into it? 

[nimish]

This is what I don't get; you are talking about a whole other world in terms of people who need absolute reliability -- in which case, spend the $3k, $5k for quality support

My question is: If a 'scope costs that much money then why does it need any support. Surely it should be completely bug free, easy to use, reliable, nice manual, etc.

Where does "support" enter into it? 

When you run into a situation where you just can't take the time to learn the scope and need/want someone to help with something. 10min of talking to an expert can replace a week of spinning in circles.

If you don't need/want that, I don't see the point in spending the money on ultra high end scope gear, because that's what actually costs real money.

[iMo]

The biggest mistake one can make (when looking for an o'scope or 6+ digits DMM like me) is to join eevblog and start to read the relevant threads.

5-6 years back I was discussing with my local seller a purchase of rigol's DS4014 and rigol's xxxx DMM.

Unfortunately, I discovered the eevblog and started to read the threads.

I've been not able to decide on an o'scope and a DMM.

Even worse, it seems to me, more and more, all o'scopes and DMMs, whatever brand, are boxes full of worms.

 

[TK]

I just received the DS1054Z... it is a nice scope and more responsive than the MSO5000 I tried a couple of weeks ago... In my opinion the MSO5000 is a downgrade in terms of display quality, UI responsiveness. 

I still think that something fundamental changed at Rigol in the last couple of years... from being Rigol Technologies, now the name is Rigol xyz Technologies (I don't remember xyz, it is in the back label of the scope).  Probably the original Rigol owners sold the company and now it is being managed by a private equity company that does only care for the money.

[Martin72]

I think nearly the opposite about, after working with the 5000 for "so long" and everyday with the possibility to compare it with a DS1054Z ( we have 3 in the labs), siglent sds-1104x-e ( one), several lecroy models and two tektronix.

Display is weak, no doubt about it, but in my opinion the UI/ menue structure is the same - same complicated.
The menues of a waverunner ws 3024 was "heaven" against, so straight, so easy...
Beside of, the 5000 got much more powerful hardware, the screen ist full usable, menues can be hidden ( this is what I hate most on the ds1054, the permanent menue left and right) and, even it´s very dim, the benefit of a bigger Display - 7" wasn´t suitable anymore for an mid-40s old man like me....

[Martin72]

By the way:

The menues of a waverunner ws 3024 was "heaven" against, so straight, so easy...

This model of lecroy got a bright, big Display, a hefty look and feel and some typical lecroy features....but it´s awful slow in it´s response and got some hard issues like totally frozen after pressing the find triggerlevel button or the missing of an free chooseable measure gate.
It got "countless" firmware updates so far, last from february this year, and still got these issues.
And it costs triple as a mso 5074....so much to say about a so called A-brand.
Actually, the rigol 5074 leave this one clearly behind in nearly all cases, except look and feel, display and integrated 50 ohm termination.

[dietert1]

For those who don't know LeCroy i prepared an example measurement from a USB2 audio transmission. Then two zooms into two packets. Then two gated frequency measurements in the sync fields of the two packets (0101.. sequence gives 240 MHz). One measurement was taken with the 9354A i mentioned before.
The other one is with an 11 year old WR 64Xi which currently sells at a similar price as the 350 MHz version of the Rigol 5000.
Maybe someone can try to do it with a Rigol 5000.

Regards, Dieter

[Mr Nutts]

For those who don't know LeCroy i prepared an example measurement from a USB2 audio transmission. Then two zooms into two packets. Then two gated frequency measurements in the sync fields of the two packets (0101.. sequence gives 240 MHz). One measurement was taken with the 9354A i mentioned before.
The other one is with an 11 year old WR 64Xi which currently sells at a similar price as the 350 MHz version of the Rigol 5000.
Maybe someone can try to do it with a Rigol 5000.

Regards, Dieter

Be careful, the last guy who talked a lot about Lecroy has been banned   

It's also his fault that I bought a Waveruner LT264 and a LT574 and I'm happy with them   Although I now also have an Agilent DSO8064 which is my main scope mostly because it has so much memory (128M) and can decode I2C

I think I paid $700 for the LT264 and around $1k for the LT574.

