What major factors have contributed to the success of Rigol? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: jmc2000
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 07:31:35 pm
content: I first came across the name Rigol a little over two years ago on the EEVblog. Despite the low cost of their scopes then, I wouldn't have taken a risk because they were a relatively new Chinese company established in 1998, compared to say Tek, Agilent or Hameg. But they have gone from strength to strength, picking up R&D 100 Awards from US DOE Office of Science (SC).So how have they managed to grow so quickly with their reputation intact?Did they pinch talent from Aglient or Tek to take the company forward?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 07:56:52 pm
content: they were the OEM for the defunct 1000 series from Agilent.the machine was co-developed .... so they probably learned a lot there.

author: olsenn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 08:11:36 pm
content: Electrical engineering test equipment (such as oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, multimeters and power supplies) are not items that get sold in Wal-mart; they are specialized equipment to which few companies sell, and those who do tend to make most of their money from big businesses. Since businesses have lots of money to spend on things like this (if they need to) and there's not much competition, companies who do sell test equipment can sell their products for MUCH more than it costs them to make.Rigol didn't have a reputation at the time (when the DS1102E etc came out) and reputation is important to being able to charge big money for test equipment; so they took a different market; students and people willing to risk a no-name Chinese brand in return for big savings. Now that they are getting a better reputation, their products are getting more expensive, and they are beginning to compete with themselves (features are omitted in the DS2000 series scopes for no other reason than they don't want to discontinue their DS4000 series yet.Also their prices are higher. When the DS1052E came out, if you wanted to know which scope to buy with a $400 budget, it was a dead giveaway, buy the DS1052E. Now, a 4-channel 200MHz Rigol scope will cost you $3000 and if you want to know what the best scope is to buy with a $3k budget, it's not a simple answer... Rigol if you want deep memory, Agilent if you want fast update rates, Hameg if you want blah blah blah.

author: snipersquad100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 08:13:15 pm
content: One major factor is that I bought one lol

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 08:21:36 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on March 28, 2013, 08:11:36 pmthe local Fry's here ( which is a store where you can buy refrigerators, dishwashers , toaster ovens, massage chairs , dvd's, tv's, audio , computers , soup mixers , angry birds dolls also has the Agilent, Tektronix and even Lecroy scopes in stock ( even the 2xxx and 3xxx models from agilent ) ...so maybe walmart is not far off... i know they sell arduino's ... (osepp brand).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 08:55:51 pm
content: Quote from: jmc2000 on March 28, 2013, 07:31:35 pmAccording to rumours they have done that recently.Their biggest leg-up was their alliance with Agilent. They learnt a lot and picked up a ton of stuff on how to design and manufacture proper test equipment.Agilent now regret it big time, but still deal with them because they make the best OEM scopes, and Agilent think they still need that.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 08:58:12 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on March 28, 2013, 07:56:52 pmAgilent still do the 1000 series.It was the old Agilent 3000 series that was the first Rigol rebadge.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 09:14:49 pm
content: ATTEN has it's home grown skills base possibly, from what I know; being China's over 28 year equipment manufacturer... in fact Rigol and ATTEN have almost the same scope visual build look, front panel wise; so is there a connection here !I recall some years back when I bought my ATTEN, did a little research on the company, and found they OEM for other branded names too.

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 09:32:29 pm
content: I study Rigol's products from afar so my comments may be wide of the mark.Rigol seem to be a curate's egg of a company.On the one hand, from the tear downs their products seem to be well designed and constructed with quality components, good shielding and so on.On the other hand they seem to be a bit cavalier in some of their designs, targeting nominal specifications over solid designs. Examples being the 11052where they use a combination of slower DACs to get the required sampling rate and the DG4000 series where given an output amplifier that can onlygo to 20MHz they increase the nominal range to 160MHz by dropping the gain from 10 to 1. Gain flatness is obtained with digital calibration.I don't know if this is clever innovation or whether it proves unsound over the longer term. Companies like Agilent would not design this way - they takea much more conservative approach. But maybe they are too conservative.I hope that Rigol move more towards the Agilent/Tek/Fluke design approach as they are able to command higher prices and move up market.What I fear is that Agilent/Tek/Fluke/LeCroy will shift to competing on price and headline specs so that at the lower end at least, products will go the way of consumer electronics. At one time companies like Sony built televisions that would last decades and could easily be repaired. Now items like DVD players are just throw away, designed to be used for perhaps a year or two and just dumped if they break. (I have a friend who works in the tv repair business and most stuff now is just not worth repairing.)

author: jmc2000
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 09:41:40 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 28, 2013, 08:55:51 pmReminds me a little of of the Japan-China spat over accusations the Chinese "stole" high-speed technology from Japanese corporations:http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/07/11/japan-china-train-spat-heats-up/Wow, the ironyStill, I guess this is how the market has always operated since many of Aligent's predecessor product lines came from HP!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 09:42:52 pm
content: Quote from: jpb on March 28, 2013, 09:32:29 pmThat comes from Rigol being the first company apart from the "big three" to roll their own 1GS/s real time scope front end.Being a startup, they had to do it using off the shelf parts, they couldn't afford to spin ASIC's.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 09:44:14 pm
content: Quote from: jmc2000 on March 28, 2013, 09:41:40 pmAgilentis, orwasHP!HP spun out all the T&M side of things to Agilent.

