Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 6 Apr 2010 22:34 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:45:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:28:29 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:58:53 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>news:kj2lr598g79va9rjpir1e1jaa0bvg90ji6(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> If you don't like Rigol scopes, buy Tek or Agilent or LeCroy. >>>> >>>> Of course, the low-end Agilent is actually a Rigol. They rebrand it >>>> and sell it for about twice the price of the Rigol. How do you like >>>> that for rip-off-ness? >>> >>> >>>Wow, you just deprived Agilent of their hard earned cash, since a lot of >>>people will buy Rigol instead. >>>You should have kept this information to yourself. >> >>Bwahahahaha. That tidbit is kind of common knowledge around here (s.e.d). >> >>For some real interesting times go really hunting for fast analog scopes, >>they are available, though not inexpensive. 500 MHz is still reasonably >>available, for about the price of a modest car. > >Tek 7103s and 7104s, 1 GHz analog scopes with microchannel plate CRTs, >are fairly cheap on the used market. > >An 11801 sampler with a 12 GHz head can be had for under $2K. Nice >scopes. > >John John, i am talking about brand _new_ analog 'scopes. Probably with microchannel faceplates as well. All the old groovy Tektronix patents have expired.
From: JosephKK on 6 Apr 2010 22:38 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:47:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:17:22 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:23:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:17:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >>><zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi(a)4ax.com... >>>>> Rigol is like >>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone >>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it. >>>> >>>>I think it's more like Rigol sells houses, and you bought a two-bedroom house >>>>(although you're aware they also sell three-bedroom houses)... and one day you >>>>notice (or Dave Jones metnions that) there's another door in your home. >>>>There's no lock on that door, no sign on it saying, "keep out!," etc. Your >>>>ne'er-do-well liberal democrat son moves back home after flunking out of his >>>>liberal studies program at the local college and you get to thinking... having >>>>that kid spend his nights in his own room rather than sleeping on the couch in >>>>the living room every night would be nice... I wonder what's behind that door? >>>> >>>>:-) >>> >>>Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs >>>nothing to enable IP. Both have market value. >>> >>>But why didn't they do the 50 and even 20 MHz bandwidth limits >>>digitally? They have 1G samples/second to work with. There are some >>>saturation issues that might be best handled with analog limiting, but >>>this *is* a cheap scope. >>> >>>John >> >>Perhaps the cost of the supporting hardware and algorithm development did >>not look attractive in comparison to the varactor method. > >The 1052 already has user-programmable lowpass/highpass/bandpass >digital filtering. Pretty cool. > >John > Postprocessing is not the same as input channel bandwidth limiting. Check out the schematics of Tek analog 'scopes with input channel bandwidth limiting.
From: JosephKK on 6 Apr 2010 22:41 On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:16:17 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:51:32 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:43:49 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 15:31:28 -0700, "Joel Koltner" >>><zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >>>>news:ffnkr5p2em11l7p3icre6fesqva8n3s930(a)4ax.com... >>>>> Nah, nail the door shut and throw the lazy bum out. He won't be a liberal >>>>> Democrat long. >>>> >>>>Sure he will, he needs to keep all those entitlements coming in so that he >>>>doesn't have to work any time soon. :-) >>> >>>Nope. White males from middle class families don't get entitlements. >> >>That was then, this is now. > >Still true. The brats are now to leach off mom and dad's insurance until age >26. No, Gov't handouts, i have met them face to face. Mummy and Doody could support them but won't. So they go "on the dole".
