Rigol DS4000 next gen - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 11:37:24 am
content: I've just read the German elektroniknet.de news about measurement equipment and noticed thatRigol seems to offer the next generation of the DS4000 series as MSOs now.http://www.elektroniknet.de/messen-testen/oszilloskope/artikel/96631/Expect that the pricing will be similar to their bus options, so not cheap, but interesting to see their efforts.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 12:28:23 pm
content: DS4000 series is quite expensive, I am not sure if many hobbyists will buy that.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 12:29:42 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 12:28:23 pmIt's not designed for, marketed at, nor priced for hobbyists.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 12:50:07 pm
content: OK, but do many professionals buy Rigols? Is Rigol able to run 8 hours a day in an industrial company? (I've written somewhere before that I really wonder who will ever buy the expensive DS6000 series...)

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 01:13:17 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 12:28:23 pmIt's not more expensive than other scopes with the included features, rather cheaper. I've bought it 1.5 years ago for hobby purposes.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 01:17:16 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 12:50:07 pmYes, and yes.

author: quarros
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 01:20:57 pm
content: Quote from: Gunb on April 18, 2013, 01:13:17 pmIt is relative... everything depends on your income, or on the possibility that it may enables you to make more money with it. Witch is justifies the cost.

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 01:25:27 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 12:50:07 pmWhy not?Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 12:50:07 pmWhy not? Work day after day with Agilent at work, but can't see any case where I could not use a Rigol. Of course, if you prefer special features, it might be a reasonto decide for a special manufacturer but that's an individual issue, not caused by quality. Rigol has recently left the low price region and compete with Agilent, Tek andall the other mid price manufacturers.Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 12:50:07 pmWe're not talking about the DS6000 series in this thread.

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 01:26:41 pm
content: Quote from: quarros on April 18, 2013, 01:20:57 pmAbsolutely right.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 01:38:52 pm
content: Quote from: Gunb on April 18, 2013, 01:26:41 pmAs posted elsewhere, we've found evidence that Rigol is going to be introducing AWG / MSO versions of the DS2000 too, and I imagine they will also either make an AWG version (or add-on module) for the DS4000 series as well. I'm curious what their roll-out timetable for all these things is.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 03:44:27 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 12:50:07 pmI'm sitting here at my desk looking at a DS4054 right now. Having used it regularly for a few weeks now, there's nothing about it which makes me feel that it won't be up to the job, or that it's "cheap" compared to its competition (other than in terms of actual selling price).As for the 6000 series, I'm sure the Chinese will buy them, and probably won't be disappointed either.

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 04:26:11 pm
content: QuoteSomewhat disappointingly, I have to agree with this. Like another posted mentioned earlier, Rigol was doing what the Japanese did for cars back in the day; they provided a higher quality, more reliable product for less money, which completely changed the market. However, more recently, they decided to stop doing this and instead focus on becoming level with the others. Where they had the potential to sell products that were better in every way for less money, they are instead now selling products which are better in some ways, worse in others, and cost the same. I'd say they still have the edge, but it is much less clear cut than it used to be.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 05:06:54 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on April 18, 2013, 04:26:11 pmFirst of all, your analogy is off in some respects. When I was a kid, we used to laugh at Japanese products because, although cheap, they were badly made (this is the place where most Chinese T&M equipment makers are - or were until very recently). Then the Japanese reached the point of producing a reasonably equivalent product which was still cheaper (that is the point where Rigol was when they developed the DS1000 series - perhaps where Owon is now). Then the Japanese started producing products that were better-made - or just as well-made, but with more features - and selling at less or equivalent prices. That is where, IMO, Rigol is right now.QuoteI don't know how you can possibly reach that conclusion.Where I live the Rigol DS2072 sells for € 710 base price.The Agilent DSOX2002A sells for € 1010 base price.Comparison of features:The Rigol has a real vertical sensitivity down to 500 µV/div.The Agilent has a real vertical sensitivity down to 4mV/div.The Rigol has 7MB/channel (28MB/channel optional) and an extra 100MB segment memory standard.The Agilent has 100kB/channel (1MB/channel optional) and no extra segment memory (and the segment feature is optional).The Rigol has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video, Runt, Slope, Setup/Hold, RS232/UART, I²C, SPI (Single optional package: Windows, Nth Edge, HDTV, Delay, TimeOut, Duration, and USB)The Agilent has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video (Multiple optional packages [with decodes]: RS232/UART - or - I²C/SPI - or - CAN/LIN)The Rigol has Parallel decoding standard (Single optional package: RS232/UART, I2C, and SPI)The Agilent has no decoding standard (Multiple optional packages [with triggers]: RS232/UART - or - I²C/SPI - or - CAN/LIN)The Rigol has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >=5 µs/div.The Agilent has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >= 20 µs/div.The Rigol has Mask Testing standard.The Agilent has Mask Testing optional.The Rigol has 350MHz 10:1 probes and LAN connection standard.The Agilent has 150MHz 10:1 probes (LAN connection optional).Obviously the Agilent has more expandability, longer warranty, better support, and (I'm assuming) better interfacing software, but I think there's no question the Rigol is considerably more powerful out of the box - for 30% less money (at least where I'm located).