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 09:46:17 pm
content: Quote from: jmc2000 on March 28, 2013, 09:41:40 pmJust to echo (I started typing before the last post) But Agilent was HP! I remember them changing the name so it was not surprising that they share product lines.

author: gregariz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 09:50:28 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 28, 2013, 08:55:51 pmThere was a thread a while backing talking about Agilents strength vs vs Tek at the low end, for which Tek has simply continue to manufacture old line products. A while back Agilent reported decreasing revenues in their T&M business for 2012. So one must wonder whether the adventure of offering features into low margin Scopes is actually a profitable endeavour.IMO Rigols success have largely been built on low priced scopes. If they are attempting to move up the food chain they will come into competition with better quality offerings.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2013, 10:14:52 pm
content: I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact that Agilent kit is expensive and there's a recession on. I'd have been surprised if revenue hadn't been down; there's always the option of buying a lower bandwidth scope, missing out on a few options, putting off a purchase for a year, or buying a cheaper brand.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 29, 2013, 12:20:05 am
content: Was just talking to a Rigol rep and he mentioned that their US support center is in Ohio, staffed with many ex-Keithley people.Here is your other source of talent..

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2013, 12:25:15 pm
content: Quote from: olsenn on March 28, 2013, 08:11:36 pmI'm not sure what you mean here. The UltraVision scopes (DS2000/DS4000/DS6000) are a product line - and by industry standards, a 'new' product line. Why would they discontinue a model from that product line? By and large, descending models in a product line have less and less features then the models above it, but IMO, the DS2000 and DS4000 are closer in capabilities (with the DS2000 actually having some features missing from the DS4000 - such as the 500uV vertical range) than the Agilent InfiniiVision X2000 and X3000 models.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2013, 02:07:37 pm
content: Quote from: jpb on March 28, 2013, 09:32:29 pmI'm not sure from a customer point of view it's good to wish for a company to be able to command higher prices, as this only means stuff gets more expensive for you.In addition, it's one thing to build entry level scopes with cheap proven technology. But building high end stuff in which a lot of fundamental research and major investments go into is a totally different beast, and there's a reason why the number of companies being able to do that is limited. The Chinese copycat attitude won't get you very far in that area.QuoteWon't happen. Agilent, Tek and LeCroy have a very robust stand in the high-end (especially LeCroy has some unique offerings which are simply the only game in town if you need this kind of stuff), and that's where they make the majority of their revenue. The fact that in the entry level market Tek competes with 10+ year old technology, Agilent sells Rigol rebadges while LeCroy simply sells rebadged Siglent stuff shows that for them the low end market is more about being present with something. They will happily leave the bottom of the market to the cheap Chinese brands as for non-Chinese companies competing is very difficult. Hameg can't compete with price so they don't try to, instead they compete with quality and service.And cheap low-end scopes are already like consumer electronics. Just look at what you get for say sub-$800. It's all made in China, designed and built for the lowest price and often with inherent flaws. It's no different from any other consumer electronics product today. Made for the hobbyist who's tight for cash, can be caught with features and doesn't care that much for the quality. Just like PCs for consumers, or cheap TVs or DVD players.What you miss however is that no sane professional in his right mind would touch any of this cheap China stuff with a barge pole, and for large corporations who invest millions in T&M gear Chinese brands are simply irrelevant. If they need a low end scope they rather pay a bit more and buy Agilent, or even one of Tek's TDS200 Series revivals. Because it removes a lot of uncertainties that might (and often will!) cost you much more than what can be saved by buying a cheap China scope. So Agilent, Tek, Fluke and LeCroy don't need to worry, because cash-strapped hobbyists were never really their customers, and they know that the low-end market is a cut-throat business where making any money is very difficult.QuoteThis was a time where a TV did cost much more in terms of purchase value than it does today, and technically was a very primitive affair. And even then Sony managed to sell great TVs with good and durable CRTs but with flaws in the electronics, so they were far from being perfect. I had the 'pleasure' to fix quite a lot Sony TVs at those times, and can tell you that not everything in the past was as great as it's remembered by some.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2013, 02:43:21 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2013, 02:07:37 pmFirst, this rather implies that all technology is not built upon the foundation of what came before - which it is. You could call all DSOs that subsequently included a simulation of phosphor intensity as 'copycats' of Tek's early DPOs. Also, how many Western companies do you suppose pull apart and examine technology from other companies. Do you think only the Chinese do it?Secondly, it appears you haven't been following the teardowns, reviews, massive amounts of discussion, etc, that have been going on around the latest Rigol products - which, no matter what you think about them, areclearlythe result of research and investment.QuoteWhile I would agree with some of the points in your post, you don't seem to have a good idea of what is being produced or sold currently - and frankly, it seems rather outdated. Not only are many sane professionals buying Chinese gear, the idea of lumping together the quality of all measurement products produced by all manufacturers in China is rather like including ALL of Agilent's scopes (from the rebadged ones to the top of the line) in a similar comparison.

