DS2000 vs. DS1000Z record, playback, navigate, analyze, mask, etc. ?? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2013, 09:08:33 pm
content: Hi,My trial options ran out on the DS1104Z before I could fully get to some of the features/functions. Just checking to see if anyone knows if the 1000Z can do all this:Or if not, which of these functions can be done on the 1000Z and which can only be done with the DS2000? (What are the biggest differences between the 1000Z and the DS2000 with respect to record, playback, navigate, analyze, mask, etc.?)I realize it's hard to say if you don't have both scopes available to use but any info would be appreciated.Thanks, EF

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2013, 10:21:24 am
content: DS2000 has its famous big rotary knob and dedicated buttons for record (=segmented memory). Not many scopes have this.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2013, 02:35:22 pm
content: DS1000Z series can have 4 channels + dual signal gen. I guess that's something for people who don't have much space in the labPrice of DS1000Z series is also much more attractive.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2013, 09:38:11 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on November 21, 2013, 10:21:24 amRight, the famous big rotary knob and the dedicated buttons look like complete winners from an ergonomics / user interface standpoint. The question is, althought the 1000Z doesn't have such a nice set of controls can it do some or all of the same things as the 2000 with respect to for record, playback, navigate, and analysis - albeit with the features buried deeper in the 1000Z menu system?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 21, 2013, 10:29:50 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 21, 2013, 09:38:11 pmRecord and playback, yes, in a similar way the DS1052E does segmented memory, it's buries away in a menu somewhere...

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2013, 11:25:41 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 21, 2013, 09:38:11 pmLooking through the DS1074Z manual, it appears as if the Record / Playback function is very similar to the way it was implemented in earlier Rigol models (like, as Dave notes, the DS1052E) - and unfortunately, missing all of the added features and bonuses that make it so special on the DS2000 (and DS4000) series, including the dedicated knob and buttons; the Record Open ("History Memory") feature; the Analysis feature, but most importantly - the Time Tags - which are imperative when trying to use it to catalogue errors occurring over time.The only things that set it apart from the Record function on the old DS1052E are the number of frames you can record (since it has much more memory) - and the faster re-arm time (since it has inherently higher wfrm/s).

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2013, 01:18:17 am
content: The other thing the 1000Zstilllacks is a Programming Guide. Without that, it's unknown what SCPI commands it supports, which may enable further capabilities beyond the front panel. As in marmad's RUU program.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2013, 02:12:17 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 22, 2013, 11:25:41 pmWe've actually told Electro Fan all this already before, weeks ago. But one thing to keep in mind..."Looking through the DS1074Z manual, it appears as if..." acknowledges these conclusions are based on a careful reading of the Rigol Manual. Since neither marmad nor I have a 1000Z, this is the best we can do.However, as Electro Fan already discovered, the Manual is NOT always accurate, or complete! His own testing on his 1000Z revealed that it DOES in fact have the Event Table list function for the protocol decoders. But not according to the Rigol Manual.So all the limitations posted above need to be taken with a large grain of salt.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2013, 10:20:20 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 23, 2013, 02:12:17 amI realized that - but the info was more for other readers of this thread.QuoteBut it's not only the information missing from the manual - it's also the screen shot of the DS1000Z's Record/Playback mode and menu. It's completely different from the DS2000 (which has a menu for Record 'Mode': Record, Open [Record Continuous], Playback, and Analyze) - then separate submenus for each of those modes). So I'm fairly certain it's lacking all those features I listed above.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2013, 09:31:43 pm
content: QuoteMarmad, Thanks. I think you have summarized the likely differences very well (I realize it's hard to say with complete certainty without having both scopes to examine and given the sometimes hit or miss nature of the manuals).So, given that your assessment of the differences is probably highly accurate, the question I'm still wrestling with is which scope provides a better overall "learning platform": the 1000Z with the 4 channels or the 2000 with the superior record/playback/navigation/analysis? Seems like it's always greener on the other side of the fence - I like the 1000Z but I'm wondering if monitoring signals and interpreting/analyzing waveforms might be easier/more enjoyable with the the superior navigation and analysis features on the 2000. (I completey agree that the Record Open and especially the Time Tags, along with the big Nav knob and front panel VCR-like controls are likely to be among the most missed features on the 1000Z.) The 2000 also benefits from your software. Overall, the price is pretty similar so price isn't much of an issue - it's 4 channels vs. everything else extra that comes with the 2000. (One other consideration is the larger screen on the 2000 would be a tad nicer; by by the time you put 2 or more channels and some decoders on the 1000Z screen it starts to get a little crowded.) Both are excellent products but I have a nagging suspicion the 2000 is extra nice.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2013, 10:43:39 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 23, 2013, 09:31:43 pmI'm confused why you're still wrestling with those questions? You bought the 1074Z and own it. Are you considering returning it and doing an exchange? If not, then what's the point of the exercise?QuoteYou haven't even explored all the things your 1000Z CAN do, but you're obsessing about what it CAN'T do?QuoteNonsense. The RecordOpen option lets you decide to capture the LAST n-event occurrences, vs. the default of capturing the FIRST n-occurrences. That's a "big deal"? The Time tags could be very useful in SOME situations, and totally irrelevant in others. "the big Nav knob and front panel VCR-like controls" are a bit more convenient having dedicated controls, but provide no capability you don't already have. Part of the reason they're as useful as they are on the 2000 is because the right-menu there is a pop-up, vs. the always-on menus on the 1000Z. When you're doing Record/Play on the 1000Z, the buttons for those control ops are always there... just in a different place.QuoteThat's definitely a large value-add, but a) there's nothing stopping marmad from adding support for the extra 2 channels some day [though not much point if there's only 2 or 3 people that could benefit], and b) I don't know that his RUU program doesn't work already on the 1000Z's first two channels. Have you tested it and confirmed it does not?QuoteThat depends on your eyesight. Physically, the screen is bigger, but they both haveexactly the sameresolution (800x480), so the 2000 is exactly as crowded, when you get many traces on-screen.QuoteMainly because you don't have one, I'd guess.If you did, your nagging suspicions would be about the 1000Z.