From: David L. Jones on 6 Apr 2010 22:47 John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:30:16 +1100, "David L. Jones" > <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> George Herold wrote: >>> On Mar 31, 11:53 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <ggher...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 30, 8:29 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it >>>>>> into a 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable: >>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE >>>> >>>>>> Dave. >>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ================================================ >>>>>> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & >>>>>> Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com >>>> >>>>> Excellent, I just ordered a Rigol DS1052E! The best news is that >>>>> even without the mod the 50 MHz is closer to 70 MHz as is.... >>>>> (just scaling your measured 5ns rise/fall time.) >>>> >>>>> George H. >>>> >>>> It has very clean transient response as shipped, at the 50 (or 70) >>>> MHz bandwidth. The hacked version is ratty looking. I wouldn't do >>>> the hack even if it was morally and legally fine. >>>> >>>> This is a very nice little scope, superb for the price. It has >>>> loads of more features than a comparable Tek at around 1/3 the >>>> price. >>>> >>>> Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >>>> >>>> John- Hide quoted text - >>>> >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> >>> Oh I don't plan on hacking it. I just figured that there might be a >>> tick up in sales of the 50MHz version and I should get mine before >>> they sell out. And yeah the pulse response looked nice. (I also >>> like that it's a bit faster than the spec.) I'm not sure about the >>> rattiness of the 100MHz response.. after all the 100MHz TEK pulse >>> looked ratty too and it might have been that Dave was hitting it >>> with a raggy pulse to begin with. (Sorry Dave, I don't mean to dis >>> your bench test skills.) >>> >>> I think Dave likes Rigol and I'm not sure his hack will hurt sales. >>> I would guess it's only a small fraction of users that would want >>> the hack anyway. I would bet.. though I don't know how to prove >>> it.. that Dave has been good for Rigol sales. (He is certainly >>> responsible for my purchase of one.) >> >> I know for a fact that my (positive) review and pushing of the Rigol >> scope on my blog and other places has directly resulted in at least >> several hundred sales (people email me and thank me for it almost >> daily). My review of the Rigol has been viewed over 15,000 times, so >> I'd be surprised if I'm not responsible for sales in the thousands, >> directly or indirectly. I'm probably Rigol's biggest independent >> public supporter. > > > Didn't you also do a blog about Rigol "overclocking" their ADCs? Yes I did. Once again, it wasn't new information exposed by me, and it wasn't a negative blog. It was an informational blog clarifying an interesting design/build aspect of this scope, and actually had a positive spin. I used words like "great value for money", "excellent quality", "smart", "clever", and "professional" etc. FYI, I actually approached the GM of Rigol USA about it before I did the blog, asking them to clarify and present their side of it. They did not respond. But you'd know all that if you actually watched the video. I know the GM reads this forum, and has even contributed in the past, and I have had previous correspondance with him about my postive review of the scope which they liked. > You've made a minor career out of trashing their scopes. That's laughable. I have been one the biggest supporters of their scopes, and am almost certainly directly responsible for more sales of them than any other individual. Your viewpoint is so myopic it's truly amazing. Keep digging that hole by all means, but be careful, because as Phil said, you might pop up in China. > I like my 1052 so far. Good for you, so do I. And so do the probably thousands who have bought one based on my promotion and recommendation of it over the last year and a bit. Dave. -- ================================================ Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast: http://www.eevblog.com
From: John Larkin on 7 Apr 2010 01:10
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:34:32 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:45:57 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:28:29 -0700, >>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:58:53 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>>news:kj2lr598g79va9rjpir1e1jaa0bvg90ji6(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> If you don't like Rigol scopes, buy Tek or Agilent or LeCroy. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, the low-end Agilent is actually a Rigol. They rebrand it >>>>> and sell it for about twice the price of the Rigol. How do you like >>>>> that for rip-off-ness? >>>> >>>> >>>>Wow, you just deprived Agilent of their hard earned cash, since a lot of >>>>people will buy Rigol instead. >>>>You should have kept this information to yourself. >>> >>>Bwahahahaha. That tidbit is kind of common knowledge around here (s.e.d). >>> >>>For some real interesting times go really hunting for fast analog scopes, >>>they are available, though not inexpensive. 500 MHz is still reasonably >>>available, for about the price of a modest car. >> >>Tek 7103s and 7104s, 1 GHz analog scopes with microchannel plate CRTs, >>are fairly cheap on the used market. >> >>An 11801 sampler with a 12 GHz head can be had for under $2K. Nice >>scopes. >> >>John > >John, i am talking about brand _new_ analog 'scopes. Probably with >microchannel faceplates as well. All the old groovy Tektronix patents >have expired. The only new analog scopes I know of are minor brands, B&K/Instek/Kenwood sort of stuff. All the name-brand scopes are digital now. LeCroy used to sell the 470 MHz Iwatsu scope, but I think they gave that up. The Iwatsu SS-7840H is around $10K. And not even color. It looks to me like digital scopes are less expensive at pretty much every performance point. Microchannel plates are insanely expensive, especially ones big enough to be an oscilloscope screen. John |