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2013, 04:53:58 pm
content: From the point of view of hobbyists, small businesses, education etc Rigol and other low-cost manufacturers have performed a very good service.While it is probably true that most professionals will still buy Agilent/Tek/LeCroy scopes even at the low end, those companies want new engineers to be aware of them before they become professionals so have made some effort to compete at the low end which has reduced prices. If they don't compete then universities will furnish labs with Rigols and graduate engineerswhen they do come to the level of making purchase decisions might opt for Rigol over the established brands (below 1GHz at least).Perhaps from that perspective Rigol has moved upmarket in terms of price a bit too quickly. They are still cheaper than Agilent or even Hameg but not by a big margin.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 03:42:54 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2013, 02:07:37 pmPrimitive?Try calculating the correction factors needed to linearly scan a 110 degree picture tube,plus maintain convergence over that scan.Sony's designers did that,as did other manufacturers.Further,there was very little "primitive" about the PAL,or even the NTSC Colour Television systems,the Standards of which show a high degree of sophistication.Most of the Sony equipment I repaired were Broadcast quality Picture Monitors,which usually lasted 10+ years before needing attention.Of course they weren't perfect,but theywerefixable!You could desolder components without wrecking the tracks,unlike their European counterparts,where the assumption apparently was that they would last forever.We also had Barco & Bosch Monitors,which both had PCBs with the "too small holes" syndrome,so that you had to butcher components & desolder the leads afterwards,all of which wasted time.The dear old Bosch units had their board connections incorporated in a "hinge" assembly,so that you could fold the board out,whilst stillrunning the unit--great idea,but of course ,an obvious fault point--Sony used plugs & leads!.Even the few ordinary Sony TV sets we had were OK,again fixable with not a lot of hassle.I have noticed quite a few TV Servicemen don't like Sony,which is definitely contrary to my experience.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 03:55:25 am
content: I meant to answer the original question but I got sidetracked.I think Rigol has succeeded because their instruments,by & large,do what they say they will do,& customers are happy with their purchase.Most of the Reviews,Teardowns etc on the Internet have approved of the brand,so that people are encouraged to buy.The main competition to the cheaper Rigols in the targeted customer base are the other economy 'scopes from China,as well as secondhand Tektronix & Agilent/HP instruments.Many less experienced people would rather have a new Rigol,Owon,or Siglent,or whatever than an older "top brand" 'scope with possible issues.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 06:45:55 am
content: Quote from: reagle on March 29, 2013, 12:20:05 amThe head of Rigol US is ex-keithley guy Chris Armstrong:http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=7547367

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 06:52:47 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2013, 02:07:37 pmThere is another part of the "low end" town - education.And this is a market that Agilent and Tektronix target aggressively.A big driving factor in the design and specification for the Agilent 2000X scopes is driven by the education market.Both companies give big discounts in this market, and you can bet your bottom dollar they are still making good margins in this space.It's also one of the reasons why the major companies like Agilent/Tek/Rigol maintain very similar price and feature sets.HP cling to the scientific calculator market using a similar model. But in this case it's almost the entire reason for their continued existence.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 07:02:18 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 01, 2013, 06:45:55 amand for those playing along at home, former Rigol US GM Jack Brand has moved around a bit (HP/Agilent -> Rigol -> Tektronix -> now Lecroy)http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=20268562