author: RRobot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2013, 11:16:33 pm
content: Unless Rigol comes out with a 4 channel DS2000 there's no choice you could make which would be completely satisfying. I doubt this will happen as it would canabalize their 4000 sales.The DS2000 is a great scope but if you bought the 1000z you should be happy. You will use the 3rd channel more often than you think and while you can work around not having it, it is a hassle.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 12:43:40 am
content: While I agree that Electro Fan may just be suffering from some typical 'buyer's remorse', I think you're minimizing the value of some of the missing features - partially, I'm guessing, because you've never used them. In particular:Quote from: Mark_O on November 23, 2013, 10:43:39 pmThe Record Open is a pretty awesome tool - and as far as I know, does not exist in the Agilent 2000X series or any other scope anywhere close to the DS2000's price range. It's basically "waveform memory" - and when turned on is continually storing the captured waveforms in a FIFO buffer, so if you STOP acquisitions at any point, you can scroll through the last N (up to 65000) waveforms. It can be very handy when doing circuit probing.The main mistake Rigol made with the feature is that there should be a dedicated button which turns it completely on and off (the Record/Stop buttons work for normal segmented memory capture only), because it needs to be off when changing acquisition mode or memory depth. The ability to switch it off fast, change memory depth, then turn it back on quickly would enhance it's usefulness considerably.QuoteI can't imagine trying to do any serious debugging over time without them. And you generally tend to use segmented memory when you're trying to pinpoint the occurrence of some event over a given period of time (whether that be a few seconds or several days) - otherwise you could just use single-shot to capture an event you're expecting (or can trigger).I think the reason that the standard 'Record' function of the old DS1052E (and most other cheap Chinese DSOs) was/is never really talked about much is because it's not really a serious tool without the Time Tags.QuoteOf course they do. The spring-loaded Nav knob has a thumb dial built into the end of it - so you can scroll through frames extremely fast with the knob and slowly (and smoothly) with the dial. Not only that, but one of my favorite features of the DS2000 (after having used the typical crappy multi-purpose knobs on the DS1052E, Owon SDS7102, and Hantek DSO5062B) is the fact that the Nav knob doubles as a second high-speed multi-purpose knob. So when you have some variable selected in a menu that has a huge range (like from 100ns to 10s), you don't have to spin the multi-purpose knob a million times to reach the end of the range, you can use the Nav knob instead, and just zip to any point in the variable range.It also provides the same utility when scrolling in Delayed Sweep (Zoom) mode.QuoteWell, yes and no. The screens have the same resolution, but the waveform display area is actually smaller on the DS1000Z (it looks like 600x400 - as compared to 700x400 on the DS2000). That, combined with the physically smaller screen, equates to something that would definitely feel smaller.Here are the actual waveform display areas of the DS1000Z/2000/4000 compared in relative size:

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 01:03:09 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 23, 2013, 09:31:43 pmIt really comes down to how much you need those extra channels. I work almost exclusively with I2C - and while there are occasions when I could use another channel or two, it's really very rare for me (and I do have a Tektronix analog scope, too).If Rigol upgrades the External Trigger input on the DS2000 (as they promised they would - but still haven't delivered on), that would help me in my work and satisfy many circumstances where I just need an extra input for triggering (but don't need to see the trace).

author: RRobot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 01:48:18 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 01:03:09 amWhats the problem with the DS2000 external trigger? I once tried to trigger a old Rigol 1204B from a Agilent DSO7000, but it did not work as the fixed external trigger levels on the Rigol were too great.However the DS4000 manual suggests it can be set within +/-4 volts. Is this true?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 02:24:38 am
content: Quote from: RRobot on November 24, 2013, 01:48:18 amYes - but the problem isn't the input voltage range. The DS2000 has an incredible array of different trigger types - including the various protocol triggers (I2C, USB, etc) - but unfortunately the External Trigger can only be use as the source for a single type: Edge.OTOH, if it could be used as a source on the protocol triggers (and some of the other advanced types like Window, Delay, etc), it means you could free up an analog channel when you don't actually need to see the triggering signal itself (such as a clock line).

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 04:03:38 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 12:43:40 amYes, I've seen that comparison before, and should have mentioned back then that it's obviously incorrect.The 1000Z display region is 10% smaller than it should be. Both in width and height. So the pictorial comparison is misleading, since the area should be >20% larger.And yes, you're correct about the reduced x-axis giving a 600x400 signal region, due to the decision to keep the menus up all the time, thus dropping from 14 to 12 divisions. But until they start streaming waveforms vertically, that buys you nothing at all in terms of alleviating multi-trace cramping. Both have exactly the same 400 pixels vertically, to cram the horizontal traces in to. So if you want to view them stacked, rather than overlaid, you have to reduce the amplitude sensitivityjust as muchon the 2000 as the 1000.

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 04:07:25 am
content: I don't post in these threads generally but good grief Electro Fan, you have probably posted every day for the past 3 months about this Rigol 1000/2000. What on earth are you using them for???

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 06:04:39 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 12:43:40 amThat would be one potential explanation.There are other possibilities.QuoteI agree that this can be useful when doing live probing. I've done so with my 400 MHz LeCroy in the past, though that has a limit of 2,000 frames (probably due to its limited memory capacity of 1M samples for each of 4 channels). Set the trigger to segmented acquisition mode, and turn Wrap On. And I could quickly and easily stop at any time, adjust my settings, and start probing and triggering again. It also has the ability to post-process the acquired frames in numerous ways, which (I believe?) the Rigol lacks. You're correct about the price class, though used units can now be found in the same ballpark. (Not the color ones though!)But normally the type of thing I want to capture in segmented mode is infrequently occurring events. I may have to wait hours, or even days to acquire a representative sample, and in that mode I want the first N occurrences, not the last N. And while I often do want the time stamps to go with each event (accurate to 1 nS on the LeCroy), more often I'm simply looking for the frequency. [And the Rigol only shows the Time tag on each event... so you have to step through to see them. The LeCroy will also show you a time-stamp table, and you can then jump directly to a date/time, when that's useful.]QuoteI'd agree with this assessment. From your previous estimate of ~20uS delay between segment retriggering, I'd say Rigol did pretty well, since it takes the LeCroy about 50 uS to re-arm after each acquisition burst.Quote from: marmadReally? You can't even imagine it?QuoteI don't know about 'pinpoint', but yes, the rest is correct. Unpredictable transient-event capture is extremely valuable. And while I'd agree that I'd certainlypreferhaving the Time tags (no argument there), e.g. to know that a triggered event happened twice in 5 minutes, then nothing for 3 hours, then 3 more times in 10 minutes, I canmany timesget by without that extra information. Not always, of course. And the 1000Z would be better if it had it. That's why I alerted EF to it's absence long ago, before he bought one. But I also like to keep things in perspective.QuoteI disagree.IMO, therealreason was because no one had a freaking clue what it was actually for! I.e., they looked at the "Interval" settings, and asked themselves "Why would I want to randomly grab a sample of data every 100 mS, or every second, or whatever?". That's because the (lousy) Rigol documentation indicated that the Record events were solely triggered by time. Nobody had any use for that.For the few (very few?) who ever realized the captures were actually on an event basis, generated whenever the trigger conditions were satisfied, and the "Interval" was really just a Holdoff, we then ran smack into the constraint that the event you got was ALL that you got. And by that I mean, no zoom in on X or Y axis, no panning, no nothing! Just the one screen trace you got at the time. That crippled it's value considerably, though not entirely.QuoteYes, I know. I've used jog/shuttle dials many times. But while you're correct that they're not very common (I must have 8 or 9 scopes without them), ATM I can think of only one of my scopes thatdoeshave it, which is an 8-channel Yokogawa. And it does make moving through signal data far smoother and less aggravating. But not so much so that I threw out my other 'scopes!QuoteThat IS very slick, but that problem could be mostly resolved just by making the knobs acceleration-variant. Off-hand, I can't think of any of my scopes that aren't proportional to the rate of rotational speed of their knobs, except for Rigol. They don't seem to have caught on to that one yet.And when they grabbed the idea of the big jog/shuttle & record/play/pause from the Inspector feature on Tek scopes, they should have also implemented a Search capability along with it.Which would have been even more valuable than the nested knobs.[Urg. That turned out annoyingly long.]

