Calling Marmad and other Rigol Experts - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2013, 06:28:44 pm
content: (done on a Rigol DS4000 series)Question(s): how much of this demo could have been done on a DS2000 series or on a DS1000Z?ie, What functionality demonstrated in the video, if any, would have either not been possible on a base configuration DS2000 or a DS1000Z? Or what functionality demonstrated in the video could have been done on a DS2000 or DS1000Z but would have required some options/upgrades?Thanks

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2013, 06:52:31 pm
content: Any of them (and Instek, Agilent, Tek, etc) can do that. The difference is just the dead time. The more dead time the more (statistically) time it will take for you to capture the errant signal (depending on how infrequent it is).A higher wfm/s just means you (again, statistically) are more likely to see the errant waveform more quickly.Read through some of the Rigol and Instek threads and you'll see a lot of discussion about wfm/s and what it actually means. Key note though that the quoted wfm/s from manufacturers is the peak rate under very specific conditions. Reality is, sadly, quite different.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2013, 07:13:55 pm
content: Greg, Yep, I understand (sort of) about wfm/s - but what about the user interface in terms of the ability to trigger and especially record, search/navigate, playback? Does the 4000 offer more functionality in these areas than the 2000 and 1000Z? (Additional question - is the graded intensity and the persistence the same across all three series?) Thanks again, EF

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2013, 07:50:41 pm
content: Is that Stephen Hawkings voice in that movie?

author: JimmyMz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2013, 08:29:09 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on August 07, 2013, 06:28:44 pmEF, I believe you are a perfect candidate for speaking with a Rigol Applications Engineer, such as Jason Chonko (the guy speaking in the video you posted). Applications Engineers are thoroughly aware of their product-line limitations/advantages, and are more than capable of answering most Rigol equipment questions. I mean wouldn't it be better to ask your questions to a Rigol Applications Engineer, but leave application specific questions and opinion questions to the forumI mean for this post to be helpful, so please don't misinterpret my response

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2013, 02:03:12 am
content: Quote from: JimmyMz on August 07, 2013, 08:29:09 pmYep, I could ask Rigol but I thought Rigol users and potential users here kind of liked talking about Rigol scopes. If you happen to have Jason's contact info feel free to PM me and I can check with him too. Thx

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 01:33:56 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on August 07, 2013, 06:28:44 pmIf I understand correctly from other threads you now own a DS1000Z series scope right? If so, what are the answers to your own questions? What handy features that can be seen in that video you linked to are also available on the DS1074Z?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 01:43:08 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on August 07, 2013, 07:13:55 pmNo. The 2000 has fantastic graded intensity, the 1000Z less so but still good. Don't know how much better the 4000 is to the 2000, but I'd be surprised if it's any better in a direct comparison.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 02:15:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 03, 2014, 01:43:08 amThanks, that's good to know! How is the segmented memory on the 1000Z compared to 2000? From what I gather from several threads (my poor eyeballs) is that the 1000Zdoeshave segmented memory same as the 2000. But NO timestamps on the records, and worse navigation. Now the lack of timestamps is annoying but can probably work around that. But the ability to navigate the waveforms would make or break it.

author: cybermaus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 08:41:19 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 03, 2014, 01:43:08 amThis guy compared a DS1000Z and DS2000, with a somewhat surprising resulthttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/rigol-ds1104z-26242/msg379113/#msg379113May have been old firmware on the DS2000 though.PS: Indeed, no timestamps, just frame numbers but no way of knowing how far they are apart.

author: mrflibble
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 10:12:46 am
content: Quote from: cybermaus on February 03, 2014, 08:41:19 amCan you apply user tags to frames? Probably not, but one can always ask.One workaround for the timestamps would be to have an external timestamper attached to the trigger out. That should at least give you pretty decent timing at the ns scale. But the drawback is obviously that it's not really conveniently accessible directly from the scope. As in, it's far more convenient if you can see the frame number + time directly on the scope instead of external trickery...