DSO Reliability - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 02:30:19 pm
content: Having my Tektronics 465 fail recently was certainly depressing (great general purpose scope, IMO), but this does give me the opportunity to buy something new! So I'm searching for a new dual trace scope with around 100 MHz BW, and settled on getting one of the ~many~ apparently Chinese made DSOs selling in the $400-450 range.My main concern is reliability. And so I'm overwhelmed by the number of extremely similar units which are available, many of which carrying company names which are new to me. There are many made by Owon, Rigol, Siglent, etc., but I also found ones with more familiar names -- B&K Precision, Tektronics (although this one is more $), etc. All these seem to have extremely similar front panel layouts -- does this imply that they are all made by the same manufacturer, in the same plant, etc? Or is it more that form follows function? Are they all built to the same level of reliability such that the company name becomes a non-factor? I have done a fair bit of reading here, see many recommendations, but have yet to see any reviews concentrating on reliability. Can anyone help? And if I overlooked a good thread on this here, sorry, can someone please point it out?JohnLocation: USA

author: janengelbrecht
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 03:45:18 pm
content: If money is an subject go for Rigol. Good build quality, good precision , good reliability. More DSO for the dollar.Rigol DS1102E : 100MHz Analog BW. (One could go for DS1052E and then make the 50Mhz->100MHz Hack ....but again...you could brick your scope then - and you will loose your warranty for sure!).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 03:59:30 pm
content: IMHO looking for equipment which lasts 20 years is not a good idea. Better buy a new one every 5 to 10 years so you have the latest bells & whistles.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 04:52:29 pm
content: Within your budget, Rigol would be your best bet (good build quality and value for money).In particular, theDS1054Z. Plenty of threads on it, and if you hack it, you can get 100MHz out of it as well as some other features (enable it's software options, including unlocking 24mpts of memory). Really is an amazing feature set for the money ($399 MSRP), even if you don't hack it.And if you order from TEquipment.net, there's a code that will give you 6% off, so ~$375 (free shipping & a free gift tossed in for good measure). Can't be beaten right now for value.PM sent.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 06:23:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 08, 2014, 03:59:30 pmWhat latest bells and whistles? There has been very little fundamentally new in DSOs in the past 15 years aside from companies like Rigol bringing feature sets previously only found on $5000+ scopes down to $500.Just look at the number of people who still use their 20+ years old 20-250MHz analog scopes today - some people have even posted restoration videos where they have to reprogram the flash/NVRAM/EEPROM memory due to bit rot. It does not matter how old scopes and other laboratory instruments are: as long as they still work properly and are still appropriate for some everyday purposes, people will find uses for them.For example: how much better will your scope from 2030 be at measuring ripple and noise on power supplies than today's DS1054Z or DS2012A? Likely not that much - scopes from 20+ years ago are still adequate for this today... some people even prefer analog scopes for this sort of stuff.I much prefer having equipment that will last however long I have uses for it than being forced to replace it because it failed before I had any reason to buy something newer/better.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 09:06:12 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 08, 2014, 06:23:50 pmProtocol decoding, longer memory, higher samplerates, digital channels, FFT, intensity grading, color TFT display, small form factor.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 09:32:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 08, 2014, 09:06:12 pm...although boot time gets worse and never seems to improve.Some of the oscilloscope fundamentals in the analogue domain don't improve quite as fast as the bells and whistles get bolted on. At the same time the systems we're debugging are getting faster and faster. I was debugging a 50MHz QSPI interface today, gave up with the $1000 brand new Rigol and went back to a 10 year old Agilent boat anchor and a Tek 2467B.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 09:44:03 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 08, 2014, 06:23:50 pmWell, I didn't know there were 100GHz scopes using technologies like DBI 15 years ago already (100GHz scopes only exist for roughly 10 years, and those were sampling scopes). Because I see something like that as quite a fundamental achievement.This aside, there were lots of other advances within the last 15 years which make getting a modern scope worthwhile, for example higher sample rates, larger sample memories. Or much faster processing, which is the key to enabling even more advanced analysis functionality and higher trigger rates. Larger screens with higher resolutions, Decoding capabilities for a ton of buses and communication standards and so on.QuoteNo, not really. Rigol makes perfectly fine entry level scopes, but none of them (not even their DS6000 Series) has any remarkable features, in fact, aside from the large sample memory (which for the low sample rate of these scopes is dirt cheap these days), feature-wise they're pretty basic and in some areas (like FFT) are put to shame even by many scopes much older than 15 years.Rigol was one of the first manufacturers to produce decent entry level scopes at prices lower than the established big brands. That's how they got their slice of the market, by delivering decent quality at low prices. If they had to fight by features they would have starved.QuoteYes, but so what? Of course as long as these old scopes work (or can be restored to work) they can be used for the same tasks they have been used 20 years ago. But that doesn't mean that they're also adequate for more complex tasks, like debugging modern buses.QuoteWell, the thing is that probably only a very small minority of EEs use scopes for looking at basic stuff like ripple and noise of power supplies, and if the PSU in question is a complex switch mode PSU then a modern scope offers much better analysis capabilities than any analog scope from 20 years ago.In 2030 we'll certainly have even more highly complex electronics and buses than today, and all of them will need debugging at some point. Your DS1054z or DS2012A, which even today are merely at the lower end of the performance scale, will be utterly useless by then.QuoteThat's fine for you. Unfortunately not everyone looks at PSU ripples, and more often than not I find that some of the new features of a new scope saves me so much time or makes my work so much easier that replacing it pays practically for itself, even when the old scope still works perfectly fine.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 09:52:36 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 08, 2014, 09:06:12 pmI fail to see your point: LCD-based, portable oscilloscopes have been available for over 15 years and most features like serial decode and FFT have been available for even longer as extras even in the days of CRT-based DSOs. Nearly none of this is new; it has merely become smaller and cheaper. For someone who already own an optioned-up scope, there is very little reason to ditch it for a newer but otherwise equivalent instrument just for the heck of it.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:06:32 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on November 08, 2014, 09:18:56 pmThat's true, but you won't get the quality, ease of use or performance that comes with genuinely professional as opposed to budget equipment.I've spent the last week bringing up, testing and debugging a new board with the aid of my Agilent MSOX3054A. It's true that I've not used all the bandwidth - 100 MHz would have been plenty - but I have been using all four analogue channels plus many of the digital channels all together, plus serial protocol decoding, advanced trigger modes, mathematical functions and segmented memory.The screen has got a bit cluttered at times, but throughout the process, the scope has been consistently reliable, responsive, and an absolute pleasure to use. It's never crashed, become sluggish or unresponsive, or given me an obviously incorrect measurement. I use it without thinking, and that's high praise indeed.I can't say the same for the last Rigol scope I used, which was a DS4054. By comparison it was sluggish and, unforgivably, had bugs in it which meant the serial decoding was next to useless. Occasionally it would lock up and crash.What's worst of all is that the Rigol wasn't badly constructed, nor were there any obvious issues in how it acquired and displayed a signal. Its hardware was fine; all its problems were in the firmware, and many of them were so painfully obvious that it's heartbreaking that they made it out of the lab in the first place.Spec for spec, the Agilent would have been twice the price - though buying it from the 'agilent used' Ebay store negated that particular disadvantage. Unless it has some kind of ticking time bomb inside, like an irreplaceable battery slowly going flat, I can see it occupying a space on my lab bench for quite some time to come.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:10:50 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 08, 2014, 09:52:36 pmI guess you've never really used FFT in a decent modern scope. Your old DSO clunker may have FFT, but for most scopes of that era will be limited to 100kpts or less (only undercut by modern Rigols which only use a few hundreds of points), and even then it will be painfully slow due to the slow processing.And as to serial decode, good luck trying to decode modern common stuff like USB3 or 1Gbps Ethernet with your 15 year old scope. The world no longer only revolves around RS232.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:11:46 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 08, 2014, 09:44:03 pmI was writing that from the point of view of a private user - someone who has to spend his own money on buying the scope and other instruments. If you earn enough to afford spending over 1M$ on a new scope every 4-5 years to have the newest 100GHz scope on the market, knock yourself out. I suspect most people who own their own equipment are more like Dave himself: if it ain't broke, don't fix it - keep using the things until they are either no longer fit for purpose or beyond economic repair.For industrial/R&D stuff, you use what you need to use (or whatever you can convince your bosses to get you) and there is not much room for discussion there.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:14:41 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 08, 2014, 10:10:50 pmHow many people are going to buy oscilloscopes capable of that for personal use? Next to none.When the employer is paying for hardware, it becomes much easier say: "I do not care if my 100k$ scope blows up after four years, I'm not the one paying for it anyway."

author: janengelbrecht
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:22:36 pm
content: if we are talking hobby use...well what are you going to work with ? RF? 800MHz ARM microcontroller ? FPGA ? or small AVR at 16MHz and LF...in the last scenario a 50MHz DSO is all you need ( Rigol) If i need spectrum analyzing / FFT i export my data to a computer and makes the calculations there so my Rigol DS1052E is all i need

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:28:19 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 08, 2014, 10:11:46 pmWell, you didn't say that your POV is limited to private users. In fact, you suggested there was no noticeable development in scopes in the last 15 years which, as I pointed out, simply isn't true.And even if we're talking about hobbyists only I do have to disagree with your idea that a new(er) scope wouldn't offer any advantage over a 15+ year old one.QuoteHow do you know? For example, I know quite a few poeple who tinker with micro controllers and FPGAs for various hobby projects, and they need to look at stuff like USB or Ethernet. Not all can afford new scopes of course so some buy second hand high end scopes which are maybe 5 to 7 years old, which can be had pretty cheap these days and which offer the necessary capabilities. A few also bit the bullet and bought a semi-new scope (ex demo).QuoteNot everyone who uses a scope to earn money is employed or has a large budget. In fact, even in larger companies large budgets which allow to splash out money just for the sake of it are certainly in the minority.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 12:10:34 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 08, 2014, 10:28:19 pmI was merely staying on-topic: I should not have had to point this out since OP is looking for a replacement for his busted Tek 465 analog scope. Being up-to-date with the latest whizbang features is clearly nowhere near the top of OP's priority list.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 12:27:29 am
content: Perhaps not but I have seen it many times: at some point people buy the most expensive oscilloscope they can afford and think it is the best oscilloscope they will ever own for the next 30 years. I upgrade my oscilloscopes every few years.

author: particleman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 01:13:48 am
content: I think it totally depends on what you do with your scope. I repair vintage audio gear upgrading my scope every few years would make zero sense for what I do. I would say buy a scope that meets your needs.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 01:18:26 am
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 08, 2014, 06:23:50 pm

author: janengelbrecht
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 02:07:09 am
content: Quote from: particleman on November 09, 2014, 01:13:48 amCant see any need to go furtherAnswer above says it all I think

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 04:54:30 am
content: Interesting the OP has asked about reliability and this has barely been addressed.As all modern scopes use at least 1 SMPS within, this is indeed a valid question.This is generally the highest stressed part/s of any design.As manufacturers compete on price component quality (and other features) suffers.To have a SMPS fulltime online(powered) might be appropriate for a DSO that is in daily use but IMO the likely first point of failure over an extended period of time.Several manufacturers have a mechanical type mains switch that removes any SMPS from fulltime mains connection, which IMO is preferable for hobbiest/intermittant use.Mostly this type can be identified by the switch placement on top of the DSO as the force to activate the switch would displace the DSO if placed on the front panel.Any of the recent DSO's of the more popular brands will be opening a new world for the OP with even the basic features now incorporated in DSO's.As this is his first step into this new world my advice is to find a seller that can offer support and purchase a 100 MHz 1 Gsa/s 2 Mpts DSO.Learn and explore the new capabilities available and get on with fixing your 465.Depending on you future requirements, you may need little else.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 05:06:49 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 09, 2014, 12:27:29 amI upgrade as well but by buying older oscilloscopes which provide functions and performance that I cannot afford in a new oscilloscopes.The noise issue is interesting because I make that sort of quantitative measurement all the time on my analog oscilloscopes using the tangental method. Some expensive DSOs explicitly support noise measurements in one way or another but a windowed RMS measurement on an inexpensive DSOshouldwork but not all DSOs support measurement windows (I did not find this function in the Rigol user manuals anyway) and DSO automatic RMS measurements inexplicably do not always work when measuring noise.As far as FFTs, old DSOs are slow and used a limited number of sample points but at least some of them displayed the phase information instead of throwing it out. I still want an old TDS500 or TDS700 series oscilloscope just to get that.Aliasing on fast edges bothers me. Analog oscilloscopes and DSOs with equivalent time sampling product consistent results. DSOs with digital triggering need to use averaging and even then, they seem to have more problems with this which is apparently solved with marketing.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 08:22:36 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 09, 2014, 04:54:30 amNo doubt about the power supplies, especially their output caps, being the most common failure point in most modern devices. Then again, few devices have anywhere as many output caps per rail and per watt as the 1000Z's power supply has, and the scope only draws about 30W/ 50VA including conversion losses so those output caps should have hardly any stress on them at all. I would be surprised if they started becoming problematic sooner than 7-10 years. On the plus side, they are relatively easy to inspect and replace if necessary; just need to remember to start checking up on them maybe once a year, just in case.For people who really want to keep their devices around for a long time, bit-rot might become a significant concern after the 12-15 years mark.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 08:48:41 pm
content: IMHO it is hard to predict what fails first. Tektronix was plagued by bad electrolytic capacitors in the late 80's and early 90's.On a TFT screen the backlight is the weak point. In general weak points are components which get hot.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:17:40 pm
content: QuoteIf you were happy with the 465 then why not fix it or buy another?Then look at evaluating a new DSO in slow time. I can pretty much guarantee you will find things about a modern DSO you will not like and things you will like (in comparison to the old 465).The best combo is to have the 465 and a DSO to get the best of both worlds. Another reason to fix the 465!The other thing to be wary of is fan noise. Quite a few DSOs can be very noisy and this can be very distracting if you are used to working in a fairly quiet environment at home.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:21:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 08, 2014, 03:59:30 pmSince I was fairly content with a Tek 465 for home hobbies (ham radio, hi-fi, general analog circuit design, etc.), I suppose I don't really need the latest features. That said, I'd really like to get a scope with long term reliability on par with old Tektronics gear similar to my 465 (it was built in 1977 - almost 40 yrs without trouble isn't bad). So getting back to my questions about DSOs, I can't help buy notice how similar they are (almost identical front panels). Do you (or anyone else) know whether these things are actually the same products, just rebranded via different labels? If that's the case then my concerns about reliability actually reduces to a general question about all of them. To the extent that it matters, I wonder if all the brands carry similar warranties?John

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:24:54 pm
content: Quote from: nanofrog on November 08, 2014, 04:52:29 pmAnd can 100MHz scopes be extended b to 200MHz by similar techniques?

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:30:05 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on November 08, 2014, 10:06:32 pmHearing about the less than stellar firmware was an eye opener. If this is typical across all brands of these low end DSOs, maybe I should look for another solution....

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:33:49 pm
content: It may help to consider a modern chinese scope in the same way you would a modern laptop PC.Cheap build quality and built down to a price. It's just a plastic case, a few PCBs, a display and a few connectors and a cheap PSU and a fan.People are happy to retire/replace a laptop after just 5 years and I think the same can be said of a cheap DSO from china if it proves unreliable or can't meet the demands in 5 years' time.You can't really compare this product strategy to your Tek 465 that was built to last many years and probably cost more to buy in the mid 1970s than a decent car.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:35:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 09, 2014, 08:48:41 pmWas Tektronix the only one to suffer from this? I suspect the problem had to do with the cleaning solvent used after assembly attacking the capacitor seals.QuoteLED backlights may help with that if operated at low brightness.With CRTs there is a problem when the intensity is turned off but the CRT is still operated for long periods of time which can cause cathode interference.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:35:45 pm
content: Quote from: janengelbrecht on November 08, 2014, 10:22:36 pmMy purposes are for purely hobby usage. A BW of 200 MHz would be great (2m ham band -- 144-148 MHz), but budgetary concerns limit me to 50-100 MHz.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:46:04 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 09, 2014, 04:54:30 amDecades ago I used to rank performance and features above reliability. Now it's the opposite -- reliability is my top concern for home EE gear. So I wasn't happy to hear about the firmware problems already mentioned. Maybe this means I'm looking the wrong type of scopes. BTW, In general your whole message was very much on target. I probably don't need all these new features, but if my 465 proves to be a beast to repair, I need something at least as capable as it was. If I can pick up some additional features which I may find useful, that would be good too. However if going this way gets me a buggy scope, I'd just as soon forgo that experience.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:47:03 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 09, 2014, 12:10:34 amVery true.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:51:27 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 09, 2014, 08:22:36 pmDo any of these low end DSOs use so-called Japanese alum elec caps? That is, the ones rated for 105 deg C, the ones which are said to last (in the PC world , in any case).

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:54:32 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 09, 2014, 09:35:45 pmA two tone test of a ham SSB transmitter is unlikely to look very good on a modern DSO compared to your 465 if you look at the envelope in the time domain. Even the big £££ Tek MSO scopes don't look as good as a decent analogue scope here because they can't match the old analogue scope in terms of intensity grading or fine detail.However, a fairly decent DSO will offer the option of an FFT to look at two tone IMD levels in the frequency domain in the same way as a spectrum analyser (which your 465 can't do) and this is a huge bonus in favour of the DSO for SSB radio testing.However, if you buy a cheapo DSO you may find the FFT mode to be of limited use because they often don't perform well in this mode.I have an old Tek TDS2012 DSO here and the FFT mode is fairly reasonable and can be very useful for two tone analysis even if the overall performance of the scope is pretty lame by today's standards. I find it works well alongside my old Tek 465 for radio related stuff as long as I don't expect too much from it.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:00:54 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 09, 2014, 09:17:40 pmI'm pursuing the 465 repair, but unless I get very lucky, it looks like it may take awhile. Depending on what I find, doing the repair my be rough. At least it has no surface mount parts to contend with, so that's good. However some of the circuit boards are NOT convenient to work on. So I'm measuring my options while also troubling shooting the old scope.What about modern analog scopes rather than these inexpensive (a relative term) DSOs? If there are 100 MHz scopes being made with fewer "digital features", maybe I would be better off buying something like that for general home hobby projects and ham radio work?

