Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 2 Apr 2010 11:51 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:21:55 -0500, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: >terryc wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:30:26 +0100, Nial Stewart wrote: >> >> >>>By your logic Microsoft should only be charging $0.50 for the costs of >>>the DVD when they sell Windows7. >> >> >> Is it worth that much? >> >I see and understand "Nial Stewarts" point. > > $0.50 is like a slap in the face for MS.. > > I would how ever, do the honorable deed and pay $0.75 for it. > > >Jamie. > Your choice, i will hesitate on giving them 2 bits ($0.25).
From: JosephKK on 2 Apr 2010 13:27 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:47:52 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 3/31/2010 11:00 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: >> >>> According to your logic, CPU overclocking is a crime. >>> Although that 20 vs 50 MHz nonsense doesn't really make any difference >>> and probably not worth hassle. >>> >>> But, why varicap and that lousy circuit? Looks like Rigol analog >>> designers don't have a clue... They are probably as unexperienced as >>> their programmers... >>> >> >> If the 100 MHz scope flunks the speed test and is going to be restricted >> to 50 MHz (with appropriate sampling rate), why make the customer pay >> the 3 dB penalty for the wider bandwidth? > >Quite often, the things are getting tossed into the different bins not >because of a difference in quality, but for marketing, legal, inventory >reduction or whatever non-technical reasons. There are many examples of >that. But the question is not about moral/legal implications. > >The idea of using varicap in the scope analog front end doesn't make >much sense to me. What do you think? > >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > >Vladimir Vassilevsky >DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant >http://www.abvolt.com Well, there are many 'scopes out there with input bandwidth limiting, quite often at 20 MHz. Look around. The circuit was put there to do that function. Finding an alternate use for it to penetrate another market that does not really have use for a full 100 MHz 'scope seems like smart marketing. Leaving the barn door open was not smart.
From: fritz on 2 Apr 2010 17:10 "keithr" <keithr(a)nowhere.com.au> wrote in message news:4bb596de$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > On 2/04/2010 10:12 AM, fritz wrote: >> >> "keithr"<keith(a)nowhere.com.au> wrote in message >> news:4bb522d5$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >>> David L. Jones wrote: >>> >>>> No, the firmware is identical in both models. They simply enter in >>>> whatever model number at final assembly via serial or USB and the >>>> firmware detects that and switches the I/O line that turns on/off the >>>> 50MHz filter. It also limits the displayed timebase to 5ns instead of >>>> 2ns. All other specs are idential. >>> >>> Has anybody done a bit by it comparison between firmware in the 50MHz >>> unit >>> and the 100MHz unit to confirm this? >> >> Probably not because it is bleedingly obvious that it was IDENTICAL from >> the >> simplicity of the hack that has been explained in detail. > > It certainly isn't bleedin' obvious unless it has been done. All that has > been proved it that the hack appears to give similar results. Isn't that enough proof ? Others have reported that firmware is frequently designed exactly the same way. A product has exactly the same code (firmware), but different models activate more features through a setup program. Go back and read all the threads. > >> If you have actually looked at the eevblog and are still asking this >> question then you are a bit thick. > > If you take things at face value without proper checking then you are a > bit stupid. That is generally true, but in this case the chances of you being right are slim indeed. It is bleedingly obvious that the firmware was IDENTICAL in both models, and it was only the setup NVRAM that determined the performance. I don't own a Rigol so I can't check myself, but others may be able to do so and report. > >> Also, Rigol have apparently reacted and changed the firmware to stop >> the simple hack. > > Of course they have, it still doesn't prove that the firmwares are > identical. Really ? If the firmware was different why would they need to change it now then ?
From: George Jefferson on 2 Apr 2010 19:24 "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:diebr5pjkosvnhd45k1sqi9678l0hdtnma(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:23:54 +1100, "David L. Jones" > <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and 100MHz >>models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware and firmware, >>I've >>been informed that Rigol have finally admitted this to an irate customer >>who >>contacted them about the issue. >> >>Partial Quote from Rigol : >> "The firmware of the instruments is made to enable capability >> based on the version purchased just like any software >> licensed product you would buy." >> >>Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all exposed a few >>weeks ago. >> >>Dave. > > I'm surprised they wrote that, at all. > > One thing I find interesting is that if the same hardware is > used for 100MHz and 50Mhz versions, either the 50MHz system > is a bargain because it includes 100MHz capable hardware > (implying it performs better than it would otherwise) or else > the 100MHz version really isn't up to snuff. Or the 100Mhz version is up to snuff but overpriced? is that not an option? In fact, it seems like the most likely case. It is been a well used marketing ploy to bring in extra revenues. For example, it would be like paying for an upgrade to first class when all seats are first class. Of course to get you to buy the upgrade they tell you that coach sucks and is for losers and only intelligent and beautiful people go first class.
From: krw on 3 Apr 2010 01:16
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:32:10 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:51:32 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:01:03 +1100, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Glenn Gundlach wrote: >>>> On Mar 31, 11:23 am, John Larkin >>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> <snip > >>>> > The scopes are not identical because they have different specs and >>>> > firmware. Just like versions of Windows, or GPS units, or all sorts >>>> of >>>> > things have different specs and functions differentiated by >>>> firmware. >>>> > >>>> > Rigol made it too easy to hack their scope, and Jones took >>>> advantage >>>> > of it. I still don't know why. >>>> > >>>> > John >>>> >>>> I pretty much agree with you but has anybody verified that the >>>> hardware is indeed identical? They don't install a faster processor or >>>> A-D or better grade amps? >>> >>>By all accounts, no, the 100MHz unit is an identical board. People who tried >>>to examine the hardware front ends (and other parts) could not find any >>>differences between the two models. That's what originally prompted me to >>>suggest there was just a component value difference in the models, but of >>>course as it turns out it's much simpler than that, they are identical. If >>>they weren't identical, then there would be no need for the software logic >>>switch to set the 50MHz limit, they'd simply do it with BOM changes. >>> >>>The sample rate and all other performance features are the same between >>>units, so there is no need for better or faster ADC's or processor in the >>>100MHz model. >> >>I thought the 100MHz scope has another timebase setting, so the firmware would >>have to know about the BOM change. The component still could have different >>ratings. It likely is the same, though. > >A mere jumper would do the job. Jumper in 100 MHz, jumper out 50 MHz. Have the >firmware read the jumper at startup. Or a different resistor value like they do >for fancy (HP/Tek) scope probes. Sure, but that is a BOM change. It's no different, really, than versioning hardware (so firmware can configure itself for the hardware rev/features). |