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 08:56:53 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 24, 2013, 04:03:38 amHow are you arriving at that conclusion? Do you have any real world data to back that up?Sorry, you were correct - I went back and checked the file and the DS1000Z size was slightly off. I fixed it and posted the new comparison image.QuoteThat's true. But there's also the issue of dot pitch. Looking at two equivalently-sized fonts on two screens of the same resolution - but different sizes - does not produce the same perception of detail. If it did, most of us would have a lot more desk space than we do.BTW, this "problem" is acknowledged by Rigol as evidenced by the fact that they use a bigger (and uglier, IMHO) font on the DS1000Z series.In any case, I don't think the difference in the two screen sizes is enough (by itself) to merit going for one DSO or the other. I just wanted to point out that it's not quite so cut and dry as 'they're both 800x480 pixel screens'.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 10:05:37 am
content: Quote from: marshallh on November 24, 2013, 04:07:25 am---Preamble - thanks to Marmad and Mark_O and others for your time and info helping to compare and contrast the 1000Z and 2000.---Hi marshallh,I know it might seem like you "don't post in these in threads generally" but according to your forum stats you have posted over .97 times a day for over a year.As for my interest in the learning the Rigol 1000/2000 similarities and differences, and what I'm using a scope for, that's fair to ask. The short answer is “learning”.The longer answer about what I'm using a scope for, what I'm trying to learn, and why I participate in the forum is something I’ve discussed previously with iDevice, LaurenceW, and others (who like many forum members here have been kind enough to share their knowledge and insights about various related matters - for which I'm definitely thankful and appreciative).Here’s my story, and I’m sticking to it: I've had a pretty good theoretical understanding of the fundamentals of Information Technology (computing and networking) for a long time. Over the last year I decided it was time to move from the theoretical to the hands-on. To be square, part of the catalyst was the Arduino Uno R3 – it seemed like a very inexpensive and accessible way to gain a deeper hands-on experience with hardware and software. Even more fundamental than the Arduino, one of the motivating factors in embarking on this journey was that I realized that test equipment had improved in price/performance/ease of use, etc to the point where I could begin to apply my theoretical understanding in a way that would allow me to very practically hypothesize and test.So, I'm creating a small, simple lab just for the purpose of learning. It's been like I've been reading about the mountains for many years but this is my first hands-on trip to the mountains. The Arduino led to breadboards and components, then a power supply, then a DMM, and then a scope – that was more or less the sequence. Altogether this stuff led to a somewhat efficient way of learning at the hands-on level.(Although I realize that efficient might be subject to interpretation – you can look up my threads on my first attempts to figure out how to trigger a RS232 signal on an analog scope, or how to appreciate the subtle but practical difference between decoding a binary value and displaying a bit pattern that maps to the waveform using a DSO, and you’ll see that with some help from the many generous EEVers here within a matter of hours or days I went from numnuts to triggering and decoding. Peanuts to some, gratifying for EE rookies.)Back to the journey’s mission, I'm especially interested in foundational matters such as Ohm's Law and the ability to visualize A to D and D to A techniques. Obviously, of all the tools in a modest lab the oscilloscope is one of the most useful (along with the DMM, power supply, breadboards, components, wires, and cables, etc.). So, the selection of the right scope was the focus of most of that three month or so period you seem to have been following. Over the last few weeks I've had my first chance to actually use (rather than just read about) a Rigol scope (or any DSO) - the 1000Z. I think as most people would recognize, reading the spec sheets, the manuals (however accurate and complete they might or might not be), and reading other users’ experiences is all valuable – but actually using a piece of equipment (and learning through the use of the equipment) is more tangible.Most of what I've learned so far about the 1000Z is roughly what I had anticipated (thanks in large part to what I learned here at EEVb). In fact, I'm happy to report that the 1000Z has in various respects exceeded my expectations. But, I'm not completely wedded to the 1000Z and if I think the DS2000 (or some other scope) would be a better tool for my uses (which are strictly learning related) then I might find a way to acquire a different scope. To be clear, I'm not trying to design or fix anything in particular, I'm just trying to build a very basic lab for learning; and learning about these two Rigol models including their similarities and differences has provided a window into all sorts of practical considerations.As for my forum posts, for anyone who wants to follow my line of learning and inquiries, that's cool. If it bothers someone (as in "good grief Electro Fan") then I'd say just skip past the threads - no worries - but I think if you look at the Q&A between the various members here who have participated it would be hard to imagine any one person saying "I knew ALL that". Heck, even Rigol doesn’t seem to know how to present with complete clarity what their models do or don’t do. No doubt, some of the more experienced users of scopes (especially those who have owned one or several scopes for a long time) will have found the Rigol 1000/2000 discussion to be somewhere between elementary and boring. I'd hope such users would just scan or skip the thread. On the other hand, for users new to a DSO or for those trying to decide what entry level DSO is right for their uses I'm hopeful the threads have provided some info to help select a scope. Surely, the discussion about the uses and relative merits of 2 channel vs. 4 channel scopes and the nuances of how to capture, view, navigate, and analyze signals and waveforms must have helped a few other people learn a few things - but again if not, I'd suggest just read the titles of the threads and if they aren't relevant, keep scanning until you find something that trips your trigger.FWIW, I've found the ability to learn to do simple things like set triggers and decode RS232 into binary, hex, ASCII, and decimal to be very informative and actually fun. While this stuff is 101 basic, I have to believe in reading the posts from Marmad and some of the other pro's pros here that some of the nuances of scope functionality and user interfaces are interesting and meaningful enough that even some of the power users (perhaps those on a budget) might glean a useful nugget or two-- and definitely, in any event, the participation of the power users here is hugely valuable for those of us coming up the learning curve. Further, and this might or might not be naïve, I think the Q&A by early and passionate adopters of new models of technology just might provide some feedback to the product managers of companies such as Rigol and Agilent and others. If they see the types of questions that get discussed here they might possibly adjust their product roadmaps to address such interests and opportunities, or maybe they’ll at least work a little harder to provide better documentation.In my case, I don’t think any thread I post here is going to change a product line much less the world, I’m just trying to select tools and learn to use the tools to in turn learn about analog and digital electronics.Personally, I think that EEVblog is attracting a tremendous cadre of people who have interests that in many cases go way beyond test equipment to the many intersections of analog and digital technologies which in turn bridge the realm from electrical engineering to IT. I think modern test equipment has the potential to provide a more than ever affordable window for mankind into technologies that are shaping the present and future. As a result, I would expect that this “Test Equipment” forum and EEVblog.com overall is going to see more and more users showing up with all manner of Q&A. I realize this could cause some power users to say "uh oh - maybe we need to go find a quiet place to do our highly advanced or Nobel Prize winning work”. That would be unfortunate, for sure – and definitely is not intended. I'd simply say if a post doesn't make sense for someone's interests, ignore it. Or stay in quickscan/read-only mode. But if you can help someone figure something out and you have the interest and time, go for it. Just my thoughts. YMMV. Hope that helps address your questions/comments. EFPS, and now we return you to your regular programming on this channel: DS2000 vs D1000Z record, playback, navigate, analyze, mask, etc. ??