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:12:17 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 09, 2014, 09:33:49 pmI imagine the 465 was several grand in 1977, so I agree, it's quality level was high. I am working on it -- I hope I can repair it! As for the laptop analogy, I have seen many of those which lasted for decades (a nearby shops sells old laptops with 486 processors -- although I can't imagine why folks buy them <g>). So if that analogy holds, I suppose I'd be satisfied with that level of reliability. So my main question is whether any of the modern, NON-professional scopes are know to be better in reliability than their competitors, are know to carry a better warranty, etc. Or, are all the scopes sold at around the same price point ($350-450) similar in this regard? Rigol has been mentioned repeatedly here, but I'm still not clear if they are head and shoulders above the others.....

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:18:15 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 09, 2014, 09:54:32 pmThanks for the tips. I took the FFT option at face value, but if it isn't implemented well on these things, maybe I'll try to find another purely analog scope (that and continue to work on my 465). All this makes me wonder whether if I drop the DSO functions, the FFT features, etc., can I buy a modern analog scope at the same price point ($350-450), but with higher quality. Not worded well - hope that made sense....

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:26:15 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 09, 2014, 10:00:54 pmNa don't go there.This oportunity to get a DSO and move into a new(for you) type of test gear should not be missed.There is so much even a entry level DSO can do that is not possible with your 465.This you need to experience for yourself.Grab the link from the first post in the Repair board for help with your 465 repair.Fan noise for the Siglent SDS1000 series has never been an issue IME.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:45:43 pm
content: QuoteI certainly agree that it's not worth spending much money on an analogue scope so that rules out anything modern or expensive. A lot of hams choose to buy something like an expensive 300MHz Tek 2465 analogue scope from the 1980s but I wouldn't recommend this as an option in 2014. A repaired 465 and a reasonable (new) DSO could be had for the same money.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 01:17:40 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 09, 2014, 10:00:54 pmMost common 465 failures are repairable and in rough order of likelihood include:Shorted solid tantalum capacitors - the power supply is well designed so this is rarely catastrophic.Worn out aluminum electrolytic capacitors - The 465 has a linear power supply and this is easy enough to repair.Failed high voltage z-axis DC restorer - The high voltage capacitors or diodes sometimes become leaky. If this is suspected it is usually best to just replace the parts involved.Failed tunnel diodes result in a loss of triggering. Sometimes just calibration is necessary to fix this because apparently their characteristics change over time. Replacement tunnel diodes are a problem.Failed high voltage multiplier - The oscilloscope will work without it but not well; usually if it fails it shorts out the high voltage supply but not catastrophically. Replacements are often available and it is not difficult to build one.All or most of the 465 series oscilloscopes discussed over on TekScopes@yahoogroups.com have been repairable. Offhand I do not remember any that were not. Some diagnostics however are best done with another working oscilloscope which can become a step down the path to collecting them.QuoteI do not think a new analog oscilloscope would be any better than a cheap but new DSO. I suspect you will get more life out of a repaired 465 than either and with care even buying one or two 465 oscilloscopes to use or as parts donors will be significantly less expensive. I went the later route as the cheapest way to get a workable DSO and ended up with a pair of 2230s (I repaired and recalibrated both) which at this point have already outlasted some new DSOs.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 01:26:53 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 09, 2014, 10:12:17 pmIn 1977 a 465 was about a years salary for a fresh graduate engineer (at least in the UK, where I come from).

author: PaulAm
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 04:17:29 am
content: At the risk of getting off topic, what's wrong with the 465? They're pretty easy to repair for the most part.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 04:46:52 am
content: Quote from: PaulAm on November 10, 2014, 04:17:29 amIn general, I'd be concerned with weak CRT's given their age (thinking in terms of buying off eBay).

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 12:39:56 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 09, 2014, 09:30:05 pmHow about a somewhat newer second hand scope? There's plenty of stuff available which for most part is pretty reliable.And buying used means you can get more/better features (i.e. proper FFT) than on new entry-level scopes.Quote"analog scope" and "modern" is an oxzmoron, considering that the big brands have stopped making them many years ago, as has CRT production in general.

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 01:54:56 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 09, 2014, 09:51:27 pmWhile Japanese caps are of generally higher quality than Chinese ones, what usually kills caps in short order in poorly designed power supplies is under-specified ripple current and high temperature. If you pop the lid off cheap Chinese PC power supply, you will often find caps rated for only 1ARMSripple on supply rails that should have enough caps to handle at least 4ARMSand heatsinks that may exceed 80C.Considering how little power the DS1000Z uses and the ridiculous number of Samxon caps in its PSU, I doubt either issue will be a problem for the first several years as long as the fan works and vents do not get clogged.People who have jitters about the caps can always re-cap the power supply in 3-5 years with whatever their favorite brand is. If you buy electrolytics in bags or strips of 100, the preventive replacement should cost less than $15 in parts, even less if you only replace one or two caps per rail because your single cap already has better specs than all 3-4 OEM ones combined.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 02:54:00 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 10, 2014, 01:54:56 pmI think there is something else going on with capacitor reliability as well.In the past, ripple current limitations were poorly understood so good designs compensated by derating the capacitors significantly more than neccessary. As time progressed, ripple current became more important and capacitors specifications became more detailed and accurate so now capacitor lifetime based on ripple current specifications may be finely tuned but the result of this is that properly designed equipment fails just past the warranty or expected operating lifetime do to capacitor failure instead of other reasons.I have mostly noticed this as a general trend in personal computer power supplies but it seems to apply to consumer electronics as well. Cheap devices have short warranties and the expensive devices may have long warranties but both tend to fail just out of warranty do to the capacitors wearing out.If Rigol designed their power supplies "properly", then I would expect the same thing.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 06:03:04 pm
content: with modern designs moving more and more towards very advanced SMPS, and ditching the traditional LDO and linear regulators, it's very hard to gain insight from an analog scope these days. Scopes have sort of transcended their traditional uses and limitations.in terms of reliability, modern SMPS and POL systems have become reliable, to the point of not really having to question them. however these systems require more and more bulk caps, and if the caps used are dodgy, that is a potentially HUGE problem.I don't think there is any real compromise in quality in Rigol PSU's. They are as good as anything out there.On the front of reliability, an older scope is going to be impossible to repair (in some situations). The only reason I can see for using anything (other than a good modern DSO/MSO) is for characterizing noise in highly critical power supplies.If the work you do doesn't require such tools, I am sure it could benefit from some other modern equivalents. For example.....audio gear. Could you imagine going back to using older THD and RTA? With modern spectral analysis and harmonic analysis tools, it's hardly possible to imagine going back to less parametric analysis.It's nice to have older gear for very simple and specific things, but the pace of modern consumer technology just doesn't allow for the "traditional" toolset. Believe me I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, but it is reality.In a production environment, I just don't see how it's possible to spend the time to maintain old dinosaurs. Example....i owned a recording studio for many years....and people used to bring in all kinds of whacky "vintage" gear. Old altec compressors etc.....they had the illusion that they were somehow "better". That concept quickly changed when they spent all of their session time tracking down the radio signal making it's way through the piss poor designs of the older gear.Example, i have a nice "mint" Pultec EQP1A (uber lusty gear-slut vintage EQ).....although it's fully rehabbed and meets spec....my modern clone (EAR822) simply decimates it, in terms of performance and noise floor. Not to mention I can actually source the parts to fix it. People get caught up in ridiculous notions that something from an era gone by is somehow "better".Don't mean to take it off topic, but I think these are valid observations, that can easily be applied to any piece of "gear". There are most certainly reliable high performance tools being sold as new...

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 06:38:47 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 10, 2014, 02:54:00 pmThe way capacitor failure is generally quite predictable is really a plague in consumer devices; I have lost count of how many devices with under-rated Fuhjyuu caps I have repaired and that includes many of my own including both of the LG LCDs I am using on my PC: the original caps, all Fuhjyuu, failed after about three years, I have replaced them with Panasonic FM-series caps and they are still working today, 5-7 years after the repairs. The oldest of the two is 10 years old now and its backlight started having trouble warming up three years ago; still works fine after a five minutes warm-up.Another way to think about it: can Rigol really afford to under-engineer the power supply in that thing? Any electrical noise that gets out of the PSU is more electrical noise the system-wide design needs to deal with and be over-engineered for, so it should be much cheaper and simpler to over-engineer the PSU to eliminate as much switching noise as practically possible at the source.In typical consumer electronics scenarios, the end-user also lacks the tools and knowledge to call BS if the manufacturer claims their device is working normally to weasel their way out of a warranty claim. With an oscilloscope, the user obviously has the equipment and likely the knowledge (or access to it) to call BS if the manufacturer tried to deny an issue existed so there is nowhere near as much room to cut corners without a high probability of getting called in on it.Selling measurement instruments is a lot like selling guns and ammunition to burglars or making unpopular policy changes in social media networks: tables can turn on you at the drop of a hat so you had better think twice before backstabbing anyone. Rigol wants to gain more mindshare around the world and I doubt they would want to compromise that by producing instruments with significantly sub-par reliability even at the low-end - at least I would not be willing to take that chance.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 07:49:29 pm
content: Quote from: DanielS on November 10, 2014, 06:38:47 pmThe PSU design, and component selection....as well as the internal shielding in my DSO2000A-s is some of the best I have seen. It's not "over-engineered", in the sense that a bridge could never be over-engineered. It's just more than is necessary to meet the bare minimum specs, to actually make the scope work. I applaud the quality or Rigol engineering and implementation.I would put much more faith in a Rigol or other modern "quality" scope, than a 20+ year old dinosaur. Especially something with a CRT or improperly characterized caps....

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 08:45:57 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 10, 2014, 06:03:04 pmWhat did you have in mind? Analog oscilloscopes work fine for measuring various switching and recovery waveforms, checking transient response, and measuring RMS and peak to peak noise. DSOs can do these things as well except maybe for RMS noise. DSOs are exceedingly useful for measuring startup and shutdown behavior where a pretrigger record is needed; this can be done on an analog oscilloscope but it is much easier on a DSO and is one of the more common things I use DSOs for. DSOs are also better when waveform math is needed to measure quantities like power although I have done this with difficulty on analog oscilloscopes.QuoteI doubt they compromise either although they did have a recent problem with their DP832 power supplies. If their power supplies are just as good as everybody else's though, this could be damning with faint praise if everything else out there is designed as I described.QuoteI would consider any modern DSO to be an Apple like product after the warranty expires. If it breaks in a significant way except maybe for dried out aluminum electrolytic capacitors, then throw it away and buy a new one.At least the older oscilloscopes have detailed service documentation which gives you a fighting chance at repairing them. Of course that would not help at all if one has to deal with complex parts using surface mount construction. On old oscilloscopes it is very difficult to repair hybrids although some people do it.QuoteThis is usually going to be the case with specific exceptions like when new instruments are not available which have old capabilities. If this happens then at some point the production process needs to be changed to accommodate new test equipment.This is probably how I got my sampling oscilloscope in such good condition. Apparently it sat in a closet for 10+ years because nobody could figure out its simple failure or wanted to pay to have it repaired and was considered too expensive to throw away even if it was useless.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 08:52:14 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 10, 2014, 08:45:57 pmThe low end analog scopes may be easy to repair but the higher end ones (even from the early 70's) are filled with obsolete / proprietary chips and transistors. OTOH it is very easy to work on surface mount components with a simple hot-air station. If I look at the teardowns of Chinese equipment you often find commercially available chips. Replacing the ADC on a Tektronix TDS500 series is a no go because it is a proprietary part. On a Rigol oscilloscope you can buy a new one and just solder it in.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 09:09:28 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 10, 2014, 08:45:57 pmThis was kind of my point about modern SMPS. Very often we are employing controllers for tracking and interleaving and other real-time data intensive control and monitoring. Not being able to grab time correlated metrics on an analog unit, and do pass fail masking throws the analog beasts under the bus. Although I do still employ my old Tek and a differential pre-amp/probes for characterizing overall noise. That is something I highly doubt DSO's will ever replace. When the Tek finally dies and can't be obtained (in another decade or so) then we will have a real problem. Again a lot of the issue comes from the current pace we are required to work at. Our development and implementation life spans have gone from years to months. This is where the analog beasts just can't meet demands. Like I said, I certainly don't like this trend, but it's reality. I miss pen and paper and the good ole' applied physics routine. In this day and age though, there is more math to be done in a modern power delivery system, than one could hope to do in their lifetime. Having the ability to track results in realtime and capture/log and then disassemble is paramount. Almost impossible to innovate in small form factor SoC designs, because of cost. Equally impossible to use discreet components, because of cost to consumer and overall thermal/size constraints. Modern DSO's, IMO, have added to this insane pace. Like I said I don't like it, but it is reality....a sad one....but none the less....Again on the issue of disposable gear....I fully agree. It does however mirror the consumer marketplace. People don't bother to repair their computers or cars anymore....throw it away and buy another. It's appalling, but once again....realityhere is an example of a topology, where an analog scope simply won't do the necessary functions to complete the design, in a timely way....this general topology is the standard in any modern system....with half way decent power management

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 09:54:29 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 10, 2014, 08:52:14 pmI think people make too big a deal about this although there are exceptions. I have several of these oscilloscopes and the custom ICs and hybrids are the most reliable part. The exceptions are known and besides some tunnel diodes, transformers, and those stupid Mostek mask ROMS include the later 2465 series oscilloscopes which use parts like the z-axis and horizontal amplifiers which came from Maxim after Tektronix sold them their semiconductor processing division although there were some dodgy aspects to the 2465 design which I believe contributed to the problem.QuoteI will have to defer to you on this since I have not had to work with BGA and leadless parts. I miss PLCCs.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 10:11:10 pm
content: One aspect of scope design that is common to both types is the ruggedness of the user interface. Back in the 1960s and 70s the designers knew that a scope would see a lot of use and the switches and controls were big and solid and well engineered.But over time this has changed. I'd certainly question how long the buttons and controls will last on a modern scope and how well it would survive a drop. Maybe they will be very reliable but back in the 1980s a lot of test gear proved very fragile and unreliable in this respect. Especially from HP.I expect the modern design driver for a low cost DSO is to make something that is rugged enough to last for a few years' regular use before it gets upgraded. A bit like a laptop PC.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 10:20:02 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 10, 2014, 09:09:28 pmIf I was doing development work involving digital power management controllers like the DM7332, then I would expect to be using a modern high end DSO as well like a Tektronix MSO2000 or MSO3000.Is it my imagination or is the MSO3000 series discontinued with the MDO3000 replacing them? I guess I would settle for one of them.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 11:02:36 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 10, 2014, 10:11:10 pm.....BUT you are replacing things like resistive switching networks, and carnhill style switches (which all have contact wear and decay over time) with rotary encoders....I imagine the modern rotary encoder will FAR outlast old, clunking, switches and trimmers....they certainly don't feel as good though....in a perfect world carnhill dual concentric and chicken head knobs would be fun, but the world is so far from perfect.....

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 11:14:54 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 10, 2014, 10:20:02 pmwith electronics entering daily use items, at an ever increasing and feverish pace....I don't think we will see anything less than power management and highly advanced SMPS designs.....we are all eventually (regardless of discipline) going to have to come to terms with the modern design pace and constraints.....in another decade I think the only use of the analog scopes will be for nostalgia and characterizing the most basic of properties....I don't like that idea and I will miss the smells of old electronics....it is however a fast emerging scenarioMDO's and vast time correlated domain analysis will be required, for even the simplest of competitive designs....in this day and age we need to see power, spectral, data all at the same time and fully "deskewed"....I think the modern engineer, has become more of an equipment operator and less of a thinker.....it seems the trend is to just cobble together existing technology.....stack bloat on bloat and package it.....I don't like itAt the same time it is fun to lust after an age gone by.....I do miss that smell

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 11:43:00 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 10, 2014, 11:02:36 pmI was also considering the quality of the push switches. I don't know what technology is used in modern chinese DSOs but there's plenty of HP and Marconi/IFR test gear out there that use lightweight (membrane?) switches that don't withstand much in the way of heavy use before they become intermittent.Hopefully lessons have been learned and the switches on modern gear will be more rugged.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 11:53:16 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 10, 2014, 11:43:00 pmconsidering the infancy of development of encoders and tactile switches in prior decades, I think we have overcome those potential issues. modern tactile domes have astounding cycle ratings.....I think they will far outlast old contact closure style and mechanical style devices.....fingers crossed on that though.....reworking a modern surface mount switch sounds like a real nightmare. I suppose it's a double edged sword. The older stuff was very easy to service and replace.....I can't imagine arcing/zapping a modern capacitive node and having any luck repairing it....I think the list of good will easily exceed the list of bad....especially in the coming years.....also with advancements in 3dprinting and small cnc systems, it might even be possible in the coming years to completely replace surface mount and imbedded devices on demand.If you look at the pace of advancement in the current age, it vastly exceeds the pace of decades gone by. Moores law will assure us that our "modern" DSO/MSO will be obsolete and useless for design, before anything breaks(on a side note as long as the gear does what it does and fits the need, it can always be re-purposed for end of line QC/QA).