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 05:15:05 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 18, 2013, 05:06:54 pmThe Rigol 2000 series is limited to 2 channels so parallel decoding would be somewhat limited in its functionality! (Of course this will change when they introduce a digital input option).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 05:24:48 pm
content: Quote from: jpb on April 18, 2013, 05:15:05 pmI was only listing features - not debating their merits. But in any case, the Rigol's Parallel decoding will decode one clocked (or two unclocked) data lines based on the bit number you assign it - which, while it might not be useful in many circumstances, is better then nothing - which is what you get standard on the Agilent.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 08:26:09 pm
content: Agilent DSOX2002A works with PC USB keyboard. Not sure if it's very useful, but it's at least very cool. The scope acts as a server, so it can be remote controlled via web browser, but youmustbuy the optional LAN module.But there seems to be no USB remote control PC software. On the other hand, you can make your own according to the Programmer's Guide.

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 08:41:15 pm
content: Don't need a USB keyboard for a scope, and don't like it.I've got the DG1022, the DSA815-TG and the DS4012, for all are programming guides available, the scope and the analyzer have got a LAN interface & werserver per default (no option).Not really an argument for Agilent.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 08:45:14 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 08:26:09 pmAlthough I've never used it, I would imagine Agilent's interface software is nice. That is one area, IMO, where Rigol (and other Chinese manufacturers) are lagging WAY behind - all of the software I've gotten with Chinese gear (as well as what I've seen online) has been terrible.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 08:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: quarros on April 18, 2013, 01:20:57 pmI use my oscilloscopes to make money so I really care about getting the most bang-for-your buck and reliability. I have two older Tektronix high-end scopes from the 90's which cost me less than $1000 each through Ebay. If one breaks I just switch to the other so reliability is covered. If I look around to upgrade then the additional money doesn't buy me much extra features (*) unless I'm going to spend more than $15k. The most interesting feature would be saving screendumps to a USB stick instead of a diskette.* I have a seperate high-end logic analyser with high speed sampling and deep memory which does SPI and I2C decoding. With a little bit of programming I can add any decoding method I want.

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 08:51:23 pm
content: A real argument that speaks for a few recent Agilents is measuring in the sample memory instead of the display memory. They use the real time gap between two samples depending on the sample rate for the horizontal resolution instead of measuring in the display memory as many scopes do. Last is always depending on the current used timebase, often the fraction consists of 2 digits only. Not with Agilent, they can measure in the range of ns even if the timebase is set to seconds/DIV since they measure directly in the sample memory.This can be done with the Rigol, too by using the trigger but not with most cursor or automatic functions.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 09:04:23 pm
content: Quote from: Gunb on April 18, 2013, 08:51:23 pmWhich Agilents are you referring to?