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 10:11:58 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 24, 2013, 06:04:39 amFigure of speech, my friend, figure of speech.BTW, one other feature I don't see mentioned in the DS1000Z User Manual is the Measurement History. Does it exist on the DS1000Z? Perhaps it's hidden like the Event Table? It should be under the Menu invoked by the Measure button. What do you say, Electro Fan?It's yet another feature that, while not necessary for basic work, really comes in handy some times.Anyway, long story short - in the UltraVision line of scopes, the DS2000 has virtually every cool feature that it's much more expensive sibling, the DS4000, has. But this is clearly not the case for the DS1000Z.So the question really boils down to whether those 2 extra channels are critical for you. If they are, then the added features (and free bandwidth) of the DS2000 won't make much difference to you. If not, IMO, the DS2000 seems a more powerful and fun DSO to work with.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 10:53:40 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 10:11:58 ammarmad, I I don't see the Measurement History in the 1000Z. There is a chance it's hiding somewhere and I just haven't found it (or maybe I can't see it because it got turned off when my trial options expired) but I think it would likely be part of the Measure button feature set (which seems to be totally standard rather than an option), so I'm betting it's a no-go on the 1000Z. (If someone else finds the Measurement History on the 1000Z let us know.)marmad, I definitely appreciate all you have done for this thread and the world's understanding of Rigol scopes in general and the DS2000 especially - and I don't want to exhaust you or anyone else around here with endless Q&A (although I find all these discussions to be a blast). I think your summary is perfectly fit:"Anyway, long story short - in the UltraVision line of scopes, the DS2000 has virtually every cool feature that it's much more expensive sibling, the DS4000, has. But this is clearly not the case for the DS1000Z.So the question really boils down to whether those 2 extra channels are critical for you. If they are, then the added features (and free bandwidth) of the DS2000 won't make much difference to you. If not, IMO, the DS2000 is a more powerful and fun DSO to work with."So there is no really good answer for anyone who doesn't have a DS4000 budget. You can either get the tool chest with the hammer and the saw or you can get the tool chest with the hammer and the screw drivers, but you can't get the tool chest with the hammer, saw, and screw drivers until you get the DS4000. Maybe Rigol is even smarter than we give them credit for, and I think we have to give them a huge amount of credit. They are more than wetting the appetite of every entry level scope user and they are building a funnel to the mid-market where they go toe to toe with Agilent.(And at the next level there is still another aggravating product choice. A DSO4000 or a MSO4000? Rigol could make it easier on customers if you could buy a DSO4000 and then upgrade it to a MSO4000.)Net, net: while this thread can't tell anyone which is more important: the 4 channel DS1000Z or all the good stuff that comes with the DS2000, at least maybe it can help people understand what you might be missing if you go with the 4 channels. It's an aggravating choice but at least it can be made now with better certainty. (And any more insights on the trade-offs are still encouraged.) Thx! EF- Rigol really should clean up their product manuals and also publish a clear and complete product comparison chart

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 10:59:25 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:53:40 amAbsolutely true.QuoteWell, that's whywe'rehere!But seriously, you started this avenue of inquiry - perhaps you should create a thorough comparison chart for the UltraVision line and post it for easy access here?

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 11:34:08 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 10:59:25 amKind of reminds me of the guys sitting around after the party and one guy says "Who's going to clean up?" The next guy says, "well, not me, I brought the beer." And the next guy says, "not me, I brought the chips". And the last guy says "not me, I ate the chips."

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 01:17:43 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 10:11:58 amI didn't found it too. I don't think it has it. Another thing the DS1000Z doesn't have is fine horizontal scale adjustment and the horizontal reference setting.The DS1000Z is a low cost scope. It's feature limited. But the bang for the buck is astonishing.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 01:33:56 pm
content: Quote from: sync on November 24, 2013, 01:17:43 pm@sync:On the DS2000, when you push the Horizontal Scale knob, you go to Delayed Sweep (Zoom) - so to get fine scale adjust, you have to go to the Horizontal Menu and manually change the ScaleAdjust setting [Coarse/Fine]. You've checked in the Horizontal Menu?

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 02:01:40 pm
content: Yes. The horizontal menu has only two settings. Delay mode and time base mode (Y-T, X-Y, roll).

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 03:10:04 pm
content: Honestly though, the Rigol 1000Z series is an immensely powerful scope and you shouldn't complain that the 2000 might be better. Sure, it might, but when you are working with protocols like SPI, you will want a 1000Z.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 04:27:40 pm
content: Quote from: echen1024 on November 24, 2013, 03:10:04 pmI don't think Electro Fan is 'complaining'- I think he's trying to decide which DSO fits his needs (or future requirements) better. And it's not a question of "might be better" - the DS2000 isdefinitelya more feature-laden DSO - and if you don't need 4 channels (and I don't), it's a better choice.And BTW, people have been using and debugging SPI implementationslongbefore protocol decoding was available on cheap DSOs.