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 01:54:05 am
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 10, 2014, 10:11:10 pmThis is looking at the past through rose tinted glasses. Much of the older high end equipment was notorious for crazy user interface design, where huge amounts were spent crafting highly customised actuators, putting many functions on a single spindle, while the actual switches being actuated were the cheapest and nastiest garbage around. The Tektronix 7000 scopes were probably the worst offenders. Their elaborate actutators pushed the nastiest of slide switches from cheap transistor radios, which were regularly ripped off the board by normal use. Many an engineer or technician has spent an afternoon going through every 7000 series plugin in the building, trying to find a set of amps and timebase which were actually usable, and sending a large stack away to have the switches repaired. Frequently they'd end up breaking the calibration seals, and fixing the switches themselves, just to have something to work with.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 02:06:30 am
content: QuoteMaybe, but my old Tek 585 from the 1960s has some pretty big and solid switches and controls on it. The 465 is reasonably rugged too.QuoteI certainly agree in the case of the 7000 seriesOne look at a 7000 series scope is enough for me to walk away. The 7000 series gives plenty of its admirers a hard on but I just see a crap and fussy user interface with dinky controls that would seriously piss me off each time I used it

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:03:45 am
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 11, 2014, 02:06:30 amThe 465 was a real solid workhorse. Tektronix's budget Telequipment range also had solid controls. It seems like the more expensive the model, the flakier its controls.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:07:08 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 03:03:45 amThe 465 was a real solid workhorse. Tektronix's budget Telequipment range also had solid controls. It seems like the more expensive the model, the flakier its controls.complex problems = complex solutionsthat formula also works in reverse

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:13:37 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 11, 2014, 03:07:08 amSo, you think its appropriate to put the cheapest and crappiest components into the most complex and expensive equipment?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:26:26 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 01:54:05 amI have very rarely had any problems with any of the 7000 switches although the potentiometers usually need cleaning. I have one plug-in from 1969 which required an easy switch rebuild and one other where the slope switch is intermittent but not annoying enough to pull apart and fix.QuoteI agree they are complicated but that comes from supporting so many sweep and trigger configurations and how many oscilloscopes support independent chopped or alternated triggered sweeps? I keep hoping to find a DSO which does short of using two separate ones.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:34:41 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 11, 2014, 03:26:26 amMaybe only the tougher examples have even survived until now.The last time I used a 7000 series was in the early 80s. Things like the pots hadn't started to give trouble at that stage. The problems were mostly broken 1 cent switches on 10 dollar hand turned actuator shafts.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 06:08:01 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 03:34:41 amI included this thought in my post but edited it out.QuoteI have gotten good at rebuilding the mechanical aspects. None of my 7000 series have suffered major electronic faults so I am missing out on that fun. I have a couple of power supplies which need to be refurbished including replacement of their aluminum electrolytic capacitors. They still work but occasionally restart.Not counting sampling plug-ins, these are my fastest oscilloscopes with a current bandwidth of 350 MHz which would be 400 or 500 MHz if I picked up a different set of vertical amplifier plug-ins. Considering how much it would cost me to duplicate this with a new oscilloscope, they were a bargain.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 07:37:29 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 03:13:37 amcomplex solutions = complex problemswhich is why I said that formula works forwards or in reverse.....

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 08:34:22 am
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on November 09, 2014, 12:49:03 amCompare equal bandwidths and the price difference isn't quite so great; a DSO-X3014A is £2600, and a Rigol DS4014 is £1700. Not quite such a big jump.I guess to some extent it comes down to your idea of a 'standard' bench scope. Rigol and other Far Eastern manufacturers have created a whole new market for scopes that offer tremendous capability at a consumer price point, which I couldn't have dreamed about when I was learning electronics and doing it as a hobby. But they're not really up to the job of being an 'every day' scope in a working laboratory, not because of their spec sheets, but because they don't have the ease of use and reliability necessary. The tools themselves must never distract from the task in hand, and that's really hard to achieve, and worth paying for IMHO.I should add that I've seriously considered buying a DS1054Z... fantastic capability for less than the price of a new phone. Madness.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 08:43:24 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 11, 2014, 06:08:01 amI have 3 nice (and some basic) Tek 7000 series mainframes and of course some plug ins. Years after years these works. (im happy I have not get these units what some "service" workers have destroyed with wrong service methods)These mainframes are (old) oscilloscopes "Rolls-Royces". (and when they was new, price label was "nice")7854 with waveform calculator keyboard and 1k waveform memory (ana/digi from beginning of 80's )7834 ("fast" storage) but still perhaps HP1727A storage writing speed is better.7844 real dual beam scope (tube have two independed electron beams)No failures. (exept one fan need perhaps oil)

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 08:46:21 am
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on November 11, 2014, 08:34:22 amI've been using low end Chinese DSOs as everyday scopes for professional work for years. I can't remember one ever failing, and I only rarely need to reach for a high end scope because the cheap one isn't up to the job. Most lab work is really pretty undemanding of an oscilloscope, unless you are in one of a few niche activities. Most really serious work is done with more specialised tools, like spectrum analysers or precision measuring instruments.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 08:59:25 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on November 11, 2014, 08:43:24 amWhen those things were in their prime the failure rate of the storage tubes was horrible. The HP storage tubes worked a lot better than the Tektronix ones, but they were just as bad for early failures. Warranty on a new scope in those days was 90 days, and Tek and HP replaced a lot of tubes under warranty. If a tube lasted through warranty it tended to go on for quite a while, unless the user insisted on always turning up the brightness to full. Failures outside warranty were really bad news, as a new tube was a large part of the price of a new scope. However, it seemed like if you got a good sample of tube it went on and on working nicely. Maybe all the machines still in existence have those golden samples of tube in them.The large Tektronix storage tubes, which were the mainstay of the early CAD industry, had a far more predictable life, but it wasn't that long. A well used terminal needed a new tube in less than 2 years.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 02:08:32 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 08:59:25 amI have never understood the bistable storage mode on the 7834. It works but the contrast is so low that it is very easy to turn the intensity up and burn the phosphor. Was this part of the high tube replacement rate?A fair number of 7834s discussed on the TekScopes@yahoogroups.com email list had their high voltage transformers fail. One of mine has a geometry problem with the CRT which I suspect was caused by UPS dropping it.I would never recommend the 7854 to anybody unless they had a very specific need because its complexity leads to complex failures.All of the things I might use a dual beam 7844 for are covered by DSOs so I have never felt the need to acquire one.I mostly use a 100 MHz 7603 for its large screen but increasingly like the faster mainframes because their CRTs are incredibly bright and sharp.Despite their flaws I still recommend the current crop of low cost graded intensity graded DSOs when asked for general purpose work as long as their feature set include peak detection.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 02:43:04 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 11, 2014, 02:08:32 pmWhat is there to understand? If you want to catch a rare event, the practical solutions were to leave one of these scopes in bistable mode, or leave a polaroid camera in front of a conventional scope until the event occured. Most scopes wouldn't let you exclude light well enough for the polaroid approach to be very effective, so a storage tube in bistable mode was the key option. Turning the brightness to maximum certainly increases the wear and tear a lot, but I don't think it contributes to complete failuresQuoteI think the storage tubes use a much higher voltage that normal scope tubes. Extra stress certainly doesn't help with long term reliability. I don't remember power supplies being a big issue when these scopes were young.QuoteI wouldn't recommend an analogue storage scope to anyone for anything. Their time passed long ago.QuoteI assume these are rare now, because they were rare in the 70s. Few people could justify the extra cost.QuoteThat's the best choice for most people.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:01:09 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 08:59:25 amOn my HP1741 there was a conventional mode that turned off the storage, at least you could get a trace if the storage part was dead.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:03:09 pm
content: QuoteQuote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 02:43:04 pm7854 is not analog storage scope. It is early digital (storage) scope. (it is analog but it have (slow) digitizer and then this "famous" waveform calculator keyboard (discrete keyboard with full of functions)500kSa/s and up to huge 1024 points memory and1210 bit vertical resolution.Of course all these are (mostly) museum equipments, not at all for everyday use. But sometimes it is "nostalgic" try things as we have done long time ago, and yes we did very complex things some times.EDIT: corrected vertical resolution(as David Hess and datasheet tell my memory was bad)

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:29:05 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 02:43:04 pmAs rf-loop points out, the 7854 is not an analog storage oscilloscope.A 7834 analog storage oscilloscope was the least expensive way for me to get a 400 MHz storage oscilloscope of any kind.Quote from: rf-loop on November 11, 2014, 03:03:09 pmThe 7854 has 10 bit horizontal and vertical resolution with a CRT to match although even with 256 x 315 DPI, they did not call them retina CRTs. I was surprised but should not have been when using one that the 10 bit resolution can show signal details which are completely lost on old or new 8 bit DSOs.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:37:52 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 11, 2014, 03:29:05 pmYeah, I mixed up the model numbers.

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 06:09:32 pm
content: To the original question, everything is made like it's Disposable now.I also got a scope from the 465 family (475) as a first-scope. It still runs today, but I gave it to a friend back in 2005. That same year, I bought my first Digital Scope, a TDS5032B.Three-quarters of the way through the warranty period, it crapped the bed. Tek was proper and did a warranty job on it (HDD failed). Since then, it's had reliability issues - something on the windows operating system craps the bed too. You have to flatten and reinstall. A few months ago, I decided to buy the jitter analysis software - a simple dumb unlock key.Tek stopped supporting the scope about four years ago. Including software keys. Go to Tek.com, and try to find anything on the TDS5000 series, and you're better off playing a Rogue-like on Tourist mode (near impossible). This also means that 'free money' to them is not something of interest. A month later, the scope just outright failed and is bricked. It was something I worried would happen.When I bought it from the proceeds of my first major contract, it was $7,300 new. The same thing "today" from Tek is $15k. It's till PC based too, which means the whole of your instrument is held in the balance upon consumer products (the computer) lasting. In other words, modern gear today is built as a commodity, while commanding instrumentation grade dollars, and must be expected to die in 3-5 years.My TDS5000 scope will be replaced with a Rigol shortly, because if it's a choice between a $15,000 something that will die in 3 years, and a $5,000 something that will die in 3 years, I am better off not spending the extra $10k for the luxury of having "Tektronix" printed on the front.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 12:34:35 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 10, 2014, 01:17:40 amI just found the failure in my 465 - a blown small signal PNP in a TO-18 can in the middle of the vertical deflection plate driver board. And I also found that these parts are socketed -- how nice (had not known that before!). I just ordered the replacement parts, so I should be back on the air soon. I am still interested in buying a DSO, but at least the pressure is off.BTW, the seller of the repair parts I need (the transistors) is very familiar with Tektronix gear and how my 465 compares to these modern DSOs (he refurbs scopes). When it comes to reliability, he had little good to say. He mentioned that they use domed (or membrane?) keyboards which have a limited service life (maybe 4-5 years?). He also described how these modern DSOs implement the FFT spectrum analyzer function (or at least how many of them used to do it). I was blown away when he said most have no calibration for this function -- IOW, no freq scale. He also said they have no means to adjust the freq scale. It sounded like he was describing more of a toy than anything else when it comes to the FFT aspect. He did mention that they get better all the time, so that it's possible that the latest units might have a more worthwhile and useful FFT capability -- but I suppose he wasn't sure of the current state of the art.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 12:36:38 am
content: Quote from: tautech on November 09, 2014, 10:26:15 pmAs just described in another reply, my 465 is soon to be fixed. However I will continue to look into these modern DSOs!

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 12:39:32 am
content: Quote from: PaulAm on November 10, 2014, 04:17:29 amJust found it -- a blown small signal PNP. Parts are on order, so the 465 will soon be up and running again. I still want to look more into these DSOs though.....

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 12:43:25 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 10, 2014, 12:39:56 pmI just met an equipment refurbisher who educated me as regards "modern" test gear. It was quite an eye opener.....

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 12:52:19 am
content: Congats on the find and hopefully a full repair.So often another scope is needed to repair another.Nothing like keeping your eyes open though for the obvious.Good call to proceed with the purchase of a DSO, you will marvell at their capabilities.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 12:56:21 am
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 10, 2014, 10:11:10 pmI was just old that many (most?) of these entry level DSOs use rubber dome keyboard-style front panel switches which have very limited service life. If so, my old 465 switches are tank-like by comparison.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 01:04:29 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 08:46:21 amSo you have seen no problems with the panel controls? I was just told that 3-5 years is a typical life span for these DSO panel controls -- especially for the dome type push buttons. Wrong?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 01:04:55 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 12:56:21 amMembrane keypads (switches) have been around for decades.In 20 year old Teks I have never seen a problem.They are in everyday life and their greatest problem is with moisture that is not normally a problem in the lab.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 01:13:30 am
content: Quote from: tautech on November 12, 2014, 12:52:19 amIf what I was told about the limited usefulness of the FFT function in these DSOs is true, I must admit that some of my interest has dissipated. However, who knows, maybe the spectrum analyzer aspect is better now....

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 01:17:04 am
content: Quote from: tautech on November 12, 2014, 01:04:55 amMaybe so, but my experience with dome switch computer keyboards has been less than stellar. Of course this may be an apples to orange comparison, but I'd still rather see more robust hardware (for a few bucks more, of course).

author: xwarp
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 01:38:01 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 01:13:30 amHere I've been reading through this thread thinking I might want to look into one of the newer Rigols, but for what I work on at home, the TDS460 I have should serve me pretty well.Still trying to figure out some things about it though.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 02:41:03 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 01:17:04 amYou don't have a choice. All modern test equipment uses the same kind of switches, from the cheapest DSO, to the most expensive exotic comms analysers. Some examples of these switches are a bit better made, but they are all pretty similar. The biggest problem comes when heavy units need to be moved. Its very common for one or two of the switches to take a big enough hit from the mover that you end up with damage - often a switch ripped right out of the membrane sheet. These can be very costly to fix. You can't go to anyone but the original source for a replacement membrane, and they can charge whatever they like. A short time after production stops the supply of suitable spares will dry up. These are the real issues with membrane switches, not general wear and tear.As for computer keyboards, your view might be distorted. If you have trouble and open up a keyboard you will find it is a membrane type. However, almost all the ones which don't give trouble are also the membrane type. Only a small quantity of specialised keyboards, like those available from pckeyboard.com, are not membrane ones.

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 02:48:57 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 01:13:30 amI'm not sure what you were hoping to get from the FFT engines.There is a pretty simple way to organize the "useful range" of an FFT: your max frequency will be set by your sample rate, your frequency bins will be set by the maximum window. (Rough approximation)Example: I have my scope set to 100us/div, with 10 divisions width. My sample rate is set to 800ps/pt (1.25GSPS). Fmax will be 1/2 your sample rate (625MHz) and the bin width will be 1/(10*100uS) = 1kHz which will also set the minimum frequency of the window. Processing 1,250,000 points will take a big chunk of time too.Dynamic range will also be crap. Most of the 8-Bit ADCs might get 6 bits ENOB. Even with all of the other sampling tricks you can pull, you won't have a very good "noise floor" with the FFT.Call me a curmudgeon, but I'd be more concerned about having a scope that is primarily a scope and not a gimmick box that happened to start life as a scope.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 03:11:27 am
content: Quote from: XFDDesign on November 12, 2014, 02:48:57 amCurmudgeon....

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 03:15:37 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 01:13:30 amYou can most certainly buy something like a Meyer SIM system is you want proper FFT.....buying a scope for FFT seems a bit backwards though....most of the scope FFT functions I have used are painfully slow, have limited range and are lacking in resolution to be of any significant use.....other than taking a glance into defining a starting point for proper spectral analysisto me the biggest problem with modern DSO's is the lack of external clock sync and tools to time align with other acquisition tools.....that baffles me beyond any of the other potential "problems" with these tools...

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 03:17:41 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 12:34:35 amThe issue here may be that many DSOs do not apply the correction factors needed to produce a calibrated output making them difficult to use in place of a spectrum analyser. This EDN article discusses it:http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-practicing-instrumentation-engineer/4427466/DSOs-and-noise-http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/the-practicing-instrumentation-engineer/4427466/2/DSOs-and-noise-

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 06:40:58 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 01:13:30 amYou get what you pay for. The Rigols all have very poor FFT which only uses a few hundred points, and I'd assume (haven't checked if the figure is out there) that Siglent SDS1000/2000 scopes use similar low numbers which they do because their processing is dog slow.Really old DSOs often use something around the 10kpts mark which, while being much better than modern day Rigols, is still too little, and scopes like the TDS700 Series (which at that time was their highend model) use somewhere around the 100kpts which is where FFT starts to become actually useful, but since these scopes are really old (close to 20 years) and their processing is very slow as well.Honestly, if you want good FFT then you should have a look at a LeCroy scope. Even the now roughly 20 yrs old 9300 Series could use up to 6Mpts for FFT (although of course the processing is also slow by today's standard due to their age). But the later scopes (i.e. WaveRunner LT) have much faster processing, and with the EMM or WAVA option use the full available sample memory for FFT. They also show signal phase, which most scopes don't.A Spectrum Analyzer is of course much better for analyzing the RF spectrum than any scope, but you do pay a lot for that. FFT in a good(!) scope however can often be more than good enough.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 03:40:00 pm
content: According to the datasheet the SDS2000 uses 1024 points for FFT. The way it currently is is not very useful. But on the TDS744A I used to have FFT wasn't very useful either. For a decent graph it needed long memory (I think it could use around 30kpts max) and 30 to 50 averaging cycles.

author: extide
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 05:51:24 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 12, 2014, 03:15:37 amNot sure what scopes you are looking at specifically, but only the very base low end scopes do not provide a 10Mhz ref in (sometimes out as well) and also a trigger output. Using these two connections should be sufficient to synchronize with other test gear.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 06:17:48 pm
content: Quote from: extide on November 12, 2014, 05:51:24 pmHe might be referring an external sample clock input. I have a couple of old DSOs which support this.As far as the trigger outputs on modern DSOs, they seem to have a lot of latency and/or jitter compared to older DSOs which use analog triggering.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 06:25:39 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 12, 2014, 01:13:30 amI think the FFT feature on my old Tek TDS2012 can be useful. It does require a degree of sympathy for its limitations but you can do useful stuff with the FFT feature that is impossible on the analogue 465.I've used it to look at two tone IMD levels from an RF amplifier or from a receiver/detector demod output and it can be used to look at the frequency response of noise. It's pretty quick when used for all of the above tasks as long as you don't expect too much in the way of precision and you can learn to spot and ignore any unwanted alias terms that creep onscreen. Of course, for some of the above AF based tasks it can be outclassed by a PC soundcard but sometimes it's quicker to just press the FFT button on the scope and make a casual measurement...