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 09:17:15 pm
content: I think that most Agilent scopes use the display memory for measurements.http://www.home.agilent.com/owc_discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=33426&tstart=120Not a big problem IMHO.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 09:33:05 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2013, 08:45:54 pmIt depends how you define 'extra features', but I think you're exaggerating here. I would imagine for much less money than $15k you could probably get a scope of the same BW as your 90's Tektronix - but 2x the sampling speed, 100-200x more memory, 2x more triggers, 10-20% more display, etc. Of course, I'm not suggesting you need to upgrade - you sound like you got a good deal on your scopes - but I think that $15k figure is a bit out-of-date. The quality and features you get in a DSO per $1 changed quite dramatically with the introduction of Agilent's X- series - and it has been sliding downward ever since.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2013, 11:38:40 pm
content: @marmad:The amount of memory in a scope is of limited use. At some point the user interface gets too clumsy too handle it. OTOH it is handy for decoding buses.Let me sum up what the TDS744A I have can do: 640x480 color display (in my case 6.5" color TFT), 4 channels 500MHz, 500k record length, 2Gs/s, trigger (with the usual ac/dc/lf reject/hf reject/noise suppression) on edges, pulse width and logic combinations, 400kWfms/s, dual channel math (+, -, / and *), FFT, integration, differentiation, peak-detect, infinite/variable persistance, high-resolution, segmented memory (skipping 'blank' parts of a signal), 25 measurements (including frequency, period, peak-peak, RMS), external VGA connector. All in all it packs a neat bag of tricks despite its getting close to 20 years old. DSOs where already a mature product back then.Its not difficult to find a scope with similar specs but the aim is to find something significantly better. In my opinion a significant improvement would be a display which has way more pixels in height (the height is a limiting factor when displaying multiple traces with some amount of detail). A faster user interface and more bandwidth would also be nice.When looking for a big display the number of choices get real small and prices go up rapidly. Many oscilloscopes (including the Tektronix DPO2014B I bought for a specific project recently) have extremely small displays with only 240 pixels in height. Even the Rigol DS4000 and DS6000 series have an 800x480 display. In the past decade the major improvement of oscilloscopes has been the overlap with a logic analyser. For that you need as much pixels in height as possible (*). Why the displays didn't scale up is beyond me.*My logic analyser has an 800x600 display which is reasonable.

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 07:20:58 am
content: Quote from: marmad on April 18, 2013, 09:04:23 pmI was thinking of the DSO6034A which I've besides other scopes in my office. When I was writing the comment yesterday I was at home, checking this just a moment ago reveals that there are many digits of the fractional part but only the first two are used. Uaaah, so no advantage for Agilent anymore regarding this, seems to use the display buffer for cursor measurement, too.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 07:42:21 am
content: What happens if you zoom in? It makes sense the scope only shows/uses relevant digits because the user can't see beyond the pixels on the screen.

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 07:42:38 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 09:17:15 pmYes, most do.The opener of the thread you've linked is the one who asked me about the HMO and the Rigol a few month ago exactly about this issue. He told me that Agilent's DSO3000X would measure in sample memory instead of using the display buffer. He was complaining because he had a pulse of about 1s and a second one with 1.001s and that most scopes cannot measure the difference with cursors without changing the timebase first and adjusting the X1 and X2 exactly to the edges. He wished to keep the complete pulse on screen without changing the timebase and set the cursors to the edges to see the 1.001s directly. If measuring in sample memory that would be possible, at the moment it's not because a timebase of 200ms/DIV enables to measure in the range of 2 fractions only, the 1ms would be the 3rd fraction and that is not displayed.I did not read the complete thread you've linked but it seems that he was also wrong concerning the DSO3000X, hmmm.Concludingly it shows, that my assumption above seems to be not right, so no advantage for Agilent at this point, and no disadvantage for Rigol.Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 18, 2013, 09:17:15 pmNo, it's not a big problem, because you can use the trigger for that purpose. Relating to the pulse example above of 1.001s width I trigger to the first edge where the trigger is set to 0s. Then I shift it to the left until the trigger marker is set to the 2nd edge. The trigger value shows very exactly the width of the pulse.I mean, 0xdeadbeef is not wrong, it would be comfortable to measure the width with high accuracy with the cursors directly. But if most scopes use the display buffer it can't be done without either adjusting the cursors exactly to the edges subsequently or using the trigger as I've described above.But I agree, not really a big problemAnd there are counters which can do the job also....