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 07:03:32 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 04:27:40 pmThat is true, however, I have seen a couple others complain about this, and I was just pointing out that the 1000Z is still immensely powerful, and that it still has many features. Yes, I agree, if you are doing I2C or UART only, a 2000 series might be better, but for SPI, you almost need 4 channels on an oscilloscope, or go buy a true logic analyzer.

author: eV1Te
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 08:29:28 pm
content: No doubt that the DS2000 is more powerful than DS1000Z (except for the 4 channels though). But also the DS2000 is 60-70 % more expensive than the non arb-waveform generator model of DS1000Z for the same bandwidth.It is still 20-30 % more expensive than the DS1000Z-S which includes the dual 25 MHz arb-waveform generators.You can actually get two DS1000Z-S for the same price as one DG1032Z waveform generator and one DS2000Thats how I reasoned when I bought my DS1000Z-S, since I needed both a function generator and a new oscilloscope.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 08:57:18 pm
content: Quote from: eV1Te on November 24, 2013, 08:29:28 pmBut the bandwidth has been hacked on the DS2000 to 200MHz - so if you compare it to the DS1104Z, the price difference is only 23% (and it's cheaper than the DS1104Z-S).Still, if you really need those extra channels, it's the way to go.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 09:35:32 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 08:56:53 amThanks! That's much more useful. 20% more area, and now it's correct.QuoteAgreed. But are you suggesting we didn't always have two or three 27" monitors on our desks?Also worth noting, when I look at a 1000Z screen or a 2000 screen on my computer displays, they're exactly the same size and resolution.But I will reluctantly acknowledge that a 7" screen is smaller than an 8" screen. Always worth pointing out, for those who might not know.QuoteThat's an interesting observation, because when I started comparing the two, that's the very first thing I noticed (uglier font choice). And it took me a minute to realize why they had done so.QuoteFair enough.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 09:47:54 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:05:37 amGeez, Marshall, you had to go and ask.

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 24, 2013, 10:21:36 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:05:37 amI posted because what I see is someone who may spend so much time planning how he WILL learn that he never gets around TO learning.People learn differently, that said, start building something and you'll very quickly see what you need to learn. How about getting both scopes and using them on a project

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 01:59:10 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 08:57:18 pmWell, if you're gonna use that kind of logic, the bandwidth hasnotbeen hacked on the 2000A, and getting your hands on a non-A DS2072 may now be difficult to impossible (and even harder in the future).