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 10:20:29 pm
content: Quote from: extide on November 12, 2014, 05:51:24 pmI am talking about clock synch, not a ref....sampling clock =)The latency across connections and lack of resolution in triggers makes it impossible to get sample accurate lock across multiple units.Even using a distribution amp and precisely matched cables doesn't allow for total GenLock.....the triggers are just to coarse.Yokogawa seems to get it though....a lot of their gear does have true clock in and out, with delays inline to deskew....good stuff

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 10:27:27 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 12, 2014, 06:17:48 pmI know some Yokogawa units have the true clock in (no re-sampling or modification to the input).....would love to know what other units support this feature.The trig outs are def not usable to do true time correlated sync....drift is pretty bad....Hopefully someday there will be a test set that can use a true sample accurate lock (of time base)....granted we would need a nice distro amp and cables to handle that, but it's an appealing prospect. It would be nice to do multi-domain analysis on dedicate boxes, all locked up. Rather than one box that tries to "do it all".The Tek MDO is a good example of why it's just not practical to do everything in one box and on one screen.....

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:10:29 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 12, 2014, 10:27:27 pmFrom LeCroy at least the WavePro 7000(A) Series and later offer ext. sample clock input as well, although at the moment I'm not sure if this is standard or part of one of the options.It might be that some of the other LeCroy scopes (i.e. WaveRunner Series) support it as well, but I'd have to check.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 07:06:35 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 13, 2014, 06:10:29 amI know the labmasters support true sample clock (ext) ref.BTW I wound up buying that loaded 64MXi....so i will do some testing on it's external input and see if it is time aligned, to sample accuracy.....would be very cool if it is. Looking forward to playing with the new tool and seeing just what it can do.We had talked about processor upgrades in the other thread. Do you think the same processors will apply to the MXi?If this unit works out, I might just replace the other scopes with some new LeCroy units. They are very compelling tools. I had used them in the past, and liked them, but never got very deep into what they can really do. Our conversation in the prior threads, has me really curious if they can live up to their claims....esp. the DEVkit and more advanced feature sets....

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 12:16:42 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 13, 2014, 07:06:35 amIndeed. If I come around I can check my 64Xi and LT264M tonight.Update:Checked my LT264M, and as expected even this old scope offers external sample clock input (TTL, ECL and 0V, 50ohms or 1Mohms switchable).QuoteCongratulations! It's a very good scope, and certainly a very good deal you got there.QuoteThe difference between Xi and MXi is the presence of the L-Bus (LeCroy Bus) interface on the latter, the rest is the same. So yes, the MXi will take Socket479 Celeron-M and Pentium-M processors, and a single full size DIMM of DDR1 SDRAM.I found that the 1.3GHz Celeron that comes with these units wasn't the best choice by LeCroy, mostly because of its tiny cache (512k). As on X-Stream scopes everything happens within the CPU cache, the performance benefits a lot from larger cache. My 64Xi got a 1.8GHz Pentium-M with 2MB Cache and a 1GB RAM upgrade, and the difference was clearly noticable (the scope also does feel a lot snappier now).The (M)Xi also has an integrated hard drive (a slow Toshiba 4200rpm 2.5" EIDE drive). I had replaced that with a new 5400rpm Seagate drive and a SATA bridge. I did try several SSDs (EIDE and SATA) but all of them showed some data corruption, probably because of the specific setup (44pin cable which does not support UDMA66 or faster modes), so I opted for a new 2.5" SATA drive which works fine.BTW: the first thing you should do when you get your scope is to save the hidden \calibration folder on the D: drive. It contains the factory calibration and is crucial. Make sure you have backups, don't loose it!QuoteThey do make great scopes. Just make sure you stay away from their WaveAce (cheap Siglent rebadges) and WaveJet (Iwatsu rebadges with outdated specs) Series. Always go for a WaveSurfer or higher.BTW: it would be great if you could do a review of your 64MXi, especially of things like PMA1 and the SPECTRUM option (maybe you could show the FFT as well, just as a comparison). I'm sure many people would be interested to see what a modern advanced scope can do.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 05:16:23 pm
content: I am considering an HDO8000. The extra resolution seems VERY beneficial for the type of work I do.Thanks for the tips on processor, HDD and potential mistakes I could make. I remember we talked about cloning the drive and hidden volumes. I will try to use shadow protect to do a full image, and then see if I can clone the drive using some of my favorite utilities. So I will look into that Pentium-M and some RAM upgrades (might not really need them?)I plan on doing full reviews and tear-downs of the unit I got. There is a real lack of information and support on the net. I think it would possibly help some folks to know more about these scopes, and how far ahead of the curve they were/are.My plan was to focus on PMA, Spectrum and the protocol analysis functions (the part i am most skeptical about). I will also see if I can get a good time aligned signal across a few units, using an external sample clock ref. Obviously we don't get a timebase sync input, so the sample clock might not be as useful, without that. I noticed Yokogawa gives you two sync ref inputs. One for sample clock and another for a timebase. This is the typical way digital sync loops work. For example in high end audio production and video production gear we get BOTH word clock i/o AND SMPTE time code. I am hoping there is the possibility of a similar scenario here. If not we can use some external generators to get some sharp clips into the waveforms, and then capture, export and time align later (the way we currently do it).I assume from your experience, there is no SATA on board the MOBO? I have a few tricks to try and remedy that, but need to clone those volumes first. Would hate to turn this scope into a doorstop.....

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:03:38 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 12, 2014, 02:41:03 amI use computer keyboards which incorporate great mechanical switches made by Cherry. Beautiful feel, long life, and while more costly than rubber dome style products, they don't break the bank. However if all modern DSOs use the same switch types, of course this falls out of my decision tree. Thanks for the input re this....

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:10:39 pm
content: Quote from: XFDDesign on November 12, 2014, 02:48:57 amI was told that the freq span in FFT mode would always effectively be equal to the bandwidth of the scope. So in my case, the span would be 100 MHz -- not very useful if I'm looking for the harmonic content of some audio device. Furthermore, I heard that the spectrum display is not calibrated either in freq or in amplitude. Sounds like this may not have been completely accurate -- but close?

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:12:39 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 12, 2014, 03:17:41 amThanks for this....

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:15:20 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 12, 2014, 06:40:58 amWith my limited home shop budget, it sounds like I need to revisit to used market. Thamks for the tips.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 06:19:30 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 12, 2014, 06:25:39 pmThis brings up the idea of a laptop based instrument setup, whether it be for time or freq domain measurements. I have never owned one, never messed with one, but maybe this would be a viable option for my home shop......

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 07:25:26 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 13, 2014, 05:16:23 pmThe HDO8k is great, and I guess 8 channels might be a benefit for your work, too.QuoteYou don't need them, the scope is fine as it is. It does help if you do a lot of processing, though.I wouldn't bother cloning the original drive, there's nothing special on it (aside from the calibration data of course). Just save the cal data and you're safe. If required just use a generic Windows XP Pro CD and install from there, and then download software 7.3.0.9 and 7.4.0.9 from the LeCroy site.QuoteNice! Just a word of warning, though: the connectors which connect the Front End to the Aquisition Board are really very fragile. They are the only real weak point in these scopes. If you ever find that a channel only shows noise or a very distorted signal, and at the same time the trace jumps back into the middle after turning the vertical offset, then you should check these connectors. When this happens they usually only need resoldering, but in some cases they need replacing.QuoteNo SATA, just IDE. It's also 44pin, which means the cable is 40 conductor (there are no 80 conductor 44pin cables as far as I know) which means the UDMA133 chipset is limited to UDMA33 only. But that isn't much of a problem for a scope.Cheap Chinese 44pin EIDE to SATA bridges work fine (just be careful with the space), and allow the use of modern 2.5" SATA drives. You could also use one of those SSHDs (hard drive with SSD cache), although I doubt it will bring any noticable benefit (on the other hand, these drives are dirt cheap). Just forget about SSDs in this scope.CPU, RAM and hard drive are the only alterations I would consider doing on such a scope, though. Don't forget that if you break something LeCroy will fix it, but it probably won't be cheap.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 07:35:10 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 13, 2014, 07:25:26 pmThanks again for all of your insights.I might not mess with the unit at all. If it works fine, no need =)I will clone the entire volume as a safety precaution. I did notice LeCroy is still giving limited support on the MXi.I agree that the SSD isn't going to really show much benefit, across an old bus master. No point, and the potential issue of corruption we had discussed (XP has no garbage collertion/trim and also will try to initiate defragmentation). Those items can all be dealt with and "turned off", but it's hardly worth the hassle, to see no benefit.I will try and make a few cables here. I if am successful, i would be happy to send you one (token of appreciation for all of your help and effort).RAM u/g seems like a no brainer. I have a few stick of old stuff laying around.Are the connections in the front surface mount or flying leads? Hope they aren't aging flat flex.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 07:39:29 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 13, 2014, 06:15:20 pmThink about what you really want from a scope, and then have a look at the 2nd hand market. There are lots of attractive deals out there, even for newer scopes (you don't have to settle for a boat anchor with a fish bowl).In terms of what to buy, Agilent and (some, not all!) Tek is usually a safe bet but prices are higher (as they're more sought after than other brands) and depending what you want you get average features at best.But if you want advanced FFT and signal analysis then definitely look at LeCroy (not WaveSurfer/WaveAce models, though!). They really do make the most advanced scopes, and because most people only think "Tek" and "Agilent" when thinking about scopes prices are often lower. Another benefit is that the probe interface is mostly unchanged since the 9300 Series from 1994.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 07:50:57 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 13, 2014, 07:35:10 pmYou're welcome! It's a nice change from the strong Rigol/Siglent/Hantek focus in this forumQuoteThe MXi went out of sale in 2009, which means it is still fully supported until 2016. After that there is limited support based on "best effort", which means that some boards might no longer be available as spare part and will be repaired instead.Realistically I'd expect that you'll be able to get this thing repaired until at least 2020. LeCroy still repairs the 9300 Series, and this went out of sale around 1998.QuoteThanks for the offer, but I guess shipping is going to kill it.Just thank me by doing a review of your scopeQuoteThe Front End connectors are SMD mounted hard connectors. I guess they could be replaced with some good flex cables should they ever fail, though.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 08:12:05 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 13, 2014, 07:50:57 pmhmmm yes the SMD connections sound bearish....might try to get some train relief on there and see how fragile they are, before I go mucking about inside the scopeI'm still happy with the ds2000A-s.....the low noise front end makes it useful as a pseudo replacement for the old TEK....when general ripple measurements are needed.....however it never did serve much use (for me) beyond that.....like I was saying earlier, I might ditch some other scopes here for an HDO8000....what a beast. Going to try and get a demo unit out here.I have bulk mail at my business, so if I can make some cables and figure something out (and the shipping isn't ridiculous) I would be happy to get some over to you (if you think it';s even worth the hassle).I will most def do some reviews on various packages (as soon as the current probes are sourced, and an ms-500). I found a real lack of information on this wonderful lab tool online.....it might help some folks down the road, to see an in depth review of some unique features.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 09:15:03 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 13, 2014, 06:03:38 pmQuoteAs I have stated before, failures with DSO membrane keypads have been non-existant IME.However I have repaired many CRO's I have owned in the past and consider their reliability to be much more questionable.The HV portions for the CRT and the CRT plate output circuits in particular.I qualify this with mention of the humid climate here in NZ, that may have a bearing on CRT HV leakage and or PCB corrosion.These areas are electrically stressed by design and with age they are prone to failure.DSO's by comparison have been highly reliable IME, no failures in any I have supplied ASFAIK.I was given a 20 yr old TDS210 with no backlight that turned out to have a failed backlight oscillator, needing only a 30c cap for a full repair.This thread has confirmed my beleif that DSO's in general have been very reliable to date, and it will be interesting as more decades slip by to see if this remains the case.J-D-H, it seems FFT performance is of importance to you and a new thread on this matter may be worthy of thought.

author: MarkL
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 10:55:46 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 13, 2014, 06:12:39 pmThis article is referring to measuring noise with a DSO. Is that your application?A DSO will display FFT peaks calibrated in both frequency and amplitude, and the frequency scale (you mean span & center?) is adjustable. To get the best results you have to select an appropriate sampling speed in the time domain for the signal of interest, and you need to be cognizant of FFT aliasing issues.What does he mean by it's "not calibrated"?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 11:28:34 pm
content: Quote from: MarkL on November 13, 2014, 10:55:46 pmI was not sure either and thought the linked article might elucidate what he meant by "not calibrated".The article points out why DSO FFTs are not always suitable as a replacement for other spectrum analysis methods including the calibration problem with the wrong units being returned. Most people are just interested in the peaks and have no need for the units to be corrected for the actual RBW (resolution bandwidth).

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 02:20:53 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 13, 2014, 12:16:42 pmI just checked mine as well and found this...I assume it's the same as your Xi? I wish they had 75ohm and 110ohm termination as well, but no problem I can build an external amplifier or rig something up (might be easier just to get an ext clk with 50ohm out).....I wonder if I can find a place to probe that clock ref, and make sure it's not being re-sampled or skewed, inside the scope topology.Also I was running some advanced functions, and long time div + FFT basically locked up the UI....I can see that processor and RAM u/g is going to be necessary.So far I am really impressed with the scopes functions and toolsets, however the update rate is abysmal. The tool will be usable for a few dev stages, but we really need to get some more horsepower under the hood, if we are going to be sampling 5-10 second intervals, and making changes to topology in real-time.I'm sold though.....LeCroy scopes easily outclass Agilent, in terms of triggers and operators. As soon as I grab an ms-500 i will check the protocol analysis and see if it's even close to Agilents solutionedit(to satisfy someone who is grumpy today) : I am quite pleased that my Waverunner 64MXi trigger and math functions, easily outclass the Agilent MSOx2k I used to have. Especially considering the 4 year time gap in release dates, and considering the prices paid for each example.

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 02:55:42 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 13, 2014, 06:10:39 pmThat would be a function of the sample rate and/or bandwidth. Let's say you were using one of those old shit TDS3000 lunchboxes. 10,000 points. You want the FFT for audio? Figure 50kHz is the max window you want for whatever reason. If the scope is fixed at 10kpts you need to oversample by 2 (nyquist), so you would set the horizontal divisions to 10,000/(2*50,000) = 10.0ms to get 100ms capture. 100ms cut into 10,000 pieces gets you 10us/sample for your 100kHz nyquist rate and 50kHz effective upper end. Your minimum resolution would be 1/0.1s or 10Hz.It's all about knowing how to manage the FFT, but it's still an FFT which means your vertical resolution will be shite compared to a good spec an.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 03:00:55 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 14, 2014, 02:20:53 amStatements like that are just fan boy garbage. LeCroy supply a variety of scopes sourced from different places, each with the qualities the developing company gave it. A generic statement about the qualities of LeCroy scopes is meaningless.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 04:00:10 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 14, 2014, 03:00:55 amInteresting, because I just acquired the 64MXi, although I was never very inclined to purchase one before. If you need further information, you can clearly see we were talking about waverunner mxi/xi scopes. The comment was directed towards a specific person....who i have an on going dialogue with. So he can appreciate where the statement comes from.If you would like to be polite, and stop with your "fanboi garbage" blanket statements, maybe you could gain some insight into the specifics of our conversation. Or you can continue to be grumpy.Are you looking for clarification, or just looking to try and start drama?Also you can clearly see that I also said the following "So far I am really impressed with the scopes functions and toolsets, however the update rate is abysmal. The tool will be usable for a few dev stages, but we really need to get some more horsepower under the hood, if we are going to be sampling 5-10 second intervals, and making changes to topology in real-time. "Still seems like "fanboi garbage"?Selective quoting, to try and bolster an opinion, is not very fair. I did add an edit to the statement to satisfy your opinion though. Better ?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 06:12:33 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 14, 2014, 03:00:55 amYes and no. You're right that this isn't true for all LeCroy scopes, after all the WaveAce Series is garbage and the WaveJets, while not bad entry level scopes, are outdated and overpriced. But both Series are simply bought in from Siglent and Iwatsu, with only the label being LeCroy.But his statement is absolutely right for LeCroy's midrange and highend Series (WaveSurfer). There's a reason why LeCroy has the reputation of being the "Mercedes amongst scopes". It has nothing to do with fanboyism. Agilent makes great scopes but even their high end can't compete with LeCroy on functionality, and Tek, well, lets better not better get there.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 06:27:06 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 14, 2014, 02:20:53 amYes, it's the same.QuoteThat is because of the Celeron's small cache. For heavy processing it becomes a bottleneck. I think LeCroy lost it a bit when they put such poor CPU in these scopes, but at least this problem can be corrected easily.QuoteIf I were you I'd look for a Pentium-M 765 which is the fastest FSB400 P-M (2.1GHz). I guess you also noticed that sometimes the UI seems to lag a bit? That was completely gone after I upgraded to the 1.8GHz P-M.BTW: in the settings there's a control that allows you to change if the scope puts more performance into the update rate or in processing.QuoteWell, the logic analysis part is good but Agilent still leads there in my opinion. But in terms of protocol analysis your 64MXi offers a lot, I'm not sure you'll find a comparable set in a similar Agilent scope.edit(to satisfy someone who is grumpy today) : I am quite pleased that my Waverunner 64MXi trigger and math functions, easily outclass the Agilent MSOx2k I used to have. Especially considering the 4 year time gap in release dates, and considering the prices paid for each example. It does, but don't forget that the whole MSOX2k only costs around the same as one or maybe two of the software options of your 64MXi. The whole scope was probably closer to the £30k mark.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 07:18:30 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 14, 2014, 06:27:06 amYep. He's still acting like a fanboy, even after his edit. I'm no particular fan of any test equipment maker. Any that have survived have made some good stuff, and all have them have made some crap. You have to compare things of a similar age, price and target application when making a comparison, otherwise you just appear deranged. No reasonable person should have been "quite pleased" to find what he found. They should have been thoroughly pissed off if it wasn't the case.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 08:56:38 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 14, 2014, 07:18:30 amstill grumpy I see...I am also no particular fan of a specific manufacturer....I simply stated I am pleased with the triggering in the WR64MXi. Seems like you just want to be rude.I own various scopes, from various manufacturers....Rigol, to Tek to LeCroy, and have owned quite a few others. They all have plus and minus....so how does it make me a fanboi to say the triggering on a specific make/model beats the triggering on another?