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 07:44:19 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 19, 2013, 07:42:21 amYes, exactly, that's what it does.

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 07:58:57 am
content: Just FYI:Last year, when I had the discussion with 0xdeadbeef about this issue I noticed that the Rigol DS4012 had a bug concerning this. Let's take the example of the 1.001s pulse:1. timebase at 200ms/DIV -> 1 pulse on screen2. zoom in to the 1st edge and adjust cursor X13. zoom out and shift left until the 2nd edge is centered4. zoom in again to the 2nd edge and adjust cursor X2 very accurate to it.5. deltaX shows the difference very accurateThe bug of the Rigol DS4000 was that it lost the position of the first adjusted cursor when adjusting the 2nd one. Reported that issue to the German support, they came back and confirmed. 2 months ago I've received a mail with an update - now this issue is fixed and the Rigol behaves as the Agilent!I'm very happy to see support working!

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 08:10:46 am
content: Quote from: Gunb on April 19, 2013, 07:20:58 amJust a moment ago I've compared both scopes with the same pulse of 1s and I've noticed what lead me to the statement yesterday - maybe also interesting to know:-> there is a difference between the older 54622D and the newer DSO6034A which seems to be the reason for 0xdeadbeed's argumentation:when adjusting the cursors to the edges in the way as described in my last comment the Agilent 54622D reduces the fractional part to 2 digits when zooming out, i.e. to 200ms/DIV. The DSO6034A keeps the accurate cursor value that was adjusted when zooming into the edges.For the pulse example it means that the 1.001s is still displayed on screen of the DSO6034A even if timebase is set to 200ms/DIV, the 54622D shows only 1.00ms because it looses the 3rd fraction at a timebase of 200ms/DIV. Checking this procedure with 1µs difference behaves the same, the DSO6034A keeps the value on screen.Not the same as measuring in sample memory, but better than cutting the digits off.Kind rgdsGunb

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 09:23:59 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2013, 11:38:40 pmI think you'll struggle - and that's without taking too much notice of the cost. Plugging in an external monitor to get a bigger, brighter, clearer display was about the best £20 I've ever spent on lab kit.I've just upgraded my TDS754D to an Agilent MSO-X3054A, more for the sake of ongoing, long-term reliability than anything else. I can't afford to be without a scope, and the Agilent came up at a very good price from the agilentused Ebay store.The Agilent does have some 'nice to have' new features compared to the Tek. For example:- the ability to display traces in colour at the same time as the intensity graded, high speed display- saving PNG files to USB instead of using RLE and floppy discs- logic analyser and waveform generator- serial and parallel bus decoding- a very welcome increase in available lab bench space- quieter operation- doesn't make the lab uncomfortably hot when it's been on for a whileIf that comes across as a pretty disappointing sounding selection for 15 years' worth of scope development, then I'd entirely agree - though I think that's a testament to just how good the TDS7xx range was rather than any failing in the Agilent.It's worth mentioning how much more usable the long memory in the Agilent is than the Tek. I gave up trying to fight with the Tek's awkward, clumsy UI in respect of setting the memory depth, zooming in and out, and using the segmented memory. In the Agilent, the memory depth is always selected optimally, the sample rate is kept as high as possible given the time base, and the horizontal scale & position controls always work exactly as I expect them to. The search & navigate features are really fast and intuitive too, even though there are (inexplicably) many more event types that can be used for triggering than can be searched for. I'd have expected the opposite, if anything.The Agilent's UI is more responsive overall, as you'd expect, though in some ways it's actually less quick to use. Maybe the difference is just familiarity, but for me, pressing a couple of buttons in sequence is quicker than pressing a button and then turning a knob to select from a sub-menu. I think it'll take a while to get used to the trigger controls too; the relatively small number of soft keys means the Agilent has one (hard) button to select the trigger source, type and slope, and another to select mode (auto/manual), coupling, noise rejection and so on.I do miss equivalent time sampling, which the Agilent doesn't have. I've found a few really surprising firmware bugs in it too, though nothing I can reproduce reliably enough to describe and report.I couldn't say I'm actually disappointed with the 3000X, because it's clearly a very capable instrument and will no doubt serve me very well - but if your TDS744A is working well then I'd stick with it. Unless I can persuade you to upgrade to a recently retired TDS754D?