Durability should not be an issue, apparently they were manufactured in Japan for Lecroy. I've seen older Lecroy scopes with crt which had a plastic housing and they often look damaged. But these Waveruner LT scopes are solid like bricks

And if something breaks then schematics are available

I learned so much just by using them (I guess the explanations from the guy who talked me into them did help a bit), they have very powerful functions of which some are still beyond my grasp

The only thing I really miss is decoding but that's what I have the Agilent for

The interface of the Lecroy scopes I have is different from the Tektronix scopes we had at college but it's pretty straight forward to use. Sometimes I mix up horizontal and vertical controls but that's it. And if I can operate these Lecroys then pretty much anyone should be able to do it 

[dietert1]

Yes, certainly a huge system like this forum needs sponsors. And like the first two pages at Google are advertising, here we see many threads about buying Rigol or Siglent. So let's not mention LeCroy anymore in a thread about buying Rigol scopes.

Are you using any of your scopes with active probes?

Regards, Dieter

[rsjsouza]

Dieter, excellent data captures.

He almost made me get a Waverunner LT LeCroy as well back in 2015...

[tautech]

For those who don't know LeCroy i prepared an example measurement from a USB2 audio transmission. Then two zooms into two packets. Then two gated frequency measurements in the sync fields of the two packets (0101.. sequence gives 240 MHz). One measurement was taken with the 9354A i mentioned before.
The other one is with an 11 year old WR 64Xi which currently sells at a similar price as the 350 MHz version of the Rigol 5000.
Maybe someone can try to do it with a Rigol 5000.

Regards, Dieter

Be careful, the last guy who talked a lot about Lecroy has been banned   

Yes, just because he spoke his mind based on extensive experience and some members did not like that. 

W went to the all about circuits forum and still today that was a loss for EEVblog..........but even Dave could not see the value of contributions made vs the protests from members.

[Fungus]

It is also funny how Rigols and Siglents are held up to a higher standards than A-brand scopes costing 20x more.

It's mostly Rigols being held to different standards by the Siglent dealers here.

[petemate]

W went to the all about circuits forum and still today that was a loss for EEVblog..........but even Dave could not see the value of contributions made vs the protests from members.

Is there a juicy story hiding here?

[tautech]

W went to the all about circuits forum and still today that was a loss for EEVblog..........but even Dave could not see the value of contributions made vs the protests from members.

Is there a juicy story hiding here?

Not really, just Wuerstchenhund is involved in profession equipment supply so has extensive experience and knowledge that he also shared here and with some passion and forthrightness.
Unfortunately as he was banned the Members search won't find his profile to look through his posts but the main content Search will to find some of his contributions.
There's a few members that still have contact with him like I do. 

[maginnovision]

Yeah, some of the professional equipment suppliers here are over zealous. Passion is best in moderation.

[dietert1]

We may loose a lot when marketing needs hinder free speech. What remains is "alternative truth" and airplanes start falling down in plain sunshine, just one example. I don't know how to expect anything smart from an environment like China.

Regards, Dieter

[2N3055]

We may loose a lot when marketing needs hinder free speech. What remains is "alternative truth" and airplanes start falling down in plain sunshine, just one example. I don't know how to expect anything smart from an environment like China.

Regards, Dieter

Let me see if I understood correctly:
because Chinese are stupid, American companies are cheating and don't know or don't care how to  make good products so their airplanes are falling out of the sky and people are dying....
Is that what you saying ?
 

[timber23]

For those who don't know LeCroy i prepared an example measurement from a USB2 audio transmission. Then two zooms into two packets. Then two gated frequency measurements in the sync fields of the two packets (0101.. sequence gives 240 MHz). One measurement was taken with the 9354A i mentioned before.
The other one is with an 11 year old WR 64Xi which currently sells at a similar price as the 350 MHz version of the Rigol 5000.
Maybe someone can try to do it with a Rigol 5000.

Regards, Dieter

Hello Dieter,

I tryed to repeat your measurement, but my USB audio device seems to communicate much solwer:


For testing, I bought a cheap USB Audio adapter of eBay. The ID of the device is 8086:0808
I am using differential probes (Micsig) on D+ and D- at the USB connector.

Best regards
Andreas

[dietert1]

Great, that appears to be 12 MBits/second (2x 6,06 MHz) in comparison to the 480 MBits/second in the measurement i made on a CM6631A audio interface. You used cursors to determine the bit rate using two bit intervals, while i set a measurement gate to let the scope determine the frequency within that gate. And i could extract two different zooms, each one with its own gate and measurement.
It appears those scopes serve to derive the bit rates and the Rigol is good for full speed USB, while the Lecroy WR64Xi does USB2. This example is a bit silly anyway, since none of both scopes decodes the data. Don't know whether Lecroy offered this for the WR64Xi. We have a Lecroy SDA 6020 6 GHz scope that does it and puts the results into a table.