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 02:31:02 am
content: Quote from: echen1024 on November 24, 2013, 07:03:32 pmI find it interesting that Rigol claims the 2000 can handle SPI decode on the 2000, in spite of the fact that it lacks sufficient channels to do so. Yet they don't do that on the 4000, which lists SPI decode as a "DS6XXX4 Option". I.e., available on the 4-channel version only.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 06:31:03 am
content: And to return for a moment to EF's titular question:DS2000 vs. DS1000Z record, playback, navigate, analyze, mask, etc. ??The answers are:- the 1000Z has a similar capability to set the trigger conditions that generate a Record frame.- the 1000Z Records up to 60k frames, vs. 65k on the 2000.but due to the smaller memory capacity, the detail in those frames will be reduced.to increase detail, you can trade off # of events captured to boost samples/event.- the 1000Z captures only the first N events, while the 2000 can optionally capture the last N.the later could be more useful when probing interactively, vs. running a delayed "batch mode"acquisition.- for Playback, the 1000Z can Play frames back at various rates, just like the 2000.playback can be in Fwd or Rev, from a designated Start to End frame. And you can Stop if yousee something interesting.- for Navigation, it can also step forward & back, or go to Frame N. It looks like also a JumpToEnd/Begin.it lacks the fast & convenient jog/shuttle dial on the 2000. if you're only capturing a few hundred records,then manually scrolling through them isn't too bad. but if you've recorded thousands of events, it maybe easier (and quicker) to just hit Play and wait until you arrive in the desired neighborhood.- for Analysis,it has nothing at all! this is the biggest functional weakness, IMO.the 2000 can compare ALL the captured frames against one frame selected as the template,OR the average of all the frames, OR against any arbitrary Mask, and highlight the occurrencesthat deviate by a specified %age. the 1000Z doesnoneof these.- for Masks, both can define a Mask and then use it to count frames that exceed it.the 2000 can use a Mask in Analysis mode to post-process a segmented capture, but the 1000Z can't.Initially, I had thought that both the 1000Z and 2000 could use a Masking Failure as a trigger condition, while in Record mode. But reading more carefully, I'm not sure either can. If not, it may be because the processor is not fast enough to do so in real-time. So Mask Analysis would be available only as a post-processing option on the 2000.[The LeCroys I've used do allow the Masks to be used in real time to capture qualifying events, but elaborate triggering is their forte. It can even have up to 3 other conditions running on other channels (including Math channels), along with the masks. But apparently even the Agilent 3000X doesn't provide this. Though it can save a PNG of each Fail event. So no reason to be disappointed if the Rigol's can't.]One thing that's not clear from the manual for either scope is whether the acquired Record frames can still be panned and zoomed after capture, and Measures applied. I suspect they can on the 2000, but not so sure on the 1000Z. They definitely can't on the 1000C and CD. And that's anextremelyuseful capability.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 08:20:18 am
content: And to help EF out...Other Limitations of the 1000Z to Consider:1) the 2000 has the ability to trigger on USB packets. It can detect SOP, EOP, etc. and trigger on the desired element. It can notdecodea USB signal, but just being able to capture on selected segments can still be useful.The 1000Z has no USB capability at all.2) the 2000A has a CAN option, which not only triggers on CAN messages (and even on specific field contents), but also has a full decode capability, error highlighting, etc. While the 2000 (non-A) currently doesn't, it may in a future firmware update.The 1000Z has no CAN capability, and likely never will.3) I just noticed that the claimed capability of the 1000Z to handle HDTV signals is bogus. HDTV is either 720P or 1080i, or 1080p. Yet the 1000Z is limited to 480P or 576P (PAL).Where Rigol got the idea that EDTV signals were HDTV, I don't know. But the claim is false.~~Those, along with the missing Measurement History on the previous page, is all I have. And I still think the 1000Z is an excellent product, loaded with features, at a phenomenal price. Unless someone is sure they'll never need a 3rd channel, or finds one of the functional omissions critical (CAN, for example), I think any beginner (and many pros) working with both digital and analog signals would be better off with the 1000Z than the 2000.IMO, too much of the earlier comparisons (before your purchase) between the two focused simply on raw performance numbers. Possibly because that was so easy to do. The 1000Z was "less good" because it had "only" 24Msample memory, since the DS2000 had 56M. In that case, I guess the 2000 must be sub-par, because the DS4000 has 140M!And the 1000Z is substandard because it can "only" sample at 1 GHz, vs. the 2 GHz of the 2000. Which must suck, because the 4000 can sample at up to 4 GSa/s. (Several posters also denigrated the 250 MSa/s limit on the 1000Z in 4-channel mode, then promptly compared that to the 1 GSa/s speed of the 2000 in 2-channel mode.Why not compare against the speed of the 2000 in 4-channel mode... which is 0 Sa/s?)And the 2000 kicks butt on the 1000Z, because its max bandwidth is 200 MHz, vs. only 100 MHz on the 1000Z. But that's nothing compared to the 500 MHz bandwidth on the 4000. So I guess the 2000 must be dog meat.To avoid any confusion, marmad has never participated in any of the bashing of the 1000Z. I think his objectives are the same as mine, which is to present all the pro's and con's in a clear light, and let everyone choose for themself which makes the most sense for them. And I agree with him that if you don't need, and won't use, more than 2 channels, then the 2000 is definitely the better way to go. Even though you're paying 43% more for half the channels, the performance of the 2000 fully justifies it. His comment that while the 2000 sacrifices raw performance numbers to the 4000, it hasn't stripped functionality, is also apt. (Well, it lost Flexray decode and a VGA out, but by and large, they're pretty close.)OTOH, if 2-channels maynotbe enough for things you expect to be doing some of the time, then the set of compromises that Rigol made in bringing out a feature-packed 4-channel scope, for an exceptionally low price, do not invalidate the usability of the instrument. And many would find the extra channels very useful and time-saving, though they've been getting by with only 2 for so long (due to non-affordability of 4-channel devices) they may not recognize situations where the extra channels would provide meaningful insight, or could reduce diagnostic time. (Or say, "dammit", and do their testing in multiple phases, looking at 2 channels at a time, and taking 3-5 times as long. Been there. Done that.)In my own experience, I have ~9 'scopes, and use them for different purposes. Three are 2-channel, four are 4-channel, one is 8-channel, and one is 18-channel (a 2+16 MSO). (I also have a collection of logic analyzers, and protocol analyzers as well, from 8-136 channels, and use those when appropriate. But that's a different discussion.) I spend about half of my time using 2-channels (sometimes just 1-channel!!). And the other half using 3 or more channels. But that's just me. Your needs and use cases may vary. There's no "one size fits all".I can assure you though that going for the best possible performance, in lieu of functionality considerations, is often a mistake. Case in point, the "best" scope I own has a 1 GHz bandwith, samples at 5 GSa/son all 4-channels, and uses four 3-GHZ probes that at retail (which I sure as heck didn't pay) cost significantly more than a DS2074. And it's one of myleast usedscopes.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 08:36:13 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 24, 2013, 04:27:40 pmTrue. But they weren't having as much fun doing it.And if someday your needs change, and SPI becomes as important to you as I2C is now, you might even find yourself wishing you had 2 more channels.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 08:44:38 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 25, 2013, 08:36:13 amI use a logic analyzer for nearly all of my decoding - I rarely use the DSO; it's not really the correct tool for the job. The I2C decoding on the DS2000 is handy in a pinch, but I wouldn't rely on it (or any oscilloscope decoding) as my main (or only) option.MSOs (and protocol decoding in general) are like cameras in cell phones. Manufacturers combine the functions because they are share similar attributes - and it's sometimes handy to use the thing that you just happen to be holding (or have sitting in front of you ). But no one (at least not yet) serious about photography relies solely on their cell phone camera.

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 12:41:12 pm
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 25, 2013, 06:31:03 amMeasurements, cursors, zooming, panning and delayed timebase are working in playback mode on the 1000Z. But using it is cumbersome because of the missing dedicated record mode buttons.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2013, 12:57:53 pm
content: Quote from: sync on November 25, 2013, 12:41:12 pmVirtually any processing that can by applied to real-time signals (including protocol decoding) can be applied to segments (excluding acquisition modes - although you can use the different modes to initially capture the segments).One standard post-processing technique (and super-easy to implement) that Rigol failed to include for segments is "Display All" (showing all acquired segments simultaneously to look for deviations). My RUU software can do this, but you have to get all the segments out of the DSO, which takes a fair bit of time (each segment is considered a unique acquire by the DSO - you can't just export the entire segmented memory in one transfer).Of course, you can locate deviations with the Analysis function, but that requires time to setup and run; having a "Display All" would save time in many circumstances - and should be included on both the DS2000 and DS1000Z as standard.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 12:04:55 am
content: Quote from: sync on November 25, 2013, 12:41:12 pmThanks, sync! That's good to hear. The older Rigol's are really crippled, in that regard.QuoteBut of course, that's not (good to hear).I assume that's because you have to leave the Record menu to access those functions, then return back to the Record menu again to navigate between frames? That is a PITA I hadn't considered. I'm glad you mentioned it, because it can negatively impact usability. (Which is what marmad has been saying all along.)