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 09:41:33 am
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on April 19, 2013, 09:23:59 amI suppose this is one drawback of having the system designed for max waveforms/sec. To do ETS they would need to bypass the normal samples-to-screen route and also I guess that the digital trigger is designed for speed rather than high time resolution.But visually presumably in dots mode the points are filled in by the multiple curves being shown at once - you just can't save the data as a single curve?

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 09:51:21 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2013, 11:38:40 pmAt this point I like the Hameg HMO which offers at least a compromise. You have 20 virtual DIVs vertically, which can be switched on/off. If set to ON the knob besides the display enables the user to scroll up/down and place analog as well as digital channels with sufficient space.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 09:53:06 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2013, 11:38:40 pmThe specs of your DSO are definitely nice - although I think you're bumping up your waveform update rate by about 120%"Tektronix TDS744A Performance Characteristics: Display Update Rate 180000 wv/sec". But yes, there's no chance you'll get something significantly better (or even as good) for what you paid through eBay - I was just suggesting that the $15k figure was much too high for something similar today.QuoteWell, there is always a battle between dead time and pushing pixels to the display so it's understandable to some degree.QuoteI would disagree with this - more memory is always a good thing - if the firmware can take advantage of it. For example, looking through the User Manual of the TDS744A, I don't see any mention of any analysis, etc. which can be used on captured segments; in fact, FastFrame seems quite crude compared to segmenting on my Rigol DS2000. So perhaps while many features have been around for 20 years, the implementation of some of them has matured.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 10:22:35 am
content: Quote from: Gunb on April 19, 2013, 08:10:46 amI've never really understood the basis for these complaints.Firstly, DSOs arenotthe best measurement devices - and they've never been designed to be. There are always better instruments available for more accurate measurements if needed.Secondly, in terms of the number of digits displayed, DSO screen real estate is at a premium. If you need more precision just read the floating point number from the DSO and display it on another screen; IMO, it takes less time to do that than it does to come on forums and complain about the issue.As an example, the image shows my software reading Vtop from the DSO and displaying it on a PC screen (with 5 least significant digits ) - while the DSO displays 2.50V on it's screen (limited to 2 least significant digits).