Risetime in your Rigol measurement seems to be about 80 nsec. Is this real or is that a bandwidth limit of the scope or the differential probe you are using? What is the input capacitance of that probe?

Regards, Dieter

PS: I guess it is real, because the differential logic amplitude is about 6 or 7 V, so it's an unterminated transmission line with the risetime determined by cable capacitance.

[timber23]

The differential probe DP10013 has a rise time of 3.5ns and an impedance of 10M ohm/ 1pf.

The scopes rise/fall time is 750ps.

Following your argumentation, the cable is the reason for the slow slopes.

Best regards
Andreas

Gesendet von meinem MI 9 mit Tapatalk

[Anding]

There are many MSO5000 treads but this one has the title that asks my question!

Three years and several firmware updates later, and the Rigol is on sale now with the extra functions bundled so no need to hack if 100MHZ is enough.

Is this still a scope to consider?  Beaten hands-down by a newer rival?  Shipping with a brighter LCD?  Most bugs fixed?

Thanks in advance for any comments...

[Fungus]

Three years and ... is this still a scope to consider?

The answer is still the same: "What sort of things would you normally use it for?"

[Anding]

On paper thie MSO5000 exactly right for me - a cost effective mixed signal oscilloscope for a hobby use on small FPGA and embedded analogue/digital circuits.  Most of the discussion, and all of the online reviews, including EEV blog"s date from 2019.  I"d like to know

1. Have the firmware updates fixed the worst of the bugs which it was being criticised for?

2. Is it shipping with a better LCD these days?

3. Any new scope out in the last 3 years in the same price bracket that strongly rivals or supersedes it?

[Martin72]

Hi,

1. Nobody knows all the bugs by numbers and if they were solved, you have to look for yourself.
In general, Bugs means not that the scope isn´t usable.
2. What means "better" ? Display was a little bit dim, this was solved by hardware modification, for example, my former MSO5000 I´ve send to rigol service and they modify it.
Newer models got this fix implemented.It´s got an effect, no question, but it´s not the brightest on the market...But trust me, you will see everything on it. 
3. No, what it´s starting price concerns there is no alternative.

[Fungus]

...hobby use on small FPGA and embedded analogue/digital circuits

Sounds like a good match.

Have the firmware updates fixed the worst of the bugs which it was being criticised for?

Yes. They've also added new features like a hires mode to reduce noise.

Is it shipping with a better LCD these days?

Yes.

3. Any new scope out in the last 3 years in the same price bracket that strongly rivals or supersedes it?

No.

[Anding]

Order placed - it's on the way!

[ubata]

Read and weep....Dozens of bugs with basic functions ...
It was officially released March 2017.

Dozens? Where? The known issues from the latest release notes only lists two:
https://scdn.rohde-schwarz.com/ur/pws/dl_downloads/dl_firmware/pdf_3/RTB2000_ReleaseNotes_v02.202.pdf

Dozens from release. Two (that I mentioned) are what they officially admit knowing about but didn't fix yet. One of those is from initial release 1.0.0

Other dozens are list of "improvements" (fixed bugs)
On release it had more bugs than MSO5000. Just read release document.

But they are R&S and they and they own their mistakes and fix them eventually. And everybody think it is Ok to be understanding towards them and their bugs are Ok.

In two  years (March 2021) we'll reconvene  here and see if Rigol fixed their errors.  That is fair, that is level field, that  is not xenophobia, sinophobia or whatever crap is this smearing campaign here.

If they didn't I will apologize to you and agree you were right.

In meantime, you have nor right nor reason to categorically state  "they will never fix it", unless you are clairvoyant and can see future..

Today marks almost three years since the official announcement of the MSO5000 and it's a good time to get back together here and see if Rigol has fixed their buggs/errors?!
I am very curious to see the results of Rigol's efforts.

[Martin72]

Have a look at their firmware release history and then compare it with the reported bugs in the rigol MSO5000 bug thread.

[Anding]

Quick report of my first impressions with the 4-channel 100MHz MSO5000 with feature bundle and digital probe kit which arrived just before the weekend:

The screen is good: the default brightness setting is 30%, which is ok but not especially bright.  I adjusted that to 80% and would not want it any brighter.  I find the GUI to be responsive and user-friendly.  First experiments were all a success and a lot of fun!  I did not try out the hires mode or any advanced features yet and I'm not qualified to comment anyway.  The firmware has been updated several times since the first reviews and I have no concerns.