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 09:09:55 am
content: QuoteIt's interesting how Agilent chooses to do the majority of their processing on their own hardware, and LeCroy chooses to do it they other direction....def preferred the responsiveness of some of the higher end Agilent units I have used.Quotethanks for the tip....I will have a look for oneQuoteI did play with the setting, and wound up close to the middleQuoteGranted it did, as new, but considering that you can get the WR64MXi for around the price of the MSOX2k today....I think it represents a better value for money than MSOX2k. As soon as you load up the Agilent it's too costly IMO. Which is why mine went away. I did, however prefer a few things about Agilents applications. The UI was much better utilized, and the large voltage display was nice.All in all I am still very impressed with the WR64MXi value. "Fanboi" or not it's a compelling toolset. Granted I can immediately see some limits, but nothing that renders it "obsolete", even by todays standardsLooking forward to demo'ing the HDO8k

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 09:21:34 am
content: One of the rotary encoders on my DS1102E broke - I ended up replacing the whole board, from Rigol about £55 inc shipping and VAT.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 09:50:56 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 14, 2014, 07:18:30 amI'm sorry but I really can't see anything that can be considered fanboyism. Either you have no clue what the word "fanboy" means or you're trolling.QuoteThat is true for everything made by man, so what? If anything it shows that the merits and problems of individual products need consideration.QuoteThat is a pretty stupid comment. Quite frankly, personally attacking someone by calling him "deranged" because he compared a newer device to a higher class older device actually says a lot more about you than it says about him. And I can tell you that the image you presented here so far has been pretty ugly.This aside, reality is that most of the time when purchase decisions are made the limit is in the budget, and it is completely legitimate to compare what amount X gives you when buying new over buying second hand. People and companies around the world do exactly that every day. Not just for test gear but for things like TVs, cars and even houses. I guess they're all deranged as well.QuoteIf someone invests a noticable amount of money in a complex device he has only heard and read about before but which he did not try before splashing out all the cash, and then finds that certain properties exceed his expectations, expressing this is in my opinion a perfectly reasonable reaction.But I guess that means I'm deranged too, and that I shall seek medical help immediately.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 12:22:17 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 12, 2014, 03:15:37 amNever having used one of these modern DSOs, my interest in the FFT function was more a matter of hoping for a free lunch. As always, oh well.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 12:26:28 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 12, 2014, 06:40:58 amThanks for the recommendations. I'll check to see if any of the scopes you mentioned are affordable (from my POV anyway) on the used market.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 12:35:10 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 13, 2014, 07:39:29 pmAt this point in time, having a spectrum analyzer is more a "nice to have" here, certainly not a "must have". That said, I'll keep my eyes open for the used LeCroy gear you mentioned. Thanks.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 12:41:14 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 13, 2014, 09:15:03 pmNo, the FFT aspect was just the hope of a newby to these inexpensive DSOs. I'm going to back-burner that interest for now. Thanks for your insights re reliability -- good to hear!

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 12:46:13 pm
content: Quote from: MarkL on November 13, 2014, 10:55:46 pmI had heard that the FFT display of these low-end DSOs was simplistic, without even freq nor amplitude scale markings. But no matter, I've now been re-educated in this regard.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 12:53:17 pm
content: Quote from: XFDDesign on November 14, 2014, 02:55:42 amIt seems that the explanation I was given was wrong -- or at least simplistic. Thanks for the explanation.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 02:40:03 pm
content: I've only used the FFT function on my TDS2012 here at home or on similar scopes at work or the big scopes like the MSO4104.However, I can do some useful things with the creaky old TDS2012 in FFT mode.eg I can measure the OIP3 performance of a GALI-51 amplifier from MiniCircuits using a two tone test and the FFT mode on the TDS2012. I get the same result on my old (but lab grade) Advantest TR4172 here.http://194.75.38.69/pdfs/GALI-51+.pdfIf I measure the OIP3 with the low drive level as per the datasheet then I get +34.7dBm. But to do this with the TDS2012 I have to drive it harder to get IMD terms up around -45dBc. It can see a fair bit lower than this though.If I do the test at the higher drive level then both the analyser and the scope measure an OIP3 of approx +32.6dBm at 28.5MHz. Obviously, I wouldn't really recommend using a TDS2012 for something like this but it can be very useful in FFT mode as long as you don't expect too much from it.It can easily display typical classic SSB IMD plots from a ham transmitter and do it with acceptable performance. The trick is to exploit the alias limitations of the scope and to effectively undersample the 28MHz signal so it looks like it has been downconverted to audio in the scope.I'm not suggesting that JDH should buy an old TDS2012 but you can do useful things with a cheap old DSO in FFT mode

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2014, 04:29:15 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on November 15, 2014, 02:40:03 pmThanks for your experiences with your older DSO.I going to keep an eye open for good used gear. However, having read all the helpful advice here, I'm thinking of going ahead and buying something new. So I called a well-known test equip vendor and discussed the purchase. Given the recommendations here, we first spoke about Rigol DSOs. Maybe some would consider the aspect of display size to be unimportant, but when I noticed that the Rigol's I was considering have 5.6" displays while other have 7" (and even 8") displays, we talked about other brands too (mostly Siglent). Can anyone confirm the things I was told by this vendor? I was told that....Rigol = Previous OEM mfgr of HP, Agilent, then Keysight scopes. Their tech supt is in Wash state.Siglent = Previous OEM mfgr of B&K Precision scopes. Their tech supt is in the USA too.The above came about after I mentioned my decades-back preference for Tektronix, HP, and sometimes even B&K Precision scopes. Admittedly I was primarily speaking about old analog scopes, nonetheless the rep cited the above as part of my "education process". The last thing the seller mentioned was that they consider the Siglent to be in the same league as Rigol. In all cases, we were discussing 100 MHz DSOs.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2014, 04:48:02 pm
content: Siglent is an OEM for many brands including Lecroy :https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/new-metrix-dox2000-scopes-by-chauvin-arnoux/

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2014, 08:44:42 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 16, 2014, 04:29:15 pmNot quite. Rigol is the OEM of Agilent's bottom-of-the-barrel entry level scopes. The better scopes were all made by Agilent themselves.Rigol never ever made something for HP.Siglent is the OEM for BK Precision and some other B-brands. Similar to what Rigol did for Agilent, Siglent is also the OEM for LeCroy's bottom-of-the-barrel WaveAce scopes (which are made and designed by Siglent, LeCroy provides just the label and an excessive price tag). They are also the OEM for the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 scope, but unlike the WaveAce Series this scope (which is sold as Siglent SDS3000 in China) has been designed and developed by LeCroy, with Siglent merely acting as the hardware manufacturer. All LeCroy scopes aside from WaveAce and WaveJet are LeCroy designed and developed.Rigol has a NA service center from which I mostly heard positive things. Siglent apparently also opened a service center there more recently.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 03:15:01 pm
content: On that note Maynuo is also the OEM/ODM for some BK precision products. Most notably the DC electronic loads. I have the Maynuo M9712C and it meets the exact performance specs of the BK branded version, with the welcome addition of having a better display (shows 4 metrics, as opposed to BK's 3). The difference in cost was in favor of the Maynuo. Also a better software compliment. However BK unit had a better manual.I see no issue with certain manufacturers re-branding hardware. Especially if it injects a lower cost solution into foreign markets.On the issue of the LeCroy waveAce....I had one for a few weeks (when they first came out), and I can whole heatedly say it is overpriced crap. The only nice feature was the split windowing/multi graph view. However the screen size made that useless as well. If it was $350 though, it wouldn't be a terrible "first scope" option. It appealed to me because of it's size. Though it would be a nice option for portability and versatility. Nope....Agilent (keysight) is no longer re-branding the Rigol line (to my knowledge). I think the MSO2000 is a direct competitor for the MSO3000x series, so it would not be in Agilents favor to cooperate. The Agilent hardware is a bit overpriced in comparison. Although it is superior, in nearly every way.My dealings with Rigol NA have been less that beneficial or productive. They don't seem to answer email, in a timely way. Others experiences might be different?

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 04:12:34 pm
content: Thanks for the information about the relationship between these brands. So the explanations given by the vendor were somewhat inaccurate -- not surprising given the sale incentives.Let me ask a question which is unfortunately another matter of opinion: Several companies sell what seem to be very similar 100MHz DSOs at almost the same price point. All of them have 7" (or even 8" displays) except for Rigol -- their display is 5.6". So having zero experience with these brands, I would ordinarily lean toward the 7" display, yet several here have recommended Rigol. If Rigol is truly head and shoulders better (and I hope that implies something about reliability), I would forgo my preference for the larger screen. OTOH, if these are a toss-up in most ways, the other brands seem to win (and this includes B&K Precision, Siglent, etc.). Any thoughts on this?So far there has been little or no mention of hacking. Folks have written that it is trivial to up the bandwidth by two to one with some (all?) of these scopes by a simple hack (in some cases, changing a file name, I believe). Is this widely done? Or is this dangerous to the point of possibly "bricking" the scope? If hacking is thought to be an okay idea, what if repair is needed? Is it possible to reverse the hack before sending in the scope so there's no question about a voided warranty? Or is it better to just forget this whole idea and leave the thing "stock"?John

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 04:35:36 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 17, 2014, 04:12:34 pmIt depends on the model. I don't think anyone can touch Rigol on the DS2000 series. MSO or DSO, nothing is going to compete on features, build quality and price. The quality of the 2000 series, internals rivals anything else I can think of. Good engineering, layout and components.There are, however, some reported firmware "bugs". Without knowing the exact model and options, feature sets, intended uses etc, its hard to know how to make any recommendations. If FFT and math functions are a critical aspect, stay far away from the Rigol and go with Agilent 2000 series, or 3000 if you need MSO. The Agilent units do mathematical processing on dedicated hardware. The Rigols do NOT. The Rigol FFT misses a lot of data. So much so, that I would say its not useful, for anything other than a quick glance, for something very very obvious. The Agilent, on the other hand, has truly excellent math functions and speed. The unit I had didn't miss a beat. Neither of these lower priced options are ideal, so you have to pick and choose your battles.To sum it up....if you have under $2k USD to spend I would go with a Rigol. If you have $4k USD to spend, i would go with MSO3000x from Agilent. If you have up to $7k to spend I would go with a nice used LeCroy WR or Agilent MSO4000.All if this is shooting from the hip though...without really knowing what specific things the tools will be used for. There is no ideal all in one solution....yet. When comparing tools, I think the "hacking" aspect should be somewhat ignored. There is always a risk of going that direction, and shouldn't be a benchmark for purchase. Not saying it's not possible or useless, just not the wisest way to make a decision on something. If you can hack a feature into something, it's gravy, but if the tool is inadequate w/o the "hack" that says a lot.P.S. one truly beneficial of the Rigol DS2000A is the low noise front end and 500uV/div vertical scale. Also it's ability to AC couple inputs at 50 ohm internal termination. If you are needing to do DC PSU measurement, this is the only way to go (for sane money). Obviously you need a proper differential preamplifier and probe setup, but that is par for the course, with any other scope.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2014, 10:35:33 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 17, 2014, 04:35:36 pmOh yes, my budget is well below $2000 -- more like $400-500. I wish I could be more specific, but the usage will be for general home shop tasks such as audio equipment troubleshooting, ham radio projects, etc. I looked up the models you mentioned and found that they are all out of my price range. Once again, I have been trying to constrain myself to looking only at 100 MHz scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, maybe B&K, maybe one or two others, but only the ones sold at the $500 and less price point.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2014, 10:52:31 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 20, 2014, 10:35:33 pmat that price it's a no brainer decision....http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/ds1000z/NOTHING is going to touch that scope for the money....how Rigol can offer it at that price point is beyond my comprehension....

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 02:02:57 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 20, 2014, 10:52:31 pm+1There are a couple of bugs currently, but it's still quite usable IMHO. Hopefully they'll get fixed soon in the next firmware release.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 07:16:56 am
content: Quote from: nanofrog on November 21, 2014, 02:02:57 amyes I experienced the same with my ds2000A when I first got it.....firmware fixed some of the issues I was having. despite having much more costly and "fancy" scopes I still use my ds2000 quite often. rigol really does make excellent products, for the money.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 03:15:23 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 20, 2014, 10:52:31 pmPer your suggestion, I just looked at the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes. Unfortunately the least expensive 100 MHz model is $830 (unless there are major discounts to be had). However all of this series are 4 channel scopes, a feature I don't need. So if the DS1000Z series is unique for some reason compared to the other Rigol scopes, to stay within my budget I would have to drop to a 50 MHz model (the DS1054Z). Otherwise, I could consider the 2-channel DS1102E at half the price. Of course that's another series, possibly one inferior to the DS1000Z ones you mentioned (I do know that the DS1102E has a 5.6" display compared to the 7" ones in the DS1000Z series)?

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 06:49:33 pm
content: FWIW, You can hack the DS1054Z to 100MHz, and enable all of the software options (hack how-to).Regarding the DS1102E, there's no contest between it and the 1000Z series. Larger screen, persistence display (1102 doesn't have this at all), more memory, and others. And don't discount the extra channels (very useful to have).

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 07:19:50 pm
content: While the feature set of the latest scopes look inviting, you should have a good think of just what you may need.IMO 4 channels is a winner.Considerable added versatility with 4 channels, particulary differential measurements.You will find more use for this than many of the other features.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 02:54:03 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 21, 2014, 07:19:50 pmMy differential measurements have usually involved AC line troubleshooting. Could be wrong, but I don't recall having a need to scope two AC line sources at the same time. However, who knows, maybe you are correct and maybe this would be handy in future.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 03:01:29 pm
content: Well 2 channels differential and one for current adds up to 3 channels.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 03:07:53 pm
content: Quote from: nanofrog on November 21, 2014, 06:49:33 pmOh hacking.... Certainly it's an attractive thought (free lunch, etc.), but some here have advised against attempting it. I read the URL you gave and others as well, and the hacks seem simple enough. Yet some say this can fail in a way that completely disables the scopes (so-called bricking), so I would not want to try it unless I knew for sure that the hacking is ~always~ reversible. If I can be always get the scope back to stock, great, however I believe the term "bricking" implies otherwise. Is there any way to back up the OEM firmware in these scopes in a reliable way?

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 03:15:09 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 23, 2014, 03:01:29 pmOh sure, there are numerous scenarios which would make a 4 channel scope useful . It's just that this feature isn't free.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 03:17:06 pm
content: I cannot say that I have ever absolutely needed to make more than one differential measurement simultaneously although a couple of my oscilloscopes can be configured to do it.What I have done though is one differential measurement combined with one or two single ended measurements. Even more often the differential signal was too noisy for a clean trigger so another channel or external trigger input was needed for a trigger signal. A 2 channel oscilloscope can handle that though assuming it has an external trigger input which I think they all do. 4 channel oscilloscopes often lack separate external trigger inputs.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 04:15:23 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 23, 2014, 03:15:09 pmOK 4 channels are not free but very well worth the extra money O0 I wouldn't want to go back to a 2 channel oscilloscope.

author: andrija
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 07:17:47 pm
content: I rarely need 2 channels, let alone 4, for analog use. It all depends on what do you need and how do you use it. As a hobbyist I never needed 4 channels but I'm sure a professional would. So it's not a cut and dry issue.Speaking of reliability, I don't feel my Rigol 2032A is all that reliable. It locks up regularly. The extra features over my other scope, Tek 2335, are however well worth it to keep it around. But for quick checking of waveforms, the cleanliness and speed of use of my old analog scope are unmatched by Rigol. Just having to move waveform up and down on Rigol compared to nice and smooth operation in analog... brrr. But Rigol easily measures the whole thing for you, and is much more precise as well.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 07:24:02 pm
content: 4 channels is a must, for measuring even the simplest SMPS. Assuming you are doing the "poor mans differential pair". To determine efficiency it's helpful to measure i+o of a circuit in test. the Rigol Z series is a no brainer IMO. 4 chan, usable screen, decent front end.....also even if you don't do the pseudo-differential thing, it's nice to have one pair on i/o and the other for logic/controller. Also a lot of serial signals are going to need a minimum of 2 chan for clk and packets (granted ext trigger can be used for clk)

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 07:26:48 pm
content: Quote from: andrija on November 23, 2014, 07:17:47 pmMy 2101A was also locking up.....firmware fixed the issue. So did alterations in mem depth....not exactly ideal, but hardly "unreliable". I don't have any fear that the hardware itself is going to fail anytime soon. If we look at software bugs, nearly EVERY DSO has them, regardless of price....

author: andrija
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 08:02:10 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 23, 2014, 07:24:02 pmIf I wanted to do SPMS I would buy a differential probe or two (which would be mandatory for mains devices anyway, don't they produce 600-800V, well beyond oscilloscope input rating?) rather than get a 4 channel scope but fair enough your arguments are certainly valid . As for reliability of Rigol, I am on latest firmware and just yesterday the scope kept locking up (as in auto stopping updating) at least 20 times while looking at function gen output and once it did a hard lockup requiring a full reboot. That's not what I call reliable but I agree that it's not that big of a deal if I have to press run button to get the thing to start again (as long as it doesn't do a hard lock up). I could also be using it wrong, I am certainly not an expert in using DSO's, this is my first one. I did have some p-p measurements turned on, as well as frequency and the network was plugged in too, plus it was "unlocked" but it looks like there are still serious bugs in there.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 08:43:36 pm
content: Quote from: andrija on November 23, 2014, 08:02:10 pmdid the entire UI lock up, or it just stopped triggering? My guess is this is a trigger issue, and not a real lock-up. My issue was a complete and total lock of the UI....only a power on/off cycle fixed it....that has stopped, since latest FW. I must say the Rigol triggers are def it's weakest point....Most SMPS are DC/DC....maybe I should further clarify and say POL, rather than SMPS. The differential probe, is most certainly the correct way to do things, but I also have to assume most people buying a Rigol DS1000/2000 can't afford a proper differential probe, and are doing the poor mans method....which is another problem in the Rigol scopes....the math functions are NOT real time....since the operations are done in software.I can't imagine buying an E series Rigol over a Z series....and unless you need the low noise front end on the 2000A srries I can't imagine buying it over the Z series.....the 1000Z series is really a no brainer....nothing comes close for the value represented.....