author: Gunb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 11:14:16 am
content: Quote from: marmad on April 19, 2013, 10:22:35 amMe neither.Quote from: marmad on April 19, 2013, 10:22:35 amYes, and that was also my argumentation - could not convince him, he started this discussion at German mikrocontroller.net, moved it to this blog and - as Hydrawerk revealed this morning - even Agilent community suffered from it. The best was that he asked me about the details at mikrocontroller.net and sold these information here as his own - funny guyIf I want to measure timings with accuracy of non-periodic signals I'll use a counter with an oven which can be triggered instead of a scope. If a scope should be used anyway it's not a big deal to follow the steps I've described above using the trigger.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 12:12:45 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 19, 2013, 09:53:06 amThat's about what I get on my TDS754D. I find it mildly interesting that this parameter didn't change significantly through several generations of TDS7xx scope.QuoteI think you're comparing two opposite extremes here. The early Tek implementation is about as clunky as I've seen their otherwise excellent UI ever get, to the extent that I completely gave up on it as a diagnostic tool. On the other hand, the waveform record/playback feature on the DS4000 (I presume the 2000 is the same) is a fine example of how to make segmented memory easy to use, and ironically, it's something which the mainstream Western manufacturers would do well to copy from the Chinese.Who'd have thought it?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 01:20:05 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on April 19, 2013, 12:12:45 pmThat is because the TDS500, 600, 700 and 800 series are basically the same design with some minor updates over the years. Each series has different acquisition hardware though. About the wfms/s: the 400k figure is what I read from the InstaVu specs (an acquisition mode with almost zero dead-time due to back-to-back triggering).

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2013, 01:43:17 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 19, 2013, 01:20:05 pmI understand. There seems to be conflicting information floating around the net - with some people listing the TDS 744A spec as 180k - and others as 400k. But looking more closely, it seems the 400k rate is the best rate for the fastest DSO in the series - so it might apply to the TDS 784A. Strangely, the Tektronix document: "TDS 684A, TDS 744A, & TDS 784A Digitizing Oscilloscope Performance Verification and Specifications" doesn't mention the waveform update rate a single time.Anyway, my rule of thumb - when two conflicting numbers exist for the same specification - is to assume the worst one is the correct one

author: function
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 01:28:15 am
content: I contacted Rigol North America and they anticipate September or later in the year for the MSO ds4000, no word on the ds2000 though.

author: andyturk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 09:03:13 pm
content: Quote from: Gunb on April 18, 2013, 01:13:17 pmSlightly off-topic...I just unwrapped a brand new DS4014 about an hour ago. What's the most recent firmware for the beast? It came with firmware 00.01.00 and hardware 1.2

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 09:06:28 pm
content: Quote from: andyturk on June 06, 2013, 09:03:13 pmI don't know what the latest FW version is for the DS4000, but I'm guessing that what you posted is not the full number. Perhapsthe same technique that's used on the DS2000to see the actual version number works on the DS4000 as well (go to the bottom of the post).

author: andyturk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 10:30:21 pm
content: Right you are, marmad!I've got:Software version: 00.01.00.00.07Hardware version: 0.1.2.3FPGA version:SPU: 03.00.06WPU: 00.07.04CCU: 01.40.05MCU: 1.3

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 10:45:47 pm
content: Quote from: andyturk on June 06, 2013, 10:30:21 pmGreat, Andy! Now you just need to find another DS4000 owner to see if it's the latest.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 08:39:18 am
content: @andyturk:Any chance you can test the Anti-Aliasing (under Acquire menu) function on your DS4014?I've been testing it on my DS2000, and I can't get it to stop ANY aliasing. Wondering if it works on the 4000s.

author: andyturk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:25:06 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on June 07, 2013, 08:39:18 amHere's what I found:With a 100kHz sine at 50ms/div, no aliasing is visible (regardless of whether A-A is turned on or not). The same is true with 10MHz and 10ms/div. What I did notice is that when A-A is turned on, the "phosphor" of the trace gets brighter. Signals came from a DG1022 and memory depth was auto at all times.The only thing I could find that even looks like aliasing is a 10MHz signal viewed at 1s (one second) per div, with A-A turned off:Same signal with A-A turned on:10MHz, 500mS/div with A-A turned on crashes the scope!