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 05:26:27 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on March 31, 2013, 02:43:21 pmI think you should read what I wrote again because I already said that cheap scopes are built on proven technology.You should really try to read and understand before replying to a post.QuoteOf course not, but if you think that all the high-end stuff is made by copying from someone else then I'm sorry but you're wrong. While many new technologies are advances of existing stuff, there still goes a lot of research into these areas to raise the limits once more.QuoteYes, I have been following the teardowns, the reviews and discussions (most of which were done by hobbyists), and I'm sorry but I could not see anything which was new or the result of fundamental research work. In fact, all that was there was a mix of more or less standard components. There is nothing new or innovative (aside from the lower price maybe) in any Rigol product, period. Again, this is not meant as offense, but if you think that building an entry level scope from standard components (Rigol apparently didn't even design their own ADC hybrid but used COTS parts with removed labelling) is major research work then I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, the quality of current Rigol stuff seems to be pretty good (aside from their firmware), and I agree that designing a good analog frontend for a scope isn't easy and certainly has taken them lots of work. But at the end of the day everything that's in it is old stuff.I've seen what companies like Agilent invest in R&D, and let me assure you it's not the same as Rigol does.QuoteI'm sorry but you're wrong again. I really hate talking about work in my free time but lets just say that I often work at/with some large companies in Europe and the US, which all invest quite a bit of money into research and also their T&M gear. You'll find anything in these labs starting with 350MHz to 500MHz 4+GSa/s scopes to scopes that go over way 20GHz. What you don't find is anything made by Rigol, Atten, Siglent or any other Chinese brand. Nowhere. And I know for a fact that these brands are not even on the Radar for procurement.QuoteI'd really like to hear who these are. Because even for a small shop things like support (which includes bug fixes in a timely manner) start to become rather important once you have to make money with your equipment, and wasting time because of an unknown firmware bug (because there is no knowledge base or even just a firmware changelog on the manufacturer website) can be a very costly experience. For example, if one of our DSO-X 4000 scopes breaks then we will have a replacement the next day. Try getting this type of support from Rigol who apparently can't even come out with the long awaited firmware fix for their DSO2000 scopes.All this may not matter much when you're a hobbyist, but it matters if a scope becomes a tool to make money.QuoteWell, the thing is that even Rigol (which at the moment is probably the best Chinese brand in the market) is still only throwing out nothing-new low-end equipment, and albeit the hardware quality seems to be good the rest of what makes a product still has a long way to go. I know that Atten/Siglent/Hantek/whatever are not even at the level what Rigol pushes out, but in this discussion this doesn't matter much because even Rigol isn't there yet.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 05:43:58 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 01, 2013, 06:52:47 amYou're completely right of course.QuoteI'm sorry but actually they don't. They are in the education market primarily to get brand awareness and getting future engineers used to their own products instead of products from a competitor, as most engineers (like most non-engineering people) prefer to work with what they're used to. They are not in because huge profits are waiting for them, because there aren't huge profits in this market. Often enough it's even a loss leader, but that is accepted if they can get students used to their products.And it's not just T&M companies who do that. Most major ISVs do the same, i.e. Dassault (CATIA). It's just a bit easier with software as the vendor doesn't actually have to manufacture anything. But the aim is to get students familiar with their software which means they are much more likely to use that later on.That's also why the same discounts are usually not available to hobbyists, because hobbyists don't bring any similar benefit.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 06:25:57 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 01, 2013, 05:26:27 pmI think you should read what I wrote again because I specifically acknowledged that you wrote exactly that - and then said it applies to all technology.But then again, don't - please. I don't think I could handle yet another barrage of blanket statements.And honestly, my main response to your post was the feeling that a person who uses the term 'hobbyist' so much strangely reminds me of a Shakespeare quote.P.S. I noticed that whenever you rattle off your lists of Chinese companies, you seem to leave out GW-Instek. Is that because you don't feel they're Chinese enough?

author: jmc2000
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 09:59:27 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 01, 2013, 05:43:58 pmYou speak with an arrogant authority, yet appear to not know what you're talking about. Do you have first hand experience of procuring scopes from a manufacturer for an electronic engineering department?Maybe I'm being naive here and you have more knowledge in this area than I do, but I agree with Dave on this. As a student at high-school, university, and a researcher at university for a bit, my experience is that departments get kitted out with 30 - 100 scopes in one go. and not just with scopes but with computers, software etc.Once these students go out into the big wide world, they work in places that buy equipment that takes into account the needs of the company, and NOT the limited experiences of raw recruits. How many private companies have you come across that use Fortran as a programming language, despite it being taught in most universities?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 10:10:50 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 01, 2013, 05:43:58 pmThe education market is a large percentage of the final sales numbers of low and mid rage scopes, and a product has to make reasonable profits and sales numbers for the companies otherwise it a) doesn't get approved in the first place, or b) gets canned.The reason you quote is a valid one of course, but it's not the only reason, not by a long shot.You are right, there are not "huge" profit margins in this the lower end of town, but it's a market they have to be in and want to be in, because any good company wants to own the entire market space. And numbers add up, and the education market drives big numbers. And the smart companies are making money on all product spaces, only the stupid companies are happy to only break even in the education space.I've been told as such by more than one of the big name companies.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 10:13:21 pm
content: Quote from: jmc2000 on April 01, 2013, 09:59:27 pmIndustry wise, I'm not debating this, just offering my personal experience:I worked extensively in the lab while in High School/College and become quite proficient in the equipment i used. When in industry and faced with equipment selection I always started with the brand names I respected while in school, assuming equal qualifications and assuming it was a quality piece.BTW, Fortran was not taught at my university.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 10:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 01, 2013, 05:43:58 pmIt's because hobbyists don't bring in the numbers. They don't buy 50-100 scopes at a time.