author: andrija
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 23, 2014, 11:52:53 pm
content: You are right, it can be seen as a trigger bug and we know Rigol have serious trigger issues. I only had one hard freeze where it stopped responding to any button so in that respect it is reliable. There is another thread that seems to imply problems when you have it plugged into LAN so that may be a factor too.I agree that new Z Rigol seems like a no brainer for a new scope but I'm no expert.This whole tread made me take a look at used LeCroy scopes. I was looking previously for Agilent ones, and the main reason is to get an active probe with it. There's just too many available in a wide range of prices and with no knowledge which model to look for nor what their real value is, I am sure someone would fleece me. They sure look impressive even just from their photos, compared to Agilents.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 12:41:18 am
content: Quote from: andrija on November 23, 2014, 11:52:53 pmI recently picked up a WR64MXi and I couldn't be happier.....it easily outclasses the other scopes I have on hand, and have used....honestly I would take it over 9000 series Agilent. The probe options are vast. I picked up two (essentially new) AP020 FET probes for $130 each. The differential LV probes are under $500 each, and most current probes can be had for under a grand each....obviously there are higher end probes and what not, but used most don't surpass $1500.The way I made my value judgement is the following1. WR64MXi (fully loaded with options and keys) $5000 usd (upgrade CPU RAM and HDD for another $200 ish)2. AP020 active FET probes x 2 $130 each3. Lecroy DA1855A-rm2 (2channel) $31004. assortment of passive differential leads (about $900 each)5. Lecroy AP015 current probes x2 $1000-$1500 each6. Lecroy ms500 18 ch logic probe ($2k ish) (500mHZ)that is a full analysis grade system for around $12-$15k.....you just can't touch that value....especially with the lecroy triggers and analysis functions....buy a 9000 or even 4000 series Agilent, and load it up with probes and licenses, and you will be at easily double that price point....and won't get the same quality of triggering or math/analysis functions....Obviously some folks aren't going to agree with that opinion, but for my specific needs, nothing else is going to do what that system can do.....the only thing I can imagine that would trump that level of function, would be an HDO8000.....the 12 bit resolution is useful for me.i have never been the type to gush about one brand or another....but owning a lecroy has completely changed my opinions on that subject.....I had played with and demo'd units before, but until you work with one day to day for a few hours a sitting, you don't really get a fair overview, of just how powerful their upper end systems are....it's hard to believe this unit i have is a 2009 vintage.I am sure some of the grumpy folks, who have never really spent time on a higher end lecroy system will call me a fanboi....or throw out the usual "lecrap" statement....but those are based on lower end rebadges....I highly doubt anyone who has lived with an MXi would call it "crap"....

author: andrija
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 12:58:54 am
content: That sounds like a great deal since I am seeing the same scope - with unknown options and no probes - for $14k on Ebay (never mind shipping and taxes). I won't even ask how you got that price. Anyhow that complete system is way beyond price range of most mortals unless it's a business expense, especially since it depreciates. Thanks for the probe info, it may come in handy if I start looking into other LeCroy scopes in the lower price bracket (is it safe to assume all 2000+ built LeCroy scopes use the same probe interface?).

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 01:04:20 am
content: Quote from: andrija on November 24, 2014, 12:58:54 amALL lecroy scopes using the probus interface are cross compatible with the majority of probus probes....granted, this is not a tool for hobby or personal lab use (unless you are wealthy and have the need).I doubt the depreciation curve will be that steep, over the next 2-4 years. I speculated a loss of less than 20%. Who knows thoughFor my business the specific tools and functions were necessary, so it does represent an excellent value for my business. Just in the last week the tool has saved me immense amounts of time. Easily will pay for itself in a couple months....don't let some of the artificially high ebay prices scare you off....I did find one unit 104MXI-A that sold with probes and some other goodies for $4700.....obviously the licenses weren't there, but that is still a fantastic value, considering the alternative options....

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 02:43:24 pm
content: Hacking....Several contributors here have warned against trying to double the BW of a DSO via the hacking which some others have mentioned. Presumably hacking would void the warranty, so on that basis it might be best to avoid. However, suppose the DSO is no longer under warranty, then what? Unless hacking can cause a DSO to lock up in a permanent way, why not try it? Since DSO are largely computers, is it always possible to back up the firmware so there is always a means to get back to an earlier, reliable configuration? Or can a lock-up be so bad that even this isn't possible?John

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 02:51:08 pm
content: Quote from: andrija on November 23, 2014, 08:02:10 pmEven worse is that add and invert mode requires each channel to see the entire input common mode range. True differential inputs remove the common mode input early allowing orders of magnitude better sensitivity. Analog oscilloscopes and some early DSOs have an advantage over later DSOs because they do the subtraction before digitizing.Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 23, 2014, 07:24:02 pmI cheated to get this capability. One reason I like the Tektronix 7000 series mainframes is that 4 single ended inputs can be replaced with 2 high performance differential inputs while keeping the separate external trigger inputs although getting good performance requires matched probes. I figured this was cheaper than buying dedicated differential probes for a DSO.QuoteHow fine is the vertical scale adjustment on the Rigols? One thing I like about my analog oscilloscopes (and a couple of early DSOs) is that the analog input variable gain adjustment allows for relatively good DC and low frequency common mode rejection ratio. If the Rigols do the math before the fine vertical scale adjustment is applied, then it does not matter and they will suffer from terrible common mode rejection but I have never seen this tested.QuoteIs the DS2000A series actually lower noise? How is this measured? The images I have seen show a noise level orders of magnitude lower than can be expected from a 1 Mohm 15 pf input so I assume they use some type of DSP noise reduction. The trace when ground input coupling is selected does not look real.The old Tektronix 2232 DSO has DSP noise reduction when using peak detection which returns a result very much like the DS2000A but it can be disabled for a more real view. It does make for great if misleading photos though.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 02:58:29 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 24, 2014, 02:43:24 pmThere is another issue. The transient response calibration is done digitally and may not have been calibrated at alternate input bandwidths. If this is the case, then raising the bandwidth limit can result in poor transient response. On one hand, most users are not going to be equipped to test for this problem but on the other hand, the same users are also unlikely to notice it.This is also an issue if the calibration data is lost somehow which is a common problem on old DSOs which use battery backed up memory to store the calibration data.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 07:09:32 pm
content: Quote from: andrija on November 24, 2014, 12:58:54 amAll LeCroy midrange and highend scopes since around 1994 (when the 9300 Series was introduced) use the same probe interface (called 'ProBus'). Their low end scopes (ScopeStation, LiteRunner, WaveAce, WaveJet) however don't, these scopes have plain standard BNC connectors. Some of the ultra high end scopes (i.e. WaveMaster 8000) use a common interface called 'ProLink' instead of ProBus where the BNC connector is replaced by an SMA type connector. However, for the common LeCroy scopes you want to look for ProBus compatible probes.The common interface makes buying active probes a bit simpler, however don't forget that an active probe also needs to be supported by the scope software. This is generally not much of a problem with older probes (i.e. AP-034) and newer scopes, but for example the current ZD1000 active probe won't work with an old 9300 Series scope as the scope software won't know it. But then I guess only very few people would buy a brand new and very expensive high end active probe for using it with some 20 year old scopes. The older probes like the AP-033/034 are often sold for very low prices (much lower than the Tek and Agilent equivalents) and work fine with older and newer LeCroy scopes.In terms of scopes, TunerSandwich's 64MXi is a great scope (and without doubt did get a great deal there) but I guess for hobby use spending this money is probably not an option for you. Depending on what you need have a look at the WaveRunner LT and WaveRunner2 LT Series. These scopes don't run Windows but VxWorks as OS, and still offer most of the options that can be found on the newer Windows scopes at a much lower price.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 08:16:38 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 24, 2014, 07:09:32 pmI can't imagine NOT running windows as being a severe limitation....especially on a hobby bench, where the need to mount iSCSI or join a domain is not necessary. If all the math and functionality is the same, I think the 64MXi or other XI/MXi/6100/7000 etc is overkill for most applications?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 06:42:16 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 24, 2014, 08:16:38 pmWell, of course the Windows scopes offer more advanced features, plus a few nice things like touch interface, but the majority of features found in the Windows scopes can also be found in the older VxWorks-based devices.The biggest difference is in serial decode which is absent from the older non-Windows scopes, but in most cases a cheap USB logic analyzer is probably the better choice for a hobby lab anyways. Especially when considering how limited the MSO functionality in scopes like the Rigols, Siglents or even Agilent's DSO-X 2k/3k is.I'd say a WaveRunner2 scope plus a good USB logic analyzer (i.e. Salae) should be a good and economical choice for a hobbyist lab.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 01:54:03 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on November 24, 2014, 02:58:29 pmTo say that cal data can be lost implies that backup wasn't possible? What about modern DSOs? If they allow firmware updates via the USB port, I certainly hope they also allow a full backup of all internal data prior to attempting the update.... Yes?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 05:47:01 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 25, 2014, 01:54:03 pmI can't speak for other scopes but on LeCroy Windows scopes the cal data is on the hard drive and can easily be backed up to USB stick/CD/DVD/cloud storage/wherever.On the older scopes which run VxWorks instead of Windows (WaveRunner/WaveRunner2/WavePro 900) the cal data won't be lost when the lithium backup battery dies (the scope will just refuse to boot until the battery has been replaced).

author: rstoer
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 06:29:08 pm
content: Quote from: andrija on November 23, 2014, 07:17:47 pmI have a four channel scope but I agree, I almost never need more than two. There's is a side benefit to four channels though - On most two channel scopes using both channels cuts your sample rate in half. This can usually be avoided on a four channel scope by using channels 1&3, 2&4, etc.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 09:05:38 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 25, 2014, 05:47:01 pmPresumably Rigol scopes are similar -- can someone verify this?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 25, 2014, 11:04:57 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 25, 2014, 09:05:38 pmI don't beleive so.Modern compact DSO's do not have hard drives and will store their cal data in non volatile Ram/Rom.It is VERY important that the Firmware upgrade procedure be followedexactlyand best if the DSO is powered via a UPS in case of loss of mains power while upgrading.A small inverter could also be used for the same insurance against mains power loss.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2014, 06:28:00 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 25, 2014, 09:05:38 pmI doubt it. As tautech says these scopes don't have hard drives, and on most of these scopes the cal data is held in battery buffered NVRAMs.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2014, 07:21:37 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 26, 2014, 06:28:00 amMy question was based on what's typical for modern computer motherboards. Before updating the BIOS/EUFI, there is an option to first backup the old firmware "just in case" anything untoward occurs. I'm surprised firmware backup isn't standard with DSOs as well.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2014, 07:45:13 pm
content: One could get the current firmware when you get a DSO and save it for "just in case".However not all manufacturers have their firmware "freely available".Then when new firmware is available you would have something "on hand" to fall back to if required.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 26, 2014, 11:15:33 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 26, 2014, 07:21:37 pmWhy should it be? The problem with scopes is calibration data, not the firmware (which for most scopes can be downloaded from the manufacturer website anyways).Even with PCs it doesn't make much sense to save the old BIOS version, as again most current and previous BIOS binaries can simply be downloaded from the manufacturer website. And at least with brand name systems (HP, Dell, Lenovo) BIOS updates don't create a backup of the old BIOS version anyways. It's just pointless.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 12:12:27 am
content: I find it strange that one would be concerned about scope "reliability", but then want to "hack" it

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 01:13:45 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 27, 2014, 12:12:27 amReliability becomes more important after hacking, as you've lost the support of a warranty.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 07:16:59 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 27, 2014, 01:13:45 amAssuming it can be turned on, and you can access the Options Menu, any hacked options can be undone.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 05:36:49 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 26, 2014, 11:15:33 pmActually this recent question began concerning whether hacking attempts can lock up ("brick") a scope in an irreversible way. So I wanted to know if there is always a way to get back to where one first started. No matter which firmware version is being used, old or new, the real worry is whether the scope can be so locked up that a firmware load or firmware reset can't be done.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 05:49:51 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 27, 2014, 12:12:27 amMy original concern had to do with hardware reliability -- that is, component failure of some kind (thus the questions about dome keyboards, analogies to laptop life span, etc.). If a user knew that hacking could be attempted with no chance of trashing the instrument, why not try it (as an experiment, if nothing else)? OTOH, if there can be circumstances where a firmware reset or reload isn't possible, you are right, I would not think of trying a mod as has been mentioned here. BTW, bear in mind where this came from -- someone suggested getting a 50 MHz DSO and hacking it to 100 MHz. The only negative I've read so far about this had to do with the cal data being inappropriate for the new BW, but frankly, I wasn't sure whether this might be a second order problem.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 05:54:44 pm
content: Quote from: nanofrog on November 27, 2014, 07:16:59 amIf that's the only way to do it, I would not try any sort of hacking -- it's too easy to see faulty firmware making the scope inoperative.

author: kxenos
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 06:04:35 pm
content: I have a DSOX2004 for 18 months now. It recently came back from a repair (still under warranty). They said they replaced the "main board". They didn't give any other info. I haven't made any attempts to hack it due to moral reasons but I'm thinking that there is a chance they could figure out that a scope is hacked and deny to honor the warranty. Even if hacking a scope doesn't brick it, there's always a chance of a failure during warranty period.This is the 1st T&M device that fails on me for 20y (and needs to be repaired by someone else) and it kind of ruined my bubble fantasy that modern devices of well-known manufacturers don't break like that.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 06:15:34 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 27, 2014, 05:36:49 pmAs you are probably aware, many DSO's are part of a manufacturers series with indentical HW and bandwidth is set at the factory for any particular model in a series.Anyhack method/procedure that doesn't replicate the factory procedure will risk possible lockup of the scope. (formal Service menu BW settings excluded)There is much knowledge and experience of hacking in this forum and this should be comforting to any that want to attempt hacking, nevertheless the risk remains.Even the use of another manufacturers firmware in a re-badged DSO is not always problem free.All this is good reason why it is mostly attempted on the lower cost DSO's.That is: your new DSO door stop hasn't cost the earth.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 27, 2014, 06:36:32 pm
content: firmware and cal data should NOT be confusedif you wreck the firmware, you can recover....worst case from a headerif you lose cal data that is stored in a ROM (not sure if the firmware changes even touch that cluster) then it's a done dealthis is going to be specific to each product, and the way in which that cal data is influenced by FW. My guess is, in most cases, the data isn't touched by FW, BUT when you go modifying FW the influence on that data may be in question ?excuse the recursive question there, BUT I believe this is case specific. The term "hack" has always bothered me, because it's so general and not applied. I.E. what in specific reality is the "hack". If the "hack" influences cal data, then I would stay far far away from that. If there is a way to "backup" and "reflash" cal data, ok, but that isn't as easy as it sounds

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 09:51:04 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 27, 2014, 05:54:44 pmYou can also do it via an SCI command over USB.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 04:02:11 pm
content: Quote from: kxenos on November 27, 2014, 06:04:35 pmSorry to hear about the failure (I agree, certainly anyone would hope for better). As for hacking, as you and others have said, it seems prudent to avoid something which would void the warranty. OTOH, it might be another matter if it was possible to easily return a scope to stock condition before sending it back a repair.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 06:10:21 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 27, 2014, 06:15:34 pmWith the risk as you describe it, I suspect I won't be trying the hacking experiment <g>......

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 06:22:55 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 27, 2014, 06:36:32 pmThe more I hear, the less hacking appeals. However, the "hack" I read about for one scope was very simple -- it involved just renaming a single file. I have not yet researched whether this is the case for the Rigol DS1000Z series scopes which have been highly recommended here (specifically the DS1054Z 50MHz version).

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 06:26:59 pm
content: Quote from: nanofrog on November 28, 2014, 09:51:04 amCan you expand on this a bit? Also, will this work even if the scope is bricked and cannot "boot"?

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2014, 06:44:39 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 28, 2014, 06:26:59 pmYou'd use the command :SYSTem:OPTion:UNINSTallSource =Upgrading Rigol DS1074Z (1000Z series) to unlock optionsthread (page 3, top post).If the scope can't boot, that would have to be repaired before any SCI commands can be completed (i.e. reflash firmware to fix corruption first so it can boot & accept any SCI commands).If it's a hardware problem that's preventing booting while under warranty, that would have to be sent in (they wouldn't be able to see any option changes until after the repair).

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 12:59:26 pm
content: Quote from: nanofrog on November 28, 2014, 06:44:39 pmThat part about reflashing is exactly the point -- since I don't own a DSO, I have no idea what's involved if reflashing were needed (assuming, for example, with the Rigol DS1054Z).

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2014, 05:46:26 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 29, 2014, 12:59:26 pmI've not done it on a Rigol, and I didn't see anything in the User Guide (262pg .pdf manual, not the thin Quick Start Guide they actually print). But I'd expect you'd be able to do it over the USB port, as that's how you update it to newer firmware (may not have written the software to downgrade firmware revisions yet). IIRC, I've read about other members being able to start their scope on a USB stick when there was a problem (insert USB stick prior to boot, then power it up).There's also SCPI commands (commands can be foundhere). Physical interfaces are USB and LAN, and the manual has a section on GPIB as well. Past that, it's going to require special tools (programmer; either over JTAG pins/landings or desoldering and using an adapter board).Not investigated this thoroughly yet, so I don't know of any precise procedure (especially any that doesn't involve a programmer).Personally, I think I'm just going to wait until Rigol solves it in an official release (there is currently a Beta release, but there are issues with it).Just in case you're not aware though, it's a nice little scope overall, andis certainly usable in it's current state. So it's not an "OMG, this thing is a useless pile of junk" situation by any means. The EEVBlog community is just good at finding bugs, and making threads about them (helps get the manufacturer's attention, so a bigIMHO).

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 04:33:35 pm
content: Quote from: nanofrog on November 29, 2014, 05:46:26 pmThanks for the explanation. It was especially nice to hear that Rigol seems to pay attention to their user community. Would that all mfgrs did that!