It's a big step up over what I was using before: a PC 'scope and a handheld Hantek.  It's still first impressions but it certainly feels that I have a quality instrument in my hands that I'm probably never going to find the limit of.  I am happy and would recommend it to someone in a similar position to myself.  I didn't much look at the Sigilent options as the styling of the Rigol really appealed to me, but that is entirely personal.

It's interesting that Dave just released a blog post about whether a $1,000 scope is overkill for the hobbyist.  To me it's not really about the circuits your are going to build or the testing you'll need to do.  The hobby is about acquiring knowledge, skills and experience.  Learning how to use and get the best out of a decent, full-function 'scope is an opportunity in itself.  Yes, this is more than I exactly need for now, but I'm looking forward to the journey of getting to know it and discovering more and more in the years to come.

[balnazzar]

It's a big step up over what I was using before: a PC 'scope and a handheld Hantek.  It's still first impressions but it certainly feels that I have a quality instrument in my hands that I'm probably never going to find the limit of.

Which PC scope?

Also, I don't want to curb your enthusiasm, but read along the tail of the other thread. If you want to find its limits, it will suffice that you do stuff below (say) 50 mV.

Tell me one more thing: how do you evaluate the acoustical noise produced by the fan? Is the fan temperature controlled, or it's always driven at maximum speed?

[Anding]

It's a big step up over what I was using before: a PC 'scope and a handheld Hantek.  It's still first impressions but it certainly feels that I have a quality instrument in my hands that I'm probably never going to find the limit of.

Which PC scope?

Also, I don't want to curb your enthusiasm, but read along the tail of the other thread. If you want to find its limits, it will suffice that you do stuff below (say) 50 mV.

Tell me one more thing: how do you evaluate the acoustical noise produced by the fan? Is the fan temperature controlled, or it's always driven at maximum speed?

Possibly not fair to the maker of the PC 'scope to say here that I don't prefer it over a bench model but it's a "typical" $300 unit. PM me if you must know.

I am very sensitive to noise.  All my PC's are fanless models.  I call the Rigol pretty quiet so far (first impressions running it for just a few hours).  The fan speed did not vary that I could tell in that time.

It's a shame about the limit of noise below 50mV which I don't doubt if you point it out.  Is it possible to build or buy a low noise amplifier or something when the need arises?  How is that problem solved in other contexts?

[Fungus]

Is it possible to build or buy a low noise amplifier or something when the need arises?

Why build one when you can get one for $5 on Aliexpress?

Example from other thread showing a 2mV sine wave on the MSO5000:



Pink trace - raw MSO5000 at 2mV/div with no noise reducing features enabled (ie. no hires or averaging).

Yellow trace - exact same signal but with a $5 Aliexpress amplifier. Now you can view the signal at 50mV/div and the Rigol's ADC noise is irrelevant.

Amplifier: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000723079878.html

PS: Even without the amplifier you can enable waveform averaging and you'll see this:



Whether or not it's a problem depends on how often you need to look at this sort of signal...

nb. Siglents don't go down to microvolts either. If low very level signals are what you do all day long then you're going to need the amplifier no matter what 'scope you own. 

[dietert1]

For me the aliexpress link results in an error page "Leider ist dieser Artikel an Ihrem Standort derzeit nicht verfügbar. Entdecken Sie weitere Gruppenkaufangebote."
Would you write down a sentence what you mean, like bandwidth, gain, supply options?

Regards, Dieter

[Fungus]

For me the aliexpress link results in an error page "Leider ist dieser Artikel an Ihrem Standort derzeit nicht verfügbar. Entdecken Sie weitere Gruppenkaufangebote."
Would you write down a sentence what you mean, like bandwidth, gain, supply options?

I get this:


There's hundreds of sellers with that amplifier though, just search for "40db broadband amplifier"

Specs:

[dietert1]

Thanks. So you were using that one?
It is spec'd for 60 dB, that is G=1000 and bandwidth 30 .. 4000 MHz. In your scope screen you were using it at 8 MHz (out of bandwidth) and at a gain of about 70. Maybe not the best solution for a scope, where we want to preserve the input signal shape.
Also one might want a preamplifier that can be used with the usual scope probes. These amplifiers are 50 Ohm RF systems. Does the Rigol support 50 Ohm input termination?

Regards, Dieter

[Fungus]

Thanks. So you were using that one?
It is spec'd for 60 dB, that is G=1000 and bandwidth 30 .. 4000 MHz. In your scope screen you were using it at 8 MHz (out of bandwidth) and at a gain of about 70. Maybe not the best solution for a scope, where we want to preserve the input signal shape.
Also one might want a preamplifier that can be used with the usual scope probes. These amplifiers are 50 Ohm RF systems. Does the Rigol support 50 Ohm input termination?