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 10:58:30 pm
content: Quote from: jmc2000 on April 01, 2013, 09:59:27 pmIronically FORTRAN was the first computer language I learned and that was in industry before I went to university. We only did BASIC and some assembler at university and then when I went back into industry the programming language used was once again FORTRAN (on a VAX 11/780).OK this was a few years (decades) ago but there is still quite a lot of scientific and engineering software written in FORTRAN. While on the other hand most universities don't teach FORTRAN.I think your point is valid for items of major equipment, but if a company is recruiting a young engineer and is going to budget for them to have some fairly basic equipment I don't see why they wouldn't allow the engineer to have some input if it is going to get the engineer doing something useful more quickly.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2013, 11:20:39 pm
content: My brother was an aerospace engineering major (essentially mechanical), and the only programming class he ever had to take in college was in FORTRAN. I on the other hand was a computer engineering major, spending about half my time in CS classes, and never had to touch it. Go figure.Always thought that was funny.It seems like Rigol has spend a bunch of money recently on marketing and sales people as well. One distributor I was talking to said that Rigol came and trained a bunch of the sales people at their company on the new scopes and they had really good things to say about them afterwards.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 12:15:00 am
content: I also think the fact that you can call a US number and talk to support people has something to do with this.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 06:06:56 am
content: Quote from: jmc2000 on April 01, 2013, 09:59:27 pmYes, in fact I do, for over 20 years now. And not just scopes but most of our T&M gear.QuoteYes, but what you probably don't see is that most universities and even more high schools are usually very tight on cash (remember that education outside the US is often much cheaper or free/state financed), so they rely on sponsoring from major manufacturers. PCs are usually from Dell or HP (which invest a lot in their presence in education), and T&M manufacturers do the same.QuoteAt work we buy equipment that gets the job done, period. If the engineers that at the end of the day have to use the kit prefer say Tek instead of Agilent then they will get Tek if the price isn't much higher (and usually it isn't). It's much more efficient to give our engineers what they know then to force something onto them they might not be familiar with and which might require much more time (which costs money) to learn.This is pretty common in most larger companies.QuoteActually quite a few. FORTRAN is still in heavy use by many of our scientists.

author: wsmartAnn
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 07:02:07 am
content: i like reading your discusing , let me know more knowledge about electronics ~ O0

author: eevblogfan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 08:51:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 01, 2013, 10:15:43 pmit's true of-course , But it's really depend on what person is the seller , me for example , I got agilent dso X 2002 with the wavegen enabled and the DVM for only 40% of the cost ( 1200$ for the base unit plus 800$ total or so for the wave gen plus DVM right ? ) well I paid only 820$ for all , it's said 40% discount plus wavegen and DVM for free - but essentually I got it all for only 40% ( IE, 60% discount !!!! )and I really think you shall get this sort of discount tooo !! ( I know it's near impossible- but it was nice if the could do that for all of us the hobbyist's,beginners,advanced. and pro's )I don't know what about you . but the absolute cheapest price I could get for 1000 series was 600 plus dolars ! hence my father's decision was to invest 200$ more for that high-end scope , other ways I was investing on the rigol side , though the little defects it might have , I think out of the chinese market it's one of the best ( besides kikusui and yokogawa )shame agilent cant afford recognise us that community and support us more , I can really appreciate the quality of that scope , I do think that if I would have got rigol I would have felt differently , but that okay - for me at least

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 09:27:30 am
content: Quote from: jmc2000 on March 28, 2013, 07:31:35 pmMy take, cause they managed to make a cheap and good enough (subjectively) compared to other Chinese scopes, which means :- C'mon, we have to admit that for the 1st time in decades since the creation of scope, an enthusiast level can afford to buy a "brand new" scope at < $500 price range. This was almost impossible in the past unless you have deep pocket even in 90s or early 20s. (Quantity)- China, with the booming of industrialization in there, imagine those thousands or even millions of small startup companies, they just can not afford to buy even the lowest end Agilent/Tek/LeCroy stuff. (Quantity)- Cheap brain drain, like previous posts that they're OEM for big brands in the past. (Quality)Even with relatively low margin, the Quantity is and will be the major factor to gain enough fuel to sustain growth for quite some time. The quantity factor instead of quality 1st, historically is a proven fact for the survival at any big companies when they were at their early startup period. Japanese tech companies are good examples or better, even HP/Agilent was producing crap scope in their earlier days compared to Tektronix.Hence, naturally the quality improvement is just the matter of time whenever they've reached enough funds, sustainable growth, market share and also driven by competitions which is happening now among Chinese scope manufacturers themselves.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 09:45:02 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on April 02, 2013, 09:27:30 amAnd by "good enough" that actually means a 1GS/s "real time" scope like the big boys.Rigol were the first company outside of the major player to achieve this, and years ahead of any of the OEM Chinese scope companies.So they had a professional "real time" scope and matched that with low cost manufacture from a (then) small Chinese company, and the result was an inevitable winner. It's only half a decade later that the other cheap OEM makers are catching up, and a lot of their product is still not polished, like the early Rigol units like the 5000 series were. But now the Rigol units like the DS2000 are really schmick and ahead of their rivals.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 10:53:09 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 02, 2013, 09:45:02 amWonder if this DS2000 made a significant dent in Agilent's or other top brands market share ?I'm guessing its also made a bright spot in the radar at Agilent's HQ when their decision makers are considering and making the long term plan say for next 5 years, especially at the marketing vs R&D budgets for the upcoming wave of new models. Damn sure that Agilent's top guys are very aware that complacency kills.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 11:14:30 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on April 02, 2013, 10:53:09 amIt must be (or is scaring them enough), otherwise Agilent wouldn't have announced the new options packages on the 2000X