author: sync
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 12:14:24 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 26, 2013, 12:04:55 amYes.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 12:35:11 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 25, 2013, 08:44:38 amThanks for the perspective. I had thought you valued the I2C decoding on the DS2000 more highly.QuoteI get the analogy, and agree that the PD's in MSO are weaker in general. I hope you weren't inferring that anyone using a serial analyzer on a 'scope isn't "serious". Certainly if you can be confident that the serial analysis issues you're dealing with are 100% in the logic domain, then there's no reason to be using a DSO for that.However, in my experience., sometimes (10-20%?, but too often, in my book) the problems lie in the voltage domain. Thresholds not correct, drooping voltage levels, foreign signal coupling, spikes or sporadic noise incursion, RFI/EMI, etc. You can wind up scratching your head for a while, if these issues are unknown, and wasting a lot of time with a LA. Since you'll never catch them with a logic analyzer.That's why I often start with a DSO, to make sure those issuesaren'tpresent. And if the problem IS purely on the logic side, but can be readily seen on the DSO, I'm done. I only pull out the logic analyzers when I really need to, which is less often the better the PD is in the DSO or MSO I have available. An LA tends to require significantly more setup time, which often isn't justified. And if it turns out I need to correlate a certain serial data packet with some analog control signal or sensor in the SUT, then I'm back to the scope anyway.The "correct" tool for a job is the one that gets the job done quickest and most completely. That will vary with the task at hand. It's also dependent to some degree on the context as well. I.e., there's a difference between troubleshooting an existing device, and evaluating a new embedded system design under development. In the former, you are less likely to run into problems outside the logic domain, than in the later. (Though it's possible either way.)YMMV.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 12:58:02 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 25, 2013, 12:57:53 pmThat's excellent. And the way it should be.QuoteI agree, but can't you achieve a similar result (identifying outliers) by selecting Analysis with Average as the Source? With a Display All, you have an overlay which reveals nonconformity (presumably using intensity), but you can't identify which event(s) were involved?Of course, if all you're trying to do is verify the presence or absence of deviations from the standard, then a DisplayAll would give you everything you needed to know. And very quickly.QuoteAh, thanks. That makes sense. I think I had asked you about segment extraction in PM a while back, and that's the same way Agilent does it. How long is "a fair bit of time"?QuoteI guess I had assumed that an Analyze pass was relatively quick. Evidently, not so much. But I agree that would be a good addition to the firmware for these scopes. Did you forward that suggestion to Rigol via Drieg yet? If not, you should.

author: neslekkim
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 01:18:04 pm
content: I have been wondering about these two scopes, in the pricerange, the DS1104Z and the DS2072 is very close to each other, but cannot decide wether the one or the other, yes, 4 channels is probably fine, but what about the 1 vs 2G Samplingrate?, is there other things that makes the choice easier?

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 09:35:59 pm
content: Quote from: neslekkim on November 26, 2013, 01:18:04 pm> but what about the 1 vs 2G Samplingrate?What about it? One is twice as fast as the other. I don't understand the question. Will 1 GSa/s be inadequate for your needs? If so, you don't want the 1000Z.This question has been discussed pretty extensively here. If you do a Search, you can find many pro's & con's. Or click on ElectroFan's name, and then the link listing his Posts, and you'll find many threads on this specific topic.Do you need (or will you at some point need) 4 channels? Then the choice is clear. If not, then the 2000 has better performance specs, along with usability enhancements that will make it a better choice for some folks. The 1000Z is also notably smaller and lighter physically, and that may give it an edge for some, while being completely irrelevant for others.One functional advantage the 1000Z has that the 2000 lacks is the ability to handle SPI, because it requires 4 channels. 4 channels also means you can actually use the 2 serial Decoders, while the 2nd Decoder on the 2000 is pretty much meaningless (you've already run out of channels to use them with just Decoder1). If you need to decode a serial link using 2 channels, on the 1000Z you still have 2 channels left to probe other signals. You have no channels left on the 2000.If you need a Function/AWG generator and have limited bench space (or want one built-in for portable use, with fewer boxes to carry), it's an available option on the 1000Z-S, but not on the 2000.If none of those considerations are important to you, the 2000 is likely the better choice. Both are actually great options.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 09:44:44 pm
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 26, 2013, 09:35:59 pmI suspect theDS2000A-S modelswill be released in the West fairly soon (I think they've been sold in China for awhile already).

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 10:32:12 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 26, 2013, 09:44:44 pmThat's definitely worth pointing out, but I prefer to discuss things that exist, as "in available for purchase". Also, its accuracy is dependent on your definition of "fairly soon". I'd guess realistically (maybe) 3 months?, and waiting that long may not be desirable.Also, it should be mentioned that he could buy the cheaper 1074Z and get the same BW as the more expensive 1104Z he was comparing at price parity against the 2072. In fact, for that current parity, he could get the 1074Z-S. Which is certain to be significantly LESS expensive than a forthcoming 2072A-S. (likely 25-30% less, just as the 1074Z is 30% cheaper than the 2072A.)

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 10:41:49 pm
content: BTW, the scope I'dliketo see is the DS2074. Mainly because I can't afford/justify the DS4014 I'd like (or even better, an MSO4014).But I suspect that's not highly probable, any time soon. (The DS2000 Rev2 hardware has a space for a future LA, as well as the funcGen. But no extra channels.) So Rigol has holes in its product line.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 11:14:09 pm
content: Quote from: neslekkim on November 26, 2013, 01:18:04 pmIt is perhaps worth pointing out that the maximum sample rate while using all 4 channels is 250MHz (and I assume that rate is only while using AUTO/3MB up until 1ms/div) - so the 70MHz (or 100MHz) bandwidth specification while running all 4 channels is rather pushing the envelope.Another byproduct of the reduced sample rate, which might be meaningful to a prospective buyer, is the maximum Peak Detect, which is only 4ns on the DS1000Z (down from 500ps on the DS2000).

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2013, 11:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 26, 2013, 11:14:09 pmWorth noting, yes. However sampling at 2.5x is sufficient to achieve a 100% perfect sinx reconstruction. So "pushing the envelope", but not exceeding it.QuoteDefinitely meaningful!Especially when dealing with high-speed digital signals. I assume the 500ps is in single-channel mode, and it would be 1ns in dual (since I know the 4000 is 250/500ps). But the 1000Z is 4ns, regardless of # of active channels. So there are potentially glitches (in very fast systems) that would fall through the cracks on the 1000Z. Good to know.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:26:20 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 26, 2013, 11:58:32 pmWell, yes, mathematically speaking,at least2.5x higher. But unfortunately, real world limitations of the DSO can interfere with this. Linear interpolation should have, ideally, a sample rate 10x higher.I don't know exactly how the DS1000Z series works (although I'd be curious to know), but the DS2000 series follows these rules:If the sample rate <= 500MSa/s it automatically uses linear interpolation.If the sample rate >= 1GSa/s it automatically uses sin(x)/x interpolation.Here is a sine wave sampled at 2.5x it's frequency and reproduced using linear interpolation:

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:33:09 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 27, 2013, 12:26:20 amWell... that's just butt ugly.QuoteI was unaware of that. Thanks!

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:38:06 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 27, 2013, 12:33:09 amNo problem. But I really would be curious as to how they implement interpolation on the DS1000Z series. On the DS2000, you have a menu switch for 'Type:' 'Vectors' or 'Dots' - on the DS1000Z series they've changed that to 'Sin(x)/x:' 'On' or 'Off' - so perhaps they've dropped using linear interpolation.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:39:06 am
content: marmad, just for clarification, you said, "automatically uses", but can you override that behavior? I.e., select sin(x)/x in some menu?