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 07:24:41 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 30, 2014, 04:33:35 pmThis thread has filled at lot of gaps in your knowledge of DSO's.However your last assumption is just that.All manufacturers come unstuck at times with failures in design, firmware, QC, poor componentry etc.........Only careful selection of an established brand/model can minimise a buyers risk.IMO manufacturers support via the many dealers here is not to be overlooked.Why should you a new buyer have to possibly struggle with manufacturers over warranty or firmware issues with a distant manufacturer or supplier. Build a relationship with your local supplier, it will pay off in the end.Chasing a distant purchase for savings of a few dollars is a another case in point.Any possible issues are difficult, costly and time comsuming to rectify.We are lucky with EEVblog as a great resource of knowedge, especially when it comes to oscilloscopes.This thread alone may not decide for you the right DSO to buy, however the many others on DSO's will likely.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 08:05:59 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 30, 2014, 04:33:35 pmThis is actually a recent occurrence, as there's been unresolved bugs in the 2000 and 4000 series scopes for ~2 years, according to owners.So to play it safe, you do your research as best as you can, try/buy one and see if you can live with the bugs (any brand, any product). In the case of expensive products like T&M equipment, it may cost you some money to return it when it's not a good fit (shipping and possibly restocking fees), but it's cheaper than eating the entire cost for a product that's unusable for you.In the recent events regarding Rigol, hopefully it's a sign of serious improvement regarding firmware fixes in a timely manner, and perhaps even customer service in general. But it may also just be an anomaly due to all the attention it's obtained recently as a result of the DS1054Z's sales volume (2000 & 4000 series bugs didn't get as much attention).

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2014, 08:28:13 pm
content: My experiences with Rigol CS, over the last 2 years, has been less than stellar.....specifically Rigol NA

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2014, 02:52:17 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on November 30, 2014, 07:24:41 pmI've had my fill with overseas suppliers after purchasing computer parts and then having problems. So far I've noticed two apparently decent sources for DSOs -- Amazon and TEquipment. I called the later company and found them to be very helpful (and BTW, for my purposes they recommended a Siglent DSO). Between this forum and TEquipment, I expect I'll be able to make an informed purchase. Thanks to all who've helped here.....!

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2014, 03:00:34 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 30, 2014, 08:28:13 pmHowever, once again, to your knowledge no other company stands head and shoulders about the rest in this regard?BTW, I don't understand the significance of the trailing CS and NA.....

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2014, 03:44:03 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on December 01, 2014, 03:00:34 pmI guess "CS" = "Customer Service" and "NA" = "North America".

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 01, 2014, 10:02:23 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on December 01, 2014, 03:00:34 pmCS = customer support and NA = north American division.....Tek, Agilent, Lecroy, Fluke and most other companies I have dealt with have far superior support. Rigol website is lacking and they are unresponsive to email......I would go so far as to say that most other companies in T&M and electronics supply have been head and shoulders above Rigol, in that regard.The numerous, ongoing posts, in this forum and various others...seems to mirror my experiences

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 04:05:34 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on December 01, 2014, 10:02:23 pmI only see it as positive when I have no clue how good a vendor's customer service people are, because I have needed so little interaction with them.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 06:11:03 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 02, 2014, 04:05:34 amThat's not really positive. Yes, it's great when their product works flawlessly, but with every complex product there's always the chance that you will need support sooner or later, and only then you'll see if the vendor stands behind its product or not.This aside, there are other differentiators like product maintenance (i.e. availability of firmware updates, not just for bug fixing but also for general improvement and new features) or things like user support (i.e. if you own a LeCroy scope then their application engineers will help you for free if you need advice or have to solve a complex measurement problem).Then there's after warranty support. What happens if your older scope needs repair, or you need some spare parts. There are huge differences in how vendors support their older products.There's a lot more to it than just delivering a product that works.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 07:00:47 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 02, 2014, 06:11:03 amNot providing firmware updates for download is pretty unpleasant behaviour, but other support costs. Big names rebrand Chinese scopes with huge markups. If you want support you don't have to pay for directly, you have to pay in the purchase price. When a 100MHz scope from Tek or HP cost most of a year's salary, for 10% on the price they could give you a month of someone's time for support. For instruments that cost 1 or 2% of a year's salary, they can't offer you very much.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 02, 2014, 06:11:03 amA lot of people used to provide excellent support until long after warranty had run out. Even in the consumer space, a few companies (and only a few), like Philips, could get you a service manual and any special parts for years after your TV or Hi-Fi was purchased, and mail them to you at low prices. These days you won't get that, but its OK. The plastic cases they use now will have become brittle and disintegrated well before this matters. The instrument world isn't a lot different. I don't see as many plastic instrument cases disintegrating right now, but I do see lots of sections of instruments (mostly embrittled plastics) that crumble after just a few years. People won't be renovating 40 year old scopes from today in 2054, as people on this site are doing now with 1970s scopes. Is this a bad thing? Well, do you really want things to cost a year's salary, or 2% of one. If the instrument lasts as long as a computer the accountants have written it off, and we move on. They'll be making houses this disposable soon.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 02, 2014, 06:11:03 amOf course.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 08:10:23 am
content: Part of Rigols price point, IS the "lack" of support. Also the lack of traditional marketing venues, and fancy trade show teams etc.I run a manufacturing company, and as anyone with any similar experience knows, the value of the commodities you use to build you product typical equals a VERY small percentage of the overhead rolled into the MSRP.The majority is, after sales support, marketing and distribution costs.There is simply no way we should expect Lecroy or Agilent (or any other big fish) support network....or even sales force/availability. Not from a product that competes with other products at triple the cost.If Rigol spent the same marketing and support resources into a product like the 1000Z series, AND offered the build quality they do....they would be selling product at a loss, with the current MSRP.STILL the reality of that issue remains. Rigol doesn't even have complete accessory and service part listings. The majority of their gear is lacking information, and good luck talking to an engineer. Obviously reviewers and other higher profile customers, who can help in a small companies "guerrilla marketing" campaing, are going to tell you the opposite of most basic customers...in terms of support experience.I am sure that the numerous forum discussions and youtube videos about Rigol (low end) scopes can prove that marketing model. What cheaper way to sell hobby level gear, than to have it positively reviewed on a forum or youtube channel, that caters to hobbyists?I believe the support structures follow suit. It's only logical that they would, and we shouldn't expect more for the price we pay?HOWEVER....Rigol NA support has been, in my experience, outstandingly lacking. For example, why do i have to submit any requests, when I am already a registered owner? I mean for simple things, like documentation, firmware, parts....hell even licenses and accessories. Have you seen how lacking and BAD rigols descriptions are of their software licenses, "upgrades" and accessory parts? It's laughable....for instance....http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/ds2000a/ds2102a-s/look under the accessories and software tabs....under accessories there are NO descriptions of what the product really is (forget technical datasheets).....and under software...why do I have to "request" firmware? I am a registered user, and half the time I request via the form, I get no reply....I have to send in multiple requests.Quite the opposite on lecroys support pages.....any firmware I want is a click away....I could go on and on, but I think my point is made?Bottom line is the Rigol stuff I have owned has been great....love my DM3068 and DS2102A-S.....BUT the support (lack of) is shockingly bad....and YES some of that should be expected, for the price point. OK, Rigol isn't Agilent or LeCroy.....BUT when basic things like "firmware request forms" and ZERO documentation of parts or accessories dominates the pitifully undescriptive website??C'MON Rigol....these basic things don't cost any significant resources.....just require some logic

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 10:00:01 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 02, 2014, 07:00:47 amYes, of course the customer pays for it somehow, and as you say its priced in.But that doesn't necessarily mean that, just because some vendor does not provide proper support, its products will automatically be cheaper by an amount equivalent of the vendor's cost savings for the lack of support. In most cases it just means that the vendor pockets more money for profit.QuoteNot really. Aside from the fact that its no longer 1969 and even a Tek or Keysight 100MHz scope no longer costs the equivalent of an engineer's annual salary, you're very much oversimplifying things. In general, the more expensive a scope is the smaller the numbers that are sold. WIth cheaper scopes it's the numbers that bring in the bakon, not the margins.QuoteIs it? You really think it's ok when complex kit like a scope is designed to be thrown away if it fails, because there's no support for it by the vendor and no spare parts? I don't think that's ok, in fact, I think it's utterly retarded.But thankfully the major brands do support their products, even long after the warranty period. I'd rather pay a bit more (or save money by buying used kit) than paying money for producing even more shortlived landfill.QuoteI noticed the same, mostly with cheap China crap. However, at least Rigol and Siglent seem to use a bit better plastics, which I would expect to survive for a lot longer.QuoteWhat makes you so sure that this will be the case? After all, thinking back on all the analog scopes I've used over the decades and the various weak points (i.e. mechanical switches, tons of potentiometers, phosphor tube with limited life) they had, and then look at something like my now 11yr old WaveRunner2 scope where the only weaknesses should be the LCD backlight (which can be replaced by LED strips easily) and the rotary encoders, I really can't see any reason why a modern scope should not be able to survive 40 or more years.DSOs in general should be much more reliable than most old analog scopes, so if an analog scope can survive 40 years than a DSO should be able to as well.QuoteAgain, we're no longer in the 70's, and even the better 100MHz scopes from the big brands don't cost anything close to an engineer's one year salary. A 100MHz Keysight DSO-X2k for example is less than $2000, and a much more advanced 200MHz DSO like the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3022 is around $3k, and they all come with excellent support. For example, for me each of the price tags of these scopes amount to less than a week of work. And ff your annual salary amounts to some 4digit $ equivalent then I'd assume you'd have more pressing problems than the cost of scopes.$2k is obviously more difficult to splash out for a hobbyist. But especially when buying a scope amounts to a large sacrifice it's pretty important to know that the product will serve for many years and that if there are problems that the vendor is there to help.For what they do, such scopes are still dirt cheap. Do I really want to squeeze the price further at the cost of losing support? Certainly not.QuoteWell, aside from the fact that test kit doesn't necessarily have the same short write-off cycles as computers, without support you can only hope that the product survives the time until it has been written off. If not (well, shit happens), then you suddenly become dependent on the support the vendor may or may not give you. And without support it means the item has to be written off early as a loss (which is, in real terms, a financial loss).QuoteUnfortunately I have to say that Britain probably pioneered disposable houses. Just look at the housing stock over here

author: Precipice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 10:48:11 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 02, 2014, 10:00:01 amYou keep saying this, but it's really not a valid comparison. Many of the things scopes are used to debug have got a lot, lot faster than the 70's, 80's and 90's. Sure, audio is still audio, but...100MHz isn't fast any more, the 6GHz scope on my desk cost a good year's salary, and it's the baby of the family.http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/dpo70000-mso70000

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 11:07:12 am
content: Quote from: Precipice on December 02, 2014, 10:48:11 amThe picture is more complex than you describe. In the 70s most people needed at least a 100MHz scope to develop any digital equipment. All the signals were exposed, and all needed probing. Now most of us are working on much faster circuits, but typically all the fast stuff is going on inside a big chip, and we can't get access to probe it (or even want to). What happens outside the chip is relatively slow in the great majority of cases. So, today the great majority of people working on digital systems need nothing more than a 100MHz scope to probe those relatively slow external analogue and digital signals. Anything faster than 300MHz has a rather narrow appeal.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 11:35:27 am
content: Wuerstchenhund is sort of right, be we often forget the newbies, the budding EE's of tomorrow whose desire to see the waveforms in their pet projects blinkers them to grab the cheapest/first scope available.Often it will be a quality CRO of yester-year.It's an exercise most of us have been through and the experience has taught us heaps and/or bitten us.But is does not take long to become aware of the shortcomings of a CRO, then they hanker for a DSO.It is a massive step up in additional functionality, storage capability, USB connectivity, maths etc etc.IMO let them go through it and experience the subject of this thread: reliability.The modern DSO's are just soooo much more reliable.Most reasonable 100 MHz DSO's will assist the EE "student" well into their career IMO.Then as need requires, upgrading begins.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 11:48:58 am
content: Quote from: Precipice on December 02, 2014, 10:48:11 amI'm pretty sure it is.QuoteThere's still a lot of stuff below 100MHz, i.e. SMPS, or lots of the external logic signals of common FPGAs.Quote100MHz may not be as exotic as some decades ago, but it still covers a lot of the most common EE requirements.QuoteWell, the DPO/MDO7k Series is Tek's current highend Series. The MSO70604C is listed with $74k which I guess for some EEs would probably represent a year's worth of salary (although these scopes generally sell for a lot less than MSRP, with often very large leeway for negotiations, and even more so when considering Tek's current desperation to sell anything; I'd be surprised if someone really pays more than $55k for that thing).However, this is certainly not a common bench scope these days, or an equivalent to a 70's 100MHz scope.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 02, 2014, 10:02:51 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 02, 2014, 10:00:01 amAn interesting side note. The current SMPS/POL I am working on requires bandwidth well beyond 100MHz.One very common, modern, implementation is a programmable digital filter on the feedback loop. The trick on these modern, more efficient, POL/controllers (heavily used in ASIC development and implementation) is the resonant tank effects of the external filters (passives), against the on-board filters.We can see ringing out to around 1000MHz in the step response. This becomes a HUGE problem when driving a processing block, that requires sequenced turn-on/off stages.Where this get's really tricky, is when you factor in the Plane impedance of the PCB/traces. In these highly critical systems 100MHz isn't going to get us very far. Especially when thermal/efficiency factors come into play. In highly dense, mobile, applications things get a bit "wild"Granted this probably doesn't apply to 99% of hobby applications, BUT with the IoT/Mobile onslaught...being crammed down the throat of the "hobby market" it's a consideration.That's probably a bit far off-topic, but holds some validity to potential DSO buyers. Obviously the clocking signals and data streams don't go much past 1MHz, but those modern processing blocks are really VERY sensitive to those step responses, especially when you run them on the ragged edge.....food for thought....

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 02:46:28 am
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on December 02, 2014, 10:02:51 pmWhy did you put hobby before applications? It applies to 99% of professional work too. I happen to know people developing various forms of high efficiency resonant power supply. I don't even see them using exotic scopes most of the time. They have a lab full of simple scopes, and maybe one fancy one for the few occasions when its needed. High performance scopes are even a niche market in those labs.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 03:57:20 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 02, 2014, 10:00:01 amVolume only works if you are making a margin. If its small then even small amounts of support take you into loss. Sure you can provide some real support for guys buying 100 units for a large lab, because its spread across all those units. You can't do much more than provide basic warranty support, and downloadable material for people buying one. I suppose you do realise that the higher reliability of electronics now versus the 1970s was not driven by customer satisfaction concerns, but by the crippling cost of repairs within warranty.QuoteYou chopped what I said to distort it. I was saying this didn't matter because bigger factors are at work. What I think is OK is irrelevant, anyhow. This is what is happening.QuoteIf you bought an early Rigol scope you would have seen quite a long period of support by now, because they are still making those early scopes, and the parts are still current. A lot of the perception of long time support for expensive instruments comes from the same thing. The models aren't changing every year. Try getting support from the maker just a few years after production stops and see what happens. All those specialised instruments (i.e. Bluetooth 1.0 testers) which aren't flexible enough to move on (e.g. to a Bluetooth 2.0 tester) loose their support very quickly from any maker I know of. Buy a Tek scope in their end of life sell off of an old model, and you might find support ends quite quickly. It certainly used to.QuoteMore China bashing. Get real. The experts in crumbling cases just outside warranty are western companies. The Chinese are amateurs at this, although they might be the experts at horribly discolouring plastics. In the late 90s US Robotics got really good at this - a child of JIT manufacture. Their cases starting cracking up just outside warranty. Without a well controlled JIT supply chain from the plastics moulder to the customer they would have been cracking within warranty. If you taped together one of their cracked modems, and carried on using it, the plastic actually started to powder after a few years. Cisco/linksys VoIP devices are pretty bad. One of the nastiest I have had was an Ariston washing machine, made in Europe, where every visible plastic part became fragile in under 2 years. In well under 3 years we had to dispose of it. I suspect they have changed to longer lasting plastics now, as I see they give longer warranties.QuoteThe UK is listed as having one of the longest average lifetimes for its houses. I suspect that might be historic, as so many of these string and sealing wax houses and being built now. If you want to see bizarre disposability, come to Asia. People build in steel and concrete (no wood, because of termites) and pull things as young as 10 year old down to build something else.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 09:03:56 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 03, 2014, 02:46:28 amthen they either aren't telling you the whole story, or they aren't shooting for highly efficient control over devices, that have sequenced power cycling.....or they aren't working with devices that have a highly critical step response.....if they aren't using high bandwidth, and aren't utilizing advanced math functions and operators, then they are missing the boat, and/or doing far too much guess work.....example.....here is a chart generated (see image attachment) showing the step response characteristics of a POL (these are all real values not guesses.....) in relation to Impedance vs Frequency....It would have been impossible to characterize these components and generate this data, with a 100MHz tool....This was analyzed because of a problem in a POL/Control filter/feedback loop.....the HF resonance tanks created by wandering/UN-characterized capacitance was causing the POL to overheat and run out of it's efficiency range.....I don't know what your associates are working on, BUT like I said, if they aren't able to gather this kind of information...they are missing the boat....Most modern processing cores, with stepping technology (dynamic frequency scaling), will simply not function with overshoot in the POL step response.....the number one cause of that overshoot are HF resonant tanks....especially when the V sense loop is referenced to the feedback of the POL.....These problems aren't isolated to complex switchers....they come into play with even the most simple of non-linear devices.....and these more complex devices rule the market more and more each day.....look at any modern computing platform and they are all employing stepped power regulation technology (even the cheapest modern mobile device)....100MHz is going to get you only so far, and then your design team is going to have to look to someone else to solve these potential problems, if they don't have the tools to characterize the root of said problem....If you want to see these concepts in action, you don't need to look any further than the power regulation on the computer you are using to type here