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 11:34:21 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 01, 2013, 05:26:27 pmYes, 'raising the limits' - that's something else. Companies rarely reinvent an existing technology that works. That's one reason why we have patent wars - and the continual attempt to broaden their scope (e.g. human-interface gestures).QuoteAhhh... I see... it'sfundamentalresearch that's important.QuoteOh...er... it'smajorresearch that's key. Hmm... shall we just say "major, fundamental" research is all that matters?QuoteThis coming from someone who hasn't used the gear? So, in other words, nonsense. Their firmware is very well-designed and written - IMO (notice how I'm prefacing this with 'my opinion'?) it's equal to - and in some ways, better than - the competitors offerings in the same price range.QuoteI never came close to suggesting it was.QuoteSo, of course, this gives you the authority to speak on behalf of all small businesses and self-employed engineers in the Western world as well?QuoteClearly you are now just regurgitating crap you've picked up in threads here. As far as I know, none of us current DS2000 owners (except perhaps Dave - for his review) are "awaiting" a firmware fix. The firmware is stable - and all of the operational bugs are minor. The only exception is when trying to read memory out of the scope - which is, I admit, a problem for me in terms of the software I'm writing for it in my free time - but it doesn't stop me from using the scope in my day-to-day paid work in any way. If it did, I would contact my dealer and/or Rigol. And there are many examples on this board of users getting fixes, either via their dealers or Rigol directly, for problems they had.QuoteI make money from my equipment - and it matters - but it's not the only thing that does.QuoteAs I mentioned elsewhere, there is GW-Instek. Apparently they sell a lot of T&M equipment in the US to.... um, I forget, what is the word again for someone that is a non-hobbyist?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 01:22:26 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 02, 2013, 11:34:21 amThat's likely the case, as I understand it I was accidentally given firmware by a dealer that was not meant for formal release. AFAIK, no one else has the firmware version that I've got.And that's possibly why they are "slow" with the new version, because to them it's just the next major update and they will take their time with it.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 04:38:19 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 01, 2013, 06:25:57 pmGW-Instek is a Taiwanese company, and many things that apply to Chinese companies (i.e. very low labor costs) don't apply to Taiwanese companies in a similar manner. GW-Instek isn't also a newcomer, the company exists for a very long time, albeit their extension into the Western market is a more recent endeavour. In addition, simply can't list any Chinese sweat shop producing anything which should even remotely resemble a scope or other T&M gear, so I simply refer to the most common Chinese brands.As to GW-Instek, I'd put them roughly at a same level with Rigol. GW-Instek has probably some advantages in terms of product maturity, but on the other side their European sales and support both only seem to exist on paper (they can't be arsed to answer any inquiries, no matter if you ask as individual or large multinational company). However, considering that GW-Instek is much older, I'm actually much more positive for Rigol's future, as they at least seem to consider the importance of after-sales support. In addition, if you manage to find a place to buy GW-Instek then the pricing is usually quite high and often makes even gear from the big names look like a bargain.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 05:11:27 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 02, 2013, 11:34:21 amI'm just addressing this one, as your tone becomes quite aggressive and I'm not wasting my time in a fanboi-esque mud fight: no, I don't own any Rigol equipment (I think I stated already that my requirements re. scopes are a bit different). I had however the chance to play a bit with a DS4054, a DG1022 (only the old version which isn't supported by Rigol's software) and a DG3061, though. I have also used Agilent's Rigol kit, although not extensively, and had a closer look on a DS2202 during an exhibition. I was actually quite impressed by the DS4054, the hardware quality was apparently very good, with a good screen, a logical user interface and good processing performance. But the owner told me that he already had some issues with the scope, some trigger problem and an issue where the scope would hang at boot-up when an USB flash drive was inserted before powering on. It apparently took him almost two weeks to sort this out, which was done through a firmware update. So here we go. I'm not expecting the same level of support as for say a LeCroy LabMaster but quite frankly the DS4054 was still quite expensive, and I personally would feel very uncomfortable if minor things like firmware updates can't even be downloaded from the manufacturer website. But as I said many times before, YMMV and if you can live with it then it might be a good buy. However, my preferences are different, and (aside from the other issue that Rigol can't supply what I want anyways) I'd rather pay a bit more and have the confidence that the product is backed up by an appropriate service.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 05:33:43 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on April 01, 2013, 03:42:54 amI didn't want to talk down the achievements of that time or the lots of work and research that went into these standards, and I agree that PAL/SECAM and NTSC were very sophisticated standards.But my comment was primarily aimed at TV sets. And yes, considering the processing that happens in a modern digital TV, an old PAL CRT TV is rather primitive (the same is true for modern digital TV transmission standards like DVB-T when compared with PAL7SECAM/NTSC). It's easy to forget the very complex processes and all the math and science that went into it when looking at a PCB from modern TV sets, which are much smaller and use less components than the TV of the old days.QuoteThat's true (I've worked a lot with their U-matic gear), but their broadcast stuff was made from a complete different division which didn't suffer from the same issues as their consumer products.QuoteYes, and getting hold of the Service Manual was a non-issue (most of our VO-56xx/58xx and VO-76xx/78xx VCRs came with a set of Service Manuals). But again, this was their professional equipment.QuoteTrue, but I couldn't complain about professional equipment from National/Panasonic or Grundig (the PCBs in their home VCRs were horrible, though).QuoteAs I said, their professional gear was much better than their consumer stuff.Don't know about today, though.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 05:41:44 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 02, 2013, 05:11:27 pmMy tone changed due, to use the words of another poster, your 'arrogant authority'. As far as your 'fanboy' insult goes, I have a long track record on this board of both praising and being critical of equipment I use - including the Rigol DSO (i.e. I'm not a know-it-all blowhard).