Looking at millivolt signals with ordinary probes probably won't work well on any oscilloscope. It's usually done in 50-Ohm terminated systems.

FWIW: The MSO5000 doesn't have internal 50Ohm termination.

The proposed solution would only be for occasional use. If looking at mV signals is a central part of what you're planning to use your oscilloscope for then maybe you need to look at a 12-bit "HD" oscilloscope.

[dietert1]

We have a Rigol DS2202E and it has the 50 Ohm input termination. Anyway that's half the story. The preamplifier input should also be switchable between high impedance and 50 Ohm.
Certainly if a scope doesn't pick a signal because it is to small, a preamplfier will have a similar problem.
Sometimes i found snap-on ferrites on scope probes useful when using digital scopes. Or feed the probe cable through a ferrite ring core multiple times in order to reduce common mode noise into the ground clip impedance.

Regards, Dieter

[tautech]

Whether or not it's a problem depends on how often you need to look at this sort of signal...

nb. Siglents don't go down to microvolts either. If low very level signals are what you do all day long then you're going to need the amplifier no matter what 'scope you own. 

Best you refresh your thoughts on this matter here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/is-a-rigol-mso5000-overkill-for-a-hobbyist/msg4481968/#msg4481968

[Martin72]

Looking at millivolt signals with ordinary probes probably won't work well on any oscilloscope.

So for what purposes you are using this amp you´ve linked ?
Please show pics from the amp and your scope how they are connected together and with the signal source and of course screenshots where you can see it´s behaviour concerning additional noise, phase-shifting and so on.
Thankyou!

[Anding]

Also, I don't want to curb your enthusiasm, but read along the tail of the other thread. If you want to find its limits, it will suffice that you do stuff below (say) 50 mV.

There has been a lot of discussion about the ADC noise of the Rigol MSO5000 compared with the Siglent SDS2000X Plus, which is more expensive (arguably enough of a price difference to notice if you are hobbyist, perhaps not if you will use it as tool of your trade). 

Instead of this comparison, I'm curious how is the Rigol noise compared to all of other those 'scopes costing up to and around $1,000?

A) Is the Rigol 'noisy' for a 'scope costing up to $1,000, or
B) Is the Rigol noise about the same as other 'scopes costing up to $1,000? 

Does the fact that the Rigol is being compared with the more-expensive Siglent mean it is already "punching above it's weight", but too much to expect a "knockout"?

[tautech]

Also, I don't want to curb your enthusiasm, but read along the tail of the other thread. If you want to find its limits, it will suffice that you do stuff below (say) 50 mV.

There has been a lot of discussion about the ADC noise of the Rigol MSO5000 compared with the Siglent SDS2000X Plus, which is more expensive (arguably enough of a price difference to notice if you are hobbyist, perhaps not if you will use it as tool of your trade). 

Instead of this comparison, I'm curious how is the Rigol noise compared to all of other those 'scopes costing up to and around $1,000?

A) Is the Rigol 'noisy' for a 'scope costing up to $1,000, or
B) Is the Rigol noise about the same as other 'scopes costing up to $1,000? 

Does the fact that the Rigol is being compared with the more-expensive Siglent mean it is already "punching above it's weight", but too much to expect a "knockout"?

See the capture Martin took where a $500 DSO was noticeably better than the 5k.
I linked it a couple posts back.

[Anding]

See the capture Martin took where a $500 DSO was noticeably better than the 5k.
I linked it a couple posts back.

I saw Martin had kindly shared images from a Silgent, the Rigol and a Teledyne LeCroy.    Perhaps there are two different Silgents here, the first a $500 DSO and the latter ones the SDS2000X?

[tautech]

See the capture Martin took where a $500 DSO was noticeably better than the 5k.
I linked it a couple posts back.

I saw Martin had kindly shared images from a Silgent, the Rigol and a Teledyne LeCroy.    Perhaps there are two different Silgents here, the first a $500 DSO and the latter ones the SDS2000X Plus ?

Exactly correct except for missing the Plus.  The great little and very popular SDS1104X-E represents itself very well against many much more expensive.

[Fungus]

Sometimes i found snap-on ferrites on scope probes useful when using digital scopes. Or feed the probe cable through a ferrite ring core multiple times in order to reduce common mode noise into the ground clip impedance.

That won't help on the MSO5000 because most of the noise is in the ADC.