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 11:18:37 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 03, 2014, 03:57:20 amWith volume I didn't talk about if a single buyer buys one or 100 scopes, volume is over a production run. In the big picture it does not matter much if you sell 100k units to 100k customers where each one only buys a single item, or one buyer who buys all units.And in generall product support is not dependent on how many units an individual customer buys. You don't get better support just because you buy more scopes.QuoteThat's not true. The higher reliability of modern elecktronics primarily comes from improvements in manufacturing processes (ISO9000 et al), tighter integration, and the move from complex mechanical components (i.e. the rotary switches in old analog scopes) to simpler, contact-less alternatives (i.e. rotary encoders) or to electronic controls (i.e. calibration, old days with potentiometers to modern day parameter stored in a ROM).Some of these improvements were driven by the intention to cut costs (warranty costs, yes, but mostly production costs), but a big part of it was the natural consequence of technological progress.QuoteI'm not up to date with what Rigol does but as far as I'm aware there were several revisions of the DS1000, all with different board layout. The later ones are are obviously still made, but to my knowledge not the earlier revisions. But this aside, support is not when a product is made over a longer period of time. Support is what happens (or doesn't happen) when the product fails.With Rigol, you can send it in during the warranty period, and they will fix it (obviously). This can take anywhere from a few days to well over a months. You might even get a loaner (apparently they do this for the more expensive scopes, i.e. DS2k and up). However, this is pretty basic.The question is what happens when the product is out of warranty. Can you send it in for repair? Probably. Can you get spare parts? Siglent seems to sell them while Rigol doesn't. Can you get calibration?Then there's product maintenance. Will problems be fixed? Just look at the Siglent SDS2k scope which still seems to suffer from a large number of bugs. Will they fix them, some of them, none? Who knows. Same with Rigol. The DS2k did get a lot of bug fixes but what about the DS4k and DS6k which both still suffer from many bugs that have long been fixed for the DS2k?What about end user support? Does the manufacturer provide help if I have problems with how to use the product? Can I get reliable(!) specifications, and does the manufacturer document the limitations of its product?There's a lot more to support than just making the product a while longer.QuoteThat's nonsense. As I said before, support has nothing to do with how long the product is available.QuoteWhat do you think? LeCroy for example fully supports all its scopes for 7 years after the last one of a series is made. After 7 years they still offer "best effort" (because at some point some parts may no longer be available) repair for all their scopes. In fact, they still repair the old 9300 Series scopes for which production stopped in 1998. That was 16 years ago. If I have a problem with my LeCroy scope, even if I'm just not using it correctly, I can talk to one of their application engineers who will spend time to help me to solve the problem - for free. And it doesn't matter if I bought their latest highend scope or just have a old model.Keysight also supports most of its kit for several years after end of production, aside from other support offerings. So does R&S including Hameg. And TTi. And NI.Don't know about Tek but they're Danaher now so it may well be that support has seen the same cuts as other parts of Tek.QuoteWell, for example the old CATC Bluetooth Protocol Analyzers from LeCroy have been supported until not too long ago (IIRC 2011), and they were made in 2004.QuoteAs I said before I don't know about Tek as I have no more recent experience with them, as I find their current products unattractive and their sales staff annoying (they must be really desperate).QuoteMaybe you missed the memo but these days China is undoubtly the major source of crap. That some stuff like Siglent or Rigol kit is actually very decent doesn't change that the majority of China made and China labelled stuff is just plain crap.I've nothing against China, and I'm sure at some point in the future the label "Made in China" might even be associated with high quality products as it is today with Japan (which has also started with producting crap). But today they're the major global source of cheap crap.QuoteNot in my experience. I've rarely seen crumbling pastics on products from reputable western companies, but I've seen that often from (careful, here comes "China bashing" again) China. Which isn't a major problem per se as the products usually did cost a few bucks and have to survive for a short time only.But while I haven't seen much crumbling plastic on western products, I did notice that the overall quality feel of plastic certainly has decreased over the years.QuoteFunny you mention USR, were I worked we used lots (hundreds) of USR modems (2k4bd to V.90), and while some have seen some physical abuse I can't recall having seen any plastics crumbling as you describe.QuoteThe old buildings are indeed of much better build quality, but anything built after the 60's is just awful. I guess the problem is that unlike say Germany (where many people built their own home or have it built after their specification) in the UK large patches of land are sold off to a single developer who then squeezes as many houses as legally possible and at the lowest costs possible onto that land, and then flogs it off.I guess that's why so many old (100+ years) buildings are still standing.QuoteJust curious, why is that? Is it the climate that affects the buildings, or are they just poorly built?

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 05:19:24 pm
content: Hantek's version of cutstomer support. It's ugly but I don't hate it.http://www.hantek.org/asken/Rigol and Siglent are close to being the same (lack of customer service) but I think Siglent wins if only because you can find firmware upgrades without pulling your hair out.I think is critical to know the limitations / faults of equipment. All equipment has it and it's a problem that many buyers seem not to understand. The current issue with the Rigol ds1054z is a good example. Of course it's better to have a perfect scope but all scopes have issues it's just a matter of if the features outweigh those issues.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 11:42:00 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on December 01, 2014, 10:02:23 pmGiven my price range, the customer service comparisons effectively become reduced to Rigol vs. Siglent vs. Owon (and maybe a few more in the ~$400 area).

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 05:04:04 am
content: Quote from: J-D-H on December 04, 2014, 11:42:00 pmOK entry level models then.Now it become a comparison of specs, value for money, required features and little else as it is not a large investment. Maybe the location of your supplier for support also.Come back to us with your findings.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 05:20:58 am
content: I'd bet serial decoding would win against waveform update rate in a sub 400 dollar scope.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 03:40:04 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on December 05, 2014, 05:04:04 amRecent discussions have been mostly about customer service, however much of this has had to do with comparisons between low priced manufacturers and several higher end makers (Tek, LeCroy, etc.). Since I'm shopping only at around the $400 price point, unless I buy something used, I'm more interested in comparisons between the entry level scopes made by Rigol, Siglent, Owon, etc. No one has mentioned Owon customer service, but comparisons have been made between Rigol and Siglent. So while Rigol scopes (especially the DS1000Z series) may be great in many ways, if Rigol doesn't reply to emails, doesn't make firmware upgrades convenient to get, doesn't sell parts (did I understand that correctly?!), all this sure makes me hesitant about them. And is it correct that Siglent's customer service is better in all these areas? Being able to get help from the scope dealer (like TEquipment) instead of the scope maker might moderate these concerns, but I have no idea how much support the dealer can provide (certainly not firmware upgrades). If Siglent and maybe Owon do all the things which Rigol does not do, that's a ~major~ factor for me. Thanks to those who brought up these factors....

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 06:09:35 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on December 05, 2014, 03:40:04 pmHard to compare apple to apples. If you are willing to hack the latest Rigol it will win by a long-shot. The fact that your old scope was not a dso screams that you would like the high waveform update rate of the new Rigol (even unmodified).

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 05, 2014, 06:58:35 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on December 05, 2014, 03:40:04 pmCustomer Service quality is up to your local dealer.Some pride themselves on CS like myself.If you have the time research this matter, email the manufacturer to find your local guy.If they then point you to your country distributor, contact them.By doing this you will get a "feel" for supply chain responsiveness at each step you take. One might presume( hope) the reverse is replicated when service might be required. With our Asian suppliers we find ourselves as middle men by being familiar with the communication difficulties and knowing the people we have to deal with.I dealt with other brands before I was offered Siglent but they have been the best to deal with.Wrong assumption re firmware, if you asked me for it even in this forum, I would provide it. There are others here that would also. Or at least provide a link.If you did not feel confident to do the upgrade, a reseller should provide that service at least for the equipment they have sold.Many do not have the expertise so the "brand" local Service centre would be your next stop.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2014, 12:22:07 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on December 05, 2014, 03:40:04 pmFrankly, I think you have your priorities wrong. When you buy bottom-of-the-barrel kit then you'll find that all manufacturers offer the same, absolutely minimalistic support, which at the end of the day means you can get repairs while the thing is under warranty and the occasional firmware update which may or may not fix relevant bugs. Yes, Siglent used to sell you replacement parts directly from China, but really, there's little point as during the warranty period the scope is covered under warranty anyways, and after that technology will have moved on so that it's rarely economically sensible to repair it. And Siglent can stop selling spares any day (they might have already), as they nowhere gurantee the availability of spare parts.Yes, Siglent does offer firmware updates for download on their website. With no changelog, though, which means you have to guess which of the many bugs will be fixed in this update. And there will be bugs, as Siglent tends to throw products to the market long before the software side is at a reasonable level, and even then many issues remain unfixed for a very long time. Rigol on the other side doesn't offer firmware updates on their website but tends to send them to customers only when they have a specific problem. But at least on their popular scopes (DS2k, DS1kz) the Rigol software seems to be more mature than what I've seen from Siglent (aside from the fact that Rigol has the much better UI). Funny enough their more expensive scopes (DS4k, DS6k) are mostly neglegted and suffer from many issues that have long been fixed in the smaller models, but then I guess only very few buy these larger scopes when they cost as much as a comparable scope from the big brands.Both Rigol and Siglent say that they are working on fixing the bugs, but none of them will give you a definite date as to when the fixes will be available (and if they give you a date then you will find that they won't hit it). However, some bugs may never be fixed.That's about what you can expect. You can't expect after warranty care, you can't expect being able to buy replacement parts, or even to have the scope repaired when its out of warranty.Which means you should spend less time worrying about the manufacturer support and look closer into getting a good scope (and I'd rather get a Rigol scope over a Siglent and Owon any day, as in the el-cheapo class they offer the best build quality and the best user interface of all three). Decide on a scope, and find a good dealer that is likely to be around for the length of the warranty period and which offers dealing with warranty issues, and you're set.If you expect big name support you have to be prepared to pay big name money for it. Simple as that.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 05:01:24 pm
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on December 05, 2014, 06:09:35 pmHacking still interests me for obvious reasons, but from what I've learned here I'd want to wait until the warranty ends.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 05:07:14 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on December 05, 2014, 06:58:35 pmAs anyone would, I'd certainly wish to buy from a dealer with good support in all respects. However I believe that the cust svc of the OEM is a valid thing to consider as well.Thanks for the info about getting firmware upgrades -- I had no idea that this might be available via this forum!

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 05:18:09 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 06, 2014, 12:22:07 pmWhile others here have made comparisons between the low cost scope makers and "big guys", I have never done this, not even once. To me this is a totally apples to oranges comparison. However it is valid to try to size up all the differences between the several major players in this low cost area -- this is all I'm trying to do. You say that they all are similar in customer service. If that's so, then I can eliminate this from the decision matrix and move on. So far the Rigol DS1054Z is at the top of my short list, and the vendor I have in mind of TEquipment based on the few dealings I've had with them. However, if all I can expect from this scope is to be able to use it for 3 years and then have to buy another, I may just say to heck with this whole idea and shift to looking at used gear.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 06:44:14 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on December 07, 2014, 05:01:24 pmThe 1054z hack is a code entry one, removal is possible if you connect directly to a computer and issue a command to remove all upgrades. Of course if a failure prevents this from happening that could be an issue.Having said that, even at this early stage the operational shortcomings of the scope are fairly visible. That is a big plus when purchasing a scope, you need to now it's shortfalls. The Rigol has the potential to be a scope so examined that it may even have the firmware itself rewritten.Don't take a lack of discussion about a bit of test gear to mean it has no problems.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2014, 07:44:15 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 06, 2014, 12:22:07 pmThe same goes for the A-brands. Try to get parts from Tektronix or Keysight for old equipment. Companies typically write equipment off in 3 to 5 years. So support can stop after a few years without people complaining about it. The same goes for bugs. I've found some very annoying bugs in Tektronix equipment I have.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2014, 06:41:33 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 07, 2014, 07:44:15 pmAgilent/Keysight regularly supports instruments that are 5+ years old, although on occasion we had problems for certain devices (not scopes) to get rarely used spares like housing parts after 4.5 years.And as mentioned many times, LeCroy fully supports their scopes for 7 years after end of manufacture, and on a "best effort" basis long after that. I've recently ordered some parts for a 8 year old active probe, no problem whatsoever.Hameg was the same before they were bought by R&S, and I'd expect that this hasn't changed much after the aquisition. R&S is awfully expensive, but I know that they also support their kit for many years after production stops.As I said I don't know about Tektronix (the last time I used their scopes was a very long time ago) as their later scope product range wasn't attractive (and still isn't, aside maybe the DPO/MDO3k) anyways. Of course they're part of Danaher for a while now, and DBS (Danaher Business System) will without doubt have resulted not just in a decline in product attractiveness but also in support quality.But you shouldn't make the mistake to extrapolate from a company like Tek which increasingly drifts into irrelevance to what you get from other A-brands.

author: J-D-H
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2014, 11:39:51 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 07, 2014, 07:44:15 pmRight Tek themselves failed to be able to supply the parts I needed. However, I found it easy to get those parts since there are a number of aftermarket parts sellers which came to the rescue.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 01:22:02 am
content: And of course with low end gear, they will not sell you a component but a main board, power supply, case, display, knob set and so on. That's a pretty standard way of doing things.Again having said that. Minor repair of a board (in the case of a scope) is well within the realm of possibility for most people that own them.When you go to the low end you do so for a reason. From what I see the firmware is the biggest issue but it usually gets sorted out in time. The sellers want their products to have a good name so they can sell more product.I wonder what would happen if a newer dso (for example) had the firmware reflashed? Like what happened with the Canon dslr's.http://www.magiclantern.fm/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 01:59:12 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on December 10, 2014, 01:22:02 amFor that past two decades that is the way the big brands do 'repairs' as well.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 04:07:33 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 10, 2014, 01:59:12 amOf course big brands do proper board repairs, It's however often (especially for low-end kit) more economical to simply replace the board than to individually repair it. Most A-brand collect defective boards and repair them at central locations (where they have ATEs to quickly diagnose faults), and the repaired boards go back into the spare part supply. That is pretty standard.That doesn't mean you can't get your board repaired, though. A while ago we had the acquisition board of an Agilent MSO9k repaired. And as mentioned many times, LeCroy does board repairs on their newer and older scopes.I don't know what Tek does but then who's buying Tek scopes these days anyways.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 07:57:22 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 10, 2014, 04:07:33 amActually I think the MDO range is doing well? I see them popping up everywhere. Amazing that a "unique" feature can sell a grossly under-performing "scope" as something other than a digital storage oscilloscope....and yet the same thing could be easily solved, by providing a sample clock and timebase output...to lock a separate (external) spec an....which would perform better anyhow, and free up memory in the actual scope application....to make the thing even a half-assed modern scope....

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 12:15:06 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on December 10, 2014, 07:57:22 amFrom what I heard the MDO3k does relatively well compared to other Tek models.QuoteI guess it attracts the typical corporate buyer who thinks he can get two instruments for the price of one. I wouldn't be surprised if it even was specifically developed for that audience.

author: TunerSandwich
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 01:11:07 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 10, 2014, 12:15:06 pmProbably....but it seems they even failed in that idea. The screen is utterly "unusable" with all the domains up on it. You would think that the easiest way to sell this thing to non-engineers, would be to stick a massive screen on it.Meh...even with a bigger screen, and the much needed memory/horsepower...it's still nowhere on any of my "want" lists. I'll take a proper, isolated RF analyzer in a separate lunchbox please....I think the spec an option in my MXi outclasses the MDO, for usability (obviously minus the RF input....). The MDO I played with was so painfully slow, it actually made me nervous (yeah I know it's a lot of processing to do....BUT.....)

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2014, 01:45:06 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on December 10, 2014, 01:11:07 pmProbably....but it seems they even failed in that idea. The screen is utterly "unusable" with all the domains up on it. You would think that the easiest way to sell this thing to non-engineers, would be to stick a massive screen on it.Well, they do have the MDO4k which has a 10.4" XGA screen. But yes, 9" WVGA is a bit of a joke these days on such a scope. Especially when larger displays are cheap as chips.QuoteBeing slow like wading through molasses seems to be a hallmark of Tek scopes. A while ago I had the chance to witness the performance (or lack of) of a DPO7k. Disappointing for a modern high end scope.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2014, 02:21:56 pm
content: Quote from: J-D-H on November 25, 2014, 01:54:03 pmWhere I have encountered this is with the Tektronix TDS series of DSOs and certain older Tektronix oscilloscopes; they store the calibration data in Dallas NVRAMs which are soldered to the boards. The embedded lithium batteries die after somewhere between 10 and 20 years and in the case of the TDS models, the software required for calibration is unavailable. It might be possible to back this data up through an interface but doing so is an onerous procedure.I personally had this happen with my Tektronix 2440 but at least its calibration procedures are built in and relatively easy to do. I have also run across this problem with certain personal computer motherboards which also relied on NVRAM that included an embedded lithium cell. Once the battery died, the motherboards would no longer even start POST.Needless to say, I am not a fan of NVRAM which uses embedded lithium cells and I suspect in some cases products were deliberately designed to use them as a form of timed kill switch.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2014, 03:31:35 pm
content: The software for the TDS models is available but you also need some other equipment like a DC source and RF generator. The easiest way is to unsolder the NVRAM and make a copy of the contents. If the NVRAM dies all it takes is replacing the battery (that is possible with some Dremel skills) and put the data back in.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2014, 03:48:15 pm
content: I've used the sister to the MDO3000, the MSO3000 and the DSO3000.I quite liked the xxx3000 for the trigger functions, but couldn't stand that it was so slow, and the user interface was too cluttered and hard to work out. For example how to set the trace intensity? Good luck...

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2014, 07:52:37 pm
content: Isn't there a dedicated button calledIntensityon MSO3000 scopes?http://imexshop.co.uk/contents/media/01_mso3054_front_000.jpg

author: Pjotr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2015, 04:50:50 pm
content: Quote from: TunerSandwich on November 10, 2014, 07:49:29 pmCan second that. Looking at the PSU board of my DS2102, it is a low power stdby PSU + main PSU using a NXP TEA1750 GreenChip III SMPS control IC (PFC + flyback controller). Capacitors are decent Epcos ones, although I can't judge how they are current rated, they do not run hot. Also the heat sinks do not run very hot. Seems pretty ok and neat neat designed for the purpose. Measured power consumption (at 230V mains) was 31 watts and PF measured 0.86, not bad for a small PSU