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2013, 05:54:01 pm
content: But who will buy the Rigol DS6000 series? It is quite expensive, not suitable for hobbyists. Will some professionals buy it? I am afraid not... Or maybe it is rather popular in China?http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/ds6000/

author: larry42
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 07:18:40 am
content: QuoteAnd those old 3000 series where so crap, that we literally threw them in the trash*. I've not considered Rigol because of those rebadged Agilents.*yes, I took it home with me after it was thrown out. I've not turned it on since.Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2

author: larry42
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 07:23:07 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 02, 2013, 05:54:01 pmGood question, I wouldn't, but maybe places that are more price sensitive, or those that are under export restrictions. I'm sure that Iran cannot purchase Agilent or Tek scopes....Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2

author: brainwash
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 12:38:05 pm
content: A former big corporation that I've worked in recently started to acquire low-end T&M equipment.The deal is, our department did SW/FW but the certification stuff was done in Germany on much more expensive equipment. So we actually did not need expensive scopes because we only needed to check the waveform and maybe some audio filter attenuation. Even so, about 3/120 people in my department (myself included) actually knew how to use a scope.When time came to buy various DAB/DVB equipment we went for the lower end stuff since we were paying 40-80k to have a couple lying around instead of >300k for one unit. Again, certification testing was done somewhere else. The stuff is still used and it still works and it's already paid itself.The question is now, why do we actually needed the expensive units? Because the engineers doing the initial design worked with those and when asked to plan a lab they laid on paper what they knew and used. It took some convincing and research to demonstrate that in a lot of usecases we actually did not need a lot of stuff. That leaves more money to spend on office equipment, trainings, additional T&M gadgets or just savings.I'm talking >1M EUR per year per department; that looks nice on any excel sheet.Ok, you will now say that in the SW world that is allowable and why would we even need scopes? But I know the trend has shifted also to other departments in the lower level. I know some electronics/electromechanics department that instead of renewing the Fluke stock shifted to another brand. Fluke-brand cost around 500-600E per unit (corporation purchasing stuff) versus some Japanese brand that was 150-200E and offered better specs, features, warranty, calibration services.AFAIK Fluke lost there more than 100 units in just one sweep, by now it should be over 1000 because the precedent has been created and the move is catching momentum.To give a partial answer the question: as long as these "cheap" brands provide consistent quality over years they also gain more traction. They provide the alternative to big-name brands - that alternative was missing before.With margins getting thinner in all fields sometimes 'good enough' is just that.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 01:11:16 pm
content: Quote from: brainwash on April 03, 2013, 12:38:05 pmIt makes me cringe to even say this, but, there is truth to the above statement. Even the economy Scopes out today are more than enough for many jobs, we all want the absolute best there is, but what do we really need to get the job done?

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 01:28:23 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on April 03, 2013, 01:11:16 pmOne problem is things can swing too much the other way.I'm thinking of the days of proper hp calculators. hp used to make calculators with wonderful keyboards but they were expensive. hp then switched to producing calculators which were a bit less expensive but had/have rubbish keyboards because they felt the need to save cash and compete with Casio and others.Now you don't have the choice anymore, except for their financial calculator the best keyboard they do is on the HP35s but it is still nothing like my old HP48x which sadly is missing a column of pixels. When my HP48x display went I bought the latest top-of-the-line hp as a replacement and the keyboard was so bad that I sent it back to Amazon twice thinking it was faulty - the third one now sits in my desk and is never used.The point I'm trying to make is that if in financially tight times people only buy the cheapest because it is good enough, then if times get better there won't be any option to buy better quality because no one will make it anymore. Perhaps it is inevitable, but not necessarily welcome.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 01:32:48 pm
content: Quote from: jpb on April 03, 2013, 01:28:23 pmI don't entirely disagree, however there will always be an industry for the hard core equipment, the top of the stuff will continue to see development.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 02:24:45 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on April 03, 2013, 01:32:48 pmWell, some of the things have a comeback (keyboards with decent keys, for example), but in case of more "niche" stuff such as the older HP or TI calculator keyboards, they never come back... I also recall the older HP digital oscilloscopes that had the same incredibly built keyboard tactile feel, but nowadays I only see rubbery keys... (maybe in the higher end they still use that... Not sure, though).Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2013, 02:07:37 pmI posted something about this while ago: checkhere. Although it is just anecdoctal evidence, I am 100% sure it is applicable to the overall industry.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 02:30:03 pm
content: Quote from: rsjsouza on April 03, 2013, 02:24:45 pmTrue, but stuff back then was built to last 20+ years. Today technology grows so fast I don't need it to last that long, at max 10 years and I'll be buying a new one that is 10x better. Point is, today, those old HPs would be overbuilt and be wasting resources. Cause I'm just gonna toss it out in 5-10 years to replace it with something better.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 03:47:02 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 02, 2013, 05:41:44 pmI think I have expressed more often than not that this is my opinion, but I accept that reading comprehension is a virtue not everyone is capable of. I also wrote often enough that my requirements re T&M stuff are a bit different than others, but never mind.If someone believes that stating from what is quite a bit of experience in the professional T&M market is 'arrogant authority' then I'm sorry but that's his problem and not mine. I'm also well aware that there are a few who believe just because they have used a <insert cheap China scope name here> that they know anything about the professional T&M market, but again that is their problem.QuoteYes, I've read some of your posts, and many of them were really good. So I suggest the attitude stays out and we keep any discussions at an adult level. At the end of the day, I assume this forum is there to help others and not feed someone's ego.