[Martin72]

Looking at millivolt signals with ordinary probes probably won't work well on any oscilloscope.

So for what purposes you are using this amp you´ve linked ?
Please show pics from the amp and your scope how they are connected together and with the signal source and of course screenshots where you can see it´s behaviour concerning additional noise, phase-shifting and so on.
Thankyou!

Reminder.....

[Fungus]

Reminder.....

Here's a picture of what your sock puppet says is too complicated/fiddly/generally impossible to do:

All the guy did was insert the cheapest, cheap-ass $3(plus shipping) Aliexpress amplifier into his signal path and the pink trace turned into the yellow trace.



There was no fiddling or messing around, just connect it up and it works. In this case it was inserted in the path of an AWG.

I don't know what more "proof" anybody could ask for.

[Anding]

I wish to offer my point of view as a newbie who has just taken delivery of an MSO5104.

It has taken me a lot of time and scrutiny of the forum posts (plus time spent on the scope itself) to honestly conclude that I have not wasted my money on a flawed instrument.

The noise in the ADC is undisputed.  You can buy a much less expensive scope that has less noise.  If you spend more money you can buy a scope with less noise and still all of the MSO features.  Martin72’s pictures make this clear.

All I want to say is that I found the relentless presentation / implication of the ADC noise as a “fatal flaw” to be unhelpful - because nobody says “the noise is likely a problem if you doing X but will be no issue if you want to do mainly Y and occasionally Z”

I appeal to the experts here to define the relevant X, Y, and Z in the sentence above and thus make the discussion informative to newbies such as myself.

For me,
X: hifi audio work? Not my interest as it happens
Y: microcontroller and FPGA embedded projects
Z: VLF antenna work, I can see the noise getting in the way unless I amplify

[dietert1]

When we use a scope, we want to measure something, like signal shape, amplitude, noise..
Nothing of this will be possible with that cheap amplifier in the signal chain, using it out of bandwidth and with its low input impedance. That recommendation was misleading to say the least.

Regards, Dieter

[Anding]

For making VLF antennas it's basically just a case of adding or removing capacitors until resonance is found at the desired frequency, typically 20-100 kHz.  And you only do it once.  As long as an amplifier is stable then relative readings are enough.  Granted it's a different amplifier module though. 

[2N3055]

Reminder.....

Here's a picture of what your sock puppet says is too complicated/fiddly/generally impossible to do:

All the guy did was insert the cheapest, cheap-ass $3(plus shipping) Aliexpress amplifier into his signal path and the pink trace turned into the yellow trace.

There was no fiddling or messing around, just connect it up and it works. In this case it was inserted in the path of an AWG.

I don't know what more "proof" anybody could ask for.

Dear Fungus,

Now I see you don't understand what we are talking about. I apologize for not being clear enough.
Yes we can see some scope screen and some waveforms.

But that is exactly the point: you see something on a screen.
And if all you need is to see if, for instance, you have clock on some pin it is fine like that.
But in that case even the original signal representation by noisy MSO5000  would be enough for GO/NoGO check.

But scope is not just used for scope art. We need to measure things. We need to see if signal is distorted.
We need to verify amplitude.
For that amplifier needs to be calibrated, it needs to have standardized input and output impedance. We need to have it
characterized for bandwidth, distortion, phase distortions..
When that "amplifier" is part of scope itself all that stuff is already done by scope manufacturer and included in scope specifications and calibrated.
Also since when you have a scope that has minimum 5mV/div, from that to 500uV there are 3 amplification steps missing (2mv, 1mv, and 500uV div). Are you going to have 3 different amplifiers? For what bandwidth? What input imepedance? Those 5 USD amplifiers are RF amps. They are 50Ω (they should be but nobody know if they are and what it's real impedance is, you need a VNA to measure it). They don't go to DC.  You might find an amplifier that is high impedance (1MΩ//some pF) but with what BW? Is that one DC too?.
So, if you have a lab with several thousands worth of other equipment you might characterize and use your own preamps for specific purpose. And that is actually done all the time. People make custom preamps for specific purpose too.
But none of that is "replacement of fix" for scope limited range. It is an application specific thing that takes a lot effort and  knowledge to be done right. None of it is "just throw in a preamp". And you might need dozens of different preamps and all the stuff that goes with it.

Fact is, and that is what I said before but it was not registered, there are oscilloscope preamplifiers. Basically those are scope front ends (the high sensitivity low noise ones, some even differential) with all the needed parameters already sorted out.  Those can be (and are) used to purpose you are advocating. Problem with those is they cost so much, it is cheaper to buy SDS2354X HD (12 bit low noise one) than one of these fancy preamps.