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 03:18:21 pm
content: Quote from: andyturk on June 07, 2013, 02:25:06 pmSorry to trouble you again Andybut it looks to me like you've got 70MPts as the sample length (due to AUTO setting) - that means you've got a 5M sample rate and wouldn't get any aliasing on a 100kHz wave (since it has to do with sample rate < input frequency). You need to set your sample length to the lowest possible setting (7 or 14k) - or raise your signal frequency much higher (20MHz or so) in order to get an accurate idea if it's working.

author: andyturk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:26:14 pm
content: Duh. I knew that (*cough*).10MHz signal, 100us/div, 14K pts memory depth (as low as it goes), and it aliases like a mofo. The A-A button seems to have no effect on what's displayed. Whenever the sample rate is lower than the signal frequency, it gets confused.I'll just leave A-A off, since best case, it doesn't work. Worst case, it crashes the scope's UI.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:33:24 pm
content: Quote from: andyturk on June 07, 2013, 04:26:14 pmYes, that seems to track with reports from DS2000 users. I've passed the bug (or unimplemented feature?) along to Rigol (via my dealer) and we'll see what they say.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 09:20:20 pm
content: There's probably next to no chance this is right, but might it not have to do with the picture itself - not the waveform displayed? I mean - how do you make something out of nothing? If you don't have the sample rate necessary then you simply don't have the samples and you *will* get aliasing. Maybe there's some math-magic you can do so I guess I wouldn't rule it out, but still.I seem to recall the idea or speculation that AA is used on the picture - ie, like in gaming - to make diagonal lines appear smoother. It's not just for gaming anymore - I believe Microsoft Office 2010 (and maybe 2007?) charts use anti-aliasing, so some people's approval and others' disgust. This could be part of what makes the Rigol displays in the newer/higher-end models look so good.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 09:31:56 pm
content: Quote from: Yaksaredabomb on June 07, 2013, 09:20:20 pmDifferent kind of anti-aliasing:Quote from: DS2000 User Manual

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 09:43:58 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on June 07, 2013, 09:31:56 pmAh, I see - so they themselves claim it should do something data-related, not just make the screen "pretty". And yet the benefit isn't obvious, or they haven't really implemented it yet, or it's benefit is restricted to only very specific circumstances.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 10:48:47 pm
content: Quote from: Yaksaredabomb on June 07, 2013, 09:20:20 pmQuote from: Yaksaredabomb on June 07, 2013, 09:43:58 pmBTW, jneumannI do think it's possible that Rigol might be using image anti-aliasing on some graphic items.But in terms of waveform anti-aliasing: here's an excerpt from an Agilent document describing one technique:Random decimation (see References)Simple decimation (= regular sampling) is the most common decimation technique in DSO’s and it is exceptionally prone to aliasing. However, the discarded samples can be used to prevent the display of aliased waveform. The random sample selection prevents an alias (or beat) frequency from developing by converting low frequency “spurs” to noise. (For masochists only ? A. V. Balakrishnan: On the Problem of Time Jitter in Sampling, IRE Trans. on Info. Theory, April 1962.)With random decimation (= stochastic sampling) the resulting display is a fuzzy band much like what would be seen on an analog scope. However, this technique should be turned off for analysis that requires samples at exact regular time intervals.

author: Yaksaredabomb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 01:16:07 am
content: Quote from: marmad on June 07, 2013, 10:48:47 pmThanks Marmad - that was an interesting snippet from Agilent. Figured I'd better not use the word "impossible" haha.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 04:59:30 pm
content: Quote from: Yaksaredabomb on June 08, 2013, 01:16:07 amNo problem.BTW, I imagine that this Random Decimation technique is what leads to the strange waveform you get when you zoom in on an under-sampled, anti-aliased waveform on the Agilent DSOs(nicely illustrated in Janne's 'before' and 'after' images). It's a pity they removed the ability to turn off anti-aliasing (as well as interpolation) in the latest X-Series DSOs.

author: Teneyes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 05:58:39 pm
content: To DS4000 owners:Marmad is working on a new version of my Rigol Ultravision Utilities to handle all 4 channels of the DS4000 ). Since he does not own the DSO, He'd appreciate any owners willing to be alpha/beta testers. The link for the current alpha (as well as some explanatory info)is here.