author: brainwash
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 03:51:47 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2013, 02:07:37 pmWell, I can definitely tell you it is not like that anymore. Ok, maybe some professionals grew up with that stuff around but I grew up and studied in a developing country with no access to this stuff and with a lagging industry and education in the technical area.The next generation of "professionals", myself included, don't have a problem with at least testing Chinese stuff. In my University studies (8-13 years ago) I don't remember seeing a DSO on student benches. There might have been a few in the teacher's offices and I remember some CROs with overlayed digital readouts. Mind you, I was actually majoring in T&M.Regarding the irrelevancy of those corporations also check out the comment from rsjsouza above. I'm adding to that the story of my experience with one of the biggest automotive OEM producers in the world. I would wager to say that 80% of recognized consumer brand cars in the world have something from this from that OEM: ECUs, dashboard electronics, ABS unit, electronic stabilisation units, electronic brakes, navigation systems, entertainment systems, etc.That range spans from the lowest-level entry car to high-end limousines or SUVs.Since myself or colleagues or friends were involved in some loop of the process with these brands, I can vouch for these stories.Oh, may I add that the quality of the end-product is irrelevant to the brand of the equipment that we used. I'm only allowing myself to say that BMW at least spends a decent amount of money on R&D and testing. There are some lower-cost brands that spend only a bit less but reach almost the same quality and there are also expensive brands that invest almost nothing into R&D, at least on the stuff enumerated above. For obvious reasons I will not name them. Ok, they might invest more in actually designing the buttons to be pushed with the same force and a nicer paint coating on stuff, than for the actual functionality.Suffice to say it's not usually true that you get what you pay for (in a car): cheap will get you cheap but expensive might also get you cheap.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 09:29:20 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 03, 2013, 03:47:02 pmApparently. This was likely the reason you insisted that the LCD controller IC on a DSO affects it's waveform capture rate.QuoteThat's not the problem I - and perhaps others - might have with some of your posts. There are plenty of people on this forum that have as much experience (or more) than you - sometimes in different areas; sometimes in overlapping ones. But writing declarations such as:Quotemakes you appear both arrogant and out of touch - since it doesn't take much in the way of observational skills to see that there are professionals in this very forum who own some of the Chinese gear - as well as posts by other professionals, such as rsjsouza,detailing his experiences on the subject- which contradict your blanket statement.But I suppose being able to absorb other people's experiences, being capable of changing one's fixed opinions on a subject, and being able to except responsibility for a mistake or miscommunication - these are also virtues not everyone is capable of.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 10:46:04 pm
content: Quote from: jpb on April 03, 2013, 01:28:23 pmFunny thing is,allof my Casio calculators are still working, some of them 25+ years later. Not bad for a cheapie.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 10:51:35 pm
content: Quote from: brainwash on April 03, 2013, 03:51:47 pmAbsolutely.In most of the jobs I've worked in, electronics R&D dollars were always tight. It was nothing for the company to pay $100K for production tooling on some widget, or pay $1K/week to rent a high end scope, but you want to capex a $2K scope?, it's like extracting teeth.If you were lucky you got say $20K to set up a new lab from scratch, and that included everything, so you are going to chose your scope very carefully and get the best bang-per-buck scope you can get. When you are faced with hard choices, you tend to throw away your brand loyalty and warm fuzzies.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 11:15:51 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 03, 2013, 10:46:04 pmMy HP 16C, bought in 1982, is still running merrily along - and it's used very often (love RPN). But the most amazing thing about it is that I think I've only changed the button cells 4 or 5 times in 31 years; a really great power-saving design for it's time.But it wasn't a cheapie

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 11:24:03 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 03, 2013, 11:15:51 pmI've never changed the battery in one of my 25 y/o solar powered Casio'sYes, the battery is dead in it, but works fine in the office lighting.In another two units (also with dual power solar) I've changed the battery once in 20 years.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2013, 11:51:12 pm
content: When comparing these two webs:http://www.gwinstek.com/en/globalsite.aspxhttp://int.rigol.com/html/about/59d2127f.shtmlIt seems that GW Instek is not interested in selling in Europe because they even have no subsidiary there. On the other hand, they have many subsidiaries in Asian countries, so they are probably popular there. Rigol has a subsidiary in Germany.