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:40:05 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 27, 2013, 12:39:06 amNope - it's automatic.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:48:05 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 27, 2013, 12:39:06 amOne other point: I believe the Agilent X-Series also uses linear interpolation at slower sample rates (although unlike the DS2000, you can't turn off interpolation and just see the real sample points).From what I understand, the reason for this is that sin(x)/x attenuation will give you aliasing if the original signal contains components above the Nyquist frequency (the higher components will fold back into the pass band). Linear interpolation is cruder but will be less wrong in that it won't introduce false peaks at slower sample rates - although it will introduce discontinuities in the gradient.

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:57:36 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 27, 2013, 12:40:05 amIt's just starting to dawn on me that the 2000neveruses sin(x)/x smoothing, unless you have the sample rate cranked all the way to Max (or next to Max with a single channel).I guess that's "good" in the sense that you don't get a mis-impression from the interpolated points, and therefore increase the sampling (as you say) to 10x to get better fill. I'm not sure I've ever run into a scope before that enforces that policy (anddoesn't let you override it).Perhaps they decided to do so based on the extreme memory depths these scopes offer. You'd sure never get away with it on scopes with shallow sample memories.QuoteSame here. It wouldn't surprise me, based on the above, if they defaulted sinx to On only at 250 MSa/s rates and up. But let you override that in either direction. (I.e., turn it Off at 500 MSa, or On at 6 kSa, if you wanted.)

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 01:00:20 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 27, 2013, 12:48:05 amYes. That's certainly true. However, that's where the Anti-aliasing option comes in (that apparently doesn't do anything at all on the 2000).

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 01:10:58 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 27, 2013, 12:57:36 amI'd check what my Tek TDS460A does on this, with only 110k samples/chan. And my LeCroy 9314L, with 1M samples/chan. And my Tek TLA7e2, which samples to 5 GHz, but hasonly 15k samples/chan. But they're still boxed up from my recent move.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 01:27:45 am
content: Quote from: Mark_O on November 27, 2013, 12:57:36 amWell, as you surmised later in your post, it likely has to do with the large memory on the DSO (i.e. higher sample rates @ slower time base settings). Using AUTO/14MB, sin(x)/x interpolation is active down to 1ms/div (down to 500us/div with two channels) - and with the 56MB option enabled, down to 2ms/div for one or two channels.QuoteWell, as mentioned already, the Agilent X-Series are worse (in terms of what options can't be overridden): it has anti-aliasing and interpolationalwayson - and it determines itself whether to use sin(x)/x or linear.QuoteUmm... I'd be rather surprised if the DS1000Z gave you MORE control over certain functions than the DS2000. From what I've seen, it's always in the direction of 'less'.Actually, I was wrong. I thought the 'Sin(x)/x' switch replaced the 'Vector' switch on the DS2000, but reading through the manual it appears it has both. So in this regard, the DS1000Z has more functionality than the DS2000, allowing you to manually switch between sin(x)/x interpolation, linear interpolation, or none.I guess the reason that they HAD to do this was the very reason we mentioned above: forcing linear interpolation at a maximum sample rate of 250MHz was going to cause some bandwidth issues.Or, as Rigol puts it:"Enable the dynamic sine interpolation can restore the original waveform more real."

author: Mark_O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 03:22:04 am
content: marmad, thanks for the update. We all want "the original waveform more real". Less real would be bad.

author: hobbes
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 08:02:48 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 27, 2013, 01:27:45 amSpeaking of that, how do I disable sin(x)/x on the 1000Z? I see the option under 'acquire' but it's always grayed out and set to "ON".

author: seronday
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 10:41:23 am
content: The sin(x)/x ON / OFF only becomes available when 3 or more channels are turned ON.Do not know if this is intentional or a bug.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2013, 12:06:21 pm
content: Quote from: seronday on November 27, 2013, 10:41:23 amThis makes sense based on what was mentioned previously in this thread:When 3+ channels are turned on in the DS1000Z, the sampling rate is quartered - with 250MSas/s the maximum rate. At 250MS/s, the Nyquist frequency is only 125MHz, and according toyour posted bandwidth chart, will only be attenuated by a bit less than 4dB. So using sin(x)/x interpolation risks giving wrong results if the original signal contains components above that frequency.

author: neslekkim
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2013, 05:29:03 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 26, 2013, 11:14:09 pmI'm starting to lean towards the DS2072(A), I understand that the A is not hacked yet, but I guess it will eventually be.I guess that 70 should be ok, for some reason, the price difference up to toe DS2102 is a bit steep, about $340 here.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2013, 05:42:03 pm
content: Quote from: neslekkim on November 28, 2013, 05:29:03 pmNo one has ever found any difference between the DS2072 or DS2102 - except the front sticker (and price tag)The un-hacked BW of the DS2072 is at least ~110MHz, so don't waste your money on the DS2102.

author: JDubU
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2013, 06:24:53 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on November 28, 2013, 05:42:03 pmAssuming that the vertical input amplifier is, in fact, a TI LMH6518, the only software controlled bandwidth settings available for it are: 20MHz, 100MHz, 200MHz, 350MHz, 650MHz, 750MHz and "Full" (900MHz).Unless some other software controllable parts are involved in bandwidth selection, there would be no way to differentiate a 70MHz version from a 100MHz version.

author: neslekkim
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2013, 06:53:28 pm
content: ah, great!Things I want to use it for, is spi and i2c etc, for development with mcu's, not for decoding the signals, but for verifcations etc, to see that the signals are good on the other end.Looking for an saleae or something for decoding and logicwork, someday.It seems that in other places, the A series is replacing the normal ds2000 series?, here in Norway they gave me one price for the DS2072, and another for the DS2072A..

author: Teneyes
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 06:00:44 pm
content: To DS1000z owners:Marmad is working on a new version of my Rigol Ultravision Utilities to handle all 4 channels of the DS1000Z . 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.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 03:21:26 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 25, 2013, 12:57:53 pmThat is about the only reason that I would want segmented memory. I feed vindicated having not bought a Rigol after deciding they were being deceptive in their marketing.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 03:52:30 am
content: Quote from: marmad on November 27, 2013, 12:48:05 amIt will also show aliasing from nonlinearity in the ADC even with input signals below the Nyquist frequency. The sampling frequency mixes with the input frequency and some of the components produced are likely to be above the Nyquist frequency. This shows up as "wobulation" and may be especially bad in oscilloscopes which use interleaved ADCs.