[Fungus]

And if all you need is to see if, for instance, you have clock on some pin it is fine like that.

Are you seriously saying I'm telling people to use an amplifier to see if there's a clock on a pin?

All I want to say is that I found the relentless presentation / implication of the ADC noise as a “fatal flaw” to be unhelpful

Yep. The Siglent fanboys are a constant nuisance.

nobody says “the noise is likely a problem if you doing X but will be no issue if you want to do mainly Y and occasionally Z”

I say things like that all the time.

I say things like "Digital use: Not a problem." and "Looking at mV signals? Problem."

When we use a scope, we want to measure something, like signal shape, amplitude, noise..
Nothing of this will be possible with that cheap amplifier in the signal chain, using it out of bandwidth and with its low input impedance. That recommendation was misleading to say the least.

You're all batshit insane. Seriously.

Every single time I mention an amplifier I make a point to qualify it with "for occasional use" or "in a pinch".

I even tell people not to use them, eg. here's a post on the previous page of this thread where where I say: "The proposed solution would only be for occasional use. If looking at mV signals is a central part of what you're planning to use your oscilloscope for then maybe you need to look at a 12-bit "HD" oscilloscope."

Link: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/should-i-buy-a-rigol-mso5000/msg4481770/#msg4481770

[gf]

I wonder whether the mV ranges really need to be used at full bandwidth, or whether a lower bandwidth (say 20MHz or even less) would suffice for many low-voltage use cases?

Of course, if the ADC noise is the dominant contributor to noise, then it won't suffice to limit the bandwidth in the frontend, but the bandwith reduction from the 4GHz noise bandwidth of the ADC to (say) 20MHz needs to be done by applying a low-pass filter in the digital domain, after sampling at full 8GSa/s. The seems to exist a lowpass filter math function.

[Fungus]

I wonder whether the mV ranges really need to be used at full bandwidth, or whether a lower bandwidth (say 20MHz or even less) would suffice for many low-voltage use cases?

The depends on whether you're using a probe or 50 Ohm coax.

If you're using a probe then it will be switched to 1x mode and it's almost compulsory to use the 20MHz bandwidth limiter.

20MHz needs to be done by applying a low-pass filter in the digital domain, after sampling at full 8GSa/s. The seems to exist a lowpass filter math function.

Aka "hires" mode.

[gf]

If you're using a probe then it will be switched to 1x mode and it's almost compulsory to use the 20MHz bandwidth limiter.

In fact, I hadn't even 1x probes in my mind at that moment. But you are of course right, In this case, bandwidth must be renounced anyway.

Aka "hires" mode.

How many adjacent samples does the MSO5000 average in hires mode?
The handbook obviously does not tell. I only find

    In "High Res"mode, the signal bandwidth does not exceed 1/32 of the sampling rate.

which would imply <= 250MHz bandwidth @8GSa/s (or correspondingly >= 14 moving average filter taps).

EDIT: I just saw in a different thread your statement

You have to turn it on and set the number of oversamples (8x, 16x, 32x, etc).

What is the maximum value that can be set?

[Martin72]

Reminder.....

Here's a picture of what your sock puppet says is too complicated/fiddly/generally impossible to do:

I do not got a sock puppet and this is not what I´m asking you for, I already know this pic.
So I´m still waiting.

[tv84]

Taken from Rigol site.

[2N3055]

Taken from Rigol site.

LOL they are comparing to old SDS2000X that is not made anymore....

[nctnico]

We have a Rigol DS2202E and it has the 50 Ohm input termination. Anyway that's half the story. The preamplifier input should also be switchable between high impedance and 50 Ohm.
Certainly if a scope doesn't pick a signal because it is to small, a preamplfier will have a similar problem.

Well, there isn't a single, universal pre-amplifier suitable for all situations so you can't go from generic requirements. If your use cases vary widely, you'll need a wide variety of pre-amplifiers. An oscilloscope input is pretty allround already but don't expect something similar from a pre-amplifier that is tailored to a specific use case (like amplifying RF signals, picking up low-level signals for audio / sensors, differential input, etc).

[mwb1100]

Taken from Rigol site.

LOL they are comparing to old SDS2000X that is not made anymore....

There is a good chance the chart was made when the MSO5000 was initially released.  I think the non-Plus SDS2000X was still current then.  Plus it's marketing.

[Fungus]

Taken from Rigol site.

LOL they are comparing to old SDS2000X that is not made anymore....

There is a good chance the chart was made when the MSO5000 was initially released.  I think the non-Plus SDS2000X was still current then.  Plus it's marketing.

It's no worse than that "Siglent vs. Rigol DS1054Z" chart that used to get posted here endlessly.

I'm sure Tautech still has a copy somewhere....

Oh, wait, here it is:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-eternal-question-about-rigol-vs-siglent/msg2289129/#msg2289129

[2N3055]

Taken from Rigol site.

LOL they are comparing to old SDS2000X that is not made anymore....

There is a good chance the chart was made when the MSO5000 was initially released.  I think the non-Plus SDS2000X was still current then.  Plus it's marketing.

It's no worse than that "Siglent vs. Rigol DS1054Z" chart that used to get posted here endlessly.

I'm sure Tautech still has a copy somewhere....

Oh, wait, here it is:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-eternal-question-about-rigol-vs-siglent/msg2289129/#msg2289129

What do you mean by this comment?

That table compares current SDS1104X-E to still current DS1054Z. All the time people compare them (including you). They belong to same less then 500 USD scopes class. DS1000Z is slightly cheaper, SDS1104X-E is more powerful in some ways. They are both good devices and still in production.

I wasn't commenting on behalf of advocating for Siglent. I was pointing to fact that one of the scopes Rigol compares to is discontinued, so comparison is useless...

Speaking of stalkers. Stop it, please. If you have an intelligent response to my general question, a correction of factually incorrect statement, or you need to respond to question directly to you, then respond to my post. Otherwise it just creepy.... Seriously... Please.

Best,

[Fungus]

I wasn't commenting on behalf of advocating for Siglent. I was pointing to fact that one of the scopes Rigol compares to is discontinued, so comparison is useless...

Are people trawling the Rigol web site looking for these things?

A piece of outdated information on the Rigol site!! OMG!!!! The must be mocked on EEVBLOG!!!!!!


If they were comparing it to the new HDO1000 it would be news, but.... 

[2N3055]

I wasn't commenting on behalf of advocating for Siglent. I was pointing to fact that one of the scopes Rigol compares to is discontinued, so comparison is useless...

Are people trawling the Rigol web site looking for these things?

A piece of outdated information on the Rigol site!! OMG!!!! The must be mocked on EEVBLOG!!!!!!


If they were comparing it to the new HDO1000 it would be news, but.... 

Again,
please stop.

Table was posted by somebody else in course of discussion. I read it and realized it is outdated.
You have problems. It is called paranoia... There is no conspiracy..

[tv84]

Table was posted by somebody else in course of discussion. I read it and realized it is outdated.
You have problems. It is called paranoia... There is no conspiracy..

I posted with the intent to capture a reaction like that... 

I just didn't thought I would catch Fungus but...

BTW, the info is surely old (which is different from fake) but it appeared in a new link inside the site.

[nctnico]

Either way, these comparison tables are pretty useless anyway. There simply is too much information missing to base a purchase decission upon.

[tautech]

Taken from Rigol site.

LOL they are comparing to old SDS2000X that is not made anymore....

There is a good chance the chart was made when the MSO5000 was initially released.  I think the non-Plus SDS2000X was still current then.  Plus it's marketing.

It's no worse than that "Siglent vs. Rigol DS1054Z" chart that used to get posted here endlessly.

I'm sure Tautech still has a copy somewhere....

Oh, wait, here it is:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-eternal-question-about-rigol-vs-siglent/msg2289129/#msg2289129

Listen here Fungus, you are an idiot nothing more nothing less.

The link to the comparison chart you posted was prepared by a professional EE whom has owned several Rigol and Siglent DSO’s in the last decade or more.
I know of no one here more qualified to make such a chart, no one !

Stop the personal attacks as they only point to your significant inability to have a technical discussion based on fact.

Lastly you have been put on notice for such ongoing behaviour that has only polluted many quality replies and this forum in general.

[Fungus]

The link to the comparison chart you posted was prepared by a professional EE whom has owned several Rigol and Siglent DSO’s in the last decade or more.

What does that have to do with it being fair, complete, unbiased....?

(or otherwise)

these comparison tables are pretty useless anyway.

Yep.

(unless they agree with some sort of personal agenda, then they get reposted endlessly)

[Fungus]

Lastly you have been put on notice

By who?

[Simon]

Lastly you have been put on notice

By who?

If it's the same person that "warned" me in a thread, himself!, this is silly and now locked.